Island Dog Island Dog

Want to get out of poverty, take personal responsibility

▼

Want to get out of poverty, take personal responsibility

from JoeUser Forums
Reading another useless rant by the col about how much they "care" about poverty brought a few things to mind. Poverty in this country is not the governments fault, quite different than what the left wants you to think. Poverty is mostly a personal choice in this country. Aside from people who are physically or mentally unable to work choose to live in poverty and not better themselves. This is one of the big difference between the left and right. The left wants you to rely on the government and not help yourself, the right believes people should take personal responsibility for themselves, and not rely on the government.

Now I hear people like the col and our other resident radicals that state things like people could not evacuate because they are poor and had no transportation. I bet if a "50 Cent" concert was in town, people could find a ride for that. However this is basically what we are talking about. Instead of taking responsibility for yourself and finding a way out, they blame the government (mostly Bush) for not driving right up to their doorsteps and taking them away.

If you want to get out of poverty and live a good life, then just do it. Here are a few tips to get you started.

Instead of buying that new rap cd that came out, buy a book instead.

Instead of going to "the club" every night, stay home and read to your kids.

Instead of spending countless amounts of money on hair products, buy food and clothes for yourself and children.

Instead of relying on government for a paycheck, go get a job.

If you follow these basic tips you will have already gotten started on the right path.
politics
40,654 views 180 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
If my kid goes to the optometrist and needs a new pair of glasses, it's not free for me as it is for you. It's going to cost me around $300.00.


OK, see here's an example of what Tex is talking about. $300 for glasses? That's absurd! You can get an exam and glasses for 1/3 of that estimate. Trust me, I know! And, by the way, there are SERVICE clubs (NOT charities) that will help you with glasses for your children if you need them. The Lions Club International is one such organization (shameless plug for the Lions Club, FROM a Lions Club member).
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's see, I've taken the liberty of applying at Aetna for insurance for a family of four. We have a nice plan staring at the low monthly price of $281.00. Now we do have an annual deductible of $10,000.00 per family after which the 20% co-pay kicks in. Or let's look at the next plan, if you are willing to pay $9.00 more per month ($280.00) then you eliminate the co-pay yet keep the $10,000.00 deductible (quite a chunk out of the old 35k huh?).

But hark!! they offer a plan that has a deductible less than 10% of your annual income at $3,000.00 per family, unfortunately your rate just jumped to $411.00 while you continue to pay the 20% co-pay up to $3,000.00. So let's see, you have $411.00 per month ($4,932.00 annually) and an annual deductible of ($6,000.00) for a grand total of $10,932.00 or roughly 31.2% of you annual gross income.


Again, you're overpaying, eric. That's all I'll say about that; you can do your own damn research since you know so much more than the rest of us!
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #53 from PolMach Forums Top
EIC, for all its flaws, actually encourages responsible behaviour. By paying more for married couples than for unmarried, it encourages families to stay married and thus (in theory at least) curbs one of the major risk factors for generational poverty.


Or as I have experienced, it encourages people who cannot afford children to have them so they can get the credit.


Furthermore, you can't receive EIC unless you actually EARN money, which means it encourages families to be out working, earning money.


Is there a minimum income level for EIC? Okay then, go out and get a job, make a few thousand, quit or intentionally lose the job, live off of government assistance and as a reward get a nice check from Uncle Sam at the end of the year.

Unfortunately Gideon, the vast majority of welfare reciepients are not inclined to get out of their situation and I contend that it actually breeds worse behavior. The EIC for two children is more than for one child, even better if you knock out a third. The more kids you have, the more WIC credit you qualify for. It's just a vicious cycle of creating professional welfare recipients whose only occupation in life is how to stay on and maximize their welfare benefits.

As you said, it is more difficult to qualify it seems for the simple safety net, yet go to the housing projects of downtown Atlanta and you will see families of 4,5 and more, sitting on their porch waiting for the mailman to come with their monthly check. And guess what? They probably have one of those nice big screens sitting in their government provided living room.

Also, I would ask you to check out my new post that further discusses the problems as I see it with rasing a family of four while qualifying for EIC.

Link
Reply #54 from PolMach Forums Top
Is there a minimum income level for EIC? Okay then, go out and get a job, make a few thousand, quit or intentionally lose the job, live off of government assistance and as a reward get a nice check from Uncle Sam at the end of the year.


I forgot to mention that it helps to blame Bush for all your woes, it's like a free pass. In the aftermath of Katrina we saw all of those poor people in New Orleans who can't even afford a used car to leave the city in the face a flood. People who could not find a ride a couple miles outdsie the city so that they would not be left to die in a flood. People so poor that they had to resort to looting as early as Monday, the day Katrina hit in order to....sniff... provide the bare necessities for their families.

WHY DOES NO ONE HAVE THE BALLS TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT IF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD A DAMN CAR TO GET THE F*** OUT OF A F***ING FLOODED CITY WHEN THEY ARE ORDERED TO DO SO, WHY DO THEY HAVE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES WHY THE HELL DID THEY KNOCK OUT THEIR 4-5 CHILDREN???

Could it be because our government entitlements and welfare system encourages it? Was it that they weren't poor before but they got poor after they had kids? Cmon, what kind of lame excuse will you bleeding hearts come up for these leeches on society that are only teaching thier children how to become the next generation of leeches that start knocking out kids as early as possible in the misguided attempt at earning more government benefits while not once thinking about what kind of conditions they are brining these children into.

Gideon, our welfare system is designed for people in the situation in which you found yourself at one time. Unfortunately it has been bastardized into a way of life for all too many people. Don't think for once that my comments disparaging the system are at all aimed at your former situation.

And one more point about EIC, I am the operations manager at a food manufacturer and it is not at all uncommon to see people bitching about making too much money and lamenting that they might lose their EIC. To the weak minded, It not only encourages you to have more kids, it also encourages many to be an underachievers.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
The EIC for two children is more than for one child, even better if you knock out a third.


Wrong. EIC does not pay for more than 2 children.

The EIC for all its flaws (and we're agreed that it should be dissolved, by the way), has its genesis in the fact that these children will growup and CONTRIBUTE to the economy.

Obviously you haven't studied much on the EIC, but rather listened to critics who have dismissed it. I understand your position, but encourage you to get all the facts before dismissing the program altogether. If you'll pick up EIC literature at tax time and research it, you will find much of the information I am giving you, such as the fact that the EIC benefit increases as your income increases to a point (which varies, depending on if you are married or single and have children), then decreases past that point until the "cutoff".

As to those workers lamenting their loss of EIC, they're often ill-informed. You see, there's a cottage industry of tax cheats that pose as "tax preparers" and manipulate the tax code for their "customers" for a fee (usually a commission), and they will give these individuals advice based on their own methods of manipulating the system. Sadly, the complexity of our tax code lends VAST opportunities for fraud (and one fatal flaw of means tested deductions is that all you have to do is to crunch numbers to qualify).

You make many potentially good points, eric, but you're attacking the wrong targets, and often without substantiated information. I encourage you to research your points a little further before preparing them.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
WHY DOES NO ONE HAVE THE BALLS TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT IF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD A DAMN CAR TO GET THE F*** OUT OF A F***ING FLOODED CITY WHEN THEY ARE ORDERED TO DO SO, WHY DO THEY HAVE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do you live in the country? Are you unaware of busses and public transportation?

A privately owned vehicle is NOT always a necessity for living; it is, in many areas, a luxury. Would you have felt the same way about a family unable to afford cattle in the 1800's?

Eric, you are obviously classist and feel that the only people qualified to have children are the wealthy. Your attitude only further serves to create conflict between the rich and poor.
Reply #57 from PolMach Forums Top
Who qualifies?
Many people think the credit is available only to parents. It's not. But the amount the Internal Revenue Service will give back is greater for eligible low-wage taxpayers with children.

Ergo, you are encouraged to have children (preferably more than one)

On 2004 returns, the maximum credit can be as much as $4,300 for workers supporting two or more kids. A worker with one child can get up to $2,604 with the credit. And $390 is available to a childless eligible employee. The amount is adjusted slightly for inflation each year.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this basically says that that you earn the least credit for being childless and it increases exponentially as you add children.

To qualify for the credit, a taxpayer must earn money, but not too much.

A single filer's adjusted gross income must be less than $11,490 if he or she has no children; $30,338 with one child; and $34,458 with two or more kids. Married couples filing jointly are allowed to earn $1,000 more in each category and still claim the credit.

Limits on income in order to qualify equals incentive to earn less.

All wage or salary income, as well as any self-employment earnings, count toward the eligibility limits. So do investment earnings. In fact, if you make more than $2,650 in investment income, you cannot file for the earned income credit.

So if you want the credit, don't be dumb and plan for your future like making investments.

You see Gideon, I'm not talking about people with the mindset of you and I. I'm talking about morons that will read this and think "earn less money equal more free money". And even though the benefit increases for being married, it still works out better to stay single, hide your babies daddy's income and keep qualifying for all of the other welfare benefits including housing, child care, WIC, etc, etc,etc.
Reply #58 from PolMach Forums Top
Do you live in the country? Are you unaware of busses and public transportation?


Call me classist all you want, but if you can't simply afford a used car to get to the grocery store, the doctor's office or the heck out of a flooding town then NO!!! you have no business having children. Public transportation may be a suitable low cost alternative to commuting daily, but try waiting for the bus in 25 degree weather, snow coming down around you while you hold your baby who needs to go to the doctor for a check up. It's simply irresponsible and I won't apologize for saying it. I reject the notion that I am classist because I don't believe that someone who can't afford to drive two hours inland to prevent his family from drowning is a responsible parent. If you cant provide that basic necessity, you certainly cannot be trusted with the welfare of a child. I would no more trust that person with a pet bird, much less a child.
Reply #59 from PolMach Forums Top
I would no more trust that person with a pet bird, much less a child.


Crap, I just know with my luck that littlewhip or Tex will wind up being bird fanatics.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
On 2004 returns, the maximum credit can be as much as $4,300 for workers supporting two or more kids. A worker with one child can get up to $2,604 with the credit. And $390 is available to a childless eligible employee. The amount is adjusted slightly for inflation each year.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this basically says that that you earn the least credit for being childless and it increases exponentially as you add children.


AS MUCH as $4300.

I WILL correct you, Eric, because you ARE wrong. The EIC operates on a "sliding scale"; at lower income levels, you receive less; then beyond a certain point it beging to taper off. At above $30,000, for instance, the EIC isn't a very large amount of money at all; and the "ceiling" changes according to your marital status and the number of kids you have.

But the EIC does NOT increase with more than two children, Eric. I assure you. You need to look at the tables, look at ALL the information, NOT just a government blurb, to get your facts.

You see Gideon, I'm not talking about people with the mindset of you and I. I'm talking about morons that will read this and think "earn less money equal more free money". And even though the benefit increases for being married, it still works out better to stay single, hide your babies daddy's income and keep qualifying for all of the other welfare benefits including housing, child care, WIC, etc, etc,etc.


See, and there's the rub. The problem is not with individuals, but with the tax code. So, make THAT your battle, not the battle against those who are honestly trying to make a living off of a low wage.

As long as government programs continue to pay more than working class jobs, people will find ways to stay on welfare. As hard as it is to understand that mindset, it is just common sense on the part of those families. This is why I am a huge advocate of privatization. Because a privately run charitable organization can better assess the needs of the individuals in question (job training or schooling, childcare, transportation, etc) and affect more lasting, meaningful change in the lives of the poor, and, because of its size, it can better screen for fraud.
Reply #61 from PolMach Forums Top
Eric, you are obviously classist and feel that the only people qualified to have children are the wealthy. Your attitude only further serves to create conflict between the rich and poor.


Gideon, don't pull a Tex on me here, I am not talking about plasma TV's and polo jeans. I'm talking about a man that can't afford to drive a few miles inland so that his children do not risk drowning in the city. I do not think that having a used vehicle capable of leaving the city in an emergency is an unecessary luxury only afforded to the rich.
Reply #62 from PolMach Forums Top
As long as government programs continue to pay more than working class jobs, people will find ways to stay on welfare. As hard as it is to understand that mindset, it is just common sense on the part of those families. This is why I am a huge advocate of privatization. Because a privately run charitable organization can better assess the needs of the individuals in question (job training or schooling, childcare, transportation, etc) and affect more lasting, meaningful change in the lives of the poor, and, because of its size, it can better screen for fraud.


Well we can certainly agree on that point!! Well said.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not talking about plasma TV's and polo jeans. I'm talking about a man that can't afford to drive a few miles inland so that his children do not risk drowning in the city. I do not think that having a used vehicle capable of leaving the city in an emergency is an unecessary luxury only afforded to the rich.


Well, first off, understand that auto insurance is substantially more in urban areas. Second, understand that many low income homes do not offer off street parking, and you can see where a multi unit complex could quickly leave you without a place to PARK your vehicle, if you COULD buy it (trust me, though, I DO see your point on this as a larger persective.

But what got me, though, was the comment that having children if you make less than $35,000 a year is irresponsible. That's a sentiment expressed on your politicalmachine article, as well as here. Now, if you said "having children that you are unable to assume financial responsibility for raising without government assistance is irresponsible", you'd have received no argument from these quarters.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
eric: Dude, you're not like my "archenemy" or anything. I'm not going from thread to thread talking you down. There's no need to get so worked up.

Gideon: You've said much of what I'd like to say, and much better than I could say it. I think the main issue here is that he is focusing his anger and indignation on the wrong thing. If EIC is a problem, then EIC is THE problem. Not self-sufficient people who happen to qualify.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
AS MUCH as $4300.

I WILL correct you, Eric, because you ARE wrong. The EIC operates on a "sliding scale"; at lower income levels, you receive less; then beyond a certain point it beging to taper off. At above $30,000, for instance, the EIC isn't a very large amount of money at all; and the "ceiling" changes according to your marital status and the number of kids you have.

But the EIC does NOT increase with more than two children, Eric. I assure you. You need to look at the tables, look at ALL the information, NOT just a government blurb, to get your facts.


God I "really" hate to say this Gideon. Truth be known I do NOT agree with much of anything that eric says, but he IS correct about EIC giving more back for 2 children over 1 child.

Sorry, but I can't figure out how to post a table on JU. The link will take you to a pdf on the IRS site. Go to page 34 for the table.



Link
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have to wonder how many of our great minds would have never been born had their parents insisted on being comfortably middle-class before they had children...
Reply #67 from PolMach Forums Top
AS MUCH as $4300.

I WILL correct you, Eric, because you ARE wrong. The EIC operates on a "sliding scale"; at lower income levels, you receive less; then beyond a certain point it beging to taper off. At above $30,000, for instance, the EIC isn't a very large amount of money at all; and the "ceiling" changes according to your marital status and the number of kids you have.

But the EIC does NOT increase with more than two children, Eric. I assure you. You need to look at the tables, look at ALL the information, NOT just a government blurb, to get your facts.


OKay, I will concede that it does not increase with more than two children, but your sliding scale only furthers my other point: if you make less money you get more money back;

For example; if you are married filing jointly and earned the maximum allowable of $35,548.00 then your credit is a whopping $1.00!!! Now if you look at the chart, you will find that making less money (thereby insuring you don't lose WIC, low-income housing, etc) then guess what, you just won the welfare lottery, you get $4,300.00. So you see, as I have stated several times, government programs encourage you to underachieve so as not to lose your benefits. Page four of IRS publication 596 even assures you that the EIC will not affect your eligibility for wlefare benefits such as Low-Income Housing, Medicaid, SSI and Food Stamps. I mean the damn publication almost reads like a "here's how to maximize your credit while not jeopordizing you welfare benefits". I've included a link to the publication if you are interested:

Link


It is a pdf file of the publication.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
God I "really" hate to say this Gideon. Truth be known I do NOT agree with much of anything that eric says, but he IS correct about EIC giving more back for 2 children over 1 child.


No, dr, that's not what he said. He said it kicks in more for 3 or more. It does not. It stops increasing at 2 children. Period.

I already conceded that it gives more for 2 children than one.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Eric, you are obviously classist and feel that the only people qualified to have children are the wealthy. Your attitude only further serves to create conflict between the rich and poor.


Gideon, don't pull a Tex on me here, I am not talking about plasma TV's and polo jeans. I'm talking about a man that can't afford to drive a few miles inland so that his children do not risk drowning in the city. I do not think that having a used vehicle capable of leaving the city in an emergency is an unecessary luxury only afforded to the rich


And you sir.... this is about "the most" bigoted statement I've ever seen on JU. Do not try to put this on people without vehicles and say it's irresponsible of them to have children. That's just plain BS! There are MANY such people in those circumstances in inner cities across America! So why didn't Nagin follow NO's emergency plan? That would have gotten just about everyone out of the city!
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
For example; if you are married filing jointly and earned the maximum allowable of $35,548.00 then your credit is a whopping $1.00!!! Now if you look at the chart, you will find that making less money (thereby insuring you don't lose WIC, low-income housing, etc) then guess what, you just won the welfare lottery, you get $4,300.00. So you see, as I have stated several times, government programs encourage you to underachieve so as not to lose your benefits. Page four of IRS publication 596 even assures you that the EIC will not affect your eligibility for wlefare benefits such as Low-Income Housing, Medicaid, SSI and Food Stamps. I mean the damn publication almost reads like a "here's how to maximize your benefit while not jeopordizing you welfare benefits". I've included a link to the publication if you are interested:


There's a difference between claiming EIC and claiming assistance benefits, Eric. I claim EIC, even as I plead for its obsolescence. Why? Well, simply because that's part of filling out my taxes correctly. If it is ever eliminated, I assure you, I will not complain about that action.

But I do NOT receive government entitlements, nor do I intend to. In a rather interesting irony, and sidenote, the only individuals who ever attempted to FORCE (and yes, they did attempt to force it) us to receive any government entitlements were, you guessed it, liberals (hence my radical opposition to most of those who claim the "liberal" persuasion).
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

God I "really" hate to say this Gideon. Truth be known I do NOT agree with much of anything that eric says, but he IS correct about EIC giving more back for 2 children over 1 child.


No, dr, that's not what he said. He said it kicks in more for 3 or more. It does not. It stops increasing at 2 children. Period.

I already conceded that it gives more for 2 children than one


I have not been able to find where he says that however, I will not belabor the point.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
dr,

I quoted it in response #57.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why? Well, simply because that's part of filling out my taxes correctly.


That's the thing. It's not something that is asked or applied for. If you qualify, and fill your taxes out correctly, you will get it. That's not asking for a handout. That's essentially having one thrust on you.

As I said, if EIC is a problem, then EIC is THE problem.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
PS - There are a lot of supremely wasteful programs and welfare abuses out there. Surely EIC is not the most worrisome.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

dr,

I quoted it in response #57.


You are correct. "Now" I see it. So I retract as incorrect my statements to you. But I will not retract what I said to eric! He's just wrong on so many points.