Illinois Link cards

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

If the state is going to give people money they should just give them money,
not make all sorts of restrictions on what they can use the money for...

I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
them to check out. Sadly, I had already put about $180 on the belt so it
wasn't easy for me to move (besides, the store was mobbed and there was no
line to move to cleanly). I thought about asking what the holdup was and
paying the difference, but not sure if that would be embarassing for the
person ahead.

If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

[Wing Ding]

On 2011-12-25 06:22:56 +0000, Chicago Paddling-Fishing said:

> If the state is going to give people money they should just give them money,
> not make all sorts of restrictions on what they can use the money for...
>
> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
> them to check out. Sadly, I had already put about $180 on the belt so it
> wasn't easy for me to move (besides, the store was mobbed and there was no
> line to move to cleanly). I thought about asking what the holdup was and
> paying the difference, but not sure if that would be embarassing for the
> person ahead.
>
> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...

You're kidding, right? Give 'em cash? It's bad enough that they can't
find decent jobs. If they gave 'em cash you'd be criticizing them for
holding up the line while they check out their $2 Chuck.

[Matt Ferrari]

"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <j...@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:jd6fg0$dcl$1...@remote5bge0.ripco.com...

> If the state is going to give people money they should just give them
> money,
> not make all sorts of restrictions on what they can use the money for...
>

It's a food assistace program. Not a cash assistance program. I believe
those cards also let people put
their own cash onto the card so they can buy whatever they want. The person
that you got stuck behind needs to learn how to use their card.

Merry Christmas!! you chi.generals..

[spamtrap1888]

On Dec 24, 10:22 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
> them to check out.
>

> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...
>

SNAP has always been a price support program for American agriculture,
first and foremost. No imported food, cleaning products, booze, or
cigs.

[tert in seattle]

spamtrap1888 wrote:

Don't you understand conditionals? If you're not going to just give it
away then you shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. There's
no way Jon ever attached a string to a gift. Merry Christmas!

[Mark Anderson]

In article j...@ripco.com says...

> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
> them to check out. Sadly, I had already put about $180 on the belt so it
> wasn't easy for me to move (besides, the store was mobbed and there was no
> line to move to cleanly). I thought about asking what the holdup was and
> paying the difference, but not sure if that would be embarassing for the
> person ahead.

It's funny hearing one welfare recipient complain about another. The
tax subsidies you have received for your two dozen children would exceed
all expectations of your more ambitious welfare queens.

Now you want to just give them cash -- just like how the government
gives your welfare in the form of free spendable cash.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...

You are missing one of the points of welfare.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>In article j...@ripco.com says...
>> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
>> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
>> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
>> them to check out. Sadly, I had already put about $180 on the belt so it
>> wasn't easy for me to move (besides, the store was mobbed and there was no
>> line to move to cleanly). I thought about asking what the holdup was and
>> paying the difference, but not sure if that would be embarassing for the
>> person ahead.

>It's funny hearing one welfare recipient complain about another. The
>tax subsidies you have received for your two dozen children would exceed
>all expectations of your more ambitious welfare queens.

Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too). The primarily
city service I use is getting my garbage picked up (although I did eventually
pester my aldercritter enough that they patched the hole in the park on the
running path where the land had collapsed into a nearby sewer, so I guess you
can say I use the park as well - although, running thru a park doesn't use
much in terms of city services and that hole was a hazard to navigation as it
was a deep open hole that would have eventually broken someones ankle.).

Now, you might claim having my kids attend public universities is a subsidy,
but that pays itself back quickly. There are several Nelson kids earning in
excess of 60k and paying taxes as single taxpayers with no deductions who
wouldn't be earning as much if they hadn't attended public colleges to earn
degrees. None of those kids got special admissions or state funds from public
officials, but instead got in via the combination of ACT and GPA's. Most don't
live in now Chicago, but they live in-state near where they work and pay
income, as well as sales and (one pays) RTA gas taxes so they can subsidize
bus and train riders.

State universities, just like highways, are one of those things that states
need in order to, if not thrive, at least survive. Without an educated
populace, where would we be?

>Now you want to just give them cash -- just like how the government
>gives your welfare in the form of free spendable cash.

Give "them" cash?

First, the government doesn't give me free spendable cash, unless your
claiming any tax refund received at the end of the year is a government gift,
which it isn't, it just means my charitable, tuition deductions and stock
losses helped move me down a little in taxes from what my employer deducted.

People on ilink cards are essentially given money, but apparently with big
brother watching to see what they spend it on. I would argue that these people
are adults, and should be treated as such. Maybe there should be a time limit
or some way to slowly wean people from the cards, but ahead of me in line was
this lady and there didn't seem to be anything objectionable that the
government should disapprove of (maybe she had a magazine or something, but
even if it's a tabloid or romance novel, is someone reading a bad thing?).

Every year we work on a food drive, and one year we were delivering food to
a house where the guy had a newer car in the driveway than mine (Escalade to
boot) and a much bigger TV mounted on the wall - in fact, as we were walking in
with the food boxes one of my kids whispered "Dad, look at that TV" cause it
was 40-50 inches at a time when one was really expensive and we still had 26
inch tube TV's, but we left the food just the same, you can't act as a nanny.
Acting as a nanny probably results in the state creating fifedoms of regulators
to regulate others, adding costs to the program.

As for subsidies, look to the busses and their riders. There is a reason why
they put bus pads all over the streets, the city paves it, and the busses
tear it because they have a higher weight per axle than a semi. Not sure why
daMayor had to jack up sticker rates for Cayennes and the like as they are no
where near the damage of a single rear axle bus... just to placate uneducated
bus riders I guess...

"... According to a series of experiments carried out in the late 1950s,
called the AASHO Road Test, it was empirically determined that the
effective damage done to the road is roughly proportional to the Fourth
power of axle weight.[30] A typical tractor-trailer weighing 80,000
pounds (36.287 t) with 8,000 pounds (3.629 t) on the steer axle and
36,000 pounds (16.329 t) on both of the tandem axle groups is expected
to do 7,800 times more damage than a passenger vehicle with 2,000 pounds
(0.907 t) on each axle. ..."

Seems to me many CTA and Pace busses don't have tandem rear axles and should
be paying more than 7800 times the cost my cars are being dinged with, but we
all know that won't happen, it's easier for them to spread the damage upon
those who don't cause it than those who do...

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

I'm not saying give'em cash, but I'm not sure regulating how they spend it
is teaching someone about living independently and encouraging them to seek
employment. Maybe there needs to be some requirements about education where
long term unemployed are required to take courses in something.

I don't know what the solution might be but it seems to me, if you are on an
ilink card, you are very long term unemployed and requires some form of
interaction other than limiting purchases.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Probably true and with long lines right before Christmas, they chose a bad
time to go...

>Merry Christmas!! you chi.generals..

And a very Merry Christmas to you as well!

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Much of our foreign aid is like that as well, lots of money to use to buy
U.S. company products (many of which are made in China now perhaps).

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

If your gonna attach strings, make certain the people affected understand
what the strings are.

[Nicko]

On Dec 26, 2:42 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> tert in seattle <t...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >spamtrap1888 wrote:
> >> On Dec 24, 10:22?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
> >>> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
> >>> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
> >>> them to check out.
>
> >>> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
> >>> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...
>
> >> SNAP has always been a price support program for American agriculture,
> >> first and foremost. No imported food, cleaning products, booze, or
> >> cigs.
> >Don't you understand conditionals?  If you're not going to just give it
> >away then you shouldn't be giving it away in the first place.  There's
> >no way Jon ever attached a string to a gift.  Merry Christmas!
>
> If your gonna attach strings, make certain the people affected understand
> what the strings are.

But that would mean ensuring that the affected people are able to, you
know, like READ.

[Matt Ferrari]

"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <j...@ripco.com> wrote in message

news:jd9ab7$cef$1...@remote5bge0.ripco.com...


17 inches of texted snipped.
The person that delayed you needs to learn how to use the link card. I knew
someone who had that card
for a few months while they had no job or home. He knew exactly what he
could buy with it within 2 weeks.
Since this person is also a smoker who literally couldnt buy a stamp what do
you think he would have done with a cash dispersment
Bought all food with it?
You want government programs to help people smoke and drink? and buy lottery
tickets?

[tert in seattle]

Nicko wrote:

> On Dec 26, 2:42?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> tert in seattle <t...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >spamtrap1888 wrote:
>> >> On Dec 24, 10:22?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
>> >>> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
>> >>> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
>> >>> them to check out.
>>
>> >>> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
>> >>> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...
>>
>> >> SNAP has always been a price support program for American agriculture,
>> >> first and foremost. No imported food, cleaning products, booze, or
>> >> cigs.

>> >Don't you understand conditionals? ?If you're not going to just give it
>> >away then you shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. ?There's
>> >no way Jon ever attached a string to a gift. ?Merry Christmas!

>>
>> If your gonna attach strings, make certain the people affected understand
>> what the strings are.
>
> But that would mean ensuring that the affected people are able to, you
> know, like READ.

I'm sure Jon made certain to explain the terms of the gift verbally if
that was the case.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Matt Ferrari <inv...@noSpamORharvest.com> wrote:

>"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

>17 inches of texted snipped.
>The person that delayed you needs to learn how to use the link card. I knew
>someone who had that card
>for a few months while they had no job or home. He knew exactly what he
>could buy with it within 2 weeks.
>Since this person is also a smoker who literally couldnt buy a stamp what do
>you think he would have done with a cash dispersment
>Bought all food with it?
>You want government programs to help people smoke and drink? and buy lottery
>tickets?

Uh, Matt, the lottery IS a government program. They couldn't let organized
crime have a monopoly on the numbers racket. Please smoke and drink and
pay big-time sin taxes.

[Mark Anderson]

In article j...@ripco.com says...

> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).

I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. You get tax
deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
That's your welfare that has absolutely nothing to do with property tax
or education. There is no arguing this fact. Most simply don't realize
the welfare they collect for their tax deductions as they sit around the
dinner table on Christmas Day decrying all those welfare queens and bums
that they have to pay for without realizing all the people paying for
the food on the table that their sprogs are currently devouring.

Nice dodge bring the Mike Madigan bogeyman. That usually works on talk
radio. The people paying for all this welfare are single childless
people who rent. They're the only people who have the right to complain
about other people on the public dole.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-26, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> Now, you might claim having my kids attend public universities is a subsidy,

Actually the subsidy for children takes many forms. University education
is just one of the last on the time line.

> but that pays itself back quickly. There are several Nelson kids earning in
> excess of 60k and paying taxes as single taxpayers with no deductions who
> wouldn't be earning as much if they hadn't attended public colleges to earn
> degrees.

They could have attended any university you or they could have paid
full freight or gotten private scholarships to pay for.Same with grade
and high schools. How much in taxes they pay doesn't reimburse those who
paid the taxes for the subsidies either. Those who paid the taxes don't
get the subsidies and much of the taxes don't get to the population at
large either.

> State universities, just like highways, are one of those things that states
> need in order to, if not thrive, at least survive. Without an educated
> populace, where would we be?

Without a government educated populace? A lot better off IMO.

> People on ilink cards are essentially given money, but apparently with big
> brother watching to see what they spend it on.

That's the point of the money going through government, the control.

> I would argue that these people are adults, and should be treated as such.

Free adults is not what the system wants.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article j...@ripco.com says...
>> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>
> I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. You get tax
> deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.

tax deductions aren't subsidy, it's just something the rulers have
decided to tax less for whatever particular reason. It is designed
unfairly like that such that it pits you against John while those
collecting the taxes are largely left alone. If you were both left alone
to keep all your income to spend as you each desired this conflict
wouldn't exist.

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

> tax deductions aren't subsidy,

It's a subsidy on the tax side of the equation and is a mathematical
fact. For example:

If x = Nelson with 15+ kids
and y = Nelson with no kids,

If (Tax(y) != Tax(x)) then
Subsidy = Tax(y) - Tax(x)
else
No Subsidy

The more kids Nelson has the bigger his subsidy. I haven't followed the
giveaways in the Income Tax code much but I did hear about child credits
as well. Perhaps Nelson would like to share what kind kickbacks from
both State and Federal he receives per child each year because of
deductions and tax credits.

> it's just something the rulers have
> decided to tax less for whatever particular reason.

You continue to bring the concept of stupid to entirely new levels.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

> In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
>> tax deductions aren't subsidy,
>
> It's a subsidy on the tax side of the equation and is a mathematical
> fact. For example:
>
> If x = Nelson with 15+ kids
> and y = Nelson with no kids,
>
> If (Tax(y) != Tax(x)) then
> Subsidy = Tax(y) - Tax(x)
> else
> No Subsidy
>
> The more kids Nelson has the bigger his subsidy. I haven't followed the
> giveaways in the Income Tax code much but I did hear about child credits
> as well. Perhaps Nelson would like to share what kind kickbacks from
> both State and Federal he receives per child each year because of
> deductions and tax credits.

You are working under the premise that there is some "share" that people
have to pay in the first place. that if Nelson's "share" goes down your
"share" goes up. It is your reference frame that is wrong. Neither of
you has a "share". The government has no legitimate claim on your's
or Nelson's labor in the first place. Those in the government and close
to it are manipulating people through the tax code for their benefit.

The government wants more productive and obedient livestock
("taxpayers", or us) so that behavior it will reward with reduced theft.
That's all. It's a scam Anderson. It's a racket. They got you foaming at
the mouth about someone else's tax deductions while you support them
taking the wealth in the first place. Your anger is misdirected and you
pay, it's a win-win for government. You and everyone else like you.

>> it's just something the rulers have
>> decided to tax less for whatever particular reason.

> You continue to bring the concept of stupid to entirely new levels.

Anderson, it would be nice if for once you'd grasp the bigger picture
just for once. Instead you sit there as enforcer of the status quo.
Either you are incredibly dim-witted or enjoy being a slave. I don't
care which it is, but since you don't really want fundamental change,
just shut the fuck up and pay. Stop your complaining and pay the damn
taxes and "subsidize" people who have a dozen kids since you refuse to
even look at let alone question the fundamental nature of the system.
Either you can't comprehend or consent to the present system so
shut the fuck up and PAY.

[smr]

The loneliness of being you during the holiday season is obviously
affecting you strongly right about now.

--
smr

[Brent]

So as usual you don't have an argument to present.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

I'm not convinced the government should be nit picking what people eat, drink
or smoke. THose who want to buy things they aren't allowed to probably just
trade legit purchases for what they really want at pennies on the dollar.

Treat it like a paycheck from a job, better yet, let them work cleaning up
parks like SWAP or some other form of work to earn the money rather than just
being free, but they should be treated like adults.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

tert in seattle <te...@ftupet.com> wrote:

I looked around a bit and found;
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/Contacts/stateagencyfoodlists.htm

However, per that link, every state except Illinois and Maine has an online
list of what food is considered acceptable. So if the USDA doesn't know what
foods are acceptable to the Illinois and Maine subprograms, how will the people
who have the cards?

One doesn't have to search far for people to take advantage of the system
as they have configured it;

"... Sheriff Dart said the investigation, dubbed Operation Broken Link, began
last year and targeted suburban convenience stores that allegedly traded
food stamp benefits provided by the government for cash. ..."
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8127390

"... During 'Hard Swipe,' police learned that Alamawi allegedly conducted
fraudulent Illinois LINK Card transactions in which he would process
customer LINK card payments for more than the goods cost, giving money
back to the customer and keeping some for himself, police said. ..."
http://triblocal.com/evanston/2011/01/07/ramy%E2%80%99s-foods-operator-arrested-in-new-york-on-fraud-drug-charges/

"... In addition, the undercover requested a 'one-for-one' transaction in the
amount of $40.00, which means an even split of cash from a fake
transaction. The owner gave the undercover the agreed-upon cash back,
but then swiped the LINK card two times, doubling his take, thinking the
undercover wouldn't know.

Vendors regularly added $20.00 or more 'fees' for cash back transactions
in order to increase their own profits. Based on their LINK transactions,
vendors received cash reimbursement from the government for the charged
debit amounts. LINK benefits are only supposed to be used for eligible
food items, and not for products including alcohol, cigarettes,
pharmaceuticals or cash, but the targeted stores allowed purchase of any
item on the card.

Often, a customer who wanted cash back on their LINK card would receive
money in exchange for the use of their LINK card by the vendor. The
recipient would leave the card, along with the PIN number, with someone
at the store who would then use the card to purchase goods cheaply
elsewhere. Those goods would then be resold at their own business at a
steep markup.

Another fraudulent scheme involved giving cash back without any
merchandise being exchanged. For example, on April 15th, an employee at
LNR Family Store in Maywood gave an undercover agent $140 cash back on
a LINK card, then charged $328.52 to the account. Vendors often lied
to the undercover agents about the balance on their LINK card, in order
to divert more money for their personal use.

LNR in particular used LINK card fraud as a main source of revenue. ..."
http://cookcountysheriff.org/press_page/press_LinkCardFraud_05_12_11.html

"Link card fraud worth the fight? ..."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4858216-418/link-card-fraudworth-the-fight.html

Apparently there is quite a bit on the topic... Take away the restrictions and
people won't be trading benefits at 50 cents on the $1. They'd actually get
what the government is trying to give them.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-27, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
> Matt Ferrari <inv...@nospamorharvest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <j...@ripco.com> wrote in message
>>news:jd9ab7$cef$1...@remote5bge0.ripco.com...
>
>
>>17 inches of texted snipped.
>>The person that delayed you needs to learn how to use the link card. I knew
>>someone who had that card
>>for a few months while they had no job or home. He knew exactly what he
>>could buy with it within 2 weeks.
>>Since this person is also a smoker who literally couldnt buy a stamp what do
>>you think he would have done with a cash dispersment
>>Bought all food with it?
>>You want government programs to help people smoke and drink? and buy lottery
>>tickets?
>
> I'm not convinced the government should be nit picking what people eat, drink
> or smoke. THose who want to buy things they aren't allowed to probably just
> trade legit purchases for what they really want at pennies on the dollar.

> Treat it like a paycheck from a job, better yet, let them work cleaning up
> parks like SWAP or some other form of work to earn the money rather than just
> being free, but they should be treated like adults.

I got an idea, make funding the link card program voluntary. Everyone
cand fund the system of charity they prefer.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>In article j...@ripco.com says...
>> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).

>I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. You get tax
>deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
>That's your welfare that has absolutely nothing to do with property tax
>or education. There is no arguing this fact. Most simply don't realize
>the welfare they collect for their tax deductions as they sit around the
>dinner table on Christmas Day decrying all those welfare queens and bums
>that they have to pay for without realizing all the people paying for
>the food on the table that their sprogs are currently devouring.

Actually Mark, I didn't miss anything, you missed the mark!

Have you never heard my rants about Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) ?

"... The AMT's Effect on Large Families

One of the most significant "gotchas" in the Alternative Minimum Tax is
the way that it treats personal exemptions. While most taxpayers can take
exemptions for themselves, their spouses and their children, those who are
subject to the AMT can only take a single flat exemption that combines
personal exemptions and a blanket amount in lieu of itemized or standard
deductions. In other words, under the AMT, a couple with no children would
pay the same tax as a family with six children ..."

http://www.ehow.com/about_7263004_must-file-alternative-minimum-tax_.html

Wait a second Mr. Subsidy, did that say a couple with no children would
pay the same tax as a couple with six children? Golly gee Mr. Wizard!!!

"... The AMT currently has a disproportionate impact on large families by
denying them the dependent exemptions allowed in the regular income tax..."
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/alternative_minimum_tax.shtml

You see, at my income, what the deductions giveth, AMT taketh away.
(You can google AMT and "large families" and read for yourself)

I've bemoaned AMT many times here in the past.

I still call the IRS every year and go over my forms with them via phone to
make sure this is what they really intended, because they literally wipe out
deductions in the 6251 form that are given elsewhere and what's the point of
giving them elsewhere? Why shuffle numbers like that? Why pretend? Unless
they think its amusing to mislead fools into thinking large families get big
breaks when they don't!)

So, having many kids doesn't save on taxes, it shifts taxes around and adds
others. Our sales tax bill is probably 5x's that of a single person.

I walked up to the grocery store tonite and bought 2 gallons of milk. That'll
last a day and a half right now due to all the kids home from dorms. How many
gallons do you think a single person would go thru in 2 days? How much sales
tax will they pay compared to a family of 10?

Everyone likes to think they have it the worse, but the reality is, we
probably all pay about the same. There are some areas where large families
pay more than others and some areas where single folks might pay more (though
I doubt it), but if we added every dime up, we'd probably find the larger the
family, the more per-capita they pay in total taxes.

Yesterday, my oldest daughter got engaged and asked us to pay for the wedding.
it's just more tax to pay... and another thing a single guy wouldn't pay for...

>Nice dodge bring the Mike Madigan bogeyman. That usually works on talk
>radio. The people paying for all this welfare are single childless
>people who rent. They're the only people who have the right to complain
>about other people on the public dole.

People who rent are paying for very little directly. I pay thousands in
property taxes, thousands in income taxes, and thousands in sales taxes.

A renter might pay a small percentage of what their building actually is
charged, and depending on the connections of the building owner, it may be
charged far less than the typical homeowner. A friend of mine relocated and is
renting his old house Section 8 and collecting less in rent then his mortgage.
He figures as least he gets the equity and doesn't lose his old house to
forclosure, but the renter isn't paying a dime of taxes on that place.

Renters have no clue what they are paying for... nice pipe dream though.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Please read my reply to Mr. Misinformed about Alternative Minimum Tax and
how it affects large families (or just google it yourself to see what AMT
does to those deductions.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Well, it simply appears to be about control. They can buy one item but not
another.

If we are gonna give them money, just pretend it's a paycheck and be done with
it. We don't give more if they run out so that's ok.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-27, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>> In article j...@ripco.com says...
>>>> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>>>> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>>>
>>> I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. You get tax
>>> deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
>
>>tax deductions aren't subsidy, it's just something the rulers have
>>decided to tax less for whatever particular reason. It is designed
>>unfairly like that such that it pits you against John while those
>>collecting the taxes are largely left alone. If you were both left alone
>>to keep all your income to spend as you each desired this conflict
>>wouldn't exist.
>
> Please read my reply to Mr. Misinformed about Alternative Minimum Tax and
> how it affects large families (or just google it yourself to see what AMT
> does to those deductions.

The AMT is just another "tax the rich" scam. Pass a tax on "the rich"
and eventually the middle class is paying it due to inflation or just
because it got the nose under the tent.

The AMT is also irrelevant to the point I was making. The government has
no rightful claim on our labor in the first place. It is the income tax
itself that should be the subject not who pays more or less. I don't
particularly care if you pay more or less than I do. I would prefer to
end the scam so we both pay ZERO federal income tax because the tax
would no longer exist.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Uh, shawn? blennie's main point, that welfare is a paternalistic system
(with the single exception of the refundable Earned Income Credit) is a "duh".
That he blennifected paragraph after paragraph because he just had to comment
on all the other Mark Anderson vs. paddlefuck side issues, utterly
incapable of ignoring them and diluting his main point, is just blennie.

[smr]

Uh, adam? I really couldn't give a fuck what blennie's main point is.

--
smr

[sticks]

On 12/27/2011 8:39 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> That he blennifected

I like it, but shouldn't it be "blenninfected?"
Let us know so we can add it to our dictionaries.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-27, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 2011-12-25, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
>>> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...
>
>>You are missing one of the points of welfare.
>
> Well, it simply appears to be about control. They can buy one item but not
> another.
>
> If we are gonna give them money, just pretend it's a paycheck and be done with
> it. We don't give more if they run out so that's ok.

"we" aren't giving anything. Political office holders are taking and
then giving some of what they take.

[spamtrap1888]

While this is a valid point, other nations, like France, give parents
a cash supplement for each sprog they pop out, knowing how much
raising the little rodents actually costs.

The socialist capitalist Republic of Singapore actually tried to
facilitate matchmaking among their well-educated and well-paid
citizens, who were spending their money on fun, instead of producing
the brainiac workforce of tomorrow.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-27, spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:13 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article j...@ripco.com says...
>> >> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>> >> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>>
>> > I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point.  You get tax
>> > deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
>>
>> tax deductions aren't subsidy, it's just something the rulers have
>> decided to tax less for whatever particular reason. It is designed
>> unfairly like that such that it pits you against John while those
>> collecting the taxes are largely left alone. If you were both left alone
>> to keep all your income to spend as you each desired this conflict
>> wouldn't exist.
>
> While this is a valid point, other nations, like France, give parents
> a cash supplement for each sprog they pop out, knowing how much
> raising the little rodents actually costs.

Given what I know of taxation rates in France, if they weren't taxed
they probably wouldn't need it. That's not even including any
possible nanny state meddling that increases the costs of raising
children.

> The socialist capitalist Republic of Singapore actually tried to
> facilitate matchmaking among their well-educated and well-paid
> citizens, who were spending their money on fun, instead of producing
> the brainiac workforce of tomorrow.

While the USA's welfare system encourages the opposite end of the
intelligence bell curve to reproduce. It comes down to whatever sort of
livestock those with power want and in what proportion.

[tert in seattle]

Scamming is a constant that transcends all social divisions. The constant
is multiplied by the dollar amount available for scamming to arrive at
total funds lost to scams. Some systems have better regulation and in
those cases the scamming constant is offset by the regulatory quotient.
Let's make the not outrageous assumption that the regulatory quotient
is about the same for WIC and SNAP etc as it is for, say, TARP.
Expenditures for federal food assistance programs in 2008 amounted to
$60 billion. As we all know, TARP was an order of magnitude greater.
Do the math and adjust your focus.

Anyhow, your joke about assistance from the government with no stipulations
would probably be funnier if you worked on your delivery.

[tert in seattle]

we definitely need Wix to come back

[sticks]

wrong holiday period. Raising from the dead isn't for a few months.

[sticks]

I'd suggest throwing in a couple F Bombs. Always hilarious from paddlefuck.

[Cydrome Leader]

What a lazy bitch.

[tert in seattle]

sticks...can i call you sticks...youre cracking me up over here

[sticks]

On 12/27/2011 3:43 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Chicago Paddling-Fishing<j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> Mark Anderson<m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

>>> That's your welfare that has absolutely nothing to do with property tax

>> Yesterday, my oldest daughter got engaged and asked us to pay for the wedding.
>
> What a lazy bitch.

Looks like Anderson is right. Welfare seems to run in the family.

[sticks]

WTF kinda name is "tert" anyway?

[Nicko]

It's Tert's name, Sir. He's Assyrian.

[tert in seattle]

Nicko wrote:

> On Dec 27, 5:19?pm, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2011 4:24 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > sticks wrote:
>> >> On 12/27/2011 2:29 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> >>> sticks wrote:
>> >>>> On 12/27/2011 8:39 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> That he blennifected
>>
>> >>>> I like it, but shouldn't it be "blenninfected?"
>> >>>> Let us know so we can add it to our dictionaries.
>>
>> >>> we definitely need Wix to come back
>>

>> >> wrong holiday period. ?Raising from the dead isn't for a few months.

>>
>> > sticks...can i call you sticks...youre cracking me up over here
>>
>> WTF kinda name is "tert" anyway?
>
> It's Tert's name, Sir. He's Assyrian.

I am from France

[sticks]

Shut up and come back to bed.

[Adam H. Kerman]

"I'm shawn. Pay attention to me talking, for I need to remind everyone
again that I'm not being conversational."

[Adam H. Kerman]

I think we'll need to find the correct occasion to use "blenninfected",
reserving that for when he goes off on a major tangent.

[smr]

On 12/28/2011 2:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> "I'm shawn. Pay attention to me talking, for I need to remind everyone
> again that I'm not being conversational."

I can barely stay awake through a single one of his posts. Once you jump
in with your weird re-postings of what you think he meant with his, it
just goes all to hell, dude.

--
smr

[HUey]

In article <jdfshh$vmm$1...@news.albasani.net>, a...@chinet.com says...

"I'm shawn. I', a fucking blow hard who really doesn't know shit
especially about economic issues. But since I'm boisterous I think I'm
always right. Can I offer you a hummer?"

--
HUey

|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^||___||___
| Broken Truck Pale Ale || |__\__
|_...__...__________||_____|__|__|=]
"(@)'(@)"""""""""""""*|(@)*(@)**(@)

[smr]

On 12/28/2011 4:05 PM, HUey wrote:

> "I'm shawn. I', a fucking blow hard who really doesn't know shit
> especially about economic issues. But since I'm boisterous I think I'm
> always right. Can I offer you a hummer?"

I don't think I've spoken much about economic issues around here, Mongo.
So go back to swirlin' your wife's big ol' dong around in that empty
Pringles can you call your asshole and quiet the fuck back down, eh?

--
smr

[Mark Anderson]

In article spamtr...@gmail.com says...

> While this is a valid point, other nations, like France, give parents
> a cash supplement for each sprog they pop out, knowing how much
> raising the little rodents actually costs.

That would be the way to go. This would mean Nelson would have to wait
in line at the welfare office for his government checks instead of
having it done mathematically on some anonymous form.

If society deems raising children is something the government must pay
for then fine -- give it out like welfare so that people begin to
realize the subsidies they receive. Unfortunately for doling out
welfare checks from the treasury side of the equation, once the bean
counters see that Nelson is a smart, talented individual with a sense of
rugged individualism who can more than provide for his family on his
own, they might consider cutting off his welfare checks in lieu of
perhaps someone who might actually need welfare.

It's a lot easier to cut people out of a welfare budget than to
eliminate the welfare from the tax code. Tax code welfare is not
understood by the masses and easy for the manipulators to obfuscate to
keep the government largess gravy train going their way. The current
Republican party believes tax side welfare to be completely off the
table in any budget talks. Had that welfare been budgeted on the
treasury side of the equation the Republicans would be falling all over
themselves cutting that as another government entitlement.

The leeches on society are very clever in their methods on how they
steal the wealth of other.

[Brent]

Shawn, you could simply choose not to read my posts.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-28, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

> If society deems raising children is something the government must pay
> for then fine

If government paid for it that would be one thing, but the government
doesn't have anything of its own from which to pay. In the case of
welfare to offset child raising expenses the government is nothing but
a proxy by which one segment of society steals from another.

> It's a lot easier to cut people out of a welfare budget than to
> eliminate the welfare from the tax code. Tax code welfare is not
> understood by the masses and easy for the manipulators to obfuscate to
> keep the government largess gravy train going their way.

This again wrongly assumes there is some fair "share" that each person
must pay. Even if there were that "share" is determined politically so
having children could be considered something that reduces it. Since
society is going to be dominated by people who have children having a
government that can tax income, property, or whatever else it wants will
likely result in a condition where those without children pay more
and/or pay (through government) those with children. That's just the way
it works. If you don't like it you'll need to consider a different
system. Politically those with children are always going to win. Why do
you think so many things are sold as being "for the children"? To get
their support.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Why? She's out house shopping.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Hey Danny, hows that new job where you claim your finally not taking every
nickel of your income from the state going?

I had always figured you worked for a private contractor before, rather than
directly from the state.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2011-12-27, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>>> In article j...@ripco.com says...
>>>>> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>>>>> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>>>>
>>>> I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. You get tax
>>>> deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
>>

>>>tax deductions aren't subsidy, it's just something the rulers have
>>>decided to tax less for whatever particular reason. It is designed
>>>unfairly like that such that it pits you against John while those
>>>collecting the taxes are largely left alone. If you were both left alone
>>>to keep all your income to spend as you each desired this conflict
>>>wouldn't exist.
>>

>> Please read my reply to Mr. Misinformed about Alternative Minimum Tax and
>> how it affects large families (or just google it yourself to see what AMT
>> does to those deductions.

>The AMT is just another "tax the rich" scam. Pass a tax on "the rich"
>and eventually the middle class is paying it due to inflation or just
>because it got the nose under the tent.

Well, it was marketed as tax the rich, but it started snagging me many
years back. Very disappointing and once you've been snagged, it's hard
to get away from it because there is some AMT credit thingie so if you
paid AMT the year before, you have to do the AMT form again or something
like that and it just ends up costing, rather than crediting (I let a
tax program do my taxes as they are pretty simple)...

>The AMT is also irrelevant to the point I was making. The government has
>no rightful claim on our labor in the first place. It is the income tax
>itself that should be the subject not who pays more or less. I don't
>particularly care if you pay more or less than I do. I would prefer to
>end the scam so we both pay ZERO federal income tax because the tax
>would no longer exist.

But how would they support themselves. I have no problem with welfare, but
I don't think it should come with restrictions that give people less control
over their lives than any other person.

A $ should be a $ no matter who has it, not that some $'s can only be spent
on certain things.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Nicko <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 2:42?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> tert in seattle <t...@ftupet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >spamtrap1888 wrote:
>> >> On Dec 24, 10:22?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I was pinned in line at the grocery store, the lady ahead was using a link
>> >>> card to pay and apparently had stuff she wasn't allowed to buy. Not sure if
>> >>> it was the lady or the cashier, but ended up taking about 30 minutes for
>> >>> them to check out.
>>
>> >>> If your gonna give it away, just give it away and be done with it. Treat
>> >>> adults like adults not like your the nany watching over them...
>>
>> >> SNAP has always been a price support program for American agriculture,
>> >> first and foremost. No imported food, cleaning products, booze, or
>> >> cigs.
>> >Don't you understand conditionals? ?If you're not going to just give it
>> >away then you shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. ?There's
>> >no way Jon ever attached a string to a gift. ?Merry Christmas!
>>
>> If your gonna attach strings, make certain the people affected understand
>> what the strings are.

>But that would mean ensuring that the affected people are able to, you
>know, like READ.

Well, they gotta deal with that too I agree, but I hunted for the list the
other night, and found lists for 48 states, but Illinois and Maine weren't
there.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Perhaps I'll take a comedy class.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2011-12-27, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

>> Matt Ferrari <inv...@nospamorharvest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <j...@ripco.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jd9ab7$cef$1...@remote5bge0.ripco.com...
>>
>>
>>>17 inches of texted snipped.
>>>The person that delayed you needs to learn how to use the link card. I knew
>>>someone who had that card
>>>for a few months while they had no job or home. He knew exactly what he
>>>could buy with it within 2 weeks.
>>>Since this person is also a smoker who literally couldnt buy a stamp what do
>>>you think he would have done with a cash dispersment
>>>Bought all food with it?
>>>You want government programs to help people smoke and drink? and buy lottery
>>>tickets?
>>
>> I'm not convinced the government should be nit picking what people eat, drink
>> or smoke. THose who want to buy things they aren't allowed to probably just
>> trade legit purchases for what they really want at pennies on the dollar.

>> Treat it like a paycheck from a job, better yet, let them work cleaning up
>> parks like SWAP or some other form of work to earn the money rather than just
>> being free, but they should be treated like adults.

>I got an idea, make funding the link card program voluntary. Everyone
>cand fund the system of charity they prefer.

They made funding of the Church of Sweden optional when they dropped having
an official religion recently and they say about 1% stop funding it each year
now from tax revenue (apparently it's a checkbox on the tax forms).

The rest check the box.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

>> tax deductions aren't subsidy,

>It's a subsidy on the tax side of the equation and is a mathematical
>fact. For example:

>If x = Nelson with 15+ kids
>and y = Nelson with no kids,

>If (Tax(y) != Tax(x)) then
> Subsidy = Tax(y) - Tax(x)
>else
> No Subsidy

>The more kids Nelson has the bigger his subsidy. I haven't followed the
>giveaways in the Income Tax code much but I did hear about child credits
>as well. Perhaps Nelson would like to share what kind kickbacks from
>both State and Federal he receives per child each year because of
>deductions and tax credits.

>> it's just something the rulers have
>> decided to tax less for whatever particular reason.

>You continue to bring the concept of stupid to entirely new levels.

I was expecting you to issue a denial of the links I posted about AMT and how
it makes couples with large families pay the same tax as couples with no
children and was sort of disappointed...

That said, I suspect there is a spot around 2 or 3 kids where AMT drops out
of the picture and I hope to hit it someday.

One thing you missed complaining about though is that a kid who is a student
full time can be deducted from their parents taxes until 23, not 18 as I
believe you stated.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-29, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> But how would they support themselves. I have no problem with welfare, but
> I don't think it should come with restrictions that give people less control
> over their lives than any other person.

Why should anyone use government as a hold up man to support themselves?
Welfare has many problems but its basic premise that some people owe
some other people a living is primary one. Given who I typically see
using link cards I don't think they would fail to eat if they didn't
have it.

> A $ should be a $ no matter who has it, not that some $'s can only be spent
> on certain things.

IMO you could create a private charity that operates under than
principle. However when the political process is involved then power
over people becomes very important.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 3:13?pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article j...@ripco.com says...
>> >> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>> >> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>>

>> > I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. ?You get tax

>> > deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
>>
>> tax deductions aren't subsidy, it's just something the rulers have
>> decided to tax less for whatever particular reason. It is designed
>> unfairly like that such that it pits you against John while those
>> collecting the taxes are largely left alone. If you were both left alone
>> to keep all your income to spend as you each desired this conflict
>> wouldn't exist.

>While this is a valid point, other nations, like France, give parents
>a cash supplement for each sprog they pop out, knowing how much
>raising the little rodents actually costs.

School vouchers would be nice, although it would probably come with regulation
of schools receiving the vouchers.

Personally, I still think if a family has kids they should be able to direct
their school tax $'s to the school of their choice and receive that amount
off on tuition. We peaked at 6 kids in Catholic schools at one time, and that
was a very very expensive.

>The socialist capitalist Republic of Singapore actually tried to
>facilitate matchmaking among their well-educated and well-paid
>citizens, who were spending their money on fun, instead of producing
>the brainiac workforce of tomorrow.

Perhaps Adams friends should sign him up on an online dating site or craigslist
and see if they can find him a match?

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2011-12-27, spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 3:13?pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-26, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article j...@ripco.com says...
>>> >> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>>> >> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>>>
>>> > I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. ?You get tax
>>> > deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
>>>
>>> tax deductions aren't subsidy, it's just something the rulers have
>>> decided to tax less for whatever particular reason. It is designed
>>> unfairly like that such that it pits you against John while those
>>> collecting the taxes are largely left alone. If you were both left alone
>>> to keep all your income to spend as you each desired this conflict
>>> wouldn't exist.
>>
>> While this is a valid point, other nations, like France, give parents
>> a cash supplement for each sprog they pop out, knowing how much
>> raising the little rodents actually costs.

>Given what I know of taxation rates in France, if they weren't taxed
>they probably wouldn't need it. That's not even including any
>possible nanny state meddling that increases the costs of raising
>children.

>> The socialist capitalist Republic of Singapore actually tried to
>> facilitate matchmaking among their well-educated and well-paid
>> citizens, who were spending their money on fun, instead of producing
>> the brainiac workforce of tomorrow.

>While the USA's welfare system encourages the opposite end of the
>intelligence bell curve to reproduce. It comes down to whatever sort of
>livestock those with power want and in what proportion.

Is that true? Or is welfare similar to unemployment where there is a single
dependent amount regards of the number of dependents. If welfare is the
same, then the onus would be to have 1 child as that was maximum benefit.

Actually, I just spotted this and it might explain a lot;

"... Like most states, Illinois focused on moving families from welfare to
work. The result was a dramatic decline in the TANF caseload. In July
of 1994 there were 246,835 TANF cases compared to 38,234 in July of 2003
(Illinois Department of Human Services TANF Data). As caseloads have
declined, a larger proportion of the caseload faces barriers to
self-sufficiency. Persons who remain are more likely to confront barriers
such as substance abuse, learning disabilities, domestic violence, and
physical and mental health problems...."
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464

It's possible there were learning disabilities involved at the register ahead
of me.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>In article spamtr...@gmail.com says...
>> While this is a valid point, other nations, like France, give parents
>> a cash supplement for each sprog they pop out, knowing how much
>> raising the little rodents actually costs.

>That would be the way to go. This would mean Nelson would have to wait
>in line at the welfare office for his government checks instead of
>having it done mathematically on some anonymous form.

Actually, I'd be happy with just being able to redirect the school portion
of my property taxes to the school of my choice and receiving those $'s off
tuition. It's my money anyway, why not let me spend it on my kids instead of
on your kids, or neices, nephews and cousins?

>If society deems raising children is something the government must pay
>for then fine -- give it out like welfare so that people begin to
>realize the subsidies they receive. Unfortunately for doling out
>welfare checks from the treasury side of the equation, once the bean
>counters see that Nelson is a smart, talented individual with a sense of
>rugged individualism who can more than provide for his family on his
>own, they might consider cutting off his welfare checks in lieu of
>perhaps someone who might actually need welfare.

Well, social security depends on an influx of new workers. In nations where
the birth rates dropped significantly, they opened their borders, but that
isn't aways going very well (see Merkel's comment about multicultural approach
has failed, utterly failed).

>It's a lot easier to cut people out of a welfare budget than to
>eliminate the welfare from the tax code. Tax code welfare is not
>understood by the masses and easy for the manipulators to obfuscate to
>keep the government largess gravy train going their way. The current
>Republican party believes tax side welfare to be completely off the
>table in any budget talks. Had that welfare been budgeted on the
>treasury side of the equation the Republicans would be falling all over
>themselves cutting that as another government entitlement.

>The leeches on society are very clever in their methods on how they
>steal the wealth of other.

Just as the union people say it's the citys fault for giving them contracts
the city can't afford when they know it was done to buy endorsements and
votes, so to, do politicians cater to people they feel with vote their way.

If they catered to me, AMT would be gone.

[sticks]

On 12/29/2011 1:06 AM, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
> sticks<wolve...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2011 3:43 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>> Chicago Paddling-Fishing<j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>> Mark Anderson<m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> That's your welfare that has absolutely nothing to do with property tax
>
>>>> Yesterday, my oldest daughter got engaged and asked us to pay for the wedding.
>>>
>>> What a lazy bitch.
>
>> Looks like Anderson is right. Welfare seems to run in the family.
>
> Hey Danny, hows that new job where you claim your finally not taking every
> nickel of your income from the state going?
>
> I had always figured you worked for a private contractor before, rather than
> directly from the state.
>

I think jon gets a little lonely in the winter when the tents get put
away and he doesn't have a fresh scout to snuggle up with.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-29, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

So am I to infer that a voluntary society would be of no threat to such
programs? If so, that means a core objection to a voluntary society,
that people won't help each other, is unfounded.

[smr]

Where's the fun in that, Blennie?

--
smr

[Brent]

On 2011-12-29, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> Personally, I still think if a family has kids they should be able to direct
> their school tax $'s to the school of their choice and receive that amount
> off on tuition. We peaked at 6 kids in Catholic schools at one time, and that
> was a very very expensive.

Why not let everyone with kids or without keep their money and then use
it as they see fit without all the problems and corruption of the
political process?

[Brent]

On 2011-12-29, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

Welfare in the USA has traditionally been more kids, more money while
those who work don't get a raise for having more kids.

[Brent]

Way you act it's all aggrivation for ya.

[Mark Anderson]

In article j...@ripco.com says...

> I was expecting you to issue a denial of the links I posted about AMT and how
> it makes couples with large families pay the same tax as couples with no
> children and was sort of disappointed...

> That said, I suspect there is a spot around 2 or 3 kids where AMT
drops out
> of the picture and I hope to hit it someday.

Why don't you just cut out the bullshit and post your total allowed
deductions/year and divide it by the kids. That was the question -- how
much welfare does Nelson receive per kid per year. I bet some years
were better than others -- like that year Bush gave some of us $300 and
$600 bones. How big were the Nelson bones those years? The AMT is
interesting. I have absolutely no idea how it works but anything that
protects against catastrophic gaming of the system can only be a good
thing -- much like an error handler in software code.

> One thing you missed complaining about though is that a kid who is a student
> full time can be deducted from their parents taxes until 23, not 18 as I
> believe you stated.

Point Nelson.

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
> You are working under the premise that there is some "share" that people
> have to pay in the first place.

Good Brent. You're correct. That is my premise.

We all can't be Brent and declare ourselves sovereign apart from all
others in society. We're all sitting at the table and government is the
buffet. Every year when it comes time to pay the bill, you can't just
declare yourself sovereign, go to the bathroom and sneak out the back
door. That's not patriotic. That's an act of a coward. We are all
responsible for this government and I just want to make sure that the
bill gets split up so I don't end up paying for the guy who ate lobster
with fine wine while all I had was the hamburger and an Old Style. The
bill must be split up in a fair and transparent manner.

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

> Welfare in the USA has traditionally been more kids, more money while
> those who work don't get a raise for having more kids.

Working people do get a raise. They get an extra dependent on their tax
return which translates into real money at the end of the year. Thus.

Tax(n) < Tax(n-1)

where n is the year, everything else equal.

[tert in seattle]

comedy, economics, it's all the same

[Brent]

On 2011-12-29, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
>> You are working under the premise that there is some "share" that people
>> have to pay in the first place.
>
> Good Brent. You're correct. That is my premise.
>
> We all can't be Brent and declare ourselves sovereign apart from all
> others in society. We're all sitting at the table and government is the
> buffet. Every year when it comes time to pay the bill, you can't just
> declare yourself sovereign, go to the bathroom and sneak out the back
> door. That's not patriotic. That's an act of a coward.

So shut the fuck and pay. Stop complaining about people who paid less
than you and got more. This is the system you want. Stop complaining
that the dice didn't land your way, shut up and pay. This is the system
you endorse, so pay for it. If you want a bigger share of the buffet
you're going to have to hire some lobbyists and buy some elected office
holders. Otherwise get used to paying.

> We are all
> responsible for this government and I just want to make sure that the
> bill gets split up so I don't end up paying for the guy who ate lobster
> with fine wine while all I had was the hamburger and an Old Style. The
> bill must be split up in a fair and transparent manner.

I am not responsible for this system. I don't want it. I never signed up
for it. I do not support it. I have no say in it. I object to it. You
however jump in with both feet, endorse it and defend it. Therefore, you
pay for it.

You can't just say that you object to the outcomes but believe in the
system. You decided to go to dinner with a bunch of people and split the
bill for the total evenly and now that some of them ordered lobster and
you responsibily ordered a burger you object. Too late. you agreed to
this. Pay your fair share and subsidize their lobster. You agree to the
premise that government gets to decide, gets to redistribute. It
has decided and ruled that you'll pay more and get less. That's the way
it goes in this system. Too bad for you.

I'm tired of paying for several lobster dinners and cellars of fine wine
and not even getting what amounts to a stale can of Bill Beer from
1978 that I didn't want but was forced to accept because there
wasn't any other choice just as you are, but I recognize that's the
nature of the system and you don't. The choice is yours, you can either
start questioning the fundamentals of this system or shut up and pay.
Objecting to the natural outcome of a system you support is just
pointless.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-30, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
>> Welfare in the USA has traditionally been more kids, more money while
>> those who work don't get a raise for having more kids.
>
> Working people do get a raise. They get an extra dependent on their tax
> return which translates into real money at the end of the year.

Their pay, what they cost their employer, is unchanged. What are you,
some kind of socialist that thinks everything belongs to the government
except what they let you keep?

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
> >> Welfare in the USA has traditionally been more kids, more money while
> >> those who work don't get a raise for having more kids.
> >
> > Working people do get a raise. They get an extra dependent on their tax
> > return which translates into real money at the end of the year.
>
> Their pay, what they cost their employer, is unchanged. What are you,
> some kind of socialist that thinks everything belongs to the government
> except what they let you keep?

The problem with people of your ilk is that you're too stupid to see the
bottom line -- you can't see the forest because you're too busy looking
at the trees. The simple mathematical fact is that once a person has a
child they get to add that child as a dependent on their income tax thus
being able to pay less tax. The less they pay in income tax is a net
benefit and translates into real money. Some would call this helping
the family because families are all cookies and spice and everything
nice. Others would call it welfare. Some working families probably do
need the government welfare in the form of dependent tax deductions and
whatever easter eggs litter the tax code nowadays.

That the employer pays the same is irrelevant.

[Geoff Gass]

hasn't he prattled on about winter camping trips before? I assume those get
scheduled when he gets the equivalent of the DT's

[Geoff Gass]

remind me why you haven't taken up cydrome's offer of somalia?

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

> I am not responsible for this system. I don't want it. I never signed up
> for it. I do not support it. I have no say in it.

Fine. Renounce your citizenship, give up your US passport, and go live
in some other country that would have you -- which might present a
problem if your new country conducts personal interviews of new
applicants for citizenship.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-30, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

I'll consider it just as soon as you shut up and start paying for the
system you support without complaint. I expect you to continue to try
and get out of paying for as much of it as you can and complain about
what you can't avoid.

BTW, like government's in the USA, those that most americans could get
citizenship in only care about one thing, the money.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-30, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

So let me get this straight, I'm in the wrong because I believe a person
who traded his labor for payment earned his entire pay and thus has
claim to it?

If we back track your logic it goes to the idea that the government owns
us all and through that our labor. It then decides what our real pay
should be by taking what it desires. Hence when it takes less, it's
giving us a raise.

It is the only way your line of thought works here, that we are owned by
the government and the government has a claim on our entire
productivity. What it lets us keep is then our real pay. That's the only
way that lower taxes are a raise. The only way take home is our real
salary is if government owns us to start.

Your way of looking at things is yet another desired product of the
withholding system. Lets say we go back to the old system and we had to
cut a check on or before Apr 15th of each year. Is it still a raise if
that check, that payment to the government, is smaller this year than
the year before? Or is it just less taxes like realestate taxes are?

Furthermore, if taxes are just a payment for services, why aren't they
paid when services are rendered instead of when income is earned?

[Brent]

Because it's non workable. Let me know when you actually bother to learn
something about the process to escape the federal government.

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

> I'll consider it just as soon as you shut up and start paying for the
> system you support without complaint. I expect you to continue to try
> and get out of paying for as much of it as you can and complain about
> what you can't avoid.

My only involvement in this discussion is to point out the hypocrisy in
those who wave the flag of Righteousness in collecting their welfare
(Nelson, Grover Norquist, etc) while wagging the finger of Righteous
Indignation at others who collect welfare the old fashioned way (Food
Stamps). I posit that Nelson collects more in welfare than your average
Englewood welfare queen -- the only difference being, Nelson scours the
tax code for his welfare while the welfare queen scours for new
government programs to be enacted and social security numbers of the
deceased.

They both are considered leeches on society in my humble opinion but at
least the welfare queen probably doesn't feel Righteous or wax Righteous
Indignation about cashing her welfare checks.

[Brent]

On 2011-12-30, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

> In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
>> I'll consider it just as soon as you shut up and start paying for the
>> system you support without complaint. I expect you to continue to try
>> and get out of paying for as much of it as you can and complain about
>> what you can't avoid.
>
> My only involvement in this discussion is to point out the hypocrisy in
> those who wave the flag of Righteousness in collecting their welfare
> (Nelson, Grover Norquist, etc) while wagging the finger of Righteous
> Indignation at others who collect welfare the old fashioned way (Food
> Stamps). I posit that Nelson collects more in welfare than your average
> Englewood welfare queen -- the only difference being, Nelson scours the
> tax code for his welfare while the welfare queen scours for new
> government programs to be enacted and social security numbers of the
> deceased.

Except lower taxes aren't welfare, so you're dead wrong. And even so you
have in previous posts argued the government does have the power
to redistribute wealth and set tax rates as it sees fit, further making
you complaints about Nelson irrational and inconsistent. To be
consistent with your views you need to realize that the government loves
Nelson more than it loves you, that considers Nelson more valuable and
thus rewards him.

Even more bizzaro is that Nelson's complaint was regarding the
complexities of the Link Card program and it's recipients not having a
full understanding of them, not the wealth transfer itself.

> They both are considered leeches on society in my humble opinion but at
> least the welfare queen probably doesn't feel Righteous or wax Righteous
> Indignation about cashing her welfare checks.

In the end you're just upset that from your point of view your loving
government pays Nelson more than it pays you, that it loves him more
than you.

[Geoff Gass]

let me know when you're going to stop bitching and actually try it instead
of being a giant pussy

[smr]

If you move to Somalia and never come back, what the fuck do you care if
the US gov't thinks you still owe them money?

--
smr

[Brent]

The biggest pussy of all is the person who not only cannot express
thoughts outside the conditioned social norms but plays a role of
social enforcer against those that do. I can't think of anything
more cowardly than being affraid of mere thoughts and ideas.

[Brent]

You have just demonstrated you're quite ignorant of the process of
renouncing citizenship.

[smr]

Nobody has said you need to renounce your citizenship, you
goalpost-moving asswipe. Just pack up your shit, hop on a plane and go
to Somalia and NEVER COME BACK. You ain't gotta do shit what the Feds
say if you just do that. You think an IRS agent is going to come after
you in your hut outside of Mogadishu if you do that?

You're a gutless pussy who won't back up your words. Fuck off.

--
smr

[Geoff Gass]

afraid? tf? I'm just pointing out that you're all talk. When Cydrome
called your bluff, you bitched out. Period.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Wouldn't your ninja mind control techniques work in Somalia?

[Brent]

On 2011-12-30, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 2:54 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2011-12-30, smr<m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/30/2011 12:07 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2011-12-30, Geoff Gass<g...@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>>>> Brent<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2011-12-29, Chicago Paddling-Fishing<j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Personally, I still think if a family has kids they should be able to direct
>>>>>>> their school tax $'s to the school of their choice and receive that amount
>>>>>>> off on tuition. We peaked at 6 kids in Catholic schools at one time, and that
>>>>>>> was a very very expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not let everyone with kids or without keep their money and then use
>>>>>> it as they see fit without all the problems and corruption of the
>>>>>> political process?
>>>>>
>>>>> remind me why you haven't taken up cydrome's offer of somalia?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's non workable. Let me know when you actually bother to learn
>>>> something about the process to escape the federal government.
>>>
>>> If you move to Somalia and never come back, what the fuck do you care if
>>> the US gov't thinks you still owe them money?
>>
>> You have just demonstrated you're quite ignorant of the process of
>> renouncing citizenship.
>
> Nobody has said you need to renounce your citizenship, you
> goalpost-moving asswipe.

You again demonstate your lack of knowledge of the process.

> Just pack up your shit, hop on a plane and go
> to Somalia and NEVER COME BACK. You ain't gotta do shit what the Feds
> say if you just do that. You think an IRS agent is going to come after
> you in your hut outside of Mogadishu if you do that?

The US federal government recently killed two US citizens who left the
USA in much that manner. And yes, the IRS does go after americans
overseas, I know of this because of people I know who have left the USA.
And yes they even go after americans in poor countries in eastern
Africa.

> You're a gutless pussy who won't back up your words. Fuck off.

My words have always been why do I have to leave? You and those like
you are the ones changing the USA away from what I want. You should
pack up your shit and leave for place more to your liking instead of
fucking up this country.

[Brent]

Bluff? I have never stated I would leave. You sir are a liar. My
statement remains the same, it is you and those like you who are making
the USA more and more to my dislike. You and the rest should move
instead of changing this country.

[Brent]

The proper term is "Jedi mind trick".

[Cydrome Leader]

Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> Cydrome Leader <pres...@mungepanix.com> wrote:
>>Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

>>> Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>>>In article j...@ripco.com says...
>>>>> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
>>>>> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>>>
>>>>I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point. You get tax
>>>>deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.

>>>>That's your welfare that has absolutely nothing to do with property tax

>>>>or education. There is no arguing this fact. Most simply don't realize
>>>>the welfare they collect for their tax deductions as they sit around the
>>>>dinner table on Christmas Day decrying all those welfare queens and bums
>>>>that they have to pay for without realizing all the people paying for
>>>>the food on the table that their sprogs are currently devouring.
>>>
>>> Actually Mark, I didn't miss anything, you missed the mark!
>>>
>>> Have you never heard my rants about Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) ?
>>>
>>> "... The AMT's Effect on Large Families
>>>
>>> One of the most significant "gotchas" in the Alternative Minimum Tax is
>>> the way that it treats personal exemptions. While most taxpayers can take
>>> exemptions for themselves, their spouses and their children, those who are
>>> subject to the AMT can only take a single flat exemption that combines
>>> personal exemptions and a blanket amount in lieu of itemized or standard
>>> deductions. In other words, under the AMT, a couple with no children would
>>> pay the same tax as a family with six children ..."
>>>
>>> http://www.ehow.com/about_7263004_must-file-alternative-minimum-tax_.html
>>>
>>> Wait a second Mr. Subsidy, did that say a couple with no children would
>>> pay the same tax as a couple with six children? Golly gee Mr. Wizard!!!
>>>
>>> "... The AMT currently has a disproportionate impact on large families by
>>> denying them the dependent exemptions allowed in the regular income tax..."
>>> http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/alternative_minimum_tax.shtml
>>>
>>> You see, at my income, what the deductions giveth, AMT taketh away.
>>> (You can google AMT and "large families" and read for yourself)
>>>
>>> I've bemoaned AMT many times here in the past.
>>>
>>> I still call the IRS every year and go over my forms with them via phone to
>>> make sure this is what they really intended, because they literally wipe out
>>> deductions in the 6251 form that are given elsewhere and what's the point of
>>> giving them elsewhere? Why shuffle numbers like that? Why pretend? Unless
>>> they think its amusing to mislead fools into thinking large families get big
>>> breaks when they don't!)
>>>
>>> So, having many kids doesn't save on taxes, it shifts taxes around and adds
>>> others. Our sales tax bill is probably 5x's that of a single person.
>>>
>>> I walked up to the grocery store tonite and bought 2 gallons of milk. That'll
>>> last a day and a half right now due to all the kids home from dorms. How many
>>> gallons do you think a single person would go thru in 2 days? How much sales
>>> tax will they pay compared to a family of 10?
>>>
>>> Everyone likes to think they have it the worse, but the reality is, we
>>> probably all pay about the same. There are some areas where large families
>>> pay more than others and some areas where single folks might pay more (though
>>> I doubt it), but if we added every dime up, we'd probably find the larger the
>>> family, the more per-capita they pay in total taxes.

>>>
>>> Yesterday, my oldest daughter got engaged and asked us to pay for the wedding.
>
>>What a lazy bitch.
>

> Why? She's out house shopping.

So she can't afford a wedding but is out buying houses?

Sorry. I forgot stupid from original list of lazy and bitch.

[spamtrap1888]

On Dec 30, 10:08 pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:

> > Cydrome Leader <prese...@mungepanix.com> wrote:
> >>Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
> >>> Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> >>>>In article j...@ripco.com says...
> >>>>> Hardly... the lionshare on my property tax bill goes to CPS and only God knows
> >>>>> where my income tax goes (perhaps Michael Madigan knows too).
>
> >>>>I knew people of your ilk would completely miss the point.  You get tax
> >>>>deductions for each kid you brought into this world until they're 18.
> >>>>That's your welfare that has absolutely nothing to do with property tax
> >>>>or education.  There is no arguing this fact.  Most simply don't realize
> >>>>the welfare they collect for their tax deductions as they sit around the
> >>>>dinner table on Christmas Day decrying all those welfare queens and bums
> >>>>that they have to pay for without realizing all the people paying for
> >>>>the food on the table that their sprogs are currently devouring.
>
> >>> Actually Mark, I didn't miss anything, you missed the mark!
>
> >>> Have you never heard my rants about Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) ?
>
> >>> "... The AMT's Effect on Large Families
>
> >>>    One of the most significant "gotchas" in the Alternative Minimum Tax is
> >>>    the way that it treats personal exemptions. While most taxpayers can take
> >>>    exemptions for themselves, their spouses and their children, those who are
> >>>    subject to the AMT can only take a single flat exemption that combines
> >>>    personal exemptions and a blanket amount in lieu of itemized or standard
> >>>    deductions. In other words, under the AMT, a couple with no children would
> >>>    pay the same tax as a family with six children ..."
>

> >>>http://www.ehow.com/about_7263004_must-file-alternative-minimum-tax_....

>
> >>> Wait a second Mr. Subsidy, did that say a couple with no children would
> >>> pay the same tax as a couple with six children?  Golly gee Mr. Wizard!!!
>
> >>> "... The AMT currently has a disproportionate impact on large families by
> >>>     denying them the dependent exemptions allowed in the regular income tax..."

> >>>http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/alternative_minimum_tax...

I read it as "I'd rather use my money for a down payment on a house
than a giant party for freeloading relatives, featuring a vastly
overpriced dress, cake, flowers, etc., because when people know
they're providing shit for a wedding they bend you over a desk and ram
a broomstick up your ass."

[core]

So tell the guy you'll contribute 5 Grand toward the down payment on the house
if they'll elope. Otherwise he's on his own.