the logic of the "forced at gunpoint to pay taxes crowd"
1. don't pay taxes
2. men with guns show up to arrest you.
reality:
1. don't pay taxes
2. notice of penalties (ignore)
3. many more notices (ignore)
4. served with papers (ignore)
5. court date (ignore)
6. arrested and put in prison (this is the gun step)
--
for comparison if I didn't wear clothes to work:
1. funny looks from neighbors. (ignore)
2. people point at me and stare as I get out of my car at work (ignore)
3. someone probably asks if I realize I am naked (ignore)
4. cops ask me to cover up, probably offer a blanket (ignore)
5. tasering, beatdown, arrest.
So both are very similar, If you are forced at gunpoint to pay taxes, I am forced at gunpoint to wear clothes.
There is very good coverage in the US for kids whose parents are under a certain income threshold. It sucks to jump from that to $20 copays, $80 dental bills (after insurance), and 80/20 hospital bills. It's downright cippling when your pay is barely more then it was before. Your also locked out if your are "lucky" enough to be on a crappy healthcare plan when your income goes down. You can't drop insurance and then get the excellent gov. provided insurance for your kids.
And God forbid you live in Texas or some similar hellhole.
True, but in your examples those people were owned lock, stock, and barrel by the university. They could never go anywhere else because they wouldn't be able to get insurance. All it takes is one cost-cutting splurge and they are royally screwed.
I was forced at gunpoint to wear clothes to work this morning, I feel your pain. I was also forced at gunpoint to drive the speed limit and slow down as I went through a school zone.
It's not, but it helps to explain why their economy is doing "better" then other places. They have more population growth, also due to immigration, legal and otherwise.
All those problems can exist in capitalism also. Thankfully we have a culture that abhors slavery, and execution, although we are slipping on massive imprisonment. When Russia adopted communism, they were not so lucky.
Would you take $10 an hour to drive to a different walmart every week or two and cashier. Bonus, the people training you, and your coworkers don't speak english and are probably hazing you to see if you will stick around.
Those jobs pay $10 / hour, but harvesting is not a year round occupation. These are seasonal jobs and the harvesting season is only afew weeks. So you have to transport yourself to these farms that are far from where you live everyday, or take nearby lodging away from your families.
Historically, there were classes of people who did these jobs, but they have been pushed out of the market. The pay never rose with inflation and they moved on to more profitable endeavors. It will take years to rebuild this local workforce. My mother grew up as a migrant worker. They moved around chasing crops constantly and all of her family quit doing this type of work as better opportunities arose.
You do come off as reasonable since you are talking about subsidized programs without foaming at the mouth. I can definitely see your point. I am in the top 50% of income earners, top 25% last year. However I have a large family, so I am barely below the 2x poverty line which qualifies me for some programs (none of the subsidies you mentioned).
I distinctly remember the first time I looked at my taxes at the end of the year and noticed I wasn't getting everything back on my tax refund. I was proud and I still am proud. My contribution isn't alot, but it is money well spent.
I disagree, sometimes an extra $50 a month means being able to enroll your kids in an after school sport, or taking a certification test to increase your own wages, or being able to save up for a nice suit for your job interview.
It is not in our best interest as a nation to tap out our lowest income citizens. It doesn't add much to the pot, and it kicks them when they are down. We should be helping our poorest citizens increase their income. It's bullshit rhetoric to claim they are happy to stay poor to avoid taxes or suck of the gov. teat. Being poor sucks!
Let's play numbers. I get $1000/month rent is 50% of my income, transportation 25%, my leftover for food / clothes / entertainment is $250.
Now let's say I make $5000 / month. Same percentages as above, now I can spend $1250 on food / clothes / entertainment. If I take 5% away from each, I have $200 and $1000 respectively, who hurts more?
Same numbers, but I make $30,000 / month, pre-tax increase I have $7500 to feed / clothe / entertain, post tax increase I have $6000.
Aside from the fact that 5% is worth far more to people who make little, even while it is worth less to the Gov. If we say that 50/100 people are making that $1k per month, the total taxes come out to, $2500 for that entire bracket. That's not gonna help the federal coffers as much as the 20/100 making $5k, or 2/100 making $30k.
Ever heard of FICA, it hits paychecks under 90-some K harder then it hits those above that threshold. It actually pays for almost the same amount of Fed budget as income tax, and it certainly is not a tax on the wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to muddy the waters by switching between 1% of wealth and 1% of income.
My post was sarcastic..
the logic of the "forced at gunpoint to pay taxes crowd"
1. don't pay taxes
2. men with guns show up to arrest you.
reality: 1. don't pay taxes
2. notice of penalties (ignore)
3. many more notices (ignore)
4. served with papers (ignore)
5. court date (ignore)
6. arrested and put in prison (this is the gun step)
--
for comparison if I didn't wear clothes to work:
1. funny looks from neighbors. (ignore)
2. people point at me and stare as I get out of my car at work (ignore)
3. someone probably asks if I realize I am naked (ignore)
4. cops ask me to cover up, probably offer a blanket (ignore)
5. tasering, beatdown, arrest.
So both are very similar, If you are forced at gunpoint to pay taxes, I am forced at gunpoint to wear clothes.
Good point about obsolete documentation, the only thing worse then no documentation is incorrect documentation.
there are wysiwyg wiki's. I like pmwiki because it does not use a database so I can easily export data.
There is very good coverage in the US for kids whose parents are under a certain income threshold. It sucks to jump from that to $20 copays, $80 dental bills (after insurance), and 80/20 hospital bills. It's downright cippling when your pay is barely more then it was before. Your also locked out if your are "lucky" enough to be on a crappy healthcare plan when your income goes down. You can't drop insurance and then get the excellent gov. provided insurance for your kids.
And God forbid you live in Texas or some similar hellhole.
True, but in your examples those people were owned lock, stock, and barrel by the university. They could never go anywhere else because they wouldn't be able to get insurance. All it takes is one cost-cutting splurge and they are royally screwed.
I was forced at gunpoint to wear clothes to work this morning, I feel your pain.
I was also forced at gunpoint to drive the speed limit and slow down as I went through a school zone.
Where are my rights!
you can play too!
my kingdom for a mod point!
It's not, but it helps to explain why their economy is doing "better" then other places. They have more population growth, also due to immigration, legal and otherwise.
If I owned Texan and Detroit, I'd rent Texas out and live in Detroit.
They also take forever to recover when they do go down, usually human error when I have seen it.
She caught him reading about the the new Civ game coming out.
All those problems can exist in capitalism also. Thankfully we have a culture that abhors slavery, and execution, although we are slipping on massive imprisonment. When Russia adopted communism, they were not so lucky.
copy and paste to the rescue!
In my experience, while DSL is slower, the connection is much cleaner then cable. Speeds don't jump around or suddenly slow down.
If you lose a $60 customer and raise the price on another customer by $75, you are not just replacing revenue.
Yes, and they may choose lower resolution content. I know I avoid HD because it takes up more drive space on my DVR.
DVD is code for ******** copy.
Would you take $10 an hour to drive to a different walmart every week or two and cashier. Bonus, the people training you, and your coworkers don't speak english and are probably hazing you to see if you will stick around.
Those jobs pay $10 / hour, but harvesting is not a year round occupation. These are seasonal jobs and the harvesting season is only afew weeks. So you have to transport yourself to these farms that are far from where you live everyday, or take nearby lodging away from your families.
Historically, there were classes of people who did these jobs, but they have been pushed out of the market. The pay never rose with inflation and they moved on to more profitable endeavors. It will take years to rebuild this local workforce. My mother grew up as a migrant worker. They moved around chasing crops constantly and all of her family quit doing this type of work as better opportunities arose.
Citrix always needs reboots....
You do come off as reasonable since you are talking about subsidized programs without foaming at the mouth. I can definitely see your point. I am in the top 50% of income earners, top 25% last year. However I have a large family, so I am barely below the 2x poverty line which qualifies me for some programs (none of the subsidies you mentioned).
I distinctly remember the first time I looked at my taxes at the end of the year and noticed I wasn't getting everything back on my tax refund. I was proud and I still am proud. My contribution isn't alot, but it is money well spent.
I disagree, sometimes an extra $50 a month means being able to enroll your kids in an after school sport, or taking a certification test to increase your own wages, or being able to save up for a nice suit for your job interview.
It is not in our best interest as a nation to tap out our lowest income citizens. It doesn't add much to the pot, and it kicks them when they are down. We should be helping our poorest citizens increase their income. It's bullshit rhetoric to claim they are happy to stay poor to avoid taxes or suck of the gov. teat. Being poor sucks!
Let's play numbers. I get $1000 /month rent is 50% of my income, transportation 25%, my leftover for food / clothes / entertainment is $250.
Now let's say I make $5000 / month. Same percentages as above, now I can spend $1250 on food / clothes / entertainment. If I take 5% away from each, I have $200 and $1000 respectively, who hurts more?
Same numbers, but I make $30,000 / month, pre-tax increase I have $7500 to feed / clothe / entertain, post tax increase I have $6000.
Aside from the fact that 5% is worth far more to people who make little, even while it is worth less to the Gov. If we say that 50/100 people are making that $1k per month, the total taxes come out to, $2500 for that entire bracket. That's not gonna help the federal coffers as much as the 20/100 making $5k, or 2/100 making $30k.
Wages need to go up for working people.
Ever heard of FICA, it hits paychecks under 90-some K harder then it hits those above that threshold. It actually pays for almost the same amount of Fed budget as income tax, and it certainly is not a tax on the wealthy.