Opting Opt of Taxes

[Lamoni]

Except, as pointed out repeatedly, the study that you are citing does not actually support your claims.

It does for those who aren't math illiterate.

You should work on that.

*** Official Warning for harassment/flaming ***

This also includes your other post:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=34139392#p34139392

[Nulla Bellum]

I paid the taxes on the systems that were supposed to teach you how to read. I've done my part.

You should try reading the study you cited. It’s fascinating.

Imagine the electricity you wasted typing the above in lieu of an intelligible response.

[Galloism]

Incidentally, we do care for single mothers more than other people, and there are a few poverty traps. This doesn’t mean “well over median income” for 11k a year, that’s not what the study states.

Besides, there’s certain assumptions made that she can get things like HUD and utility assistance right out the gate, when waiting time for those can be years. A lot of other benefits are for children for expenses she wouldn’t have if she was single (and couldn’t get if she were). For instance, in the few states which offer subsidized childcare, the median American wouldn’t have to pay for that at all - not having kids.

If you want to count things like that as income, then logically, you would have to count that as “income” for stay at home parents that do their own, or single people who don’t have children and don’t have that expense.

You complain about tax credits for the working poor. You know what your 60k a year mother will get? Less for sure. We calculated about 7300 for the working poor mom. The 60k mom gets 4000. For earning 48000 more, she lost 3300 in tax credits.

(Other taxes go up of course, now that she’s middle class)

Yup. Progressive taxation is a bitch.

The point is, most Americans (83%) would prefer that people recieving the food, medical, housing, and utility subsidies at least get a minimum wage job, which would not disqualify them from most assistance.

If the point of welfare assistance is to give someone a chance to improve themselves, it's not all that inconcievable to expect them to get an entry level job. The end goal is to get a job, right?

Generally speaking yes. However, there may be circumstances where the job costs more to maintain than its worth. Think of a single father with three kids, but the only job he can get is working at night, which means he has to hire someone to babysit.

That person who babysits is making at least as much as he is (minimum wage and all), so what have we accomplished?

[West Leas Oros]

I mean, you can opt out of income taxes, if you don’t earn any income.

[Nulla Bellum]

It does for those who aren't math illiterate.

You should work on that.

*** Official Warning for harassment/flaming ***

This also includes your other post:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=34139392#p34139392

Well, that's one way to reinforce the lalalanotreading responses I should have ignored.

[Nulla Bellum]

Yup. Progressive taxation is a bitch.

The point is, most Americans (83%) would prefer that people recieving the food, medical, housing, and utility subsidies at least get a minimum wage job, which would not disqualify them from most assistance.

If the point of welfare assistance is to give someone a chance to improve themselves, it's not all that inconcievable to expect them to get an entry level job. The end goal is to get a job, right?

Generally speaking yes. However, there may be circumstances where the job costs more to maintain than its worth. Think of a single father with three kids, but the only job he can get is working at night, which means he has to hire someone to babysit.

That person who babysits is making at least as much as he is (minimum wage and all), so what have we accomplished?

A system that rewards sloth. Or at least makes stupid non-lethal.

[Nulla Bellum]

Nope. A single mother with 2 kids on $11,310 a year still qualifies for federal and state benefits that are worth well over the median income of US citizens paying for the same things out of their own pocket.

I mean, eleven thousand dollars a year isn't much at all to cover the needs of two growing children with only a single parent to look after them.

Which is why they qualify for thousands of dollars worth of free food, medical, housing, and utility assistance.

[Galloism]

Generally speaking yes. However, there may be circumstances where the job costs more to maintain than its worth. Think of a single father with three kids, but the only job he can get is working at night, which means he has to hire someone to babysit.

That person who babysits is making at least as much as he is (minimum wage and all), so what have we accomplished?

A system that rewards sloth. Or at least makes stupid non-lethal.

Honestly, we’ve been trying to make stupid non lethal for centuries. Heck, even in some ancient societies had rudimentary building codes along those lines. A parapet on the roof was required in order to prevent people from falling off the roof.

[Nulla Bellum]

A system that rewards sloth. Or at least makes stupid non-lethal.

Honestly, we’ve been trying to make stupid non lethal for centuries. Heck, even in some ancient societies had rudimentary building codes along those lines. A parapet on the roof was required in order to prevent people from falling off the roof.

Just in case Darwinism is true....

[The South Falls]

I mean, if you lose your suffrage, this could be framed as an assault on the poor, who may not be able to pay their taxes. You either make less money to pay your taxes or lose your right to vote. It's a hard choice.

[Galloism]

Honestly, we’ve been trying to make stupid non lethal for centuries. Heck, even in some ancient societies had rudimentary building codes along those lines. A parapet on the roof was required in order to prevent people from falling off the roof.

Just in case Darwinism is true....

More along the lines that we do, at least to an extent, value human life. Particularly with children, which is one reason our welfare programs overwhelmingly target children (while young men get a “fuck you”, in general terms anyway).

A lot of people don’t like seeing children begging on the street and at on/off ramps. We don’t like children starving to death or suffering developmental delays due to malnutrition either.

We’re kind of silly like that.

[West Leas Oros]

*** Official Warning for harassment/flaming ***

This also includes your other post:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=34139392#p34139392

Well, that's one way to reinforce the lalalanotreading responses I should have ignored.

The point ————>

You

[Nulla Bellum]

Well, that's one way to reinforce the lalalanotreading responses I should have ignored.

The point ————>

You

Nobody cried, nobody died. Moderator hyperactivity wasn't necessary.

[Salandriagado]

You keep saying that, but have not provided evidence to support it.

I have provided evidence for the math literate.

Kindly link it, because you haven't. The source you've provided does not support your claims.

[Nulla Bellum]

Just in case Darwinism is true....

More along the lines that we do, at least to an extent, value human life. Particularly with children, which is one reason our welfare programs overwhelmingly target children (while young men get a “fuck you”, in general terms anyway).

A lot of people don’t like seeing children begging on the street and at on/off ramps. We don’t like children starving to death or suffering developmental delays due to malnutrition either.

We’re kind of silly like that.

Really silly like that. We err on the side of "have all the kids you want, we'll pay for them."

[Galloism]

More along the lines that we do, at least to an extent, value human life. Particularly with children, which is one reason our welfare programs overwhelmingly target children (while young men get a “fuck you”, in general terms anyway).

A lot of people don’t like seeing children begging on the street and at on/off ramps. We don’t like children starving to death or suffering developmental delays due to malnutrition either.

We’re kind of silly like that.

Really silly like that. We err on the side of "have all the kids you want, we'll pay for them."

I mean, the alternative is even worse though. Let’s not forget around the turn of the 20th century when parents gave their kids to orphanages because they couldn’t afford to feed them, the orphanages were full to bursting, so there were kids out on the street begging & stealing just to survive.

We didn’t like that, ultimately.

[West Leas Oros]

The point ————>

You

Nobody cried, nobody died. Moderator hyperactivity wasn't necessary.

You were warned for flaming, and the first thing you do is double down on it. You missed the point in its entirety.

[Nulla Bellum]

I have provided evidence for the math literate.

Kindly link it, because you haven't. The source you've provided does not support your claims.

59 6f 75 20 6e 65 65 64 20 74 6f 20 61 64 64 20 69 6e 20 74 68 65 20 64 6f 6c 6c 61 72 20 63 6f 73 74 20 76 61 6c 75 65 20 6f 66 20 66 6f 6f 64 2c 20 68 65 61 6c 74 68 20 63 61 72 65 2c 20 68 6f 75 73 69 6e 67 2c 20 61 6e 64 20 75 74 69 6c 69 74 79 20 73 75 62 73 69 64 69 65 73 20 74 68 61 74 20 61 72 65 20 73 74 69 6c 6c 20 61 76 61 69 6c 61 62 6c 65 20 74 6f 20 61 20 6d 69 6e 69 6d 75 6d 20 77 61 67 65 20 65 61 72 6e 65 72 20 77 69 74 68 20 74 77 6f 20 6b 69 64 73 2e

[Nulla Bellum]

Nobody cried, nobody died. Moderator hyperactivity wasn't necessary.

You were warned for flaming, and the first thing you do is double down on it. You missed the point in its entirety.

Have you tried wailing in ashes and sackcloth?

[Nulla Bellum]

Really silly like that. We err on the side of "have all the kids you want, we'll pay for them."

I mean, the alternative is even worse though. Let’s not forget around the turn of the 20th century when parents gave their kids to orphanages because they couldn’t afford to feed them, the orphanages were full to bursting, so there were kids out on the street begging & stealing just to survive.

We didn’t like that, ultimately.

A majority (83%) doesn't like the idea of people getting paid not to work.

[Thermodolia]

I mean, the alternative is even worse though. Let’s not forget around the turn of the 20th century when parents gave their kids to orphanages because they couldn’t afford to feed them, the orphanages were full to bursting, so there were kids out on the street begging & stealing just to survive.

We didn’t like that, ultimately.

A majority (83%) doesn't like the idea of people getting paid not to work.

Non libertarian sources for that please?

[Thermodolia]

I mean, eleven thousand dollars a year isn't much at all to cover the needs of two growing children with only a single parent to look after them.

Which is why they qualify for thousands of dollars worth of free food, medical, housing, and utility assistance.

Not really no

[Nulla Bellum]

A majority (83%) doesn't like the idea of people getting paid not to work.

Non libertarian sources for that please?

Already done. The Federalist is not a libertarian website.

[Nulla Bellum]

Which is why they qualify for thousands of dollars worth of free food, medical, housing, and utility assistance.

Not really no

Source?

[Petrolheadia]

Non libertarian sources for that please?

Already done. The Federalist is not a libertarian website.

So that is solved, now get a site that driects to the source, not to the source provider's homepage.