Too poor? No tax rebate for you!

Lines drawn on stimulus
By Mike Soraghan and Jessica Holzer
Posted: 01/23/08 12:01 AM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lines-drawn-on-stimulus-2008-01-23.html

<<snip>>

It remains unclear whether the $800 tax rebates that have been floated by leaders would include workers who are too poor to pay income tax. At the White House, however, Reid indicated he would push for something aiding lower-income Americans. “We clearly want the American people to benefit, not just one segment of the American people,” he said.

But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the prospect of sending rebates to people who do not pay income taxes would spark a “vigorous argument.” He stopped short, however, of calling it a deal-breaker.

<<snip>>

Gregg said he has aired his concerns about the size of the package with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He also said that giving rebates to workers who pay only Social Security taxes, but not income taxes, is “mind-boggling.”

But the idea got a boost from the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Peter Orszag, who told the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday that weighting tax relief to poorer families would increase the strength of the stimulus.

Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also asked Orszag about the merits of issuing rebates of $400 to individuals and $800 to families, and bonuses to families of $400 per child. Orszag replied that the approach might have a greater impact as long as the bonuses are also available to families who do not pay income taxes.

:sarcasm:

But I'm not going to have to worry about it anyway, no kids, don't pay taxes, I'm an invisible american.

The money goes into the economy without sales taxes taken off the top. I like the way you think. :)

Oner big long swig of 200% proof and kick-ola...

:sarcasm:

Why thats unAmeri(Rpubli)can!

Bunch of assclowns.

If they (both party's) were really serious about stimulating the economy not only would workers who dont make enough to pay Fed payroll taxes get the money, but they would increase the Social Security payments by another 5-10%.

Like everything else.

and be glad for small favors, I do not accept handouts, he can take that check and shove it.

Just like these assholes always do... Promise the people something, but give them chump change, and lavishly reward their 'Haves' base.

not the poor. The middle classes. We're the ones who need tax relief the most.

You'll be paying it back next year. It's a loan, just like the 2002 rebates were.

I spend $400/month taking the train to Manhattan and $70/month taking the subway around the city. I'd love to have the ability to claim the use of public transportation as a tax deduction. Speaking as a member of the middle class--we're getting pinched, and we're the ones who drive the economy, certainly not the poor and certainly not the rich.

My spouse takes the bus each day to and from work. I'd love to see him get a tax deduction. Better yet, restore some money to public transit to keep fares affordable.

certainly does drive the economy. But I believe the poor must not be literally left out in the cold, we must have enough compassion to somehow include them in any economic package. Maybe a $400 check can help a family buy some heat for about a month.

by working. I mean who provides the services that middle-class people purchase? Labor is what we contribute, I think some middle-class people tend to forget that. Without us, well, you'd have to do this shit yourself. Then perhaps you'd see the value.

It would appear that various people forget that fact.

cgrindley and his neighbors produce nothing of any intrinsic value.

without the low paying jobs that provide services to the middle and upper classes, what would happen? There would be a freakin' revolt.

Converting the nation's most successful carpool lane into a privately owned toll-tracking lane where all drivers must have transponders or be electronically eavesdropped (using military technology). Anyone with 2 people in the car will count as a carpool -- killing existing carpool services that have depended on the road since the 1950s when it was built.

As for cgrindley, I have no doubt that you care little for this, since you are so obsessed with middle class (read: upper-middle-class) Manhattan chauvinism on the part of the very portion of the economy who care least about transit (the tax-hostile suburban upper-mud-dle class who benefit from services paid for by the richest and the poorest inner city residents). Perhaps we should start electronically tracking and surveilling mass transit users in Manhattan such as yourself. That is far more likely to happen under the current DLC / neocon duopoly than subsidies for transit.

idea I have heard today. A privately owned toll-tracking lane. What will they sell-off next?

Media is making it sound like a giveaway tax credit. I have not heard one mention yet on TV that rebates are not a tax reduction or true rebate but an advance on tax withholding that will still be owed back next year.

We're the ones who need tax relief. Your chart is of workers. I'm not interested in workers, but in households. That's two workers making between $37k and $125k.

Fascinating.

:puke:

that's not the bottom... that's the average.

In other words, nearly 70% of wage earners earn LESS than the "average." The enormous difference between the Median and the Mean is a symptom of the unGodly bias in earnings distribution - the rich getting richer.

Any "stimulus" that throws the vast majority of WORKING Americans under the bus is disgusting.

The people who need tax relief are the middle classes. We get nothing.

Stimulus isn't supposed to be a reward for being affluent. It is money that the economists think will prevent the assets of you and other top quintile folks from depreciating.

If it is for any other reason, it's wholly without merit.

A nation of crybabies.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

don't have two income earners that puts them into your magical range? They get nothing?

:puke:

It's interesting that you don't regard child-rearing and homemaking as a "job."

:puke:

could afford it by scrimping and budgeting--and it was the best thing I could have ever done. No regrets.

I did the same. No regrets either. But when I wanted a higher standard of living, I went out and got a job (after the children had started full time school).

their lots in life, or waiting for their children to start school before they work, just because they don't hit your magical "middle class" cutoff? What about families with someone in school, or laid off, or disabled in some way?

Well, that's an important clarification, isn't it?

it was more important to stay with the kids than care about unnecessary material concerns... but it was a deliberate choice. Obviously, if you're going to stay at home with the kids, you're going to have to make some concessions.

Unless the above average wage (adjusted for inflation) falls. This may
require a depression which is usually that (or world war, or oil shock)
are the only checks on income gap, unfortunately. But nannies and maids
will never make as much as their professional class employers, and as you
say, you scrimped when you had young kids and did not hire nannies and
maids. So in a thrift economy, the US would be more productive (Holland
in the 17th century is a good example for the capitalist minded folks
out there) but less affluent on average. This is a good thing because
the median and lowest quartile would be more affluent. Think of the 1950s.

Second, there is no point in offering tax rebates... certainly not if
the primary reason for recieving one is to reward people with higher
incomes who are BENEFITING from the current economy and not experiencing
any hardships that they were not experiencing in the 1990s (rampant
inflation covered up by conniving Fed officials, depressed wages for
people in the lower brackets, but not for people who are already "set"
in a professional occupation.)

on full-time child care often doesn't end up earning enough to make working worth it. This was the case for me. I had to work night shifts for a long while, opposite my husband, when I was a nurse's aide and then an RN, to make my paycheck meaningful. That takes a real toll on a family. Don't judge how other people should live. Two income earners aren't feasible or desirable for every family--that doesn't mean they're "lazy".

I'm a SAHM because it's important to me and my family, but it also makes sense financially. When you add everything together (child care, additional gas, clothing, a bump up to the next tax bracket, etc) we'd be lucky to clear anything from me working.

you're just being funny right?

I had no idea that ignorance was back in fashioin. Someone needs to tell me these things.

might need a little tax relief...especially relief from the regressive Social Security taxes.

would that make everyone happy?

So you think that someone making $250k a year is hurting for money so bad that they'll put that $800 right back into the economy? Or is it more likely that a "poor family" (by your standards) making less than $75k a year will put that $800 right back into the economy?

will probably stick it into savings or pay down a bill. People making less are more likely to buy a new washing machine, a new TV, or a set of tires, I'll wager--when my husband and I were making dirt pay, we didn't save our tax refunds, we picked out something that we desperately needed that we couldn't save for. People who are somewhat comfortable (middle class) and have some discretionary funds generally already own the things that they need, and are able to save.

property taxes, mortgages, social security tax, federal income tax, state tax, medicaid tax... people in that tax bracket are basically seen as a bottomless pit from which to draw money. We're hurting big time. Throw in a car and insurance. Train fare... subway fare... child support... we're hurting.

it's a ridiculous assumption. You think a family who makes $50,000 doesn't pay for car insurance, 3-dollar gas, medical bill co-payments, a mortgage, utilities, child care? My husband and I owned our first home when he was making mid-rank Air Force enlisted pay (less than $50,000 take-home) and I was a nursing student. We paid for everything--child care, groceries, utilities, gas, car insurance on two cars-just the same as someone who made more than us. I don't get your point.

the lion's share goes to those at or around $75k

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

you have no one but yourself to blame. Tax policy should not be written to comfort the comfortable.

don't you think those of us that fall below your magic number of $50k for a dual income household pay the same damn taxes and have to pay a mortgage, car payment, insurance etc.

Besides - it isn't about providing "tax relief" - it is SUPPOSED to be an economic stimulus package.

That is why public transit fares are unreasonably high. (why encouraged unwashed wierdos to use transit? They don't want to return to the 1970s when more people were probably using the subway at lower fares.)

The latest innovation is HOT lanes, AKA lexus lanes -- $7 per 10 miles,
and takes away existing carpool lanes for use by the professional class
drivers who are sure to bitch and moan but nevertheless willing to pay
for a lane and decrease the overall passenger throughput by taking away
space and incentive for responsible carpooling (most of whom used to be
professionals, as I'm sure you know.

IS that bleeding the professional class... or is it a well-tuned machine
run by urban elite Dems who know that they can bleed the professional class
because there is no one else left in the party?

so that you're down in the $40K range, since they're doing better off.

This is Henry Ford model for economic stimulus and doesn't work if you have no "dirty industry" because you've exported it to countries with poor enviro regulations (with the full support of enviro Dems in Congress who don't care about maquiladoras or sweatshops so long as we can't regulate them, and oppose tarriffs on foreign sweatshops.)

:eyes:

the party also has many middle class and upper middle class and wealthy supporters. Who do you think, for example, is supporting Obama? It's not the blue collar crowd. They're split unevenly between Clinton and Edwards. And a democrat is NOT going to get elected without the support of the middle classes.

I am being civil to you and I demand the same courtesy.

twice the median wage for the nation, that they cannot be progressive nor have a stake in democratic party politics? so... does that mean that neither Edwards nor Kucinich are progressives?

Nobody said that but you.

I said that the democratic party wasn't ONLY for the poor and then you blew a fuse. I assumed that you blew a fuse because you didn't think that the middle classes could belong to the progressive wing of the democratic party.

That is, to put it gently, some of the stupidest, most self-interested shit I've ever heard. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for saying such a thing.

I'm sure it really sucks having to make a car payment and the mortgage and all, but there are a lot of people who would kill to have those problems, and have more pressing needs like putting new tires on their aging car or filling the cupboards up so they can stretch the grocery budget in lean times, because they could never in a million years afford a new car or a house of their own. They need the help a lot more than prosperous, if overstretched, middle class does, and for the most part more than many of those people can even imagine.

Over the Bush administration's catastrophic watch, the poorest and richest Americans have seen their tax burdens decrease. So why shouldn't the middle classes get some relief.

That's how progressive taxation works- sliding scale based on ability to pay.

tax the rich more and the middle class less.

Now stop whining about how difficult life is on 75K a year, I'm losing patience.

It's not covered under medicare. But I won't get it because my income is under nine grand and derived from SS and SSI.

Boo hoo to you.

Not sure what you mean when you say "the middle classes pay proportionately more than the rich." What do you mean by proportionately more?

thx

tax as a proportion of income... the middle classes pay proportionately more than either the rich or the poor.

but what more do you want out of the poor, blood? That's all they have to give.

If you tend to the poor, we all benefit. See how nicely that works?

if two workers making over 100k each can't make ends meet- they must be complete and total morans.

Our taxes don't cover our expenses as it is.

But that's beside the point. This is supposed to be about stimulus. Giving money to people who will put it in the bank does not help.

I'm going to blow it like a drunken sailor.

Along with RGBolen, who always agrees with these DLC center left
(center-right) ideas to benefit the urban rich,

and recently pontificated about how he was in CEO hiring sessions
and the Dems could take a page or two from his experience...

$100-150 K is UPPER middle class -- professional class, not middle class.

$150-250 K is the urban/suburban rich.

Nothing "middle" about it.

They aren't even of "average" education or work skill background.

They are overskilled, overqualified to work in the US, where
there are no productive value-added jobs left that do not feed off
of the offshore investment income of the super-rich or the global
petroleum money market which indirectly subsidizes your salary,
or the regressive lottery income of the poor

(read: "trickle down economy").

And so most professionals are extremely lucky to have a job,
and most of them are educated enough to realize how lucky they are,
which is why they mostly vote democrat. They are generally hostile
or indifferent to unions, however, believing productive occupations
to be obsolete, and tend to have an authoritarian, "process" approach.
If my extremely liberal professional neighbors are anything to go by.

"Liberal" has ceased to have any meaning in this country.

under $37,000 should get nothing? What's your point?

:eyes:

trips to Irving's with kerosene jugs every couple of days again.

How the hell will it trickle down???

:sarcasm:

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

The poor will recycle the money back into the economy the fastest.

then I could pay my heating bill for 2 months, or give it to the Indian Gaming profits..ha
Bet right after they issue the rebates, the price of gas will go up. And food, and..and..and..
Damn fuckers.

and buy a bunch of cheap toxic crap made in China.

I have to decide at some point. Not even enough to take both places.
I better start my list hmmm.
Needs on one page, wants on the other. This is gonna suck.

If it's a rebate, that means a return of something you already paid. If you didn't pay income tax, there is nothing to rebate. I can't get a rebate from a store where I didn't actually buy a product.

So the term has to be changed if it's going to apply to those who don't pay income tax.

finished with this proposal, it'll be just another political cluster-fuck.
It's not enough considering what this country has endured under President greedyMcfucker.
Sorry, feeling a bit patronized by this morsel-tossing by Bush.

Congratulations on applying logic to a DU thread! It doesn't happen as often as it should! :toast:


Seriously, though, any tax rebate like this would likely not result in any noticable stimulus to the economy. It's more like a bribe to get folks to stop complaining. Heck, I wouldn't be stimulating the economy if they handed me a check, because I wouldn't buy anything with the money but apply it to debt. I doubt I'd be the only one.

Any stimulus attached to this sort of rebate would be very short term. To have a realistic positive impact, wages have to increase. That's what will help the most.

Agreed on the point about the stimulus not making much difference. In this country, we are outdoing ourselves on spending. We are spending so much and so fast we can't stop ourselves. So I don't think the economy's problem is related to not enough consumer spending. It has more to do with the awful real estate market and these sub-prime loans. We have massive defaults going on, banks losing money, etc. Pumping a few billion into the economy in consumer spending won't make a dent in that.

for the people who don't pay income tax. This is all a bunch of horseshit anyway and won't do jack shit to help the economy. It's the equivalent of the dole back in medieval times. Anything to keep the torches and the pitchforks at bay.

Because nobody goes through a year without paying $800 in taxes of some kind.

Please sign petition to congress asking for a Fair Stimulus package

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2751198#2751377

The ass you save, may be your own.

There's enough pain in life as it is.

Around 10% of my income I think. I only get a small refund every year but certainly not everything I pay.

That's completely unfair to people like me. Actually it should go to everyone or to no one.

going to bail out the republicans. You know the only reason they are even discussing a rebate package is to help their candidates in the November general election, it certainly isn't to help the middle class. If Democrats are smart they will insist nothing go into effect until after Bush leaves office.

since we can`t win a war in anywhere else in the world let`s start one here!

hell i just read where i don`t deserve any money!

good idea pit the poor against the middle class while the rich laugh...



fucking class warfare....when will we ever learn?

in the next year or two anyway.

And the rethugs have been firing shots for years now.

i decided i`m voting early to at least put dennis and his delegates on the record in my town. the local party is backing hillary which i think will take the hometown of ronny reagan.i think that going to be ironic...

:yourock:

:hi:

handed out "rebates" my youngest daughter was attending college and working part time. Although she DID pay income tax she got a letter from the IRS saying that she wasn't a "real taxpayer", so no rebate.

ours went to pay off back taxes which it did ,but it really helped the economy did`t it....

If they happen to give these "rebates" out again, that's exactly where our's will go, to pay some debt, which will really jump start the economy.:sarcasm:

They pay sales tax, property taxes (if they happen to be lucky enough to have a home), utility taxes and many other sorts of taxes that no one seems to include.

Just because you don't pay the IRS anything doesn't mean they don't get you in some other way!

:dem: :kick:

and don't forget that property taxes tend to hit the middle classes pretty hard. Especially where we live.

or would it some how be easier for a poor person to pay property taxes than a middle-class or rich person?

As for the other taxes I mention, I think that a 8 or 9% state sales tax is a lot of money.

If you buy anything of substance, like a car of any sort, you are looking at likely hundreds if not thousands in taxes.

So yes, the poor pay taxes alright, including tobacco/alcohol, gasoline, etc. etc. taxes that you seem to trivialize as being "insignificant". Let the poor disappear and so goes a very large chunk of the economy in the USA. Too bad people do not realize that the poor are important too.

Home ownership is for the most part the domain of the middle classes.

As a rule, landlords aren't in the habit of losing money on their properties.

And unlike owners, renters don't get significant tax benefits.

and so does my late mother's late best friend who happens to be 87 years old and collects her late husband's pension of abt. $100.00 a month and about $800.00 from social security. This woman (as well as myself) worked for at least 30 years.

But, WE don't count do we?

:mad:

if you can't afford them. Too many people think that the poor are insignificant or they don't contribute to the economy, that is a totaly false assumption. When a poor family buys a car and pays the sales tax, it tends to be a huge burden on the family just trying to make the monthly payments, and don't forget the insurance.

Many poor people also struggle with house payments and property taxes as well, just because someone's poor doesn't mean they have to be homeless. Most poor families are not that way by choice, there are numerous hardships and unforseen circumstances that squeeze a person or family out of the middle class and into poverty, and the policies of this administration haven't helped either.

My family was poor. There was a reason for it however (my father worked 3 jobs and my mother had a full-time job and as for the kids (meaning myself and sibling), we were what are now called "latch-key" children as there was no money for something called "day-care" or a "babysitter"; we ran home from school and locked the doors).

I had a younger brother that was very sick and my parents spent all of their money on him. He was in various homes, hospitals, institutions, etc.

He lived to be 48 years old, dying one year after my mother. I'm glad he outlived her because it would have absolutely killed her to know that her son that she and my father had worked themselves to death to care for had died while the rest of the family sacrificed and paid the price.

It was a sad way to grow up and when it came to things like college, it was "sorry kid, we don't have money for that kind of thing - go get a job".

As for my late brother ... :cry:

When I read stories like your's it makes me extremely sad and reminds me to count my blessings. I made that post because it is what happened to me. My wife and I both had great jobs, which now seem a lifetime ago. I made the mistake of having a serious accident at work which has left me disabled. OK, I got SSD and my wife still had her job, so not so bad, right? Well after a few years my wife's job closed, just like that, no warning, so she spent over three years working part time, low paying jobs, all the while bills piling up until she recently found a half-decent full time position. Then my youngest daughter got seriously ill and after a two month hospital stay she had to move back home with us, where she continues to recover. Now we are in a battle to keep our home, the mortgage company has started foreclosure and it is taking it's toll on all of us.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that it could happen to anyone, we used to be middle class and now we are poor, because of a bunch of unforeseen circumstances. It really pisses me off when I hear politicians talk about people who got into mortgages they couldn't afford, so they get no help. Well, we didn't "overbuy", we were fine until this succession of events squeezed us into our current situation.

However, your story makes me feel so bad and reminds me that we are not alone, we are in this together, with you and everyone else who has gone through these terrible hardships. I want to let you know that I feel very sorry for you about your brother, your mother and your father having to work three jobs, no one deserves this. I'm sure your parents did the best they could, so you can be proud of that. I wish you all the luck in the world and you will be in my prayers. Like I said before, remember that you are not alone, we are in this together, so hang in there. Too bad our government can't see it this way.

for it was all I knew. However, in hindsight, yes, it was indeed a tragic way to grow up and live and not at all a functional way to grow up.

Whenever I see someone in a situation that is just plain bad because of circumstances far beyond their control, like health or a problem securing adequate employment, I always feel for that person and try to help if I can in some way.

I appreciate your condolences re: my late brother. It has been several years since his death but I still feel sick every time I think about it. I wonder why he died. I wonder if they experimented on him in the 1960s when he was so sick. So many questions with no answers.

I often question the idea of "God" and often wonder where the hell God was/is. I suppose I'll never know.

Thanks for letting me know that we are not alone! Thank you. :hug:

about your brother, its a shame that there are no answers, although the answers may make you sicker or maybe give you some closure. Only you would know that, for my part I think I would want to know.

In my state, a poor person (the lowest quintile) pays 17% of their income in state taxes. The top 1% pay 3.6%. The top quintile, whom you describe as "middle class", pay about 7%.
http://www.ctj.org/whop/whop_wa.pdf

The poor people suffer plenty.

But that is beside the point. The whole point of this little giveaway is to pad our portfolios and stop the drop in value of our assets. Minimum wage today is still minimum wage tomorrow. There's nothing in this for the poor. If we're borrowing money from kids today to ensure that the share price of GM doesn't drop, the least we can do is to include the poor in the largesse. From a practical standpoint, they're the ones who will spend it.

I refuse to be part of charging money onto everyones credit card to give to people making $75k plus. To find myself needing to make this argument at DU surprises me a great deal.

This is going along with your helpful advice that stay at home mothers should get jobs.

A person who doesn't like holding the shitty end of the stick up there in the 80th percentile can always come on down here where the livin' is easy.

I believe that's what the WSJ called us back in '02.

Living is real easy down here. We only have two choices, pay for heat or buy food. See, our live are so simple. Aren't we lucky.

You dread the mail arriving every day. You dread answering the phone fearing it may be some one wanting money out of you.

You dread life in general as you don't have enough for things that most people take for granted, like medical care or simple things like going to a movie or eating a meal out.

Food and gasoline prices keep most poor folks from doing much of anything. And the sad part about this is, there is not a thing that can be done to help in many cases.

Why are they giving money to children btw? They don't work. :sarcasm:

It will only anger you knowing that such arrogant people exist in our oh so sick society. :(

You are a real piece of work.

The poor pay a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of their income in taxes, because they have to spend virtually everything they make. They don't have the luxury of saving a decent chunk of their income and drawing interest on it.

So the states and counties could come up with a rebate plan for those, but don't hold your breath.

Gaa!

Are you telling me that their solution to the recession is to give out an $800 "tax rebate"? :crazy:

Let us claim child support payments. Let us claim the expenses of visiting our children or of having our children visit.

:sarcasm:

The rest are alright by me. ;)

;)

Until then? Not a chance.

Why? Why should a non-custodial parent pay for the custodial parent's lifestyle?

If a custodial parent is stressed about how to keep a roof over what's left of the rest of the family, the heat and lights on, clothes on all their backs, and food in all their tummy's, then the childhood experience for the child is affected. So many times the desire to "squeeze" the custodial parent by the non-custodial parent overshadows the need to assure stability in the home life left for the child.

A custodial parent that has to work multiple jobs to maintain the bare necessities for the child (and yes, themselves too) becomes a second absent parent, leaving the child to raise themselves in too many cases. We should be working to create less latchkey kids because we care about the kid (it's the non-custodial parent's kid too!) MORE than we desire to create suffering for the former spouse/former s.o./former one night stand.

Leave the bitterness at the door and care about the child involved. Unless, of course, you think it's worth it to see the child suffer because the adults couldn't get past the need to inflict suffering on each other.

YMMV.

or spend their money more wisely. If they cannot take proper care of a child with the support of the non-custodial parent, perhaps they should exchange roles. Many non-custodial parents would leap at the chance of such an exchange.

"If a custodial parent is stressed about how to keep a roof over what's left of the rest of the family, the heat and lights on, clothes on all their backs, and food in all their tummy's, then the childhood experience for the child is affected."

Ummm I came from a two parent family and we had to worry about that stuff... Most everyone *has* to worry about that stuff. Still maybe im a little sensitive because I saw my brothers X take him to the cleaners and then the rented an appt 'upstairs' from he new boyfriend (who owned the house) so she could have a different address and thus keep my brother living in a tiny one bedroom apartment..

"Leave the bitterness at the door and care about the child involved."

Most kids grow up with stressed parents, my wife has been rather I'll and some weeks I end up the only parent of two kids and caring for a sick adult... This idea that kids should never see their parents stressed will create a generation of adults who feel guilt and shame about normal human stress..

working together to do the best they can to make a bad situation as good as possible.

Yes, most parents are stressed and money is a stresser, no doubt about it, even for two parent families. But, isn't it our job to mitigate the stress as much as possible, to make ourselves available to our kids more, not less because we are too busy keeping body and soul together to have any energy left to attend to the needs of the child? Isn't it our job to create an atmosphere of safety and some level of comfort for our kids with what we have to work with? Aren't you trying to reassure your kids, as tired as I know you must be with everything you are dealing with, that "everything is going to be ok" and not place that stress on them should something go wrong? I'm not saying that they are immune to the stress and that they don't see some of it, but kids blame themselves when the adults in their lives can't make it as stress free for them as it is for their peers. We lose site of the job of parenting, in a very general way, when we are just trying to survive as a whole.

Single parents of either gender, no matter who is paying and who is receiving the support, should want that for their kids, don't you think? The "sacrifices made" by the adults should be to assure as stress free as possible environment for the kids involved shouldn't it? After all, the kids didn't choose to leave the family, the family left him.

"Insn't it our job to create an atmosphere of safety and some level of comfort for our kids with what we have to work with?"

If you mean safety within us then yes if you mean security in the roof over their head then no..

"Single parents of either gender, no matter who is paying and who is receiving the support, should want that for their kids, don't you think?"

But should a couple split up is it no right that both can move on with their lives? Im not against child support Im against the abuses on the system and this belief that taking 50% of the non custodial parents income is ok

I don't know of any state that mandates 50%. They could be out there, but I don't know of any. Most states the most that can be required for child support is 33%. If the payer can't make it on 78% of their salary, how do you think a family of two or more can make it on that 33%? It's not about maintaining the lifestyle of the other adult (for the adult's sake) but maintaining the lifestyle of the CHILD for the child's sake.

Parents sacrifice in many ways in both a two parent and a single parent household. This is just a continuation of that sacrifice FOR the child that parents have to chose to make. The resentment just clouds the issue for all involved.

Are you saying that we shouldn't attempt to create a level of security about a child having a roof over their head? Shouldn't keeping a roof over their head be a top priority for a parent?

Individual rights is a concept that flys in the face of the needs of the blah blah blah... And I happen to like individuals rights.

"the payer can't make it on 78% of their salary, how do you think a family of two or more can make it on that 33%?"

Ok lets look at my parents: In the 90's mom was making just about what dad was making (some years a bit more some years a bit less) Lets round the numbers to something easy to talk about and say they each make 40K This puts them above the standards rates in NY and now its up to the court.

Now there is a divorce the *minimum* in NY would be 30% (three kids) But because the combined salary is 80K or over its up to the judge, in these cases payments often end up being around 40% in such cases. Now keep in mind this 30% will go to the mother without being taxed and the father will get no tax break for it..

Mom Pays about one thousand dollars in federal tax and a few hundred in state tax

Mom = 40K - 1.5K + .35*(40K) = 52.5K after tax dollars

Dad Pays about four thousand in federal taxes and about one thousand in state taxes *and* child support

Dad = 40K - 5K - .35*(40K) = 21K after tax and child support dollars

approximately $13,000 per person in the four person household for all needs (and with kids, sometimes, when you can swing it, a "want" here and there). It's more expensive to feed 3 growing kids then it is to feed one adult, clothe 3 growing kids than it is to clothe one adult, heat, well yeah, the adult can take advantage of that as well as the kids, but a mom/dad -sicle isn't much of a parent. That's toothpaste for four and not one, new shoes for four and not one (usually when you least expect it too), deodorant for four and not one (and with kids, that's one deodorant for home and one for school for after gym), four dentists visits (barring any additional dental work that needs to be done)as opposed to one, doctors visits and medications for four as opposed to one ... etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

At $21,000, compared to the cost allocated for one person in the previous example, they should be able to live much higher off the hog than the four do.

The father shouldn't get a tax break for child support in your example because it is still his kids he is providing for just as if he had never dissolved the union at all.

I have seen it both ways, men who pay alimony and men who receive alimony and no matter which end of the checkbook these men are on, they have a bitter, resentful, and personally destructive unchecked control issue at the core of their unhappiness. And no, it doesn't matter which one of the couple first asked for the relationship to end.

Women, in very general terms, burn hot at the beginning but adjust to the situation (no matter which side of the checkbook they are on) for the "sake of the kids" or just plain move on faster than the men do, even if the men have a bevy of hotties in the wings to distract them.

Why do I say it's a control issue? Because it is. Most of the anger about child support or alimony is due to the fact that the person paying can't have a say in how the funds are spent. If they wanted that kind of control or expected some level of input, they should have found a way to work out the issues and stay where they were. The grass is not greener over the cesspool, it just grows faster and needs more tending. Learning to let go of the hatred and desire to see the custodial parent suffer is the best support anyone can give to the kids they have to care for. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is necessary if all involved (kids included) can heal and move on.

1) If the mortgage is in place there will also be alimony.

2) The house with kids needs one less car (and insurance and gas) less food (by presumably the biggest food consumer in the house), less of pretty much everything.

"It's more expensive to feed 3 growing kids then it is to feed one adult"

Three kids yes but one kid? Even at the height of my growing I did not out eat my father (granted he did manual labor all day).

"At $21,000, compared to the cost allocated for one person in the previous example, they should be able to live much higher off the hog than the four do."

Seriously? you consider making less than 2k a month living 'high off the hog'?

2K
- small apt = 1,400
- car payment = 1200 (if you have a crappy car)
- auto insurance = 1050
- gas = 950
- electricity = 900
- heating gas = 800
- phone = 750
- food = 550 (50 dollars a week)
- entertaining kids = 450 (lets assmume 20-30 a week to take them out)
- clothing = 400 (two pairs of jeans, two shirts, and one pair of shoes a year)
- cable/internet = 350
- Eating out = 320 (assuming one day a week you forget your lunch)
- auto maintenance = 300 (assuming only oil/filters/breaks and no real problems)
- misc = 160 (assume im missing some things 40$ a week)

Now to the Home (4,400 a month)
- Mortgage = 3,400 (1000$ mortgage or Rent on a 3 bedroom appt)
- Car Payment 3,100 (assuming a minivan)
- auto insurance 3,000
- gas 2800 (assuming at least twice as much use as the guy)
- electricity = 2725 (50% more than the guy)
- heating gas = 2600 (50% more than the guy)
- Phone = 2550
- food = 1850 (175$ a week)
- entertaining kids 1750 (lets assume taking the kids out once a week)
- clothing 1100 (two pairs of jeans / two shirts / two shoes for every member)
- cable/internet = 1050
- eating out = 950 (assuming 25$ or once a week)
- auto maintenance = 930 (assuming only oil/filters/breaks and no real problems)
- misc = 450 (assume Im missing 160$ a week)

I could keep going on but the point is outside of consumables (food/clothing) pretty much everything else is about the same. And if at you think a single guy with two kids to visit on the weekend with a bit over a hundred dollars a week net income is 'living high off the hog' you're nuts..

Top this off with the fact the if mortgage payments are being made on the home the guy is probably paying alimony. Ive seen my brother after his bare living expenses, alimony, and child support have 20$ a week to his name (this is without cable, eating out or much of the stuff listed above) MEanwhile his X lives in an 'apartment' owned by her boyfriend...

Im all with you when it comes to hanging deadbeats from their (well you know what) but allot of really good guys one bill away from living under a bridge while their X has a warm home (which they often share with another guy) and *relative* comfort.

instead of realizing that the ex is maintaining a home for HIS kids. It's not just HER comfort that needs to be considered. See, it's that control of the ex and the money provided for support that gets the teeth marks on the butt of this subject every time. He made his choice, both in choosing the ex in the beginning and choosing to end it when it ended. Why should the kids suffer because he made choices that he later regrets? He needs to suck it up and realize that he is making a concession that will benefit his child. Period.

The "3 kids" in my example was from your previous post. Number of kids is relative to the amount paid (as you stated in your example previously).

Single fathers don't spend a lot of time in their apartments, they are often at their girlfriend's place, since it is probably more comfortable and more like the home he just left, therefore, he needs are less. My generalization makes as much sense as your generalization that "X has a warm home (which they often share with another guy) and *relative* comfort."

Let the control issues go and all are happier for it.

You seem to be comfortable with her having the kids and more money and him being nothing but a bond servant.

He made his choice, both in choosing the ex in the beginning and choosing to end it when it ended.

In my bros case he was being physically abused and she would not stop.... I guess that was his fault as well right?

He needs to suck it up and realize that he is making a concession that will benefit his child. Period.

So upon divorce the custodial parent needs to be held in relative comfort because of the kids but the father loses status as a human being and becomes a bond servant... Even if the custodial parent was the reason for the split...

control issue

Right its not that the guy might want to move on with his life and be able to himself have a home, its really about control.

Its funny first you play the 'shes worse off card' and when I debunk that you play the 'well so what they are his kids and its ok if he has nothing, its all his fault anyway'

in a court of law, there is no judge that would have awarded custody to her. Any lawyer worth their salt could have made that argument on his behalf and make it stick to win him custody, reversing the roles each were to play out from that point forward, if his claims are documented. As you might have noticed, I have tried to keep gender out of the equation completely. As I said before, it doesn't matter who is writing the checks and who is cashing the checks, the bottom line is the quality of life for the CHILD that the custodial parent maintains, or should, with support payments. You are not discussing this academically, you are (and probably rightfully so) on your brother's side and not seeing the bigger picture from the child's perspective. You brought gender into this, I didn't.

If your brother feels like a "bond servant" it was by his own doing, by a chain of events that he was instrumental in creating, placing him in the situation he finds himself in. Why should the children, and yes, whomever the custodial parent be (be it father or mother), suffer more hardship (when an adult can mobilize to effect a change to their own situation) just because the non-custodial parent is angry about their situation and wants to punish the custodial parent? It's the kids that lose! It doesn't make a bit of difference, to me, whether it's the female that leaves and pays the support or whether it is the male that leaves and pays the support. You buck up and you do what you need to do to support your kids and work toward getting to the point where your hatred and desire to see your ex "suffer as they are making you suffer" is overshadowed by your boundless love for your kids. That's what adults do when they act like the adult instead of reacting like a child vowing to "get even". Raising kids involves many sacrifices, this is just a modern day addition to that already long list.

You said "Right its not that the guy might want to move on with his life and be able to himself have a home, its really about control." See, it is a control issue. He feels controlled because she gets the money and his perspective is that she doesn't deserve it. He feels that she is controlling his situation and how dare she do this to me. So, he pays his money and breeds more hatred and more anger for her rather than be grateful that she is there for his kids, maintaining the kids standard of living with the funds he provides. If the shoe was on the other foot and he had custody, would he want her to do anything less? Would you?

Were she to be abusing the children, he surely could take her back to court and get a judgment for change of custody, couldn't he? If his payments pose too much of a hardship due to income level changes, he surely could go back to court and get a different order of support, couldn't he? Would he do the same if he suddenly made more money? Would he voluntarily provide more support to make the kids standard of living better? My guess would be, no, he wouldn't. He'd say, fuck her, and not breathe a word of the change in his situation. But, it's really the kids he is thumbing his nose at. Don't you get it? The only thing he can do to release his anger is tied into the money by thinking of it as money he gives to HER not money he gives to assure his kids are warm, fed, clothed, and safe.

It's not about him or her, it's about the CHILDREN.

Dude you have issues. The only "life-style" I see single mothers engaging in are feeding, clothing and housing their children.

for years by his ex-wife living off of his support and not working. For 10 yrs he's paid and never once missed a payment. Oh, and he pays for hockey, the gear, school clothes, food for OUR house , taking him on vacations w/ us, father/ son things, etc. And never gets to claim him. Talk about getting it up the ass constantly. His ex never spends it on the child. And she's a RN who refuses to work when her son will be college bound in 2 yrs. Apparently we have to foot that bill alone also. Her reply to her son is that we make plenty of money and don't have any other kids so we're loaded. ya, right. She gets all of our friggin' money. $700 a month! It sickens me.

If she doesn't work then she has nothing to "claim" him for ... no income tax to offset with his deduction. Something just doesn't ring true about your complaint.

Besides, you knew he was a package deal when you signed on. I hope you don't express your disqust with the support situation through your relationship with the kid, but I fear that you do.


On a side note, I want to know where I can move to and support a family of two on $700 a month? I would like to move there and homestead myself. I could live like a queen in that neighborhood were it anywhere but in your mind.

Taxable thus something to 'claim for'..

the non-custodial parent's income is taxed, the non-custodial parent can't claim the support, and the custodial parent doesn't have to claim the extra money. It's a royal screwing.

a completely different thing. Child support is not claimed for income tax purposes.

Apples and oranges.

for the correction, maybe the OP's predecessor is claiming alimony.. Thus she still has something to claim..

it's the dumbest damn thing in the history of things.

and maturity ... at least one can hope that you're wired to grow in that way.



Seems you should have had a better lawyer. :)

I only had to pay for a set number of years. That was 5 years ago now. I don't think the bitterness of paying alimony will ever fade.

m'kay?

Get over it already.

NO.

works. They have 2 children together. he also has 3 children from 2 different women before he was married that HE pays support for! Altogether his money pays for his other kids and she uses our support for their other two who are 7 and 5.

She doesn't live like a queen! She has nothing. She refuses to got to work. My stepson has grown up in some bad apartments over the years. His ex doesn't pay her bills. Phones get shut off, etc. She can't even drive right now because she can't renew her license because she's 5 yrs behind on her excise taxes!

I did not mean to come across as selfish and uncaring. I love my stepson. I've known him since he was just 4 yrs old. Child support has always been there since the beginning. I do alot for him. WE do alot for him. If we didn't he'd have nothing.

My own husband has expressed digust that his ex wife refuses to work even just 10-20 hrs a week after she finished her RN degree. What was the point of going to school for it then? What we don't appreciate is that she always calls us for stuff our son needs sometimes literally the day after she recieves her $170/week. We are busting our ass over here trying to finish this house so we can have a baby of our own and it's not easy. We are not living the high life over here and I am in no way spoiled. I am currently working two jobs in MRI to make sure she still GETS her money. With the oil bills, etc. this winter has been hard. We didn't even buy a tree for Christmas this year because we bought our son the hockey skates he wanted for Christmas.
I am not one of those stepmothers like you imply. We go to hockey and baseball and sit right next to his ex and watch the games. We all get along for the sake of the child and have for the past 10 years. That's what it is all about. We don't grumble to her EVER or do we ever mention anything in front of his son. We do everything for him. And thank God that we're here for him. And I will be paying for his college education because I make the most out of the four parents he has. And I'm ok with that! After all he is my son too!
Peace.

and let us take charitable deductions without itemizing the way it used to be before you fucked us over so badly. thank you.

"Pay up NOW! We know you have the money."

screw the single people again.

My penalty for keeping my Johnson in my pants.

The recession may force well-to-do people to scale back luxury vacation plans or substitute cheap supermarket caviar for real beluga at their soirees. Many peons depend on wealthy people buying frivolous luxury items for their livelihoods. You don't want to hurt the peons and the rich people do you? Making the rich happy makes EVERYONE happy! :sarcasm:

Remember a few years ago the passed a really high luxury tax on yachts, figuring it would raise some needed money. Well, the yacht sale business started to dry up fast. Because even the rich modify their buying when the taxes are too high. You can make jokes about the rich, but to the everyday folks whose job is building yachts, it's not that funny. It was so damaging to those companies that the tax was quickly repealed.

In addition to yachts, there are the massueuses, the new-age healers, the doggie therapists, you name it.

But government policy should be aimed at helping the broadest number of people possible. Rebates to the rich doesn't so that as much as a tax credit for working people or some other progressive package would.

The number of people who work at building yachts is miniscule compared to the number of low-paid cubicle drones, or the number of people hawking lattes at Starbucks.

Besides, whatever money gets to the working class inevitably gets spent in the businesses owned by the rich anyway. Stimulus trickles up WAY more than it ever trickles down.

the economy. Just what in the Hell are these a$$holes trying too do to us?

Rising oil costs=rising fuel costs=rising costs for everything related.

This stinks and I don't expect the corporate owned news to inform the American people of this little tidbit, either.

Why is it no surprize that the rethuglipukikans are acting this way?

They are nothing but cruel, heartless bastards!!

He said that it might cause oil prices too rise and hurt the economy. :rofl: Well one has too laugh in order to keep from :cry:

I would like to hear what economic rationale they used to rationalize that statement.... Nevermind, no I wouldn't.

He clearly said last week that stimulus in form of extra benefits going to lower income and poor would help the economy more quickly and effectively, and mentioned a boost in food stamps.

:sarcasm:

If it's stimulus, the point is to get it into the hands of people who will immediately spend it.

If it's a tax cut, it's stupid.

and also an increase to food stamps. But, the cronies cut a business tax cut.

That's asking alot. But they do need to call it a stimulus and get it done already.

If they give it to everyone... including those paying SS taxes.


I currently don't pay income taxes (I make less than the upper limit), but I do pay SS because I work for an American Corporation.

So that's how I plan to stimulate the American economy.

!

with earned income above $3,000. $600 for couples.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/24/economic.stimulu...

Grover Norquist is creaming in his shorts.

Just keep borrowing! Spending! Borrowing! Spending!

Just make sure the bill comes in to hit the next administration.

So why bother giving 'em a rebate?

bonuses. We can give rebates to people that don't pay taxes.