[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

Currently, revenue is greater than spending, giving us a "bar bill" of deficits and debt. You can reverse that by cutting spending below revenue, raising revenue above spending, or altering both. Any of these three options creates an annual surplus that can be used to pay down the debt.

Methinks you wrote that backwards...if you have more revenue than spending, you'd have a surplus, not a deficit & debt.

[Psudo]

Yep, it's a wording mistake. I edited the post to correct it. Good catch.

[Teikiatsu]

Kjorteo wrote:

As someone whose tax burden is roughly $2,000 out of the roughly $10,000 he makes annually, exactly how much more pain do I need to feel to make it fair for everyone else?

$10,000 / 52 weeks = $192.31 per week.

Current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm

$192.31 / $7.25 = On average you work a maximum of 26.5 hours per week?

And you get taxed at 20%? Are you not getting it back at tax time? Have you not minimized your withholding? I'm scratching my head here.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo wrote:

No matter what, it should be a lot less than $2k. Do you just qualify for zero tax credits and tons of extra charges, or is there some illusion of massive income and expenditure that the IRS sees but that doesn't materially exist in your actual life?

Teikiatsu wrote:

$10,000 / 52 weeks = $192.31 per week.

Current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm

$192.31 / $7.25 = On average you work a maximum of 26.5 hours per week?

And you get taxed at 20%? Are you not getting it back at tax time? Have you not minimized your withholding? I'm scratching my head here.

It's because I weave for a living, and it pays by the piece, not the hour--if I want to make more per hour, I just have to work faster. It probably works out to less than minimum wage, but my options are somewhat limited--if only deciding to pull myself up and get a better job was as easily done as said as conservatives seem to think it is, but alas. I mean, it's not like I haven't been trying to get something better and more regular for ages or anything. I'm even in with one of those clerical staffing agencies and still applying for other jobs I see while I'm waiting for the staffing agency to call me back with anything they find, and I'll happily go with whatever happens first, but so far there haven't been any developments on either side. I don't know if you noticed, but the economy isn't really doing so well right now, which unfortunately affects the job market.

Anyway, my weaving technically counts as independent contract work--I get a 1099-MISC rather than a W2--so I might just be falling into the same negative loophole as Psudo's father.

Psudo wrote:

That means half of the deficit reduction is for things Republicans want cut (Democratic sacred cows, probably welfare and institutional costs of operation) and half is from things Democrats want cut (Republican sacred cows, taxes and defense spending). That way, by dollars the plan equally supports both parties' agendas, but the "no taxes" crowd is appeased a little.

That plan sounds reasonable enough to me, but unfortunately, I think this whole debt ceiling debacle proved that the "no taxes" crowd is not appeased by anything except just that--no taxes, at all, ever, even the loophole closing and stuff that even you think is fair. They don't, apparently.

[Psudo]

I don't remember where it was that someone said the cost of increased use of food stamps was contributing to the debt. I'm going to put it here in hopes it was this thread.

It's true, food stamp usage hit a record high of 45.8 million people in May (the most recent month for which data is available). At $101 per person, that's $4.6 billion for May (0.1% of the annual budget) and, if that's typical, $55.5 billion per year (1.5% of the annual budget). That's not really significant.

[Brenda]

Taking the risk to sound dumb... What are food stamps exactly (I mean, literally...)and how does it work?

*edit - I read the SNAP page, and I think you get a debit card with a certain amount of money on it, that you can buy certain foods for.
But what if my groceries for that day contains toilet paper and cigarettes? How do they do that? SNAP doesn't cover that...

[Psudo]

SNAP is only intended to cover nutritional necessities; aka, food. It's intended to fight hunger and malnutrition, not poverty.

Yet somehow it covers condoms. That bit doesn't make sense to me, but meh.

There is a black market for food stamps, where they'll pay roughly 60¢ in cash for every $1 in food stamps. If you're really desperate for some cigarettes (or whatever) and don't mind dealing with shady folks and evading law enforcement to get it, it can be done.

The nickname "food stamps" comes from the look of the paper version they used to have before they started doing everything with plastic. I've been a cashier, and yeah they look and work just like credit cards. They buy a bunch of stuff, run their food stamps card to pay for whatever it covers, then run their regular debit card to cover the rest.

[Teikiatsu]

Kjorteo wrote:

I don't know if you noticed, but the economy isn't really doing so well right now, which unfortunately affects the job market.

When my wife's job as a clinician for speech therapy dried up and she had to find part-time work as a inventory counter then a proofreader, we in no way, shape or form noticed the economy drying up. Her job depended on people who could afford the $40/hour therapy rate that wasn't covered by any medical insurance or student aid grants, but was certainly regulated by government bureaucracy. (Thanks HHS and Department of Education, for stifling independent therapy options and driving up costs with regulations, insurance and licensing fees!)

As for finding work, my wife is in the same boat as you; applying for other jobs and working through temp agencies and job headhunters. We *know* the job market is rough, and current regulatory/union labor policies aren't helping at all. I never said finding a job was easy, but a minimum wage job flipping burgers pays the bills. I had to do that for a full year after graduating college before I could find something better.

[Kjorteo]

Thank you, that was precisely the sort of evil labor union/welfare queen too lazy to go flip burgers even though that job is right there/etc. grumbling and stereotyping that makes me reluctant to publicly admit to making anything under $50k or so.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

There is a black market for food stamps, where they'll pay roughly 60¢ in cash for every $1 in food stamps. If you're really desperate for some cigarettes (or whatever) and don't mind dealing with shady folks and evading law enforcement to get it, it can be done.

Interesting -- I was approached by someone offering to sell me their "food stamps" for cash because she needed the money to pay a utility bill or something. It didn't really occur to me that she could have used the money for smokes or booze or whatever, although it was a moot point since I rarely pay for anything with cash and didn't have much at the time. Still, it was an odd experience for me since I had just moved to the US at the time.

[Thanos]

Teikiatsu wrote:

.... but a minimum wage job flipping burgers pays the bills.....

When, back in the 1950's? Get serious man.

[Psudo]

Thanos: I can pay my bills on the federal minimum wage, 40 hours a week. It depends on how you live and, when it affects cost of living, where.

[Brenda]

Psudo wrote:

Thanos: I can pay my bills on the federal minimum wage, 40 hours a week. It depends on how you live and, when it affects cost of living, where.

I have 2 kids. Minimum wage is not working when you have dependents.

[andyt]

Brenda wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Thanos: I can pay my bills on the federal minimum wage, 40 hours a week. It depends on how you live and, when it affects cost of living, where.

I have 2 kids. Minimum wage is not working when you have dependents.

Oh come on. With food banks and thrift stores and the BC rent subsidy, you could live a modest life on $8.75 x 2. And when it goes to $9.50 on Nov 1, well that's just gravy. But it gets even better, going to $10.25 on May 1 - that's living large. And you could just stick your kids in a closet while two or three jobs each and just be rolling in dough.

Anyway, as we've heard here over and over, only young kids work for minimum wage, and if you don't like it you should go back to school. Plus any increase in minimum wage will just be eaten up by inflation, so you won't be any further ahead. Plus anybody working for minimum wage is an epsilon and should be content with her lot.

[Psudo]

When I said I could pay my bills on minimum wage, I meant my household's bills, my wife's and mine, without any charitable or government assistance. Technically that includes one dependent (one member of the household not working). But it certainly doesn't include more and definitely isn't advisable as a lifestyle. I'm just saying different people have different costs of living and it doesn't make sense to make broad generalizations.