Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Care reports coming in - HORROR STORIES

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I am afraid that Derp is actually correct here.....because of one big thing: taxes.

    I can speak for New Hampshire, the "Live Free of Die" state, which has welfare benefits on the lower end of the spectrum, last I checked. One can actually get this info for themselves in their state. It is all online now....

    For myself, a single 28yo male, if I am unemployed I can get about $1650 per month on welfare, if I am able to get the max. This amounts to $412 per week, TAX FREE. If I were to go get a job, I would need about $13 an hour to beat this, once I actually paid my (very low for the poor) taxes, on payroll and MC.

    These all change if one does have a job though....which is where it gets interesting, because I am (financially speaking) better off to STAY unemployed than get a low-paying job. If I were to earn $8 an hour, for a little over $300 per week after taxes, my endowment goes down to only about $1000 from the government....

    In summary:
    No job = $1600 per month, tax free
    Working poor job = $1300 per month, with minor taxes

    With this all said, I pin the blame on the fact that wages are stagnant more so than the policy itself....but yes, the welfare system is a mess. Most that are on it DO have a job, even though they could likely get on the dole and for a short time, get more money until their benefits run out.

    I don't care about right vs left. I care about stupid vs smart policy. That system we use is stupid, period.
    Last edited by TheyCallMeLazarus; 10-08-2013, 01:03 PM.
    "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

    Comment


    • One positive of Obamacare that I have seen is some people I know are able to leave jobs they hate. They work at jobs only because they must have the health coverage, and now they can leave and buy their own. Some of them do not need subsidies, and would not qualify anyway, but the premiums and coverage are comparable to what they got at their old jobs.

      Even in my personal situation, this could free my wife up from her job should she want to go out on her own and get an independent plan to cover us.

      Comment


      • Why don't you all quit your jobs?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
          I am afraid that Derp is actually correct here.....because of one big thing: taxes.

          I can speak for New Hampshire, the "Live Free of Die" state, which has welfare benefits on the lower end of the spectrum, last I checked. One can actually get this info for themselves in their state. It is all online now....

          For myself, a single 28yo male, if I am unemployed I can get about $1650 per month on welfare, if I am able to get the max. This amounts to $412 per week, TAX FREE. If I were to go get a job, I would need about $13 an hour to beat this, once I actually paid my (very low for the poor) taxes, on payroll and MC.

          These all change if one does have a job though....which is where it gets interesting, because I am (financially speaking) better off to STAY unemployed than get a low-paying job. If I were to earn $8 an hour, for a little over $300 per week after taxes, my endowment goes down to only about $1000 from the government....

          In summary:
          No job = $1600 per month, tax free
          Working poor job = $1300 per month, with minor taxes

          With this all said, I pin the blame on the fact that wages are stagnant more so than the policy itself....but yes, the welfare system is a mess. Most that are on it DO have a job, even though they could likely get on the dole and for a short time, get more money until their benefits run out.

          I don't care about right vs left. I care about stupid vs smart policy. That system we use is stupid, period.
          This is a case for charity vs welfare. Humans will always care for family naturally, but it can't be extended to an arbitrarily defined society. There is no natural motivation(no inherent love for strangers unlike family) so coercive force(taxes) is always required and always corrupts the intention. Coercion isn't justifiable in helping the poor based on some sort of social contract. It fails an argument from principles(it's morally wrong) and it fails an argument from pragmatism (it will always corrupt ideas as always seen).

          You could extend the family to define community as well.
          Last edited by Derpamix; 10-08-2013, 01:25 PM.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
            Why don't you all quit your jobs?
            I would, and would encourage all those like me to do the same. As a way to bleed the beast. Without suckers that they basically hold at gunpoint, the entire system falls apart. This is a way that I believe things will end up the further along this path they take. There is a reason there has never been a successful communist society and there never will be.
            Make America Great Again

            Comment


            • No financial system or governing method has lasted very long, ours is without exception. There is no "perfect" way. If you give too much wealth to the masses, then they get dependent and wealth is depleted. If you don't give enough, then they revolt, tear down the powers that be, and take the wealth by force. Perhaps a happy medium will take place at some point.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                I am afraid that Derp is actually correct here.....because of one big thing: taxes.

                I can speak for New Hampshire, the "Live Free of Die" state, which has welfare benefits on the lower end of the spectrum, last I checked. One can actually get this info for themselves in their state. It is all online now....

                For myself, a single 28yo male, if I am unemployed I can get about $1650 per month on welfare, if I am able to get the max. This amounts to $412 per week, TAX FREE. If I were to go get a job, I would need about $13 an hour to beat this, once I actually paid my (very low for the poor) taxes, on payroll and MC.

                These all change if one does have a job though....which is where it gets interesting, because I am (financially speaking) better off to STAY unemployed than get a low-paying job. If I were to earn $8 an hour, for a little over $300 per week after taxes, my endowment goes down to only about $1000 from the government....

                In summary:
                No job = $1600 per month, tax free
                Working poor job = $1300 per month, with minor taxes

                With this all said, I pin the blame on the fact that wages are stagnant more so than the policy itself....but yes, the welfare system is a mess. Most that are on it DO have a job, even though they could likely get on the dole and for a short time, get more money until their benefits run out.

                I don't care about right vs left. I care about stupid vs smart policy. That system we use is stupid, period.
                So many words, so much absurdity. This is so twisted, twisted, twisted. Take for example this sentence "For myself, a single 28yo male, if I am unemployed I can get about $1650 per month on welfare, if I am able to get the max." "Unemployment isn't welfare. "If I am able to get the max...." Most certainly the working poor don't get the max, so what is the point of this twisted babbling?

                Comment


                • I think you have confused me for someone else.....the working poor get hosed in this country to a level that is beyond words to articulate. Part of the reason is that they are faced with 2 very bad choices: 1) Take a poorly paying, often unstable, menial job 2) Get government benefits, which for some will actually be higher than that job, for a period before they run out.

                  In either case, the amount of money is not substantial, and those with children are often one paycheck from destitution. The fact that these are in fact their choices is a colossal failure.

                  What I meant by "the max" is that there are a number of exemptions and loopholes. If I were to have more than 2 children, be unemployed less than a given amount of time, be of a lesser age, I get more money. It is possible that I would qualify to get more money than most entry-level jobs. That is an atrocity, in both the job and the policy.

                  Next time, perhaps have an idea whom you are writing to and their overall views. Use numbers, not vague words. Don't be mean. These are not high expectations.
                  "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                    Coercion isn't justifiable in helping the poor based on some sort of social contract. It fails an argument from principles(it's morally wrong) and it fails an argument from pragmatism (it will always corrupt ideas as always seen)
                    But the government should enforce property rights? Let's get rid of all forms of welfare and private property. Mad Max, baby!

                    Comment


                    • Derpamix brings up a good point, but it's not realistic. Yes, it is morally wrong to forcibly take from one and give to another, regardless of the reason. This is theft. However, without doing that, the large population of the poor will always overpower the few wealthy, and take it by force anyway, usually violently. At least with a governing body to make the decisions in a somewhat democratic manner, this transfer of wealth can be done peacefully. This is usually done in a way that the wealthy maintain their level of lifestyle, while the poor are provided the essentials.

                      I am not saying that this is right or appropriate, but this is just how it is.

                      Comment


                      • You know I don't have patience for that. I really won't waste my time on the author of this masterpiece for example: "if I am unemployed I can get about $1650 per month on welfare." No, you can't.
                        Sorry to inform you, but words have meanings.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by john_e_turner_ii View Post
                          Derpamix brings up a good point, but it's not realistic. Yes, it is morally wrong to forcibly take from one and give to another, regardless of the reason. This is theft. However, without doing that, the large population of the poor will always overpower the few wealthy, and take it by force anyway, usually violently. At least with a governing body to make the decisions in a somewhat democratic manner, this transfer of wealth can be done peacefully. This is usually done in a way that the wealthy maintain their level of lifestyle, while the poor are provided the essentials.

                          I am not saying that this is right or appropriate, but this is just how it is.
                          I disagree, the government does far more harm to the poor than good, and is likely the sole reason for poverty and wealth disparity as a whole. Licensing laws, zoning regulations, minimum wage laws, and many other restrictions actually raise the cost of being in poverty and make it nearly impossible for the poor to enter the labor market and start their own business and compete. The Fed destroys the value of the dollar, harming those with the least amount while subsidizing private banks and large corporations. Governments use eminent domain laws to force people out of their homes in favor of rich land developers and politically connected industries(Monsanto). History reveals governments tend to centralize wealth, protect the interests of the rich, and pay into large propaganda campaigns exclaiming that they're looking out for the poor. This whole healthcare act is one giant corporatist pyramid scheme and scam. I hate food stamps in large amounts due to this, but it's more taking from the poor and giving to the poor and is still nothing compared to what corporations receive. Abolish government and hierarchy, and all problems go away. It really is that simple. If it involves the "poor" running over the government with force -- then, it's "virtuous" violence for the greater good.

                          PS they look out for their own. this is why congress is exempt from obamacare, no matter what lamestream media tries to claim is false news.
                          Last edited by Derpamix; 10-08-2013, 03:20 PM. Reason: damn typos
                          Make America Great Again

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by anna5 View Post
                            You know I don't have patience for that. I really won't waste my time on the author of this masterpiece for example: "if I am unemployed I can get about $1650 per month on welfare." No, you can't.
                            Sorry to inform you, but words have meanings.
                            Why is this Marxist Jew still here?
                            Make America Great Again

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              I disagree, the government does far more harm to the poor than good, and is likely the sole reason for poverty and wealth disparity as a whole. Licensing laws, zoning regulations, minimum wage laws, and many other restrictions actually raise the cost of being in poverty and make it nearly impossible for the poor to enter the labor market and start their own business and compete. The Fed destroys the value of the dollar, harming those with the least amount while subsidizing private banks and large corporations. Governments use eminent domain laws to force people out of their homes in favor of rich land developers and politically connected industries(Monsanto). History reveals governments tend to centralize wealth, protect the interests of the rich, and pay into large propaganda campaigns exclaiming that they're looking out for the poor. This whole healthcare act is one giant corporatist pyramid scheme and scam. I hate food stamps in large amounts due to this, but it's more taking from the poor and giving to the poor and is still nothing compared to what corporations receive. Abolish government and hierarchy, and all problems go away. It really is that simple. If it involves the "poor" running over the government with force -- then, it's "virtuous" violence for the greater good.

                              PS they look out for their own. this is why congress is exempt from obamacare, no matter what lamestream media tries to claim is false news.
                              I am not saying that the government has all the answers, nor am I advocating for any particular style of government or increased government involvement. But, the reality is, eventually the masses rise up when their basic needs or perceived needs and freedoms are not met. This happens whether there is a huge government presence or not. The Russian and French revolutions are examples of that, not to mention the recent Arab spring. Ignoring a large segment of the population almost always results in breakdown of a society.

                              Comment


                              • Obama Is Intentionally Inflicting Pain With Government Shutdowns
                                Shocking things Obama is shutting down to cause pain.
                                Video at Glenn Beck Barack Obama Is A Dictator Intentionally Inflicting Pain With Government Shutdown | InvestmentWatch

                                Grizz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X