DUmmies eat their own over taxes.

[ScubaGuy]

More proof that the DUmmies are always worried that someone is getting more than they are.

What happend to the great Obummer tax relief?

Star Member RB TexLa

View profile
 
Fellow childfree folks, how much did you love writing the check out to the IRS after hearing all the

people with children talk about everything they were doing with their refunds for the last three months? Aren't "Family Values" great? They have value, we don't.

What? Paying taxes is patriotic.  What about the greater good to society.  Taxes are the price you pay for society.

hfojvt
24. so you have no problem

View profile
if a single person making $13,300 pays $449 in federal income taxes whereas a married couple with two children maing $44,900 pays $0 in federal income taxes. That seems perfectly fair to you? Further, about single people, I think Shari Motro said it best

"Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts. Yet they are denied perks given to married couples who, in many cases, neither need nor deserve them. Though gay couples certainly lose out as well, singles of any preference pay a triple price for not finding love: they don't enjoy the solace and support of a life partner; they don't profit from the economies of scale that come from pooling resources with a mate; and they effectively subsidize spousal benefits that they themselves can't take advantage of."

When somebody is getting screwed and they stand up for themselves, I don't think it's cool to berate them for being selfish. When the world says "kids, kids, kids" and "if you don't have kids, then you don't matter, because it is all about the kids."

Then you just re-affirm our society's bias - "yes, you really do not matter".

hfojvt
30. yeah, the great part about that is

View profile
when the future gets here, those kids won't matter either

only their kids will.

I dunno, it's not all about the future. Maybe the now should matter too.

And it's not all about me either. When I stand up and cry foul, it's not just for me

it's for EVERY single and childless person who is getting screwed.

Obviously this DUmmie has no idea how much it costs to raise a child.

Star Member dkf
90. The hardest part is affording housing as a single person.

View profile
Prices are based on two people working. Single people should get a break, not be detrimentally affected by higher taxes.

SATIRical
78. So who is going to be paying your Social Security? (nt)

Star Member dkf
89. If you didn't have to pay for other people you could have saved it.


Then you wouldn't need to pay. 16% a year should have added up to a decent nest egg.

Are you talking about being able to get out of SS and invest that money yourself?  Where have I heard that idea?

SATIRical
93. Yep, but that is not how the system works.

View profile
If we privatize or completely do away with SS and Medicare, then you are correct.

That is not the case, so all of the childless rely on the next generation (raised and provided for by others in society) to fund SS and Medicare for them.

hfojvt
113. ah, but the math says

View profile
that what they pay in will not be any greater than what I already paid in, so it is not like I OWE them anything now for some imaginary future support. I am already paying my share of FICA taxes right now.

SATIRical
114. Two things wrong with your math

A) your money paid in is gone. That was the way the system was designed. Wishing otherwise doesn't change the fact. If the next generation disappears, you get nothing.

B) You will almost certainly take out more than you put in. Basically it is like getting 10% APR return on investment. If you find a risk-free investment with that return, please let the rest of us know.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html

The system counts on the number of workers continuing to grow. And even with that, the income to the program has already been exceeded by its obligations.

hfojvt
117. those are not the numbers I came up with

View profile
based on what I paid in and what social security projected to me in various earning reports, it pays less than 4%. Not only does it pay less than 4%, but the equity is gone too. The person at that blog did not seem to include the EMPLOYER portion of the tax. If that was not there, then my employer could pay that to me in wages.

Talking about the next generation disappearing is a nonsense argument. Might as well base you argument on the earth getting destroyed by an asteroid.

Point is that I paid my dues there to receive my benefit. I should have to pay an extra subsidy to support other people's children who are paying their dues to receive their own benefit.

Also, my money I paid in is not gone. It has been borrowed.

There's a difference.

Otherwise you might as well say that the money in my savings account is "gone" too. Because, it too, has been borrowed.

hfojvt
111. that's assuming I live long enough to collect anything

View profile
and from my calculations, what I collect will not even begin to cover what I paid in, much less any subsidies that I paid for the child care of other people's children.

I have zero interest in a caregiver in a future nursing home. I got turned off of that by visiting too many nursing homes, particularly my great-aunt in 1984. She spent the whole visit crying (and drooling) and wishing she could escape. Looking back, I consider it a big personal failure on my part that I didn't bust her out of there in 1986 when I had my own place and my own income.

doc03
13. I am single and retired and I wrote a check for over $15000 for federal tax

View profile
I paid taxes on 85% of my SS, thanks Raygun and Clinton.

I think you're about 20 years out of date.  It's 2012, someone remind this DUmmie who's the President.

[Karin]

Oh this is RB Texla.  Remember him?  Someone wrote:

dionysus (20,655 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

7. i do not pay taxes with you.

 

It's quite a little squabble. 

[BEG]

Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts.

 

[Zeus]

I don't know about poorer but research has established that married people are overall happier and healthier than single people.

[TVDOC]

All this squabbling about not paying for someone elses benefits........kinda confuses me.....I thought the argument was when Obamacare was passed that it was the "progressive way" to contribute to everyone's welfare.....healthcare for all!!   Shouldn't the same hold true when their ox is being gored by the IRS????

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

"I'm more special than YOU are!!!111!!!"

 

[USA4ME]

Star Member dkf

The hardest part is affording housing as a single person. Prices are based on two people working. Single people should get a break, not be detrimentally affected by higher taxes.

Huh?!?

So the same house or apartment should cost less for a single person than for a married couple?  From where did you get that fuzzy math??

Of course in liberal whacko world, someone who makes $8/hr should only pay half as much for a gallon of milk as someone who make $16/hr.  You know, it's only fair.

 

.

[USA4ME]

Good thread.  The hits keep coming.

Regarding paying into the SS system:

hfojvt

122. I will be receiving a benefit because I paid the taxes that entitle me to that benefit. End of story.

And as Helicopter Ben said the gov't will pay you back every penny it owes,... right after it prints up the money.  IOW you'll get it back, but in cheaper dollars that won't have the buying power.  Welcome to liberalworld.

hfojvt

26. lots of negativity in the replies

The people with children are resentful when the childless point out that our pockets are being picked to subsidize those with children.

Go figure.

Viva la subsidy.

Or: note to the childless "shut the **** up and fork over the cash. We've got kids to feed."

One wonder how the hfojvt primitive feels about property owners who complain that a portion of their taxes are going to support public schools when they personally don't have any children in those public schools?  For the hfojvt primitive to remain consistent, he would need to side with those childless property owners who are opposed to their taxes supporting public schools.

My guess is the hfojvt dolt views that as being different.

.

[GOBUCKS]

Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts.

Sarah Imaboobi!

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sarah Imaboobi!

In her case it does raise a kind of chicken-or-the-egg question:  is she so hateful and nasty because she's single, or single because she's so hateful and nasty?

[Wineslob]

Also, my money I paid in is not gone. It has been borrowed.

So, DUmb, DUmb, who "borrowed" the money, and when will it be paid back?

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

[Zeus]

Quote from:
hfojvt

26. lots of negativity in the replies

The people with children are resentful when the childless point out that our pockets are being picked to subsidize those with children.

Go figure.

Viva la subsidy.

Or: note to the childless "shut the **** up and fork over the cash. We've got kids to feed."

As long as they aren't getting back more than they paid in they are self subsidizing,not costing another taxpayer squat. unlike say the 49% of people not paying any Taxes.

[GOBUCKS]

As long as they aren't getting back more than they paid in they are self subsidizing,not costing another taxpayer squat. unlike say the 49% of people not paying any Taxes.

Au cntrainere!

Every dime you have is a dime that DUmmy should get.

[Texacon]

SATIRical
114. Two things wrong with your math

A) your money paid in is gone. That was the way the system was designed. Wishing otherwise doesn't change the fact. If the next generation disappears, you get nothing.

B) You will almost certainly take out more than you put in. Basically it is like getting 10% APR return on investment. If you find a risk-free investment with that return, please let the rest of us know.

http://www.angrybearblog....return-on-investment.html

The system counts on the number of workers continuing to grow. And even with that, the income to the program has already been exceeded by its obligations.

Aside from the fact this DUmmies numbers are totally incorrect, concerning the ROI .... the rest of the post is pure gold.  Because DUmmie has hit on the truth of SS.  It IS/WAS/ALWAYS WILL BE a PONZI scheme!  Anyone who can type what this DUmmie typed and not realize the fact that SS is a Ponzi Scheme is a moron.

KC

[obumazombie]

^ It has the added benefit of being a redistribution scheme.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No, really:

RB TexLa (15,329 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Fellow childfree folks, how much did you love writing the check out to the IRS after hearing all the

people with children talk about everything they were doing with their refunds for the last three months? Aren't "Family Values" great? They have value, we don't.

Ever since Shit-Nozzle in Chief took over I saw my refund go from $6,000 to $2.300 to $1,000 to owing $200.

But hey...

...I got my SS payroll tax holiday for a few years, right?

What follows is long but stay with it; they will not disappoint your expactations of disappointment.

msongs (25,865 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. hey, people with no kids have tons more money to spend right? like gays? oh, wait nt

alcibiades_mystery (24,416 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

6. I have two kids age six and three...we wrote a check

I also write checks of $1000 a month for childcare, and $250 per six weeks for after school care. Lots of checks, actually. Enjoy your disposable income. I can pretty much assure you that you have more of it than I do.

Just sayin', my dude. 

Art_from_Ark (14,157 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

33. Just wait until those kids reach college age

That's when the "fun" shifts into high gear.

I'm sure the liberal indoctrination is worth every dime of that $120,000 your children will be saddled with...in addition to the $60,000/person national debt share.

nadinbrzezinski (104,261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

8. Me, me, me.

We don't have kids and you know what? I got no issues with it...nor paying for schools for the little ones.

I also know societies have favored having children, something about society continuity.

But I am sure it bothers you...

hfojvt (28,412 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

24. so you have no problem

if a single person making $13,300 pays $449 in federal income taxes whereas a married couple with two children maing $44,900 pays $0 in federal income taxes. That seems perfectly fair to you? Further, about single people, I think Shari Motro said it best

"Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts. Yet they are denied perks given to married couples who, in many cases, neither need nor deserve them. Though gay couples certainly lose out as well, singles of any preference pay a triple price for not finding love: they don't enjoy the solace and support of a life partner; they don't profit from the economies of scale that come from pooling resources with a mate; and they effectively subsidize spousal benefits that they themselves can't take advantage of."

When somebody is getting screwed and they stand up for themselves, I don't think it's cool to berate them for being selfish. When the world says "kids, kids, kids" and "if you don't have kids, then you don't matter, because it is all about the kids."

Then you just re-affirm our society's bias - "yes, you really do not matter".

nadinbrzezinski (104,261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

25. Perhaps I realize those kids

Are the future...

I dunno, it's not all about me.

hfojvt (28,412 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

30. yeah, the great part about that is

when the future gets here, those kids won't matter either

only their kids will.

I dunno, it's not all about the future. Maybe the now should matter too.

And it's not all about me either. When I stand up and cry foul, it's not just for me

it's for EVERY single and childless person who is getting screwed.

dkf (27,452 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

90. The hardest part is affording housing as a single person.

Prices are based on two people working. Single people should get a break, not be detrimentally affected by higher taxes.

It's almost as if the market adjusted to the liberal demand that households earn two incomes instead of traditional role-based economics.

static demand + increased currency supply = higher prices

Who could have forseen such a thing...other than every one except a liberal.

noamnety (17,639 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

176. single people can still get roommates.

That's what I did as a single mom - took in a local student as a boarder for a year or two. It's what my daughter does now that she's older, she rents a house with three other people.

Anyone who decides to live alone in an apartment or house will pay extra for that; it's a luxury to have a kitchen and bath and all that exists entirely for your own benefit. But that's a choice, whether or not you are married.

joeglow3 (2,570 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

222. So you should get your own house, while others must room up

Seems like YOU are the selfish one.

Response to hfojvt (Reply #30)
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 08:53 AM
SATIRical (261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

78. So who is going to be paying your Social Security? (nt)

dkf (27,452 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

89. If you didn't have to pay for other people you could have saved it.

Then you wouldn't need to pay. 16% a year should have added up to a decent nest egg. 

Did she just say what i think she said?

People make enough that SS should be irrelevant.

SATIRical (261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

93. Yep, but that is not how the system works.

If we privatize or completely do away with SS and Medicare, then you are correct.

That is not the case, so all of the childless rely on the next generation (raised and provided for by others in society) to fund SS and Medicare for them.

Once upon a time, families took care of their elders.

It seems SS is a device to take care of the childless and children who don't want to be bothered with gramps.

hfojvt (28,412 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

113. ah, but the math says

that what they pay in will not be any greater than what I already paid in, so it is not like I OWE them anything now for some imaginary future support. I am already paying my share of FICA taxes right now.

What a pant load of demonstrably disproveable bullshit.

If you think you can survive for 20 to 30 years on the $60/month you paid-in from age 18 to 65 you're spending too much of your retirement fund on dope.

SATIRical (261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

114. Two things wrong with your math

A) your money paid in is gone. That was the way the system was designed. Wishing otherwise doesn't change the fact. If the next generation disappears, you get nothing.

B) You will almost certainly take out more than you put in. Basically it is like getting 10% APR return on investment. If you find a risk-free investment with that return, please let the rest of us know.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html

The system counts on the number of workers continuing to grow. And even with that, the income to the program has already been exceeded by its obligations.

hfojvt (28,412 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

117. those are not the numbers I came up with

based on what I paid in and what social security projected to me in various earning reports, it pays less than 4%. Not only does it pay less than 4%, but the equity is gone too. The person at that blog did not seem to include the EMPLOYER portion of the tax. If that was not there, then my employer could pay that to me in wages.

Talking about the next generation disappearing is a nonsense argument. Might as well base you argument on the earth getting destroyed by an asteroid.

Point is that I paid my dues there to receive my benefit. I should have to pay an extra subsidy to support other people's children who are paying their dues to receive their own benefit.

Also, my money I paid in is not gone. It has been borrowed.

There's a difference.

Otherwise you might as well say that the money in my savings account is "gone" too. Because, it too, has been borrowed.

SATIRical (261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

119. No, the point is

you will be receiving a benefit from the children of others. And you did nothing to earn that benefit from those children or the additional cost/work those parents put into raising them to provide for you.

And we all know that if employers didn't have to pay into SS, our paychecks wouldn't increase accordingly.

So, please point me to this risk-free investment with a 4% return than you seem to think exists.

Yes, some of the money you paid has been borrowed but that reserve is depleting. I don't know how old you are, but it will be gone by about the time I retire for good.

hfojvt (28,412 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

122. I will be receiving a benefit

because I paid the taxes that entitle me to that benefit. End of story. Full stop. The children of others will be paying their own taxes to give THEMSELVES a benefit when they retire. I don't owe them sh*t because I paid my own way. And where I sit, it looks highly likely that I will have paid in far more than I get out. So a pie in the sky does not seem like much of an argument for being robbed today.

As for risk free investments. Clearly even social security is not risk free, as politicians on the right are determined to plunder it even further, so they can cut taxes for rich people.

But I am so old, I remember when bank CDs paid far more than 4%. When I first started my IRA I was getting something like 7% on CDs. Well, I ran a spreadsheet to predict the future value, and decided to use 5% just to be conservative and safe. At the time, it seems like a good bet that CD interest would never fall below 5%. Probably you could go back 30 years and it would always have been over 5%.

Too bad we only got 12 years into the future before rich people blew up the economy.

If what we pay in FICA is enough to be self-sufficient why are people not allowed to opt-out of the system?

It goes on like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002581575

[BlueStateSaint]

God works in mysterious ways, does He not?

nadinbrzezinski (104,261 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

8. Me, me, me.

We don't have kids and you know what? I got no issues with it...nor paying for schools for the little ones.

Thank you, God!!!!

[obumazombie]

God works in mysterious ways, does He not?

Thank you, God!!!!

It is so wonderful that there is a God, and that he shines down so brightly on BSS !

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

My bad for the dupe.

But now there's this...and you knew it was coming:

BlancheSplanchnik (5,252 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

139. current world population above 7 billion.

so continue to encourage population growth??

I want to see DISincentives to childbearing. And NO, that's NOT ALL ABOUT ME.

Destroy the planet, those kids ain't gonna have no future.

Imbalance is NOT the future, it is certain death.

stuntcat (11,152 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

161. TY

why is this, the most sensible thought, not felt by anyone else in this thread? Growth will slow down.. willingly and slowly, or forcefully and violently. To ME the violence has already started with the mass-extinction, oceans dying, forests razed to grow food, etc etc.

I've been called an extremist but I would kill myself before giving my innocent child the rest of this century. I'm glad my years are half over, I'm horrified by the things I know I'll see.

Warren DeMontague (34,252 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

200. And I assume you're headed over to Guinea-Bissou right now, where the so-called "population problem"

actually IS.

Because birth rates in the US are at replacement levels, that's it. The "population problem" in the US is due to immigration, not people having "too many kids".

BlancheSplanchnik (5,252 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

205. Can the snark.

I'm well aware that population threats don't belong to the U.S. alone.

I looked it up and see that you are right, US pop. growth is mainly due to immigration. However, large populations in "First World" Nations puts a huge demand on resources, as well as a waste stream out of proportion to other nations. Wealth drives exploitation of global resources and destruction of habitat and of other species.

US is third in population to Asia and India, both moving into the industrial age similar to US and Europe's Industrial period, with focus on growth and production, with the pollution and dangers similar to that period.

I notice you say "so-called" population problem. So you think the continuing human increase is a fallacy? If you do think that, I certainly hope you can explain your perspective including links to credible research, because frankly, if you can ease my mind, I'll be your best bud forever.

Seeing as how we're ALL connected, activities aren't isolated but affect every place and everything, like a net spread around the globe. Pull one string and the whole net moves.

Warren DeMontague (34,252 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

208. So if no Americans have babies, the population issue in Zimbabwe is solved?

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 02:16 AM USA/ET - Edit history (5)

Because that's the logic you're trying to use, here.

If "first world people use more resources", then that's a resource use problem. Not a population problem. Seems to me, we have 3 solutions only one of which I consider reasonable or palatable:

One) we could find less resource intensive renewable ways to power our first world lifestyles,
Two) we could drastically reduce our lifestyle to third world levels, eliminating along the way many completely wasteful, indulgent first world habits that drain resources, like for instance pet ownership.
Three) we could all die off as quickly as possible.


Authoritative sounding platitudes about how "everything is connected" notwithstanding, the FACT is, the so-called population problem is a localized phenomenon, dependent on culture, economics, and personal freedom. and when people have a decent standard of living (i.e. the dreaded "first world lifestyle"), access to contraception, and a high degree of autonomy from authoritarian types (usually, but not always, religious in nature) who try to dictate their life choices to them, They manage their population and reproduction rates on their own.

We have this ****ing argument every. Damn. Time. Someone tries to float this shit here, and so anyone really interested can dig up the threads from 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and so on where this same tax whining about "stop making me pay for yer brats" and "stop having kids dammit!" was floated, every time being soundly refuted with reminders that, no, population is not fungible, the population problem is localized and dependent on localized factors, and really if one is mad about paying taxes for stupid shit maybe one should start with the military or the drug war instead of the next generation.

And if this is really about someone's fine dining experience at TGIFs being ruined by a crying baby or someone's meditative shopping experience at Wal mart being ruined by a demanding toddler whining in aisle 72, then at the very least admit its an axe grinding exercise and not some highfalutin' attempt at a moral point.

After which a wiki fight ensues.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Logical (4,395 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

11. Sounds like you would have been a crappy parent anyways! What....

A rude and mean post! Should be locked!

Darth_Kitten (13,977 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

65. This is a rude and mean post. Crappy PARENTS are the ones who don't do society a favour.

Giving birth or impregnating someone doesn't automatically make anyone a better, nicer, more caring, more worthwhile, wiser, or more useful human being. 

Honestly.

ceile (8,107 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

138. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is.

Why hasn't it been hidden?

fascisthunter (26,911 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

145. did you read the OP... be consistent

[obumazombie]

I love the "Mother Lode" aspect of this thread. Such a wonderful imagery.

[Wineslob]

BlancheSplanchnik (5,252 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Since you advocate 0 population growth...........you go first.