We Don't Need Any Handouts

[Maynard Keenan]

10 dollars an hour is roughly $20,800 per year. One person can live modestly on that, so long as they don't need to go to the doctor since they won't be affording much insurance. Now add a kid or two. Getting pretty tough to survive. Little chance of being able to better yourself either. Between working (probably two jobs at this point, and never seeing your kids) and providing for the kids, you'll have zero chance of going back to school.

Alternate scenario: you have a physical or mental handicap, or a chronic illness. Try getting by on your own.

Alternate scenario: You make $10 an hour, living paycheck to paycheck. You get laid off and start missing payments and get foreclosed.

Alternate scenario: you get very sick and miss work. You can't work but you also can't pay your medical bills.

 

[flicka]

There is one thing that never seems to get mentioned in the "I did it so why can't they" conversations, and that is alot of a persons success is directly attributed to who they know (who can lead them to a job) and their personality. Yes, it's true. Some folks are better "people persons" than others. We all know that and we all know people who are socially awkward. The mere fact that we are all unique individuals with different strengths and weaknesses prevents the kinds of level playing field necessary for most of these 'perfect world' scenarios to play out.

I wanted to avoid the typical issues or upbringing, education, etc. that also contribute to these inequities because those have already been well documented. But I know we can all relate, given the people we actually know, to the idea that some people just naturally have what it takes to succeed and others don't.

I'm not saying that means we have to support everyone, but it's just another kink society has to deal with even if we don't want to.

And lets stop with the idea that we can live either on $10per hr OR we want everything handed to us on a silver platter mmmk? It's stupid.

 

[Billnew]

Alternate scenario: you have a physical or mental handicap, or a chronic illness. Try getting by on your own.

Alternate scenario: You make $10 an hour, living paycheck to paycheck. You get laid off and start missing payments and get foreclosed.

Alternate scenario: you get very sick and miss work. You can't work but you also can't pay your medical bills.

Alt scenerio 1: handicapped get benefits for being handicapped, so whatever they make is above what they
get from the goverment.
alt scenerio 2: This is possible for anyone living paycheck to paycheck.
Alt scenerio #3: Most hospitals have assistance or waive fees for those that can't pay. Financial aid helps better then
the Federal goverment.

Living on $10 or what ever wage, can be done, granted you can't "live" on it, but you can survive. Better to live on little and plan for a future then to live on the goverment and have o plan for the future.
Anyone can learn a trade or go to college, They have loans
where you borrow enough to live on while in school. Or even borrow enough to survive on, and work a second job for the extra stuff.
Women even have special grants that are available for them when they have kids.
Goverment isn't the answer to problems, its the cause.

 

[reverend B]

when the good parsons fictitious $10/hr homeowner starts paying for the kids that are going to drive down the taxes they pay, where will the income come from to supply the children with clothes, food, school supplies, etc.?
perhaps with his four homes, he is a bit out of touch with the guy working at walmart who can't afford his health insurance which is NOT supplied, or maybe he thinks providing insurance for a family is a luxury that the average worker does not deserve. if you are bringing home $400/week, and $500 goes to rent, $150 for car payment, $60 for car insurance, $200 for food, $200 for health insurance, $25 co-pays, $100 for gas, $30 for electric, $15 for water, $30 for telephone. do any of these seem outrageous? they seem next to impossible to me, but let's give our man the benefit of the doubt. he's a great shopper, never goes out, never needs new clothes, has no entertainment of any kind in his life, not tv, not newspapers, not movies, not music, nothing. never goes out, has no girlfriend, no computer costs. to take home his $400/week he is already working 50 hours to get the overtime to rise to this level. so he has $290 to save up his downpayment for the house, which when he gets it he will incur the additional expenses of taxes on the home, insurance on the home (he was living without renters insurance before because he couldn't afford to protect his belongings, but the mortgage people will force him to do it), pmi insurance until he has 20% equity in the home, and the cost of any and all repairs and upkeep to the home that had been the responsibility of the landlord when he was renting.
this is ridiculous.


this is a cut and paste. anyone want to respond?

 

[praying]

Hate to break it to you, but if you're working for $10.00 - and you're working full time (which would mean benefits are included) - you're making about $25,000 per year.

Err no it's 20,800 before taxes.

Which means it somewhere around 18,000 grand after taxes.

You can survive living home or with several roomates.

 

[praying]

One of my sons is working part-time at Starbucks, and he's making pro-rated benefits.

Care to re-think this statement?


Further, you're trying to skirt the issue here.

Starbucks is definitely the exception not the rule.

 

[Fantine]

Part of the reason why America is so prosperous is the existence of its strong, healthy, middle class.

When you see developing nations becoming more prosperous, you see the emergence of a strong middle class (in China and, to a lesser degree, in India.)

Strong healthy businesses can't prosper when only a few people can afford their goods and services--because rich as the rich are, there are only a certain number of cars, or television sets, or cell phones, or computers they can use, and only a certain number of vacations they can take.

Tax policy that supports the development and maintenance of a strong middle class benefits everyone.

 

[praying]

I know a guy who is married and living on like $6.25 and hour.

No you know a guy who is married and is surviving on like 6.25 and hour because they sure as heck are not living.



Living implies some level of quality of life.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No you know a guy who is married and is surviving on like 6.25 and hour because they sure as heck are not living.



Living implies some level of quality of life.

I'm glad you know so much about my friends.

 

[Gremlins]

Part of the reason why America is so prosperous is the existence of its strong, healthy, middle class.

When you see developing nations becoming more prosperous, you see the emergence of a strong middle class (in China and, to a lesser degree, in India.)

Strong healthy businesses can't prosper when only a few people can afford their goods and services--because rich as the rich are, there are only a certain number of cars, or television sets, or cell phones, or computers they can use, and only a certain number of vacations they can take.

Tax policy that supports the development and maintenance of a strong middle class benefits everyone.

Indeed. If we look at South America after the democratisation of the 90's we see countries that are not only booming economically, but where the rich-poor gap is shrinking (Brazil being the prime example). I find it offensive that former banana republics can manage to use growth to improve the quality of life of a majority of the population, whilst in the West it just gets funnelled into the richest 5% or less.

 

[praying]

I'm glad you know so much about my friends.

I don't need to know about your friend, I know about the economy and the cost of living.

 

[praying]

Did I SAY it was the rule?

No you did not but you held it out there like look see my son has benefits so can you. The fact is most companies do not offer benefits to part time workers.

There are those that do though:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_8_48/ai_107526618/pg_2

Again, when people are making all these claims about things that CANNOT be done, it'd be great if they'd actually admit that lots of other people are doing the exact things they're claiming cannot be done.

I made no claims either. The only claim i make is one can survive (depending on where you live and your circumstances which makes a big difference as flicka has tried to point out) on $10 an hour but they cannot live.

Semantics maybe but I don't think so. Living to me and to most people embodies some level of quality of live not just making it.

 

[praying]

If you'd care to read what I wrote, I said that $10 per hour PLUS BENEFITS would add up to about $25,000 per year.

And I also showed - after having run the numbers on an actual 1040 - that said person would be paying about $1200 per year in federal income tax. That was a correction of JoyJuice's error in claiming that said person would only have $15,000 after taxes.

I have also shown that a single person, grossing $20,800 per year plus benefits, can qualify to buy a $65,000 home. Of course, if said person was single and smart, he/she would get several roommates to pay rent.


Anything else you might have missed?

I didn't miss them, I was responding as I went along. And my assessment was darn close.


Where does one find a home for 65,000?

 

[JustOneWay]

I didn't miss them, I was responding as I went along. And my assessment was darn close.


Where does one find a home for 65,000?

http://www.tri-county-realty.com/properties/index.php?c=5&id=167472

$55,000 !
I think its a single wide.

 

[joebudda]

http://www.tri-county-realty.com/properties/index.php?c=5&id=167472

$55,000 !
I think its a single wide.

Thats not "living"....

This is "living"....

 

[praying]

http://www.tri-county-realty.com/properties/index.php?c=5&id=167472

$55,000 !
I think its a single wide.

Yeah after I asked I went and looked. I saw tin roofs , clapboard trailer type homes.

 

[flicka]

There are parts of the country, heck, parts of the world where you can live on very little money. But not everyone can live in those places and IF THEY DID those places would no longer be low cost.

Do certain posters on this board actually not understand how these things work? It would be helpful to know before debating with someone.