No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

[Mrs Mungo]

Commissaries provide subsidized food to our military, *some* of whom get paid little enough that they qualify for assistance programs. I honestly don't see the difference between giving money for food to one group and subsidizing food to another.

 

FICA is specific to social security, medicare, and disability - ONLY.

 

 

 

Soooo, they may pay federal income tax in the form of FICA. FICA pays into ONLY social security, medicare, and disability - NOT into the general fund. The federal gov. funds Food Stamps via the Dept. of Agriculture which receives all of it's funds from the general fund (both personal and corporate income taxes).

 

Sooo, unless they are paying INCOME taxes they are NOT "paying into" Food Stamps.

 

Wrong, because there are other federal taxes that are not based on income. There are goods and excise taxes that go to the federal government's general fund, these are taxes that *are paid* by the lowest quintile (for example, there is an 18.4 percent tax on gas). They do, indeed, have a higher effective tax rate than those in the highest quintile. You don't have enough qualifiers in your statements, they are not accurate. Your statements only apply to taxes taken via a paycheck, not other taxes.

 

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.

[Stacy in NJ]

Go and read the 1977 legislation that created Food Stamps. The point was to give the poor access to better nutrition, not to give them the freedom to choose whatever food they decided was necessary for their family.

 

 

QUOTE=cindergretta;2789483]The problem is, there are a LOT of people who do NOT think FS recipients should be allowed to buy organic and free range, etc. "If I can't afford it for my family, why should they get it?"

 

And that is kind of the point. Who gets to decide what is Ok and what isn't?

I am all for labeling soda as non - food, by the way. We pay tax on it in my state, and we don't pay tax on food. ;)

 

OTOH, when my state (briefly) tried to tax candy, what a JOKE!! Red Vines were NOT on the taxable candy list because they have flour in them!!!!!! :001_huh: But yogurt covered raisins were candy! So, you can see what a Hollywood production it would be to get anyone to agree on what is junk and what isn't. <sigh>

[mommaduck]

Commissaries provide subsidized food to our military, *some* of whom get paid little enough that they qualify for assistance programs. I honestly don't see the difference between giving money for food to one group and subsidizing food to another.

 

 

 

Wrong, because there are other federal taxes that are not based on income. There are goods and excise taxes that go to the federal government's general fund, these are taxes that *are paid* by the lowest quintile (for example, there is an 18.4 percent tax on gas). They do, indeed, have a higher effective tax rate than those in the highest quintile. You don't have enough qualifiers in your statements, they are not accurate. Your statements only apply to taxes taken via a paycheck, not other taxes.

 

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.

I have ask why you aren't running our nation's banks and budgets :D

[Mejane]

But our government has consistently over time done things that would financially benefit the rich and we argue about a few dollars that a poor family spends on soda. Seems rather ludicrous to me.

 

You will rarely find me defending the federal government. ;)

[jennynd]

But our government has consistently over time done things that would financially benefit the rich and we argue about a few dollars that a poor family spends on soda. Seems rather ludicrous to me.

I don't really think the issue is the couple dollar. for soda. In NY, all children rich or poor has to have insurance. means the state pay for the poor (which I do agree) . the another underlying thing is that the state don't want to see obseity, unhealthy kids if they have to pay the medical bill,

[Haiku]

You are out of your mind

 

No, I am not, and you either misunderstand me or are misconstruing my words. Even if you completely understand my point and simply disagree with me, you needn't be insulting. I have kids with chronic, life-threatening health issues, so don't get all high horsey on me.

 

Tara

[cindergretta]

Go and read the 1977 legislation that created Food Stamps. The point was to give the poor access to better nutrition, not to give them the freedom to choose whatever food they decided was necessary for their family.

 

 

 

 

I already know that. ;) But that doesn't define what is Ok and what isn't.

[twoforjoy]

Nice. Tara is pointing out that some people, including herself, do choose not to exercise the option of receiving benefits. I know several people as well who qualify but don't use them. It is a choice, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

Sure, it's a choice. That doesn't mean it's the best or right choice, though, and certainly not for everybody.

 

I'll say that my husband and I were idiots for not taking advantage of aid when we could have. Instead, we struggled by, getting deeper and deeper into debt, and today are still dealing with the financial fallout. We'd be far more financially secure--and better able to help stimulate the economy through things like home ownership--if we'd sucked up our pride and applied for and taken the aid we qualified for.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have ask why you aren't running our nation's banks and budgets :D

 

I'm an ENTP, I'm an ideas girl. Somebody else has to make it happen. ;)

 

But, I'm also pragmatic.

 

For *me* the bottom line is: giving people money and letting them choose what to eat is the cheapest way to give aid. Yes, some people are going to abuse it. I've seen abuse in church food banks that only fed around 50 families. Stopping all abuse is impossible. You have to face that up front.

 

Can you mitigate it? Sure. Switching to the cards was one way to ease the issue. I don't think running it like WIC would be a good idea for reasons other people have pointed out.

 

I'm fine with soda being classified as a non-food. Some people have already pointed out that states without food taxes (some states tax all food) class soda and other things as non-foods. I'm fine with that. But, saying "no junk at all?" I don't even know 1) where you'd begin to make a yes/no list of every food available in every store in the country and 2) how you'd make sure *all people* had access to food on your "yes" list at all times. It's logistically impossible. That's just reality.

 

Do I think nutrition and cooking classes are a good idea? Yes. Do I think grocery trucks like in the article I posted earlier are a good idea? Yes. Do I think people should be required to make use of them? No, because there are always, always, always mitigating factors.

 

I disagree that unemployment and social security are strictly entitlement programs since people pay into them (in theory, I know it's not exactly the way it works, we've had that discussion).

[Haiku]

Sure, it's a choice. That doesn't mean it's the best or right choice, though, and certainly not for everybody.

 

I'll say that my husband and I were idiots for not taking advantage of aid when we could have. Instead, we struggled by, getting deeper and deeper into debt, and today are still dealing with the financial fallout. We'd be far more financially secure--and better able to help stimulate the economy through things like home ownership--if we'd sucked up our pride and applied for and taken the aid we qualified for.

 

And FTR, I am completely supportive of public assistance and don't begrudge people for utilizing it.

 

Tara

[Quiver0f10]

But our government has consistently over time done things that would financially benefit the rich and we argue about a few dollars that a poor family spends on soda. Seems rather ludicrous to me.

 

 

The rich are the ones who are creating/supplying the jobs that are paying the taxes that are supplying the food stamps and other programs.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Quiver0f10

[Anne in CA]

This does remind me of something my SIL shared with me last Xmas. When her dh was in Jr. High his parents made a huge financial mistake when his dad was starting his insurance business. The mistake would have qualified them to recieve food from the LDS church which they were members of, but admitting to being careless might have caused church members to be wary of buying insurance from them. They made the hard call and ate strickly from their garden for many months until they got back on their feet. They are very prosperous now, probably due to their discipline. Food stamps are a choice, a hard one, but a choice.

[Stacy in NJ]

You're trying to muddy the water with consumption taxes which make up less than 2% of federal revenue.

 

While lower income families do pay more in taxes as a percent of their income, they contribute little to the general federal fund. Most of their taxes are collected via FICA (payroll) or via state consumption taxes (sales taxes mostly). The gas tax you mention funds the Department of Engery specifically.

 

Commissaries provide subsidized food to our military, *some* of whom get paid little enough that they qualify for assistance programs. I honestly don't see the difference between giving money for food to one group and subsidizing food to another.

 

 

 

Wrong, because there are other federal taxes that are not based on income. There are goods and excise taxes that go to the federal government's general fund, these are taxes that *are paid* by the lowest quintile (for example, there is an 18.4 percent tax on gas). They do, indeed, have a higher effective tax rate than those in the highest quintile. You don't have enough qualifiers in your statements, they are not accurate. Your statements only apply to taxes taken via a paycheck, not other taxes.

 

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.

 

ETA: My original point wasn't to debate tax policy; it was to point out that Food Stamps and some other entitlement programs aren't like social security, unemployment insurance, or medicare. We don't "pay into them" and then "get something out".

Edited June 3, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[cindergretta]

I don't think it is muddying the waters to talk about tax burden, regardless of where the tax goes or from where it comes. The bottom line is that the poor carry a larger "precent of their income" in tax burden. What is the solution? Is there a solution?

 

It is a little naive to expect those with the least to pay the most and then say, "Well, it is going to the wrong things." :confused: The poor can't help it if their taxes are supporting state roads and local EMS but not federal social helps programs. They are still carrying a tax burden.

 

Unless the TPTB want to reallocate where taxes go so the poor are paying their share of the burden more equally across state and federal lines....

[Joanne]

I'm an ENTP, I'm an ideas girl. Somebody else has to make it happen. ;)

 

But, I'm also pragmatic.

 

For *me* the bottom line is: giving people money and letting them choose what to eat is the cheapest way to give aid. Yes, some people are going to abuse it. I've seen abuse in church food banks that only fed around 50 families. Stopping all abuse is impossible. You have to face that up front.

 

Can you mitigate it? Sure. Switching to the cards was one way to ease the issue. I don't think running it like WIC would be a good idea for reasons other people have pointed out.

 

I'm fine with soda being classified as a non-food. Some people have already pointed out that states without food taxes (some states tax all food) class soda and other things as non-foods. I'm fine with that. But, saying "no junk at all?" I don't even know 1) where you'd begin to make a yes/no list of every food available in every store in the country and 2) how you'd make sure *all people* had access to food on your "yes" list at all times. It's logistically impossible. That's just reality.

 

Do I think nutrition and cooking classes are a good idea? Yes. Do I think grocery trucks like in the article I posted earlier are a good idea? Yes. Do I think people should be required to make use of them? No, because there are always, always, always mitigating factors.

 

I disagree that unemployment and social security are strictly entitlement programs since people pay into them (in theory, I know it's not exactly the way it works, we've had that discussion).

 

Great post.

[Cheryl in NM]

I think your holier than though judgemental atitude is appaling.

 

Food stamps are to help poor people NOT provide birthday parties. I am offended that my tax dollars are being used to throw birthday party and provide halloween candy. Really? I'm judgemental and holier than thou? Ummm, alrighty then!

Edited June 3, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[Stacy in NJ]

And I'm in favor of it.

 

:001_smile:

 

 

I don't think it is muddying the waters to talk about tax burden, regardless of where the tax goes or from where it comes. The bottom line is that the poor carry a larger "precent of their income" in tax burden. What is the solution? Is there a solution?

 

It is a little naive to expect those with the least to pay the most and then say, "Well, it is going to the wrong things." :confused: The poor can't help it if their taxes are supporting state roads and local EMS but not federal social helps programs. They are still carrying a tax burden.

 

Unless the TPTB want to reallocate where taxes go so the poor are paying their share of the burden more equally across state and federal lines....

[Mrs Mungo]

Your trying to muddy the water with comsumption taxes which make up less than 2% of federal revenue.

 

It is still tax, part of what is making their effective tax rate so high. Again, the top one percent of wage earners pays almost 40% of all income taxes because they earn so much money. Given that the top one percent pays 40% of all income taxes, what percentage of the federal budget do you think the lowest quintile should pay?

[jennynd]

My household income is on top 5% bracket.

Hubby and I each spent over 25 years in school, we study hard, we work hard. I drive a 10 years old car, my kids wear 2nd hand clothes I bought off ebay. I just started to buy DS new shoes becuase it is getting hard to find shoes in his size used on ebay and my dd still get used off ebay. we grow our summer veggis in garden so we won't have to buy it. I have 3 pairs of shoes( not including the couple that got chewed by the dog and couple don't fit.

Yes, we do have a nice house.

 

Meanwhile, I know another Mom works part time with 3 kids. seeking any public assistance she can. (WIC, warefare, the free health insurace for the kids) All her children clothes are from gymboree new. She just bought a 2k camera. her kids have more toys than mine....her car looks newer than mine...

 

Sometimes I wonder.. why bother to work hard and have higher degree. This society seem protect the poor and "super rich".

 

just a vent and no, I have no problem when food stamp used in soda. I do have problem when I saw couple times ood stamp used to buy 12 dollar/ib steak and lobster

[Wabi Sabi]

Nice. Tara is pointing out that some people, including herself, do choose not to exercise the option of receiving benefits. I know several people as well who qualify but don't use them. It is a choice, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

No, it isn't always a choice whether you want to believe it or not.

 

I work with individuals who are severely disabled and require 24/7 care. The older man with Down Syndrome? The young man with autism who has never spoken a word in his life? The lady with cerebral palsy who can't roll over, feel herself or even wipe her nose without assistance?

 

For the most part my clients' care and medical expenses are paid for by Medicaid, they have social security which generally doesn't cover much more than rent and utilities (our agency has typically 2-4 people who share an apartment), a few very basic necessities, and food stamps buy their groceries. Many of our clients regularly rely upon the food bank as well.

 

Choice? Nope.

[clarkacademy]

No, it isn't always a choice whether you want to believe it or not.

 

I work with individuals who are severely disabled and require 24/7 care. The older man with Down Syndrome? The young man with autism who has never spoken a word in his life? The lady with cerebral palsy who can't roll over, feel herself or even wipe her nose without assistance?

 

For the most part my clients' care and medical expenses are paid for by Medicaid, they have social security which generally doesn't cover much more than rent and utilities (our agency has typically 2-4 people who share an apartment), a few very basic necessities, and food stamps buy their groceries. Many of our clients regularly rely upon the food bank as well.

 

 

 

Choice? Nope.

 

Thank you, it is nice to see others who are not so black and white with their tax dollars. I guess all the years I worked two jobs mean nothing now that I have to be home to care for him. So thank you for your humanity

[Stacy in NJ]

You're implying I'm taking or have taken a postion on American tax policy. I'm not and haven't. I provided factual information about how Food Stamps (the topic of the OP) are funded in the US.

 

Just as an FYI for those that may be interested here's a pie graph that shows what our federal revenue is derived from. I'm taking no position on whether it's "fair" or not. It is what it is.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

 

 

 

It is still tax, part of what is making their effective tax rate so high. Again, the top one percent of wage earners pays almost 40% of all income taxes because they earn so much money. Given that the top one percent pays 40% of all income taxes, what percentage of the federal budget do you think the lowest quintile should pay?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I have never heard anyone complaining about food stamps and aid for the disabled. Ever. And no one says that people always have a choice.

 

But as soon as someone offers up the fact that

 

1. there are many who easily qualify for food stamps yet refuse to take them, and

2. wouldn't it be nice for the country if more people would make that sacrifice,

 

we have to start putting up straw men and making it all about disabled Americans whom no one begrudges aid.

 

Why? Why can't we ever talk about responsibility and frugality among the able-bodied who receive food stamps without it turning into a simplistic, childish argument in which those who oppose totally open-ended entitlement programs are accused of not caring about the disabled?

[Cheryl in NM]

Mrs Mungo -

 

Please, I don't understand the numbers of some of what you've said. Can you please help me understand? This is a pure request, with no snark attached.

 

Here is what I think you are saying:

 

Person A makes $50,000 per year and they pay a higher percentage of their income to federal taxes through consumer use taxes.

 

Person B makes $70,000 per year, pays 15% in income tax at the end of the year as well as consumer use taxes on more actual dollar amount than Person A. But Person A pays MORE of their income to taxes each year?

 

I'm not very good at extrapolating this type of info so I'm really confused here. I would think that the $ amount of B's income combined with the use taxes would make up a greater % of income than A's use taxes make up of their income.

 

Am I mis-understanding what you are saying? Please help me understand! thanks!

[Mrs Mungo]

You're implying I'm taking or have taken a postion on American tax policy. I'm not and haven't. I provided factual information about how Food Stamps (the topic of the OP) are funded in the US.

 

You implied those receiving food stamps pay no federal taxes. That is not 100% factual. I pointed out why it's not factual. You stated consumption taxes only made up a small amount of the federal budget. It seemed to me that it implied that you didn't feel it was enough to count. My question was, what percentage would it have to be to count in your mind?

 

Your statements also ignore the fact that in the current economy there are many people who paid in plenty of federal tax (income and otherwise) in the past, even if they are not contributing that much at the moment.

 

Just as an FYI for those that may be interested here's a pie graph that shows what our federal revenue is derived from. I'm taking no position on whether it's "fair" or not. It is what it is.

 

Your statement that the consumption tax didn't add up to a large enough percentage of the budget made me think you were saying it wasn't fair. What were you saying there, because I must be misunderstanding you?

 

Your chart didn't show up (maybe you've edited by now, when I'm posting?), here's a link:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

[Barry Goldwater]

I have never heard anyone complaining about food stamps and aid for the disabled. Ever. And no one says that people always have a choice.

 

But as soon as someone offers up the fact that

 

1. there are many who easily qualify for food stamps yet refuse to take them, and

2. wouldn't it be nice for the country if more people would make that sacrifice,

 

we have to start putting up straw men and making it all about disabled Americans whom no one begrudges aid.

 

Why? Why can't we ever talk about responsibility and frugality among the able-bodied who receive food stamps without it turning into a simplistic, childish argument in which those who oppose totally open-ended entitlement programs are accused of not caring about the disabled?

 

:iagree:

 

And the last time I simply asked the question whether or not our Federal Government is/should be the best and only mandated source for this entitlement support, and whether it is within the responsibility of our federal government to do so, I was called a d*******g by a member here...so fire away, cause I'm asking again.

[cindergretta]

In simple terms:

 

If person A makes a higher income and puts 10 gallons in their tank, it is X percent of their income.

 

Person B makes a lot less and puts 10 gallons in their tank, it is a XX percent of their income.

 

So while they both pay the 18.5% tax on the gas, same amount of gas, that 18.5% is more of person B's income than person A's income.

 

Does that make sense?

[unsinkable]

No, I am not, and you either misunderstand me or are misconstruing my words. Even if you completely understand my point and simply disagree with me, you needn't be insulting. I have kids with chronic, life-threatening health issues, so don't get all high horsey on me.

Tara

 

Best.line.In.thewhole.thread. :lol:

[Wabi Sabi]

I have never heard anyone complaining about food stamps and aid for the disabled. Ever. And no one says that people always have a choice.

 

 

No? I did interpret Mejane's remarks to mean that it is always a choice.

[Joanne]

I have never heard anyone complaining about food stamps and aid for the disabled. Ever. And no one says that people always have a choice.

 

But as soon as someone offers up the fact that

 

1. there are many who easily qualify for food stamps yet refuse to take them, and

2. wouldn't it be nice for the country if more people would make that sacrifice,

 

we have to start putting up straw men and making it all about disabled Americans whom no one begrudges aid.

 

Why? Why can't we ever talk about responsibility and frugality among the able-bodied who receive food stamps without it turning into a simplistic, childish argument in which those who oppose totally open-ended entitlement programs are accused of not caring about the disabled?

 

I agree about the straw man, especially in terms of the percentage of people who are disabled and on food stamps.

 

However, on the other side, what I see is post after post of a long list of responsibility, hard work, frugality, and other Boy-Scout type characteristics offered with the clear implication that people on assistance doesn't also have and express those characteristics.

[Stacy in NJ]

I stated factually that those receiving Food Stamps may not have "paid into" them as a PP indicated. My point, has I've repeated previously, is that Food Stamps aren't like social security or medicare where we all have "accounts" that we pay into via FICA. Food Stamps are funded via personal and corporate income taxes which makes up the lions share of the federal budget.

 

You seem to want someone to take an oppositional position so that you have a reason or excuse to express your own opinion. I'm not your strawman; you should feel free to express your opinion at will.

 

I'll try again to post my chart. DS turned off the router. :confused:

 

You implied those receiving food stamps pay no federal taxes. That is not 100% factual. I pointed out why it's not factual. You stated consumption taxes only made up a small amount of the federal budget. It seemed to me that it implied that you didn't feel it was enough to count. My question was, what percentage would it have to be to count in your mind?

 

Your statements also ignore the fact that in the current economy there are many people who paid in plenty of federal tax (income and otherwise) in the past, even if they are not contributing that much at the moment.

 

 

 

Your statement that the consumption tax didn't add up to a large enough percentage of the budget made me think you were saying it wasn't fair. What were you saying there, because I must be misunderstanding you?

 

Your chart didn't show up (maybe you've edited by now, when I'm posting?), here's a link:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

[Embassy]

The rich are the ones who are creating/supplying the jobs that are paying the taxes that are supplying the food stamps and other programs.

 

The trickle doesn't make it to the poor. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in America.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs Mungo -

 

Please, I don't understand the numbers of some of what you've said. Can you please help me understand? This is a pure request, with no snark attached.

 

Here is what I think you are saying:

 

Person A makes $50,000 per year and they pay a higher percentage of their income to federal taxes through consumer use taxes.

 

Person B makes $70,000 per year, pays 15% in income tax at the end of the year as well as consumer use taxes on more actual dollar amount than Person A. But Person A pays MORE of their income to taxes each year?

 

I'm not very good at extrapolating this type of info so I'm really confused here. I would think that the $ amount of B's income combined with the use taxes would make up a greater % of income than A's use taxes make up of their income.

 

Am I mis-understanding what you are saying? Please help me understand! thanks!

 

I'm not talking about people like person A or B. I'm talking about person c who earns less than $20k/year and person d who earns more than $250k/year.

 

The effective tax rate is calculated by dividing taxes paid by your income. Person C has a higher effective tax rate than person D. People like person C pay over 11% of all excise tax. So, to say they are not paying federal taxes or not paying into the general fund is inaccurate, even if it's not the largest part of revenue.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf#page=1

[kalanamak]

 

Sometimes I wonder.. why bother to work hard and have higher degree.

 

 

Well, it makes me happier with myself.

[Mrs Mungo]

I stated factually that those receiving Food Stamps may not have "paid into" them as a PP indicated. My point, has I've repeated previously, is that Food Stamps aren't like social security or medicare where we all have "accounts" that we pay into via FICA. Food Stamps are funded via personal and corporate income taxes which makes up the lions share of the federal budget.

 

You seem to want someone to take an oppositional position so that you have a reason or excuse to express your own opinion. I'm not your strawman; you should feel free to express your opinion at will.

 

I'll try again to post my chart. DS turned off the router. :confused:

 

Oh. My. Gosh.

 

Here is the bit of your post that I quoted:

Soooo, they may pay federal income tax in the form of FICA. FICA pays into ONLY social security, medicare, and disability - NOT into the general fund. The federal gov. funds Food Stamps via the Dept. of Agriculture which receives all of it's funds from the general fund (both personal and corporate income taxes).

 

Sooo, unless they are paying INCOME taxes they are NOT "paying into" Food Stamps.

 

That statement is wrong. You're backtracking now and saying that what they pay is not the major part of revenue, but your original statement was wrong. I'm debating your own words, that's not a strawman.

[Embassy]

Food stamps are to help poor people NOT provide birthday parties. I am offended that my tax dollars are being used to throw birthday party and provide halloween candy.

 

Birthday parties and Halloween candy are no big deal. I'll gladly pay taxes if they went to a poor family that was able to provide a birthday party or Halloween candy. I don't think they are getting extra toward party food or toward candy - they are allocating what they already get. So they may have to do without in order to be able to allocate food stamps towards party food.

 

There are many things that my tax dollars go towards that offend me, but giving to the poor is not one of them.

[5kidsforME]

I don't believe anyone chooses to use food stamps. That sounds just stupid there. I did not choose for my son to be disabled, I did not choose there father and I split etc.

 

What about the people who are working full time paying taxes and still need help with their groceries, do they not deserve a soda now and then or an ice cream?

 

So your broke you have to swallow your pride to ask for help and Heaven forbid if you drink a soda or eat a twinkie? If the government is going to tell me how to eat then I think he should tell everyone how to homeschool

 

Apples and oranges. When you are on foodstamps you are taking from the government, they then have the right to make the rules on said food stamps. Homeschool...not taking from government, government shouldn't "tell everyone how to homeschool".

[mommaduck]

The rich are the ones who are creating/supplying the jobs that are paying the taxes that are supplying the food stamps and other programs.

 

And though I agree that this is how it SHOULD work, there are still factories shutting down, and jobs/money being sent out of country.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Birthday parties and Halloween candy are no big deal. I'll gladly pay taxes if they went to a poor family that was able to provide a birthday party or Halloween candy. I don't think they are getting extra toward party food or toward candy - they are allocating what they already get. So they may have to do without in order to be able to allocate food stamps towards party food.

 

There are many things that my tax dollars go towards that offend me, but giving to the poor is not one of them.

 

I don't know how it is going in Canada, but in the USA over 14% of the population are now on food stamps. Many of us who pay taxes for these programs are also eligible to receive food stamps (as Mrs. Mungo is trying to point out), whether we accept them or not.

 

We're a little touchy down here in the U.S. right now, because it isn't about 'giving to the poor' anymore. We're all poor, or at least substantially poorer than we were a few years ago. That's just true, no matter which president we each want to blame.

 

Even with these fusses and disagreements, studies have shown that there is no nation on earth more individually philanthropic than America. And lower-income folks give a higher percentage than those earning more. We don't begrudge aid to the poor.

[Joanne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennynd

 

Sometimes I wonder.. why bother to work hard and have higher degree.

 

2 summers ago, I was cleaning an office building at 1:00 a.m. I had 2 undergraduate degrees, and my husband, who was helping had 1.

 

Working hard and being educated does not = good job, good income.

[Joanne]

Apples and oranges. When you are on foodstamps you are taking from the government, they then have the right to make the rules on said food stamps. Homeschool...not taking from government, government shouldn't "tell everyone how to homeschool".

 

I, like many others on assistance, worked for pay - reported (not under the table) pay while qualifying for assistance.

[Stacy in NJ]

Oh. My. Gosh.

 

Here is the bit of your post that I quoted:

 

 

That statement is wrong. You're backtracking now and saying that what they pay is not the major part of revenue, but your original statement was wrong. I'm debating your own words, that's not a strawman.

 

Yes, it is. You want to discuss the inequality of the tax system as you see it. I provided information about how Food Stamps are funded. If you want to hold onto the 2% of 2% that constitutes lower income folks' contribution to the federal budget (outside of FICA) - go for it. That amount will never constitute an equal variable to the amount paid out in Food Stamps.

[Cheryl in NM]

In simple terms:

 

If person A makes a higher income and puts 10 gallons in their tank, it is X percent of their income.

 

Person B makes a lot less and puts 10 gallons in their tank, it is a XX percent of their income.

 

So while they both pay the 18.5% tax on the gas, same amount of gas, that 18.5% is more of person B's income than person A's income.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Okay, but if A puts $50 in her tank and pays 18.5% that's $9.25, .0185% of her $50,000 income. A does not pay personal income tax, in fact, A probably receives EIC.

 

If B puts $50 in her tank and pays 18.5% that's $9.25, .0132% of her $70,000 income. Then lets assume that B, with a gross income of $70,000 has an taxable income of $65,000 and pays 15% in income taxes, $9,750. So the $9,750 and the $9.25 are $9,759.25 which is 13.942% of B's $70,000 income.

 

So no, what you said doesn't make sense to me and doesn't answer the question I asked Mrs Mungo. Sorry.... I still don't understand.

[cindergretta]

Okay, but if A puts $50 in her tank and pays 18.5% that's $9.25, .0185% of her $50,000 income. A does not pay personal income tax, in fact, A probably receives EIC.

 

If B puts $50 in her tank and pays 18.5% that's $9.25, .0132% of her $70,000 income. Then lets assume that B, with a gross income of $70,000 has an taxable income of $65,000 and pays 15% in income taxes, $9,750. So the $9,750 and the $9.25 are $9,759.25 which is 13.942% of B's $70,000 income.

 

So no, what you said doesn't make sense to me and doesn't answer the question I asked Mrs Mungo. Sorry.... I still don't understand.

 

That's cool. I was going for overly simplistic, not accounting for tax breaks, tax credits, etc.

 

I was thinking more biblical, like the poor woman who gave a few coins in offering and it meant more than the rich man giving a great deal. Her little donation was a much harder sacrifice to make than the rich man's. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Sorry.... I still don't understand.

 

Did you read the link I posted?

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, it is. You want to discuss the inequality of the tax system as you see it. I provided information about how Food Stamps are funded. If you want to hold onto the 2% of 2% that constitutes lower income folks' contribution to the federal budget (outside of FICA) - go for it. That amount will never constitute an equal variable to the amount paid out in Food Stamps.

 

They pay 11% of the excise taxes that make up 3% of the revenue (according to the sources I posted). Who said it was equal? My question was-why should it be equal?

[Embassy]

I don't know how it is going in Canada, but in the USA over 14% of the population are now on food stamps. Many of us who pay taxes for these programs are also eligible to receive food stamps (as Mrs. Mungo is trying to point out), whether we accept them or not.

 

We're a little touchy down here in the U.S. right now, because it isn't about 'giving to the poor' anymore. We're all poor, or at least substantially poorer than we were a few years ago. That's just true, no matter which president we each want to blame.

 

Even with these fusses and disagreements, studies have shown that there is no nation on earth more individually philanthropic than America. And lower-income folks give a higher percentage than those earning more. We don't begrudge aid to the poor.

 

Just for perspective here - I'm an American. I work for an American company and earn American dollars. I just live in Canada. I lived in the USA most of my life.

 

In Canada the economy seems to be much better. The government is also very generous to the poor.

[Cheryl in NM]

That's cool. I was going for overly simplistic, not accounting for tax breaks, tax credits, etc.

 

I was thinking more biblical, like the poor woman who gave a few coins in offering and it meant more than the rich man giving a great deal. Her little donation was a much harder sacrifice to make than the rich man's. :)

 

Yes, you are thinking symbolicly while we were discussing literally. apples and oranges in relation to the discussion. I totally agree that giving to others when you are barely making it is extremely commendable and I would venture to say more commendable that someone giving a tiny fraction when they could give more. :001_smile:

[Cheryl in NM]

Did you read the link I posted?

 

yes, thanks. I didn't realize you were comparing $20K to $250K. Someone else must have mentioned the $50, they said that those under $50K didn't pay income tax. But on page 7 of the document you linked it shows that the lowest 20% pay 11% and the top 20% pay 33%. So how is the lowest 20% paying more in taxes? I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just really can't conceptualize this. I frustrate myself to no end sometimes!:glare:

[Stacy in NJ]

They pay 11% of the excise taxes that make up 3% of the revenue (according to the sources I posted). Who said it was equal? My question was-why should it be equal?

 

It depends on what you define as "lower income".

 

It shouldn't be equal; I never indicated it should be. I said, for the like millionth time, - We don't pay "into" FS, as a prior poster indicated she had (therefore, she was justified in "getting some out").

 

Lower income people pay into social security and medicare but take out more than they contribute (typically this is true - we live longer than prior generations).

 

Again, I'm not debating tax policy, though.