What''s wrong with America

[mikem12]

a different point of fiew?

 

[RangerM]

This is what's wrong with America.

 

Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

 

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.

 

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

 

Stunning? Just do it yourself.

 

Almost 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.

 

The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.

 

And if that wasn't enough, here is one that will blow your mind:

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America's once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.

First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.

 

Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That's a huge hit.

There is a reason why a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the "right thing."

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than working one week a month at minimum wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

 

It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is thrown in in the equation.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.

 

This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were willing to cheat. Even if you didn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job.

Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.

SSI pays $8,088 per year for each "disabled" family member. A person can be deemed "disabled" if they are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.

 

If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.

Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day to make some sense out of this Mephistophelian tragicomedy known as living in the USA:

Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.

Alas, on America's way to to communist welfare, it has long since surpassed such bastions of capitalism as China:

The welfare system in communist China is far stingier. Those people have to work to eat.

We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.

Edited November 23, 2010 by RangerM

[RangerM]

This doesn't help either.....

 

Edited November 23, 2010 by RangerM

[mettech]

This doesn't help either.....

 

 

 

The general public is so isolated from the fact that the USA is at war. Many think that the war belongs to only the people that volunteer.

[RangerM]

The general public is so isolated from the fact that the USA is at war. Many think that the war belongs to only the people that volunteer.

One thing's for sure, if the terrorists thought they could attack planes by dressing as an older (white) nun or a 3-year-old boy, they've got another think coming.

 

Going after the means of mayhem, and not the perpetrators, is only there for the illusion of safety.

[napfirst]

Possible new slogans for the TSA:

 

Grope discounts available.

 

Can't see London, can't see France, unless we see your underpants.

 

If we did our job any better, we'd have to buy you dinner first.

 

Only we know if Lady Gaga is really a lady.

 

Don't worry, my hands are still warm from the last guy.

 

Throw a few back at the airport Chili's and you won't even notice.

 

Wanna fly? Drop your fly.

 

We've handled more balls than Barney Frank

 

We are now free to move about your pants

 

We rub you the wrong way, so you can be on your way.

 

It's not a grope. It's a freedom pat.

 

When in doubt, we make you whip it out.

 

TSA: Touchin', Squeezin', Arrestin'

 

You were a virgin.

 

We handle more packages than the USPS

 

The TSA isn't silly, they just want to inspect your willy

 

Stroke of the hand, law of the land

 

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Problem

 

Let your fingers do the Walking

 

Cough

 

Reach out and touch someone

 

Can you feel me now?

 

When we're done with you, you'll need a cigarette

[RangerM]

"You get on, when we get off"

[Roadtrip]

Ranger,

 

The author of that analysis claims "My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory."

 

To be fair, his analysis doesn't tell the WHOLE story. A couple of points:

 

1) The chart only includes income that the $60,000 worker sees in gross income, but does not include total compensation and unseen costs of compensation. Total compensation by law requires employer-matching FICA contributions (Social Security and Medicare) amounting to 7.65 percent of employees' gross income. Other costs of compensation include benefits -- which all free marketeers like you and me know are necessary for employee retention. Such benefits include employer-paid portions of health insurance (which can amount to thousands), paid vacations, paid holidays, and paid sick days. And the author doesn't include retirement benefits, such as employer-matching 401(k) or pension contributions (which are common for the $60,000 earner, whether he or she is salaried management or in a union). Employer contributions to retirement benefits can amount to big bucks, too, but the author chose to omit them for his typical $60,000 earner. There are also perks for highly stressed salaried managers (like myself), such as company cars, which employees can use descretely for their own use, whose personal mileage is calculated as taxable income, and other such things as laptops and cell phones (not necessarily perks in some cases), and lots of "free lunches" with clients (for legitimate business purposes) on the company credit card. I speak from experience. The unseen costs include workman's compensation insurance (varies by industry) and unemployment insurance, as well as OSHA and other regulatory compliance -- these are unseen costs that benefit those who choose to work for a living.

 

In addition, if we can assume that the full-time, highly stressed $60,000 earner has a 401(k), he or she can contribute $16,500 to that account -- which is tax deferred, meaning that he or she does not have to pay taxes on that money now but in the future. This can have the effect of placing the highly stressed worker in a lower tax bracket and significantly reduce his tax burden (in present-value terms).

 

2) You can call me a Ronald Reagan or Sarah Palin acolyte (which admittedly I am), but I don't believe for a minute that most people who live in this country (that includes native citizens and illegal immigrants alike) would prefer to languish in the welfare state, and prefer to let the government take care of them. The author is right on one count -- that many of these people participate in the underground economy. But I am optimistic in the sense that our fellow Americans want to succeed at something, want to improve their lives, and given the opportunity, they will do so.

 

After all, this is America we're talking about.

[Edstock]

[RangerM]

Ranger,

 

The author of that analysis claims "My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory."

 

To be fair, his analysis doesn't tell the WHOLE story. A couple of points:

 

1) The chart only includes income that the $60,000 worker sees in gross income, but does not include total compensation and unseen costs of compensation.

 

2) You can call me a Ronald Reagan or Sarah Palin acolyte (which admittedly I am), but I don't believe for a minute that most people who live in this country (that includes native citizens and illegal immigrants alike) would prefer to languish in the welfare state, and prefer to let the government take care of them.

 

After all, this is America we're talking about.

I find the article a bit light on some of the "extras" that you mention. The aformentioned health insurance benefit is undoubtedly a significant consideration, likely having an impact on the bottom line.

 

However, I don't think that necessarily undermines the signficance of his results (although the reference to "disposable" income is particularly troublesome). A government rent subsidy could hardly be called "disposable" income, since that money usually goes straight to the landlord, and the beneficiary rarely touches the money.

 

I don't think the "benefit" of SS/MM contributions would be a consideration here because those are not defined contribution plans (although the defined benefit usually goes up based on the working years' income). The "benefits" of SS/MM are not property, and could not be added to the bottom line, imo. You can say that the employer-contributions to a 401K is a benefit, but I think the author is ignoring them because it's too difficult an assumption, and it would make the working stiff's bottom line even lower (takes away from gross income reducing income taxes, but NOT reducing SS/MM taxes)

 

I think the article is asking (and keep in mind the results listed are particular to that part of Mississippi) who's better off-- the $60k/yr working stiff or the person at the poverty line?

 

I agree that most would prefer working for $60k than minimum wage (government subsidies aside), but is that because of pride or is it because it's the "smart move"?

 

I don't think that people would simply choose to quit their $60k/yr jobs, but are the benefits received at the low end of the spectrum enough to undermine a person's will to climb? I think that, for some, it may be; especially when compared to other options (presented in the table). And that is the point I took away from the article.

Edited November 28, 2010 by RangerM

[Imawhosure]

It has become painfully clear that we are the modern day Rome. We all know (or did they stop teaching that in schools too) what happened to their empire when their politicians decided to go with the very 1st version of liberalism on a large scale.

 

I am really aghast at how some people just continue to try this stuff. It has failed every time it has been tried, everywhere. And yet, they keep insisting it is the correct thing to do. It is not that we conservatives have no heart, we just know while you liberals hearts may be all nice, your methods to solve social and economic problems have never worked.

 

France is in trouble, Britain is in trouble, Cuba never got out of trouble, the Soviet Union collapsed, but you guys insist on doing it anyway. With most of us, we can't understand the logic. Not to mention, our demise using your methods is accelerated by the fact of our illegal immigration problem; infusing more drag on the programs you create. How can anyone justify it? It is unfathomable.

[EdselBryantFord]

The general public is so isolated from the fact that the USA is at war. Many think that the war belongs to only the people that volunteer.

when was the last time our 'war' be it on drugs terror or what ever was a major headline? what is the tally of how many soliders have died dollars spent etc etc?

[goinbroke2]

Ima, it's because being left wing makes you "feel" good. You don't actually accomplish anything, but you feel good about yourself. And example would be feeding a homeless guy on the corner. He lays there and you give him a couple bucks, he goes, gets something to eat or drink then goes back to his position. He is handed more money and the cycle repeats. People "feel good" because they are "helping a poor homeless person" but they aren't helping him at all, they are enabling him to stay where he's at.

That doesn't matter though, the people "feel" good about what they've done and actually brag about "we've donated 20 blankets to homeless people" and pat themselves on the back.

 

A capitalist can feel good about making money or having a strong work ethic, but for the people who don't have either, are not entreprenuers, what do they have? A capitalist tells the homeless guy to get off the street and takes him to a shelter. Offers him a job or tells him where to get a job. Heck he might even chip in some money.(even though that's ultimately not capitalist)

The guy gets a job and pays bills etc and life is hard. Either he strives to make a better lot in life for himself or gives up and goes back to the street. He knows on the street, people will feel sorry for him and give him money.

 

A personal experience from a right wing capitalist;

I came to halifax and saw all these guys begging for money on the corners. I couldn't believe it ! WTF?? We send HOW MUCH oversea's to help other countries and we have starving homeless on our own corners!!! It sickened me to see the suffering. Then the clothes were pointed out to me...new nike sneakers..clean pants/jackets....then in the news about a woman who lives in the heights (big dollar area) who drives down every day, parks the car and walks to the corner to beg from cars as they stop at the lights. I was furious! Not at her or them for scamming the people, but for ME to fall into the guilt trap! HOW STUPID OF ME!

 

I have seen actual poor homeless on the streets downtown. There is one guy who is always pushing a shoppingcart full of returnable bottles, I've stopped twice now and gave him bags of my recycles. This guy is down but not out, he's an entreprenuer who's cleaning the parks and streets! Damn right I'll help him.