At what point has someone demonstrated need?

[katilac]

Interesting assumptions, but not true for where I live. The very poor do not work, so have no need to use before school care. They offer it. It is easy money for them and they are glad to have cash jobs. Those using it aren't terribly affluent..they're lower middle class and they'll be home before school is out to receive the child. Most people can't afford the Boys&Girls Club beforecare..they use inhome.

 

Yes, as I said, I'm sure versions of it exist in some areas, but even your example (the nearly poor paying the very poor) hardly fits the original description of it as "quite lucrative."

 

And, of course, those who accept government benefits are not supposed to work cash jobs. If someone posted about applying for food stamps while watching kids for cash, they would be slammed with responses about dishonesty and fraud. Not to mention the real-life possibility of getting charged with fraud.

[clarkacademy]

That is a really great question because unless we know the situation personally, we shouldn't judge. I am a single mom to 4 kids one who is disabled and I am as broke as they come. So broke I can't pay attention LOL. I live in a really nice house and by my standards it's huge!!! I drive an awesome van that has very low miles. NOPE no bragging here ya go the van I would give back tomorrow if I could have one more day with my gramma. She passed away and my uncle saw to it that I got that van at the time I got it I had no car at all. My house well a year ago I lived in the ghetto literally no joke the government funded housing projects. My father who worked hard his entire life and my mother who made alot of great investments they both finally retired and cashed in. They built their dream home and out of the kindness of their hearts allow their old house to be mine and the kids home. My kids wear almost all name brand clothes because I know how to shop. I take advantage of those yard sales in richy neighborhoods, clearance sales and buy a year ahead when things are cheap cheap cheap!!! Me and my bestie trade kids clothes back and forth as one grows out and another grows in. There is a pair of jeans out there that will probally get back to me in a few years and no one will ever know any differently. We trade cirriculum back and forth too. Maybe looking from the outside you could see I have things so why do I need help? Eating out is a rare treat to my kids and we rarely get to go places. Most everything we have was bought used or a gift. As far as the nails getting done and the fancy purses well I had a friend once who was a nail tech who did my nails in exchange for babysitting services once a week for 8 hours I watched her 6 kids to get my nails done lol. I have a great COACH bag that was a gift from my wonderful friend who is an RN at a hospital. I used to tan free too because a friend who worked as a manager closing would let me come in at night and tan free if I helped her clean up. So yeah you have to know someone to really know their position. For the record until I can buy my babies brand new sketchers and afford Disney I don't buy alcohol and never will. I am a single mom to 4 and I don't work. I wouldn't make enough to cover the care I would need for my son as well as the other 3. If the chance comes up that I might get something extra for babysitting or whatever I take it cause otherwise I don't get those luxeries. I could never afford this house but they told me I could live here and pay very little so I took that opportunity for my children.

[In2why]

I don't know about that. The military and the police defend you and everyone else. We all drive on roads maintained by the government and fly in skies managed by government air traffic controllers. Our food is kept safe by the government, and even paying for assistance for the poor benefits you, because a mother who gets food assistance is a mother who doesn't have to break into your house and steal in order to feed her children. We get books from government funded libraries, and visit government funded museums. Children with both parents working are provided with at least a basic education in government schools so they can become more productive members of society. The medication we use is regulated by the government so that we don't end up ingesting poison some counterfeiter tried to pass off as medicine.

 

Just as you say the people on assistance don't think about where the money comes from, I think there are a lot of people complaining about taxes who don't really think about everything the government does provide. It screws up quite a bit, yes, but it also does tremendous good.

 

I agree with you to a point. I don't want to make this personal, but you have shared your own personal story. I will assume based on what you reported as your income and by having a child, that you did not pay income taxes and in fact got an unearned income credit making your income tax burden not just zero, but you made money. At least if you made less than 27k and have a child that is the way the tax code is written. We also pay near 40% of our income in taxes, and I don't whine about it because I do realize that this Country has been very good to us. But I also agree about good stewardship, not just with the needy but all aspects of the government. Assistance is a drop in the bucket when compared to the actual budget, but there has to be accountability. I would rather waste money on possible welfare fraud then see a child go hungry, but at the same time, who decides when it is need, and when it is want. The only way to not have any judgement, by anyone, in any capacity, is to not take assistance. It is a choice that has to be made by each person.

[clarkacademy]

I will probably really step in it.....but I would add that the other problem is when they have even more children then they can afford.

 

But what about the families that could afford those children but due to job loss, family tradgedy, illness etc cannot afford them any longer? That remark is kind of along the same lines as the OP question. We don't know someone situations until we are there. What about the moms who are left behind by the husband/father who after years decides he don't want this life? Is that the moms fault? Should she get rid of a few kids then? What happens with a family who did all the right things went to college, had a great job and they have a child who is disabled and they can no longer work? Do they not desreve to have more children then?

[yellowperch]

Joann, I like your post. No answers here, but I appreciate the question, and its tone. I've been on both sides of the tracks, and there is no easy answer. I do know much of what I have now is based on hard work and a great deal of good luck. The good luck came first, and I don't know how much hard work would have mattered if it hadn't.

 

Good financial choices are very counter-cultural. It takes a great deal of thought and strength to resist the main cultural messages about what we "need" to have. Most wealthy people can't do it, and many poor people can't either. It is much easier to buy an i-phone (the monoculture is telling you you need it, the credit card company will let you put yourself in debt to get it, it is pretty and shiny and fun and immediate) than it is to start a college fund (which no one you know even talks about, and my little girl is going to be model anyway). $200 to start, and $100 a month will get you started with both, but really what's fun about money you aren't using?

Edited April 8, 2011 by yellowperch

[Mergath]

Assistance is a drop in the bucket when compared to the actual budget, but there has to be accountability. I would rather waste money on possible welfare fraud then see a child go hungry, but at the same time, who decides when it is need, and when it is want. The only way to not have any judgement, by anyone, in any capacity, is to not take assistance. It is a choice that has to be made by each person.

 

And how much more accountability would you have the poor provide? I fill out extremely detailed forms each month and provide check stubs to social services. I fill out forms for our contact at the workforce center to prove we're working our required number of combined hours. I have an audit every six months where I have to give copies of things like bank statements to our worker. Really, what else would you have us do? Should a social worker do a walkthrough every month to make sure we don't have nice things? Should they test our daughter's blood to make sure she's eating well, but not TOO well? What more do you people want, exactly?

 

And the idea that, "If you don't want to be judged, don't ask for help in the first place," is ridiculous. If you want to buy things cheaply, if you want your burger for a buck and your department store clothing for less than a small fortune, society has to employ people for dirt cheap wages. If you don't want the government to have to provide assistance, stand up and say that you're willing to pay twenty bucks for your Big Mac so McDonald's can pay their workers a living wage. Tell Walmart that you're willing to pay thirty dollars for toilet paper so their employees can afford to pay their rent. So many of you with plenty of money don't realize how much the "lower" ranks of society, living on next to nothing, do for you. Yes, you pay taxes that help provide assistance, but our cheap labor makes this society possible in the first place.

[Mejane]

So many of you with plenty of money don't realize how much the "lower" ranks of society, living on next to nothing, do for you. Yes, you pay taxes that help provide assistance, but our cheap labor makes this society possible in the first place.

 

You presume much. Many of us with "plenty of money" have gone through periods of having much less. We pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps just as you are trying to do, and worked for years to get to where we are. Please don't assume we are without feeling, and please don't also assume we have so much we can continue to support the growing number of citizens on government assistance indefinitely. We can't.

 

This conversation is well-worn with the same players taking the same sides every time.

[Mergath]

You presume much. Many of us with "plenty of money" have gone through periods of having much less. We pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps just as you are trying to do, and worked for years to get to where we are. Please don't assume we are without feeling, and please don't also assume we have so much we can continue to support the growing number of citizens on government assistance indefinitely. We can't.

 

This conversation is well-worn with the same players taking the same sides every time.

 

And my husband and I have worked for years, and gotten nowhere. Sadly, in this country, hard work is no longer a guarantee of success. You can spend years working your butt off, and get nothing but a pink slip and an underwater mortgage. You can make one mistake, and it ruins the rest of your life. My dh, in the early nineties, lost it for awhile after his mother and his niece both died from cancer, and he got drunk, drove, and tried to outrun the cops. Idiotic to be sure, and he served his time for his mistake. Now, twenty years later, he still can't get a job that pays the bills because of his criminal history. It doesn't matter how hard he works at his minimum wage jobs. It doesn't matter how much training he gets. He's just screwed, hard work be ****ed, and it's endlessly frustrating for our family.

 

The people I was referring to are those who continually say that poor people don't pay taxes, or that there is no accountability. The usual stereotypes that have almost no basis in fact. If they'd ever been where I am, they'd know those things aren't true.

[MrsBasil]

And my husband and I have worked for years, and gotten nowhere. Sadly, in this country, hard work is no longer a guarantee of success. You can spend years working your butt off, and get nothing but a pink slip and an underwater mortgage. You can make one mistake, and it ruins the rest of your life. My dh, in the early nineties, lost it for awhile after his mother and his niece both died from cancer, and he got drunk, drove, and tried to outrun the cops. Idiotic to be sure, and he served his time for his mistake. Now, twenty years later, he still can't get a job that pays the bills because of his criminal history. It doesn't matter how hard he works at his minimum wage jobs. It doesn't matter how much training he gets. He's just screwed, hard work be ****ed, and it's endlessly frustrating for our family.

 

The people I was referring to are those who continually say that poor people don't pay taxes, or that there is no accountability. The usual stereotypes that have almost no basis in fact. If they'd ever been where I am, they'd know those things aren't true.

 

I'm sorry, I don't have anything helpful to add but as I've been reading this thread and seeing your story I felt like sending some :grouphug::grouphug:.

 

I wish I could contribute to these threads, but it feels a bit personal and I'm not that brave.

[IsabelC]

I'm sorry, I don't have anything helpful to add but as I've been reading this thread and seeing your story I felt like sending some :grouphug::grouphug:.

^^^Ditto^^^

 

 

 

The line of questioning in this thread is difficult to answer with certainty.

 

However, I think that many people (including me) would do well to be more humble, less judgmental, and grateful whenever we are in a position to offer help to others.

[Margaret in GA]

And my husband and I have worked for years, and gotten nowhere. Sadly, in this country, hard work is no longer a guarantee of success. You can spend years working your butt off, and get nothing but a pink slip and an underwater mortgage. You can make one mistake, and it ruins the rest of your life. My dh, in the early nineties, lost it for awhile after his mother and his niece both died from cancer, and he got drunk, drove, and tried to outrun the cops. Idiotic to be sure, and he served his time for his mistake. Now, twenty years later, he still can't get a job that pays the bills because of his criminal history. It doesn't matter how hard he works at his minimum wage jobs. It doesn't matter how much training he gets. He's just screwed, hard work be ****ed, and it's endlessly frustrating for our family.

 

The people I was referring to are those who continually say that poor people don't pay taxes, or that there is no accountability. The usual stereotypes that have almost no basis in fact. If they'd ever been where I am, they'd know those things aren't true.

 

:grouphug:

 

Every single person on this board has made some stupid mistakes and choices in life. I just can't believe that folks that complain about people having kids they can't afford, never had s*x when they shouldn't have. Sometimes it just comes down to luck. I am grateful that none of my stupid mistakes ever ruined my life. Because they very well could have.

 

Margaret, who has had a manicure just once in her life, but would never begrudge someone that would like to look pretty no matter their income

[Margaret in GA]

Hard work was never a guarantee of success. I learned that in the garden as a small child. One has to work smart and invest in one's skill sets and knowledge.

 

Keep in mind that a person does not have to work for someone else at slave wages. A person can be self-employed if he can read and has some basic financial skills.

 

Self-employment requires capital and these days, a tremendous amount of luck. According to Bloomberg Business Week

The NFIB estimates that over the lifetime of a business, 39% are profitable, 30% break even, and 30% lose money, with 1% falling in the "unable to determine" category... 64.2% of the businesses failed in a 10-year period

 

 

Margaret

[chiguirre]

Please don't assume we are without feeling, and please don't also assume we have so much we can continue to support the growing number of citizens on government assistance indefinitely. We can't.

 

 

Actually, the well off are paying a lot less today than they did during my parents peak earning years. I both grew up in and continue to be a member of the upper middle class, but dh and I pay substantially less of our income in federal income taxes and we pay no state income tax compared to the rates my parents paid. For example last year the maximum rate was 35%. In 1986, my mom and dad paid a top rate of 50% after the Reagan tax cuts. The well-off and, to a much greater extent, the seriously wealthy have seen their tax burden evaporate over the last 30 years. I really can't say more without tipping into politics, but it's a fascinating story.

 

ETA: TX doesn't have an income tax. Instead, it has a high sales tax that shifts the burden towards lower income people who have to spend a greater percentage of their incomes than the better off do. The portion of our income that we save is state tax free. It's a sweet deal for me, but it's very unfair to the person living paycheck to paycheck.

Edited April 8, 2011 by chiguirre

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Oh, I don't know. When you consider the person is unskilled and can't get a construction job it's lucrative compared to house cleaning or flipping burgers. 180 days of school, 20 before school kids at $5/day for 1.5 hrs or less translates to $18K. That's good money in this area (median is low 40s) and will easily cover the living expenses. Most SS recipients aren't getting that much. It is a lot less work than getting the schooling and then working a full time job that pays $18K after taxes.

 

I think this example may be unrealistic since I am pretty sure one person is not allowed to care for 20 kids in a house. Plus there are some hoops to go through at least in this state in order to offer such services in your home.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Actually, the well off are paying a lot less today than they did during my parents peak earning years. I both grew up in and continue to be a member of the upper middle class, but dh and I pay substantially less of our income in federal income taxes and we pay no state income tax compared to the rates my parents paid. For example last year the maximum rate was 35%. In 1986, my mom and dad paid a top rate of 50% after the Reagan tax cuts. The well-off and, to a much greater extent, the seriously wealthy have seen their tax burden evaporate over the last 30 years. I really can't say more without tipping into politics, but it's a fascinating story.

 

Exactly. My grandfather paid 70 to 90% income taxes in the 1950s-60s and did quite well to boot. He hired several hundred people, created businesses, and took his extended, extended family all around the world many, many times.

 

Taxes are at historically low levels now. I think there should be reasonable tax increases to at least pay for the wars we have been in for the past 10 years. I do not think we should pay for the wars and fix the budget on the backs of the middle and lower classes IMHO.

[SweetBean]

:iagree: I would go so far as to say that a lack of a cell phone and car severely limits one's ability to improve one's situation. Forcing someone to give up those items will pretty much guarantee a downward spiral.

:iagree:

[Ester Maria]

The well-off and, to a much greater extent, the seriously wealthy have seen their tax burden evaporate over the last 30 years. I really can't say more without tipping into politics, but it's a fascinating story.

And it is good and just that they pay less, in many people's opinion. Severe progressive taxation is basically another name for "punish the rich for being rich".

 

If we have a tax rate of 10%, and if I have $100, and you have $1500, your 10% is already more than my entire initial position, and you have already contributed more in accordance with your earnings - and that is just and fair. No need to "punish" you further with requesting 50%, 70%, 90% (!!) from you "just because you can give them".

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

And it is good and just that they pay less, in many people's opinion. Severe progressive taxation is basically another name for "punish the rich for being rich".

 

If we have a tax rate of 10%, and if I have $100, and you have $1500, your 10% is already more than my entire initial position, and you have already contributed more in accordance with your earnings - and that is just and fair. No need to "punish" you further with requesting 50%, 70%, 90% (!!) from you "just because you can give them".

 

I do not think anyone is proposing returning to 50 to 90% tax rates. I cited my grandfather's example to point out that he and many others flourished in 1950s and 1960s despite high tax rates so really his tax were not severe in a sense at all. I don't think he was punished at all.

 

I think a reasonable progressive tax is fair IMO. I think letting the President Bush's tax cuts expire is fair and would not punish anyone. Letting those cuts expire would only increase the top bracket by 4% to 39%. I also think there should be new tax brackets for the extraordinarily wealthy. Even Warren Buffet says he should pay more in taxes since his effective tax rate is less than his secretary's:001_huh:.

 

I don't want to stick it to the rich at all. I just believe that those who make more can contribute more. Plus they often benefit more from our government IMO.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited April 8, 2011 by priscilla
spelling

[Mejane]

Actually, the well off are paying a lot less today than they did during my parents peak earning years.

 

You're right, but I was referring to the number of taxpayers. The actual number of people paying anything into the system is shrinking; it's close to half now (see link.) It's simply unsustainable, and it frightens me more than it makes me angry. What happens to all the people who depend on the government when the government finally goes belly-up?

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-15/opinion/hodge.non.taxpayers_1_income-tax-tax-policy-center-credits-and-deductions?_s=PM:OPINION

 

From the article:

 

"The consequence of turning the tax code into a tool for social policy is that we now have a record 52 million filers off the income tax rolls. This means 36 percent of all so-called taxpayers actually pay zero in income taxes after taking their credits and deductions. But these figures don't include some 15 million people who work but don't earn enough to file a tax return. When these people are added to the non-payers, estimates the Tax Policy Center, the percentage of households who don't pay income taxes rises to 47 percent."

Edited April 8, 2011 by Mejane

[Mrs Mungo]

You're right, but I was referring to the number of taxpayers. The actual number of people paying anything into the system is shrinking; it's close to half now (see link.)

<snip>

"The consequence of turning the tax code into a tool for social policy is that we now have a record 52 million filers off the income tax rolls. This means 36 percent of all so-called taxpayers actually pay zero in income taxes after taking their credits and deductions. But these figures don't include some 15 million people who work but don't earn enough to file a tax return. When these people are added to the non-payers, estimates the Tax Policy Center, the percentage of households who don't pay income taxes rises to 47 percent."

 

I disagree with the bolded. If it's a social program for anyone, it's a social program for big business allowing them to pay their employees well below a living wage.

 

Also, people in those lower tax brackets pay other federal taxes (from factcheck)

earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You're right, but I was referring to the number of taxpayers. The actual number of people paying anything into the system is shrinking; it's close to half now (see link.) It's simply unsustainable, and it frightens me more than it makes me angry. What happens to all the people who depend on the government when the government finally goes belly-up?

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-15/opinion/hodge.non.taxpayers_1_income-tax-tax-policy-center-credits-and-deductions?_s=PM:OPINION

 

From the article:

 

"The consequence of turning the tax code into a tool for social policy is that we now have a record 52 million filers off the income tax rolls. This means 36 percent of all so-called taxpayers actually pay zero in income taxes after taking their credits and deductions. But these figures don't include some 15 million people who work but don't earn enough to file a tax return. When these people are added to the non-payers, estimates the Tax Policy Center, the percentage of households who don't pay income taxes rises to 47 percent."

 

Then they should fix loopholes like that IMHO. I don't think the effective tax rate for the rich should be less than the middle class though as a matter of fairness. I also have very mixed feelings of having people at or below the poverty level paying federal taxes. I do think it would be OK to get rid of the earned income tax credit (I think that is what it is called:tongue_smilie:) that pays people money that they did not pay.

 

So I wonder how many of these people not paying income taxes are at or below the poverty level?

 

My 2 cents:)

[Mrs Mungo]

So I wonder how many of these people not paying income taxes are at or below the poverty level?

 

 

They are all in the lowest quintile of earners, meaning they all earn less than $20k/year. eta: poverty level is $22K for a family of four.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I disagree with the bolded. If it's a social program for anyone, it's a social program for big business allowing them to pay their employees well below a living wage.

 

Also, people in those lower tax brackets pay other federal taxes (from factcheck)

 

Yes I do believe that is corporate welfare happening when a company as profitable as GE who did not have to pay taxes last year:glare: From what I understand corporate taxes are also at historically low rates as well.

 

I don't want to stick it to anyone whether that be rich or business. I just want to see reasonable, fair tax increases even if that affects me:tongue_smilie:

[Mejane]

I disagree with the bolded. If it's a social program for anyone, it's a social program for big business allowing them to pay their employees well below a living wage.

 

 

 

You won't ever catch me defending big business... or Wall Street... or Congress... :tongue_smilie:

[Mejane]

I don't want to stick it to anyone whether that be rich or business. I just want to see reasonable, fair tax increases even if that affects me:tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree:with reasonable, fair taxes. Period.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree:with reasonable, fair taxes. Period.

This is where people disagree, on the meaning of reasonable and fair. Is it fair or reasonable for people below the poverty line (and most of those in the lowest quintile *are*) to pay a larger effective tax rate than those in the highest quintile? And you seem to be complaining that those in the lowest quintile don't pay enough taxes?

[Mrs Mungo]

Some of those in the lowest quintile of earned income are retired, homes paid off, and get substantial reduction in local taxes. I can't really cry for them...they are doing well in comparison to a young couple with no skills and family support just starting out.

 

Retired people with no young kids are not getting earned income credit either. So, I don't see how that figures in? I'm in violent agreement that young people with no skills and young kids need more help. That's why we have earned income credit.

[Mejane]

This is where people disagree, on the meaning of reasonable and fair. Is it fair or reasonable for people below the poverty line (and most of those in the lowest quintile *are*) to pay a larger effective tax rate than those in the highest quintile? And you seem to be complaining that those in the lowest quintile don't pay enough taxes?

 

Nope, and that's why all those credits that create loopholes need to go. I think a flat tax is the only one that makes sense. Then we can address need.

 

I'm not "complaining" that the lowest quintile don't pay enough taxes, just that the current situation is unsustainable. I think we need to remember that the truly wealthy that everyone (including me) likes to complain about comprise only 1% of the population. That leaves 99% of us trying to navigate an increasingly impossible system. I don't think there's anyone who would say the current system is either sensible or just, no matter into which quintile one falls. ;)

[chiguirre]

You're right, but I was referring to the number of taxpayers. The actual number of people paying anything into the system is shrinking; it's close to half now (see link.) It's simply unsustainable, and it frightens me more than it makes me angry. What happens to all the people who depend on the government when the government finally goes belly-up?

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-15/opinion/hodge.non.taxpayers_1_income-tax-tax-policy-center-credits-and-deductions?_s=PM:OPINION

 

From the article:

 

"The consequence of turning the tax code into a tool for social policy is that we now have a record 52 million filers off the income tax rolls. This means 36 percent of all so-called taxpayers actually pay zero in income taxes after taking their credits and deductions. But these figures don't include some 15 million people who work but don't earn enough to file a tax return. When these people are added to the non-payers, estimates the Tax Policy Center, the percentage of households who don't pay income taxes rises to 47 percent."

 

The only way to have more people pay the federal income tax is to increase the number of jobs that pay a living wage. When you can live on WalMart wages, then it will be reasonable to expect WM employees to pay taxes. Right now, those who pay are subsidizing companies that refuse to pay a livable wage and provide health insurance to their employees. Unfortunately, the only way that will happen is a new wave of unionization, and it seems we're heading the other way.

[Mejane]

:iagree:See my quote from earlier. :)

 

You won't ever catch me defending big business... or Wall Street... or Congress... :tongue_smilie:

[chiguirre]

And it is good and just that they pay less, in many people's opinion. Severe progressive taxation is basically another name for "punish the rich for being rich".

 

If we have a tax rate of 10%, and if I have $100, and you have $1500, your 10% is already more than my entire initial position, and you have already contributed more in accordance with your earnings - and that is just and fair. No need to "punish" you further with requesting 50%, 70%, 90% (!!) from you "just because you can give them".

 

I see your point, but I've also lived this reality in person and it was pretty grim. Once you tip the balance to a few very rich, 10% well-off, 30% scrambling to maintain a middle class existence and the rest impoverished with no hope of ever getting out of grinding poverty, society takes on some very unpleasant characteristics. I'd much rather pay higher tax rates rather than hire private security guards, install gear shift locks on my cars, remember to take off my jewelry before I go out, put bars on my windows, be aware that my children or I could be kidnapped any day, etc. I personally would rather that the US imitate France rather than Latin America, but that's not what I see happening at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think we need to remember that the truly wealthy that everyone (including me) likes to complain about comprise only 1% of the population. That leaves 99% of us trying to navigate an increasingly impossible system. I don't think there's anyone who would say the current system is either sensible or just, no matter into which quintile one falls. ;)

 

The top one percent of wage earners pays almost 40% of all income taxes because they earn so much money, and they *still* have a lower effective tax rate than the lowest quintile. The top 1% in terms of wealth? Hold 35% of the nation's wealth. The next 20% owns 50% of the nation's wealth. That leaves only 15% for the bottom 80% of the nation. So, I disagree that that top earners and/or wealth-holders can't be asked to do more. Now, HOW it is asked/required of them? There are a lot of different possibilities there, such as:

 

The only way to have more people pay the federal income tax is to increase the number of jobs that pay a living wage. When you can live on WalMart wages, then it will be reasonable to expect WM employees to pay taxes. Right now, those who pay are subsidizing companies that refuse to pay a livable wage and provide health insurance to their employees. Unfortunately, the only way that will happen is a new wave of unionization, and it seems we're heading the other way.

 

:iagree: And

 

 

I'm not blaming one side or another for this situation, both sides are to blame. For now, I will leave it at that, I have a meeting!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I see your point, but I've also lived this reality in person and it was pretty grim. Once you tip the balance to a few very rich, 10% well-off, 30% scrambling to maintain a middle class existence and the rest impoverished with no hope of ever getting out of grinding poverty, society takes on some very unpleasant characteristics. I'd much rather pay higher tax rates rather than hire private security guards, install gear shift locks on my cars, remember to take off my jewelry before I go out, put bars on my windows, be aware that my children or I could be kidnapped any day, etc. I personally would rather that the US imitate France rather than Latin America, but that's not what I see happening at all.

 

:iagree::iagree: I don't think we want to have a society with no middle class:(

 

I believe a flat tax is unfair. I strongly believe in a progressive tax. It the progressive tax needs to be tweaked, then we should tweak it but not abandon it in favor of an unfair flat tax IMHO.

[Heather in WI]

We couldn't afford toilet paper. Literally. And the great part? My husband was contracting for this guy, who refused to pay us "because they didn't have money."

 

People see people struggling, on welfare, and the like, and automatically think of the second family, taking complete advantage of the system. They forget there are families like ours, truly doing our best to cut costs, trying to play by the rules, and we're getting slammed because of them, too. It's so not fair, all the way around.

 

Yeah, I'm slightly ticked off and bitter still.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[Cheryl in NM]

Just a few thoughts I've had as I've been following this thread:

 

Our tax system, as it is set up, along with the government funded social programs is government redistribution of wealth.

 

I believe people should help as they can; churches should have social programs, funded by their own money. The American governmental tax system was set up to fund such things as national highways, not feed, clothe and house the poor.

 

A breakdown of our families is what has caused the government to step in. I don't know how to fix this, but the more we let the government into our homes, the unhappier we will be in the long run. Before long, we will be our own "Fatherland".

 

We must take back our lives and be responsible for ourselves. During the depression, people would trade each other labor for food or other services. I don't really see that happening as much (yes, I remember a post in this thread where someone benefited greatly from the barter system.). This should be an example. We should remember that we are all human beings and try to respect each other as such and be compassionate and help as we can. BUT, we should not allow our government to mandate that help and to take wealth from one to give to another, as it does now.

 

Everyone I know who is blessed and can give, does give. I even know people who struggled to feed their families last year, but still gave money to charity.

 

America's lifestyle is what is making her poor. We need to come together and help each other to become a rich country again. I know a family who routinely shares their home with homeless families; they are not rich by any means. I think most people want to help others and will help to the extent of their abilities.

[In2why]

But what about the families that could afford those children but due to job loss, family tradgedy, illness etc cannot afford them any longer? That remark is kind of along the same lines as the OP question. We don't know someone situations until we are there. What about the moms who are left behind by the husband/father who after years decides he don't want this life? Is that the moms fault? Should she get rid of a few kids then? What happens with a family who did all the right things went to college, had a great job and they have a child who is disabled and they can no longer work? Do they not desreve to have more children then?

 

I understand families, especially women can get into situations through no fault of their own. I was a single mother with 3 children for many years. Very few people plan to get into these situations. On the other hand, there are some, that do plan on having more children when they can not financially care for the life they already have. You ask the question, if a person has a disabled child, can no longer work, and do they deserve to have more children. I would respond that deserve has little to do with the answer. We all 'deserve' more than we have, perhaps, but deserve has little to do with life and reality.

[In2why]

And how much more accountability would you have the poor provide? I fill out extremely detailed forms each month and provide check stubs to social services. I fill out forms for our contact at the workforce center to prove we're working our required number of combined hours. I have an audit every six months where I have to give copies of things like bank statements to our worker. Really, what else would you have us do? Should a social worker do a walkthrough every month to make sure we don't have nice things? Should they test our daughter's blood to make sure she's eating well, but not TOO well? What more do you people want, exactly?

 

In the above instance, I have no clue. I wouldn't want to be on either side of the equation. But if the economy continues to deteriorate, it is only going to get harder for the working poor, and the needy. Accountability is coming in the form of the budget discussions as we debate this issue. You and I have don't have any power, but the powers that be are insisting on more accountability. There is a finite amount of resources, in all aspects of life, and people can only use so much before it reaches a tipping point.

 

And the idea that, "If you don't want to be judged, don't ask for help in the first place," is ridiculous. If you want to buy things cheaply, if you want your burger for a buck and your department store clothing for less than a small fortune, society has to employ people for dirt cheap wages. If you don't want the government to have to provide assistance, stand up and say that you're willing to pay twenty bucks for your Big Mac so McDonald's can pay their workers a living wage. Tell Walmart that you're willing to pay thirty dollars for toilet paper so their employees can afford to pay their rent. So many of you with plenty of money don't realize how much the "lower" ranks of society, living on next to nothing, do for you. Yes, you pay taxes that help provide assistance, but our cheap labor makes this society possible in the first place.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that you shouldn't ask for help, but I do understand that by asking for help you are opening yourself up to accountability and judgement. They go hand in hand, like it or not. Same as schooling. If you use government resources, you get government oversight, and yes the people who are paying for it get to judge whether it is personally or politically in how they vote. Nature of the beast.

[regentrude]

Self-employment requires capital and these days, a tremendous amount of luck.

 

There are many things you can do without capital - you just need to have a skill. My self employed friends do the following things which all require no, or hardly any, capital investment:

tutoring

web design

graphic design - brochures, posters

instrument and voice lessons

foreign language lessons

translations

birth preparation classes

photography

 

and the classics:

cleaning houses

pet sitting

babysitting

[In2why]

Actually, the well off are paying a lot less today than they did during my parents peak earning years. I both grew up in and continue to be a member of the upper middle class, but dh and I pay substantially less of our income in federal income taxes and we pay no state income tax compared to the rates my parents paid. For example last year the maximum rate was 35%. In 1986, my mom and dad paid a top rate of 50% after the Reagan tax cuts. The well-off and, to a much greater extent, the seriously wealthy have seen their tax burden evaporate over the last 30 years. I really can't say more without tipping into politics, but it's a fascinating story.

 

ETA: TX doesn't have an income tax. Instead, it has a high sales tax that shifts the burden towards lower income people who have to spend a greater percentage of their incomes than the better off do. The portion of our income that we save is state tax free. It's a sweet deal for me, but it's very unfair to the person living paycheck to paycheck.

 

 

But what a lot of people do not realize is that the tax cuts weren't actual cuts they were sleight of hand. By separating Social Security and Medicare it made it look like you were paying less in taxes. But you still give up a huge chunk of your gross. I completely agree with the sales tax. People better off have the ability to buy out of state and get around the higher sales tax.

[katilac]

Oh, I don't know. When you consider the person is unskilled and can't get a construction job it's lucrative compared to house cleaning or flipping burgers. 180 days of school, 20 before school kids at $5/day for 1.5 hrs or less translates to $18K. That's good money in this area (median is low 40s) and will easily cover the living expenses. Most SS recipients aren't getting that much. It is a lot less work than getting the schooling and then working a full time job that pays $18K after taxes.

 

Can you clarify the intent of this example? I can't imagine there are 20 families near me who would pay $900/yr for this type of before care, but I'll ignore that and assume that it's possible. Anyone operating child care on this scale without the benefit of permits or insurance is breaking all kinds of laws and opening themselves up to serious liability. If they are getting government benefits as well, that level of fraud can easily result in jail time.

 

If a person does follow the rules regarding permits and so forth, they would no longer be netting $18,000 (under this scenario) because you have to pay for those permits, you have to pay for insurance, you have to pay taxes, and so on. Of course, one can make decent money by providing day care of various kinds, but there are many requirements as to space, number of care providers, and so forth. I don't think an individual in a single residence home could even get a permit to watch 20 young children.

 

I'm just interested in knowing how far you thought through your example. Did you realize that people would have to break laws in order for it to work? Leaving aside the risk of jail time for the moment, do you think it's ethically acceptable to do so if you are struggling financially? These are interesting questions to me, because it so often seems that people are ****ed if they do, ****ed if they don't. That is, they are often slammed for not doing side work like this, but just as often slammed for breaking the rules if they do. Is it better (more ethical) to do cash work under the table, or to get government assistance? Is it ethical to do both if you need the money?

 

EDITED because I think my post sounds snarky, and it's not intended to be. I just think that this a great example of an idea that seems easy and lucrative at first glance. It might seem like people who are struggling should be jumping all over this type of thing, but there may be valid reasons for not doing so. I'd love to hear what others think.

Edited April 8, 2011 by katilac

[chiguirre]

No one is going to turn their neighbor in, especially on this small a scale.

QUOTE]

 

Hmmm, remember Mariann's shrubbery surgeons. We've had quite a few nutty neighbor posts and I wouldn't expect anyone to run that risk especially if they have kids that could be removed from their custody.

[Danestress]

For government funded needs based programs, there are usually clearly stated criteria. In order to qualify for food stamps, one must meet certain qualifications. Selling one's tv is not one of those qualifications. It's interesting that some people are confused by the comparison of needs based aid to police protection or road upkeep. Police protection in most places is not designed to be "needs based." Any one can call for police help. That is the way the program is designed. Food stamps is designed differently.

 

Obviously the government isn't in the business of regulating who can complain, though. People will judge and complain because that's human nature. A few people will actually work through the political process to try to make changes they think are appropriate.

 

For privately funded needs based programs, there may or may not be clear guidelines as to need. My church can give to whom it chooses. So can yours. I also can contribute as I see fit, whether the person meets a "needs" standard someone else would agree with. Furthermore, I can choose to contribute to help kittens rather than people if I choose.

 

So if you want to know who has "demonstrated" need, you have to check the guidelines of whatever organization is giving - the state or federal regulation, or the policy of the charitable organization. Or ask the person directly giving.

[mommymilkies]

I think you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. There are so many variables that determine whether or not a family is "needy"... There isn't one thing that broadly defines it.

 

It really makes me angry, though, when people think that because you're poor and in need, you're not allowed to have anything at all and should be living in a soggy cardboard box. I once had a bill collector call back when my dh was completely unemployed and had been looking for a job pretty much forever. I explained our situation to said bill collector, and of course he said, "Oh, I see. You can pay for a phone, but you can't afford to pay my client. Uh-huh."

 

Uh, yeah, jacka**, because job-hunting is pretty darn hard when you don't have a phone. Somehow, if I have to choose between having a phone for potential employers to call my husband on, and paying my chiropractic bill, we're going to have to go with the phone. :glare:

:iagree:

Edited April 9, 2011 by mommymilkies

[Caroline]

If 20 extra kids are getting on a school bus at that stop, the school will know. And the school will be required to report it to the proper authorities. Also, before and after school care are provided at most schools on a sliding scale. Places where your kids will be allowed to run around the track, read books in the library, have a nutritious breakfast and after school snack.

 

Having 20 kids in your house for before school care is not viable.

 

Katilac, you need to understand that times are bad. People need to eat, especially those that aren't employable.

 

No one is going to turn their neighbor in, especially on this small a scale.

Think about it - a handful of families drop their kids off with you, most for 30 minutes, a few for an hour or so, then walk over to school or get on a couple of busses. Not a big deal - you could have that number over for a birthday party with out anyone saying a thing. The employed neighbors aren't home to notice - they've already gone to work.

 

Grey market employment and sales are everywhere. That's reality. I'm not giving you an 'example' that isn't well thought out. I"m just looking around the 'hood. You want to eat, you can. The opportunity is there.

 

It's also realilty that many people are zoned single family and renting out the basement, garage, and second story without changing their zoning or paying taxes on their rental income. They push the costs for the renters (mostly school district, but some police and highway) right on to the neighbors.

[joannqn]

There are many things you can do without capital - you just need to have a skill. My self employed friends do the following things which all require no, or hardly any, capital investment:

tutoring

web design

graphic design - brochures, posters

instrument and voice lessons

foreign language lessons

translations

birth preparation classes

photography

 

and the classics:

cleaning houses

pet sitting

babysitting

 

So, how do you do these things legally? The process of getting the required business licenses, obtaining business liability insurance, filing self-employment taxes, etc. are overwhelming to me. I'd like to do something like tutoring or teaching homeschool classes but I can't get past being overwhelmed by the incomprehensible legal paperwork involved just so I can earn a couple hundred dollars a month, and I can't afford an attorney to decipher it all for me.

 

I'm in a small 12 step group (about 8-14 people meet each week) that wanted a bank account rather than having all our donations in cash at someone's house. We got a tax ID number and managed to get an account. We thought we were good. But then we discovered, quite by accident that we were considered a for profit business and are suppose to file taxes on our measly $10 a week in donations. After a couple of hours talking to the IRS, we found out we had to file paperwork with the state first. An hour on the line with the state and a lot of confusion later, we filed that paperwork. We got that back and now they tell us we have to file some other paperwork. We have no idea what we are filing or why; we're just doing what we are told. We've been working on this for over a year and we still don't have proper nonprofit status.

 

My daughter wants to sell bracelets she makes online. After my above experience, I think it would be best if she gave up on the idea. It's hard enough to get the initial business licenses let alone collect and pay sales tax and figure out how her income taxes are suppose to be filed. And my understanding is that if she makes too much, she'd have to file individually and we'd lose our deduction. It's just not worth it.

[mommymilkies]

So, how do you do these things legally? The process of getting the required business licenses, obtaining business liability insurance, filing self-employment taxes, etc. are overwhelming to me. I'd like to do something like tutoring or teaching homeschool classes but I can't get past being overwhelmed by the incomprehensible legal paperwork involved just so I can earn a couple hundred dollars a month, and I can't afford an attorney to decipher it all for me.

 

I'm in a small 12 step group (about 8-14 people meet each week) that wanted a bank account rather than having all our donations in cash at someone's house. We got a tax ID number and managed to get an account. We thought we were good. But then we discovered, quite by accident that we were considered a for profit business and are suppose to file taxes on our measly $10 a week in donations. After a couple of hours talking to the IRS, we found out we had to file paperwork with the state first. An hour on the line with the state and a lot of confusion later, we filed that paperwork. We got that back and now they tell us we have to file some other paperwork. We have no idea what we are filing or why; we're just doing what we are told. We've been working on this for over a year and we still don't have proper nonprofit status.

 

My daughter wants to sell bracelets she makes online. After my above experience, I think it would be best if she gave up on the idea. It's hard enough to get the initial business licenses let alone collect and pay sales tax and figure out how her income taxes are suppose to be filed. And my understanding is that if she makes too much, she'd have to file individually and we'd lose our deduction. It's just not worth it.

I agree. I had a similar experience when I had a knitting business years ago. And I would love to be a LC or something, but the cost of education and licensing, etc. is way too high for most people right now.

[Mergath]

So, how do you do these things legally? The process of getting the required business licenses, obtaining business liability insurance, filing self-employment taxes, etc. are overwhelming to me. I'd like to do something like tutoring or teaching homeschool classes but I can't get past being overwhelmed by the incomprehensible legal paperwork involved just so I can earn a couple hundred dollars a month, and I can't afford an attorney to decipher it all for me.

 

And besides that, there are many, many people offering these kinds of skills right now, and not many people buying. When I go to the laundromat to do our laundry, there are so many fliers for people doing housecleaning, babysitting, handyman work, and other services that they don't all fit on the bulletin board. Even the photography business fliers are everywhere. With these sorts of businesses, you're just not going to make enough money in the current economic climate to make it worth it.

 

As for the other example mentioned of watching twenty kids a day before school, many of the people who need the money most live in small apartments. There's no way we'd have enough room to watch five kids before school, much less twenty, and we wouldn't be able to get permission from our landlord to begin with. Does the person who posted that really think those of us getting assistance live in residences that can hold that many kids safely? And I'm not going to endanger somebody else's children, no matter how much I need the money.

[katilac]

Katilac, you need to understand that times are bad. People need to eat, especially those that aren't employable.

 

No one is going to turn their neighbor in, especially on this small a scale.

Think about it - a handful of families drop their kids off with you, most for 30 minutes, a few for an hour or so, then walk over to school or get on a couple of busses. Not a big deal - you could have that number over for a birthday party with out anyone saying a thing. The employed neighbors aren't home to notice - they've already gone to work.

Grey market employment and sales are everywhere. That's reality. I'm not giving you an 'example' that isn't well thought out. I"m just looking around the 'hood. You want to eat, you can. The opportunity is there.

 

It's also realilty that many people are zoned single family and renting out the basement, garage, and second story without changing their zoning or paying taxes on their rental income. They push the costs for the renters (mostly school district, but some police and highway) right on to the neighbors.

 

I disagree with the bolded, and I think that you are now shifting the situation. In the last post, it was 20 kids for an hour and a half. Now it's a "handful" for thirty minutes or maybe an hour. And of course you could have the same number of kids over for a birthday party without anyone saying a thing; that's hardly a valid comparison. Many people would report a neighbor for having 20 kids in care every school day.

 

At any rate, the main thrustof my post was not whether it was feasible, but if you and others thought it was ethical. You seem to be assuming that I think it is not, but I never said or implied that. I'm interested in the bind people find themselves in, when they are criticized if they make the choice not to break the law or evade taxes, and criticized if they do. Even in the above post, in which you tell me that "people need to eat" and that if "you want to eat, you can," you go on to state that illegal renters are evading taxes and thus pushing the cost onto to their neighbors. I honestly cannot figure out if you are saying that people should, or should not, break the law and evade taxes in order to make money. So, I'll ask again, in a slightly different way (not just you, but anyone). Note that when I use the term "evading taxes," I am referring to intentionally not paying taxes that one knows are owed; I am not referring to legally minimizing taxes. EDITED to add that you can respond to the question in broader terms than whether it is ethical (is it acceptable? is it smart?).

 

Do you think that it is ethical to break the law and evade taxes if:

 

It is the only way you or your children will have enough to eat?

 

It will prevent going into foreclosure?

 

It will prevent already incurred bills from going into collections?

 

It will keep your children out of substandard day care? Out of a clearly failing public school?

 

What if the situation is bleak, but less desparate - for example, is it okay to take an under the table job so you can afford books for the children? Music lessons?

 

Is it better to evade taxes than to accept public assistance?

 

Is it ethical to evade taxes if you aren't in financial distress?

 

Would you report a neighbor for illegal day care and tax evasion? Would the number of kids involved make a difference? What about the financial status of the neighbor? Pretend it's a neutral neighbor; not your best buddy, and not the neighbor you have been longing to turn in for SOMETHING :D.

 

The daycare just makes a handy example; you can mentally substitute any number of under the table jobs. Some, like the day care, will have potential safety aspects to consider, while others would be a more straightforward question of law and taxes.

 

I'll answer in a separate post.

[Hannah C.]

My daughter wants to sell bracelets she makes online. After my above experience, I think it would be best if she gave up on the idea. It's hard enough to get the initial business licenses let alone collect and pay sales tax and figure out how her income taxes are suppose to be filed. And my understanding is that if she makes too much, she'd have to file individually and we'd lose our deduction. It's just not worth it.

 

I filed taxes individually as a high school student with a job at a grocery store, but my parents still claimed me on their taxes because they provided more than half of my support. That is the key to whether a child can be their own dependent. So unless your dd was doing REALLY well you would still be claiming her.

[Barry Goldwater]

The people who have absolutely convinced themselves that they can never get ahead (by any definition you choose), that they can never get wealthy, that they can't do anything successfully, never, ever do.

 

Those you put as much energy into thinking...'how can I make this work' as others put into 'here are all the reasons I can't make it work' very often, eventually, figure out 'I CAN make it work!!'