Bunkerville, who posted the above chart, makes the following observation:In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A YearRead all of Bunkerville's post HERE.
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
So much for the incentive to work, huh?
The chart shows a category for income tax in Mississippi.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this source, dated 2009:
If your income range is between $0 and $5,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 3%.
If your income range is between $5,001 and $10,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is $10,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 5%.
Those rates are also accurate for 2011.
Depends on your goals. We know these things dont work. The Liberals and Democrats (bd likes the words sheep lead to slaughter so we use that) aka sheep are convinced this is good stuff and so like dutifull slaves they vote for DNC party folks and bingo government grows. Try to cut any of this and your are a "baby killing, old person starving, war mongering, racist".
ReplyDeleteGet control of the media and ths schools and whamo instant Communism....
It also helps the entitlements industry that when they publish statistics, they do not count such government and tax benefits, making the beneficiaries look even poorer.
ReplyDeleteOur own government is scamming us.
Except, the 60,000 wage earner probably receives health coverage through his job and the 16,000 in medicare does not accrue as disposable income so you're lying as usual and distorting the data.
ReplyDelete... so the family of four is closer to 20000 which is really tall cotton, eh?
ReplyDeletebloginnator, why do you assume the recipients are black? We can explore that later but in the south a lot of the recipients are white meth heads.
ReplyDelete16,000 in medicare does not accrue as disposable income
ReplyDelete...and the money that the worker and his employer MUST contribute for their health insurance does?
Okay, I "suppose" that the worker could blow off his health coverage, but the hospital that eventually TREATS the wage earner isn't going to "write off" his treatment expenses as they would a welfare recipients... and there's a could chance that the wage earner will find himself in court and have his wages garnished if he refuses to pay.
... so the family of four is closer to 20000 which is really tall cotton, eh?
ReplyDeleteNo the one earning $14,500 is. The 20k earner's EIC and EBT would be much less... certainly not enough to justify the effort to earn... can't you read a chart, duckmeister?
Perhaps someone can explain something for me. Why are the child care costs different for the lowest earner than the other earners? Why are we assuming the childcare expenses are only 9600 a year for a family making $60,000? If they earn more money than the family that earns $14,500, can't they afford better and more expensive childcare?
ReplyDeleteI think there are a lot of variables in this chart. I don't think it's reliable as a source of Conservative argument.
For instance, I make less than 20,000 a year gross. After I submitted my Federal and State tax returns this year, I ended up owing the Government another $1600.00. At that income level, I make too much money to get food stamps and EITC, or any of those other benefits.
Also, How many of those families making $60,000 a year have additional income not covered by that chart?
Listen. I don't care if poor people get help. I just resent the fact that my tax dollars are supporting so many welfare cheats and feeding entitlement addictions.
The idea of all these government programs is to give those who need help a hand up, not a hand out, but these Liberal social programs represent what I call typical government overkill. They have spawned an entitlement addiction and that is destroying our country.
Mark, you miss the point. "Social Justice" is already here. The guy on the right is paying for a lot of what is given to the one on the left. I call it government mandated charity while the libs call it "Social Justice".
ReplyDeleteWhy are the child care costs different for the lowest earner than the other earners?
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is an offsetting subsidy or "place" where the poorest can receive "free" daycare?
And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. Stunning? Just do it yourself.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
Here is the complete citation below. I plugged my numbers in for my State, and it is indeed so for me.
I took this post from below:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255012/why-work-veronique-de-rug
Yep, it's as I expected.
ReplyDeleteSilverfiddle makes a very important point. It's the progressives using their smoke and mirrors.
ReplyDeleteBunker, interesting link but it doesn't come up except as not found. Do you have the date of that particular segment on Mark's show?
ReplyDeleteI'd love to pass this along to some of the Libs on my mailing list.
I see Ducky is off the meds, again.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take a genius to figure out where the Langrangian points on THAT chart lies. ;)
ReplyDeleteIt's really a shame that the vast majority of liberals are in denial when it comes to the efficacy of Newton's 1st Law of Motion.
ReplyDeleteDuck said: the 60,000 wage earner probably receives health coverage through his job
ReplyDeleteMaybe.
And at what cost to the employee? That cost depends on who the employer is, of course.
The employee portion can run very, very high -- well over $5000 per year. Sometimes the figure is much higher than $5000, too.
Duck,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned Medicare. I don't see Medicare on the chart.
Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing.
Ticker,
ReplyDeleteHERE is the link that Bunkerville meant to leave in this comments thread.
We need a cultural shift. It USED to be a shroud of shame to have to accept a handout. Folks would accept help from the government or charities to keep their kids fed and the heat on if they absolutely had to, but then they worked hard to get off the charity train. Now, people don't seem to be embarrassed at all about taking assistance and staying on it forever. There is A LOT of waste. How many kids get free lunch that could easily pack a pb&j sandwich and an apple already purchased with food stamps? And what's the deal with the free breakfast? Are you telling me that you don't get enough food stamps to buy a carton of eggs and a gallon of milk every week to feed your kids breakfast? There are some school districts that even open the cafeterias in the summer so that kids can get fed year round. It's epidemic. Do not acuse me of being heartless. I have a big heart, but I don't like being suckered, which the American taxpayer is.
ReplyDeleteYes it's certainly true, AOW, Medicare and Medicaid though often used interchangeably aren't synonymous.
ReplyDeletePeople on Medicare have earned it.
Medicaid goes to welfare cheats who should deal with chronic pain or jut left to croak.
Right?
the Class warrior is comin to take away your $$$$$$$$$$$!!!
ReplyDeleteGod. I am so sick of the wingnut moniker of 'entitlement America' when it's actually code for you don't want to help those less fortunate. Go ahead, give it all to the uber wealthy and corporation. Watch where that get us. No jobs, that's already been proved.
ReplyDeleteHere is the direct link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255012/why-work-veronique-de-rugy
Click on "answer" in first sentence for details.
If it doesnt come up go to "national Review online", search "why work" in their search bar.
Rush said this several years ago and was attacked for it then
ReplyDeleteDuck,
ReplyDeleteMedicaid goes to welfare cheats who should deal with chronic pain or jut left to croak.
Right?
I HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!
Please remember that Mr. AOW was in a nursing home for five weeks. Many Medicaid individuals were in that nursing home. They had lived to be well over 90, and all their assets were exhausted. Both Medicare (limited for long-term care)/Medicaid residents were living there -- as were private-care patients. The latter were very easy to identify as they had private rooms.
To the credit of the nursing home where Mr. AOW was for those five weeks -- a home that I chose very carefully -- private care and public dole residents received the same food, the same level of cleanliness, etc. That is not the case in many nursing home.
I will say that I saw one woman in her 40s in that nursing home. She seemed fine to me and actually assisted the staff. She ran around bragging about how she was on Medicaid and how Medicaid would soon be paying for an elective operation on her stomach; maybe she was hallucinating or confabulating, but I don't think so as she served as the administration's spy.
And one more thing....From 1978-1985, my great aunt was in a nursing home in Tennessee and was on Medicaid. She did not become a burden on the taxpayer until she had a leg amputated. She had no assets because she was the old maid of the family and had dedicated most of her life to caring for her disabled parents in their home; Medicaid was unavailable for her parents.
So, I won't completely bash Medicaid. But we all know that Medicaid is often defrauded.
I personally pay $5,300 a year for medical insurance, and the company I work for adds another $9,600. That doesn't include the combined $2,000 additional for vision and dental benefits, nor the nearly $1,900 in Medicare benefits I'm not yet collecting.
ReplyDeleteSo tell me again how this is really all so much "disposable income" again duckmeister and how we're "ripping off the poor" for not giving them even more free ($16,500 worth) healthcare?
not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your 49 year working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you would receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had. Entitlement, my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout !! Congressional benefits, aka free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!! They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, there are also the exemptions. Our household income is in six figures, but we pay very little taxes... mostly b/c of our overpriced house that was overpriced b/c of the government meddling, to be sure. So there is another level of redistribution.
ReplyDeleteWe have a similar situation down here, the more u work the more u get taxed. If my wife went back to work we'd be worse off tax wise. If we put all our savings into a high interest account we'd also be worse off.
ReplyDeleteThanks to idiot socialism, we are discouraged from working and also saving.
Duck is a teacher in one of those government schools...
ReplyDeleteApparently Duck only knows american history. For the rest of you, human history is riddled with slavery by many races of many races.
The use of the term is indicative of a condition. a condition we now find ourselves for Democrat or Republican we are all now slaves to massive debt, Federal States and Local.
And Duck do not project your racist views of Southern people on me. I was raised and educated in the North. I left because the high taxes left me with no job opportunities.
Blogginator,
ReplyDeleteBack when I was young growing up here in Northern Virginia, many here were "still fighting" the Civil War, which they called the War between the States.
Anyway, early on, I broke with my parents on this continued battling. Unlike my father (b. 1911) and my grandfather (b. 1863 during the time of General Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley and one of many children who suffered "marking" because of their mother's trauma during those terrible days), I was not "invested" in the war. I moved on -- and so did my parents in their later years. All of realized that there was no point in being a Don Quixote -- by that reference, I mean one who yearns for earlier times.
As a result of my own experience, I fail to understand Duck's animosity toward the South.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteYes, the exemptions and tax breaks are many -- too many, IMO.
MK,
ReplyDeleteWe have a similar situation down here, the more u work the more u get taxed.
Progressive tax rates are themselves socialistic. They are called "progressive" for good reason.
AOW,
ReplyDeleteThere were many casaulties for the War Between the States. I was raised in the North but my heart is here in the South for the people here still cling to their Faith, guns, and Constitution. People like Duck are filled with prejudice and stereotypes despite their supposed openmindedness which shows every time he engages in a debate with us.
I am more than a passionate student of the Civil War/War Between the States.
THe treatment of the South by the North after the war was criminal. We have treated no other conquered land so roughly as was the treatment of the South.
There were many casaulties during the War but the greatest was States Rights.
BD....
ReplyDeleteI will dispute your calculations regarding the result of your investment into the Ponzi scheme know as Social Security.
Before you say ah ha I finally got the upper hand in a debate with a Conservative.
Consider the following, you are likely not rich and so therefore eloosely in the middle class. The result of your forced "investment" in Social Secuirty was a pay out much less than if you had invested yourself. So who got the money? The rich like Rush Limbaugh...hardy har har har ---trust me he doesnot give a damn about social security and probably will use his check to light his cigars.....
So where did you money go?
To the poor? A little yes and that is part of the problem for many on SSA never put in a dime.
But the real theif was the government which borrowed against the fund much as if you had borrowed against your 401K thus robbing the fund of the gains that may have een achieved by even modest compunding interest of a money market fund.
Now your side wanted to tax the rich more to fix the problemm with the fund.
Please forgive me if I sound insulting but you are ignorant and guible. Ignorant of the real use of the SSA and guiible to believe the government will actual use the increase revenue from the rich to correct the imbalance in the fund.
Blogginator,
ReplyDeleteTHe treatment of the South by the North after the war was criminal. We have treated no other conquered land so roughly as was the treatment of the South.
There were many casaulties during the War but the greatest was States Rights.
True.
My parents and grandparents didn't speak much of the former as they wanted to put the past behind them. But they didn't put the latter behind them and constantly spoke of that topic. Today, textbooks rarely, if ever, touch on the topic of how states rights was THE primary cause of the war. Only later did abolitionism become a driving force.
What I broke with my family over was some of the remaining resentments. For instance, I knew people back then who had fits if their son or daughter was dating a Yankee.
Blogginator,
ReplyDeletethe real theif was the government which borrowed against the fund
Yep.
And now the federal government has borrowed against the federal employee pension plan. To what extent, I don't know.
AOW,
ReplyDeleteThe Federal government can not help itself. It will spend every dime and 2 two more. Even if Obamacare generated a savings that would be spent. The whole thing is about money and control. Obamacare brings in more money to the Feds which will be spent on the pet projects of certain officials while bearucrats will control our lives by deciding what care you get and when. Herman Cain said it best when he told his battle with cancer in his words he would be dead had obamacare been the law of the land.