A few facts about taxes in America

So in a nutshell, the chart shows that until around 1940, tax burdens were low for everyone, in historical terms. Then they rose sharply for everyone until about 1970. At that point, the rich and poor began to diverge. Those making around $10,000 to around $50,000 per year enjoyed a comparatively low-tax period in the 70s, but by the early 80s they were taxed slightly higher than the historical average. In the 2000s, their tax rate came back down a bit. By contrast, those making more than roughly $200,000 a year saw a sharp decrease in their tax burden starting in the 80s. That trend has continued to this day.

It's clear, then, that across the board, today's tax rates are low by historical standards--and for the rich they're very low. If the bottom of the chart showed more red and less blue, our deficit problem would be a lot more manageable.

The chart also has implications for another topic we've written about here before--wealth and income inequality. As you can see, no one's taxes today are particularly high by historical standards, but those making $1 million or more per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the lowest burden, relative to past rates.

At a time when a horde of stats indicates that the gap between rich and poor has widened into chasm--and when Congress and the White House are set to argue again later this year about whether to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich--it's well worth keeping this bigger picture in mind.

There is a chart you can refrence, if interested in facts vs political posturing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout...burden-for-rich

So how is it that about 50% of the people don't pay any federal income tax?

Here is how: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...come-tax/38627/

Tax the rich! That'll solve all our woes.

I've got a better idea. Keep three nuke subs roaming the globe and make public statements that any country that phucks with us will be immediately turned to glass. Keep a 100,000 man standing army in case the Canadians decide they feel like inhabiting a warmer climate. Then give the big middle finger to the military industrial complex that spends more tax dollars than the GDP of some European nations. Gas prices will drop $2.00 overnight since the world's largest user group will no longer be using it. Eliminate all that and we should be able to cut taxes to roughly half of what we pay now.

Even with that gov't "revenue" reduction we'll still have plenty of money to turn our country into the "free-handout", do nothing, rotten cess pool, everybody is equal, socialist utopia so many of you hope for.

Sound good?

While that is a "scary" sound-bite, what percentage of the nation's income do you think the top 20% earn? What percentage of the nation's wealth do you think those 20% have?

I'll gladly pay my "unfair" share if anyone wants to lob me into the top 20%.

Let's maintain the proper context, Chuck:

"The top one percent soaked up two-thirds of the income gains of the 2000s..."

It is obvious that we can eliminate the debt simply by taxing the wealthy at 1/2 the rate they paid in 1960. I do not consider that soaking the rich. Damn I wish I was in a higher tax bracket. PLEASE soak me!!!

If the republicans really cared about America as much as they do about their ultrarich sugar daddys we could eliminate the debt easily. Three steps put the tax rate back where they were when we had the Clinton era surplusses, cut corporate welfare, and cut the military down to a level where we only spend five times as much as China and Russia combined.

I don't think the top 20% is the appropriate demographic to study in gauging how much tax the richest Americans pay relative to others. The last figure I saw that I know was legit was from the '90s, when it was reported that 10% of Americans accounted for 90% of the wealth. I would venture to guess that gap has only widened since then, but I don't know the current numbers, so I'll stick with those.

If the top 10% account for 90% of the wealth, the other 10% of those being placed under the 20% "rich" umbrella are surely accounting for a much smaller percentage of wealth than the top 10%, yet they are being taxed at the same rate as the top 10%. If I were one of those people, I would be really upset with this tax structure. Being among the 30% that aren't called "rich" and still pay some amount of income tax, even I don't like seeing that 50% aren't paying any tax at all, but I think that top 10% is definitely getting over on the rest of us, especially the 10% immediately below them.

I think that second tier (top 11-20%) represents the folks who will tell you they worked hard for what they have and shouldn't be shouldering the burden of those who aren't contributing. For those folks, that argument makes sense to me. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there are very few in the top 10% who have amassed their own wealth through hard work and dedication. Most of them were likely born into rich families and have never lifted a finger, except to make investments that earn them more money. To look at this from an honest perspective, I think we should only qualify the top 10% or so as "rich."

Chuck, choosing the quote you did first post post seemed inline with the meme that the rich are unfairly taxed, which is an OPINION I object to. I didn't disagree with the sentence itself, which is FACT.

Your most recent post is dead-on and you are really just reinforcing the article. "Tax breaks" are created by politicians to avoid the idea of RAISING taxes to pay for something. It would be much more honest to avoid giving tax breaks and just keeping the system simply tax and then spend. Irish Rogue has discussed this at length in the recent past in referencing things like "child deductions" and "mortgage deductions".

The fact remains that despite the loudest voices claiming otherwise, people are now taxed at a lower level than they have been in the last several decades.

-AP

Glad to see you and Dave back...

Flea,

While I don't fully endorse your model, I'm fully willing to go along with it. I'll leave the second 10% alone. Hell, I'd leave everyone alone except the richest 2%. Those people alone could solve our debt issues. What continues to amaze me is watching poor people fight for the interests of the rich. It is utter brilliance to have people so worked up about being "oppressed by the liberal elite" to realize they have a giant rich-person-penis in their ass.

-AP

Generally a wise decision.



+1. That's really what I was getting at. I just couldn't come up with anything as eloquent. Giant rich-person-penis in their ass... poetry, at its finest.

+1

Here's an indisputable fact: I've already paid the IRS $9,500 in 2010 and I get to send them another $4500 by April 15th. $14,000 IMO is plenty and that is with 2 kids and the mortgage deduction. I didn't even get dinner or a kiss first.

DB:

No one likes to pay taxes, but the fact remains our tax rates are quite low today compared to previous times. Assuming you had AGI of $100,000 in 2010, your incremental tax rate (The rate you would pay on amounts in excess of $100,000 would be 33%. If I'm reading the chart posted below correctly, had you earned that same amount in 1968 your incremental tax rate would have been 60% . In 1935 the incremental rate on amounts in excess of $100,000 was 56%.

It looks to me like your parents and grandparents had it much worse.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Our parents and grandparents had wars to pay for. The invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is the first time the United States has ever been in war and didn't pay for it by raising taxes -- significantly.

Goes to show you how much more the opinion of the wars would have been swayed if everyone's taxes had been raised to actually pay them.

Dave, there are way more people making over $100,000 today versus 1935 and comparing the tax rates from then and now probably isn't very effective. $1 in 1935 had the same buying power as $16 dollars in 2010. So, if I'm figuring this right, the $100,000 earned today would be equal to $6,250 back then. That $6,250 would put you in the 10% bracket, not 25% as today. I doubt that $625 was easy to swallow in 1935 as that was the depression, I do know that I'm not enjoying sending off $14k though. I would much rather stimulate the economy with about $5k of it on a new O/B bracket for my Olympic. Maybe next year.

One other thing to consider is that there are a lot more people to fleece now as compared to the 1970's and the 1930's too. You can drop the rate some and make up the difference in volume.

Productivity isn't up 80% because the workers are working 80% harder--- it's mostly because of innovations in equipment(usually replacing workers)
More goods produced by less workers equals more productivity.

Your points are well taken. And I do understand the lack of love for taxes. It has always been so. I paid about the same as you and would have liked to keep it all. But I also understand we need to pay for our wars, our highways, airports, etc. If not me, who?

If you look at a more recent year, say 1968, you see the tax rate on $6,000 was 25%. What I don't understand it how today so many are howling about their high taxes when that was not such a big thing back then. What has changed? Perhaps a continoue PR campaign by those who want the American dream but do not want to help pay for it?

I would imagine that in 1968 people definitely howled about how much they paid in taxes, they have been doing that since before there was a USA. There was no talk radio, cable news, or fishing boards on the internet to complain with , so it wasn't heard.

It has been my experience that people who squeal about taxes would squeal regardless whether or not they are paying a fair share. Of course by not paying a fair share, their burden is transferred to everyone else....a point which is conveniently swept under the rug. These people aren't interested in "fair".....they want "special".....or at the very least a rewriting of the definition of "fair". Fact is, the more you make, the more you pay. Median income folks crying about "flat tax" are shooting themselves in the foot, as upper income folks pay the lion's share already.

The fact is there was not the huge outburst by politicians there is today. Lowering taxes is the primary rallying cry of the Tea Party and the Republican party. Why?

And if you look at the first chart I posted you will see we are now taxed at the lowest inflation adjusted rates in the past 50 years. Yet today we think we have a taxing crisis.

Just maybe we don't have a taxing problem, maybe we have a
spending problem..(regardless of party)

What is different now from 50 years ago is all the taxes combined. State, local, fed, and then the hidden taxes. We in have built taxes and fees through out everything we do from manufacturing to leisure activities. I don't remember what the % is but if you add all the taxes and fees we all pay it is way up there. ( around 45% of gross for the average wage earner I think but could be wrong ) When you hide taxes in product cost folks don't see them but kinda raises hell with jobs when competing with other countries as most don't take that approach.

Its a combination of different factors that bugs people.
1. Most people are convinced they pay more than they do.
2. People who do pay usually feel they get little in return. Nothing pisses me off more than looking at my tax bill, then seeing user fees on everything I want to use. Parks, walks woods, etc... Then call the cops and they refuse to come.
3. Over regulation that makes them feel they are paying to get screwed.
4. Hidden taxes that raises the rate.
5. A very visible non-working class of people who get benefits, so of which they can't afford. I was paying close to $2000 grand a month and could not get anywhere near the level of insurance my mother-in-law gets from the state (she is on SS for a disablility). For not working she had a car, cable TV. better insurance, a credit card, cell phone, and lived in a very nice apartment with a pool and work out center.
6. For those that do make a lot, a realization that they are over paying to give the benefits I listed in #5.
7. A lack in faith in the government.
8. The high Social Security rates that they are convinced are not worth anything. For self employed people this can be higher than taxes. For workers they often lump it in with their tax rate.
9. and most of all, a belief that a starter home is 2500 sq ft, a car must be brand new, cable and a cell phone are standard utiilities, and eating out is standard.


What personally is hard for me is that this last year my industry has collapsed. Almost everyone I know is struggling or has filed bankruptcy. No benefits from the state or gov't and the only program other than free school lunches I qualify for was the insurance program the state suspended. I will get by, but paying taxes really does feel like I am just handing over my money and will never see a return for 90% of it.

AM,
"They make sure each kid has a different father and usually have 4 kids. She gets child support from each dad, low income housing, food stamps and cheap medical insurance."


Simply not so. The Child Support Enforcement Act of 1976 requires that any woman receiving welfare must assign all child support payments to the state. In fact, the state collects the payments. If the total of the payments exceed the amount of welfare payment the woman receives the difference. So having kids with four guys will do absolutely nothing to increase welfare payments.

If the woman is not married to the father the state will establish paternity and set a support amount. If the woman refuses to cooperate in determining the father she is denied welfare.

Having added kids will, I believe, increase the food stamp allowance, but I doubt that is a money maker. Same with medical care. Not much benefit to having a kid just so it can have medical care.

"I've said it before and y'all get pissy. When i look at my federal taxes every year, I am amazed at how little I pay. I am undertaxed."

Hop in your microbus put on some of that shitty music your generation listens too and head on down and help this guy out with all your extra untaxed money. Why wait for someone to do if for you?


http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post670402

Apparently Vedder is a welfare ex-spurt....and KayKay is Chicken Littles new internet mouthpiece.

Ain't love grand.....a week or so together in the jungle and now they're the new PP tag team.

RVW For once, you are almost right. I was deputy director of the federal child support enforcment agency for two years. I guess that does make me a bit an expert on the topic of child support.

What I don't understand is why you seem unable to have a discussion without silly name calling and character assasination. If you have a point - make it. I will happliy debate you. But if all you want to do is call names, you will have to play by yourself.

Also please note KK and AM were fudeing before I met KK.

Dave--- You ain't no ex-spurt...at least not with any credibility even if you did that for 2 years........... decades ago.

Why are you so sensitive? It seems you get a chubby by KayKays nasty retorts but wind up with a sandy vagina when the tables turn.

Pull your panties up and stop being an old bitch.

It's feuding smart guy...how come KayKay didn't correct your spelling?

AM. I have never said anything about whether or not women can job the system. I just pointed out that getting child support will not help them with welfare, and in some cases, such as your hypothetical, may keep them from qualifying for many welfare programs. If you want to continue arguing you will have to find something we disagree on.

RvW If you knew me at all you would know how far off the mark you are. I probably laugh more than anyone you know. Nothing you have said has angered me in any way. But you do make me laugh pretty often. Thanks for that.

I was disappointed that we can’t have a discussion on issues because you only want to call names. I have friends who hold many views similar to yours. But they understand you can disagree without being disagreeable. Too bad you don't get that.

There are aspects of taxes that piss me off as much as the next guy. "Hidden Taxes" was mentioned. Our state has the "opt out" parks tax that is collected unless you say "NO". Something terribly wrong with a government that uses sneak thief tactics. It is opportunistic in the extreme...."Oh, ha ha ha, you made a mistake. That'll be ten bucks, please." And the folks who created it want your respect....really.

You/Me/We are the State's milk cows....nothing more, nothing less. Get used to it. And they don't give a hoot whether or not you have chaffed tits, they're gonna yank on 'em some more.

I posted before that the way the budget will be balanced is to make everyone an outlaw. Are you starting to believe it yet?

And on just a little different note, the Feds don't have to balance the budget, so there are NO LIMITS to the amount THEY can collect. Think about that. At least at the County and State levels, the budget has to be balanced, so there is a given number that has to be reached.

I don't like long posts, so I'll shut up (go ahead, say it )

One more thing....If Seniors get tax breaks because they only make $35K, then so should anyone regardless of age. What we have going is age descrimination in reverse. Where's the break that 35 year old working Joe and his 35 year old working wife get who have a mobile home and 3 kids and only make 40K/year combined? Seniors are needy, but so are others who don't get a break.....what's wrong with that picture?

Done. Done.

One more thing....If Seniors get tax breaks because they only make $35K, then so should anyone regardless of age. What we have going is age descrimination in reverse. Where's the break that 35 year old working Joe and his 35 year old working wife get who have a mobile home and 3 kids and only make 40K/year combined? Seniors are needy, but so are others who don't get a break.....what's wrong with that picture?


I agree 100%

Dave---What's funny is we have met...a couple of times. Our conversations were pleasant and we did laugh... you bummed a few dips off of me and we chatted. You are a nice guy but so am I....internet personalities be damned.

In any case Dave I will stop...and do know that I don't dislike you in the slightest. I'd share a drink with you again...but I might have you buy this time. wink

That's all I gotta' say bout that.

Deal. I quit dipping - I hope. But the drink thing sounds fine. Can I invite my girlfriend, KK?

Truth is I wasn't so upset at your accusation KK and I were haveing sex as the implication I couldn't do better.

KK being on the bottom I would think!!!PEACE

All the answers you could ever want to your Welfare Queen questions can be found here;

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/stds4cash.shtml#388-478-0045

Short answer;

If you're a worthless, pathetic $hitstain and you prefer watching Nancy Grace and hoovering up jumbo jacks and winstons as opposed to working, and you squeeze out more kids,....... you get more cash,....... period.

Whether it be in the form of child support or TANF assistance. Even if the toothless meth addict you had your fifth gremlin with pays child support, if it doesn't exceed what you would receive in cash assistance,..... the state will bring your cash assistance up to speed. Case closed.

Dave you seem like a great guy with a big heart. I'm sure it'd be a laugh to tip back a few shots of some fine tequila with ya. Although no matter how humane it seems to be to hand people [censored] who don't have the wherewithal to go out and get it for themselves,.......it's a failing policy and only serves as a detriment to the recipient.

You either didn't see the word "working" Dad AND Mom, or think that all poor folks are leaches with no ambition to be better off than they are. Too bad for you. You need to get out more?
As far as earned income credit and deductions.....the money saved/received isn't as much as you may think and certainly doesn't do much to the expense(s) of child rearing. Which, by the way, is not an expense seniors have to bear. So again....where's the justification for allowing seniors to escape? For your information the exemption also includes the house and up to five acres, and wealth is NOT a factor. In other words, old Mr. Jones, gets the exemption if he makes/draws less than Thirtyfive K after medical expenses anually EVEN if he has Three Million in the Bank....AND to top all that, Old Man Jones gets to vote on taxes he's not liable for.
Look there are no easy answers, but there are a lot of inequities out there, and there are a lot of misconceptions. Poverty is not always a clear choice.....especially in today's market.

Goood Morning, Aunty! Take your meds? Had your coffee? Read Carefully now, OK?
The poor get tax breaks at the Fed Level only. The seniors (as well as disabled) get tax breaks at the Local Level and the Fed Level. Perhaps you are familiar with that.
Your attempt (SW's as well) to paint the poor as lazy, incompetent remorras on society is not only inaccurate, it's downright haughty, and I think you have a lot of nerve looking down your nose.
The attempt to somewhat equalize the working poor's income with income tax credit has always pulled my chain as well, but I can't think of a better solution, can you? My wife and I pay in more than twice what a co-worker gets back. Both he and his wife are terrific parents (better than I ever was/am) and they have a great family. I'm guess that he is about 40 and I have every confidence that they will find a way to improve their standard of living at some point.
I personally would rather remove the exemption from some lying-ass old biddy who snow-birds and has a wad in savings than take away a loving couple's assistance when the latter is doing all they can to stay afloat.

Once again, people who make less than the ultra wealthy are the enemy. Let's make sure we put all of the tax burden on a young couple with a kid. The millionaire with tax-evading offshore accounts shouldn't be paying his share anyway...

SW,

I read the regs AGAIN. I see nothing to indicate there is any benefit to a woman to having multiple kids with multiple fathers as regards to amount of welfare TANF they get. The formula is based on family size but I do not see where the amount the woman gets from the state is increased by the number of husbands they have or the amount of child support they receive.

But if you look at the chart you will see that a family of four that does not receive any housing assistance qualifies for $562 a month. If the woman has another child that goes up to a whopping $648. Remember this is for a household NOT recieving ANY housing assistance.

Please explain how that added amount makes life easier for the woman. If you know how to raise a kid for $86 a month please tell us.

It is an urban myth that women have more kids just to increase welfare payments. They do so for a number of really stupid reasons but to increase their monthly welfare check is not one of them. Yeah, yeah, I know you know this guy who knows this guy . . .

I, on the other hand have done in home reviews of many welfare recipients in sveral cities across the nation. Some are indeed worthless pieces of [censored], but many are simply poorly educated women that had a crappy life before hubby left and even less now. Want to eliminate the welfare program tell me how to take care of those children. Or would you prefer they starve?


Alsp please note the T in TANF stands for temporary. Federal law limits a families welfare payments to 3-5 years.

So if the guy making a million a year pays $390,000 in taxes thats not his fair share?

TM:

Fair is subjective, but in your example the person would pay considerably less than $390,000. The rate of tax is based on AGI. Not total income. There a many ways a person earning $1,000,000 can reduce AGI.


A quick Internet search shows that on average, millionaires pay an effective tax rate of about 17%

WARNING C&P TO FOLLOW


There are two important things to note from this chart. The first, and most visually apparent, is that the tax rates of the rich are far more closely linked to the capital gains taxes than income taxes. Salaries and wages, the source of income taxed at the blue line, represented only 6.5 percent of these filers’ income. Nearly two-thirds of their income comes from capital gains, and this is why you see a much tighter coupling between the orange and red lines.

The second thing to note is that the overall tax rates are really not that high. Contrary to concerns about socialism or a government takeover, the richest Americans, those earning an average of $345 million in 2007, paid about 16.5 percent in federal income taxes.

AM:

I do not for a minute doubt your anecdotal evidence. But today that same woman would, if we assume each daddy paid $700 a month, which is on the low side, NOT qualify for TANF - AKA welfare, she would not qualify for housing assistance, I do not know qualifying income levels for food stamps but would bet at $2,800 monthly income food stamps payments would be very little. Bottom line a woman today getting average child support from four dads would qualify for very little if any in welfare assistance. And TANF is still limited to 3-5 years per family.

She could live on the child support, but that is another issue form welfare altogether.

The amazing thing is everyone can reduce their AGI, our tax laws apply to everyone. With a little research anyone can use these laws to their advantage..But I guess that some people would rather just bitch about it..

AM.

Your original post was in response to a discussion of welfare queens. Yes, I know what you said. And this is part of what you said.

"She gets child support from each dad, low income housing, food stamps and cheap medical insurance."

I'm simply trying to point out that today things are different. She would very likely NOT qualify for any low income housing, food stamps, or other welfare type programs.

And yes, I do remember bumming smokes from you. Hell I was a serial quitter. When in quit mode I would bum smokes or chew from anyone. I am happy to say I have been 100% tobacco free for eight months. Hows' your addiciton coming?

Aunty:

<Disclaimer> I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I think both parties' platforms fall well short of anything that would actually benefit most people in our society. I agree with some of what each party preaches, but far from all. </Disclaimer>


What you are saying here does have some merit in a perfect world, but if it has any merit in the real world, it ain't much. The real world problems I see are as follows:

First, claiming that people should wait until they are financially secure to have kids seems like a no-brainer until one considers that most Americans don't reach that point until they are at least 35, or probably closer to 40, and some never reach that point at all. Waiting until you are in your late 30s to have kids is a big gamble. Not only is there a much higher risk of birth defects at that age, but there is also a very real chance you won't be able to conceive at all. This is to say nothing of the fact that sometimes, no matter how careful a couple is being, if they are sexually active, they can accidentally get pregnant. Nature finds ways to get around what we humans would like from time to time. I will say that what they do after having that child is something they can control, and to some extent, there are things everyone can do to earn a little more scratch.

Next, as I have asserted before on this board, a functioning society takes all kinds. Not everyone can make a six-figure salary, which seems to be the typical Republican answer for everything. Some products and services need to be affordable, which means the people providing them can't earn a lot of money. If every American did as you suggest and took the necessary steps to earn a great salary, it would serve only to devalue the education and skills required for that salary, thereby reducing the salary paid. Meanwhile, there would be nobody left to do the honest, hard work it takes to build, serve, and deliver the things we need to enjoy a good quality of life. Do you think so little of the hardest-working component of our society that you would tell them they should not be allowed to have children because they don't have enough money?

To be clear, I'm not advocating for abuse of the welfare system, which I generally agree does need some reform. I don't blame welfare recipients for any large part of the economic problems our country faces, but as a matter of principle, I do think every able-bodied person should have to do some kind of work to earn a living. I also understand that there are some real issues that prevent a lot of welfare moms from being able to work (paying for childcare comes to mind immediately). The real problem I see is with the children being raised on welfare. If they grow up in an environment where Mom doesn't work, they're going to figure that's how they're supposed to live when they grow up. Not the example we should be setting for these kids (if we want them to do something different, that is).

You're right,..... that is in the regs. Although for decades Washington state has ignored that guideline, along with many others. There are literally thousands of cases that have been on the rolls exceeding 5yrs,...... all the way up to 20+yrs. This I know for a fact.

Conversely,....... the state began dropping 5+ cases off the rolls beginning February 1st of this year. They have a long way to go,...... but it's good start in my opinion. If you can't get your act together in five years, others shouldn't be required to shoulder the burden of providing you cash.

Also, I never made the contention that having children with multiple fathers somehow increased the benefits,........ that was AM. What I did say, and was correct about, was that having more kids equals receiving more benefits. If you think that women don't game the system and have more kids to increase their benefits, you are absolutely kidding yourself. Welfare fraud cases are not isolated incidents,.... they are rampant. The state could employ an army of investigators and never keep up. Not to mention many state financial workers don't care about reporting fraud to investigators because "it's all gov't money anyhow".

In your model you're assuming the 4 deadbeat fathers are all paying child support payments on time and in full. They are as much to blame here as any "welfare queen" ever would be. If she isn't receiving any of the support the state is picking up the slack. They can go after the fathers. Although the average number of cases on a support enforcement officers desk in this state is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,...... maybe you can shed a little light on that considering your experience.

My earlier comments may have been harsh but they were also tounge-in-cheek. If you look back to my first comment on this thread I stated that we should be looking at the bloated war and military budget before we go attacking welfare mothers. Anyone who doesn't want to look at the ridiulous defense budget has got no business complaining about entitlements IMO.

SW

Also, I never made the contention that having children with multiple fathers somehow increased the benefits that was AM.

Nope, she never said anything like that. TIC


What I did say, and was correct about, was that having more kids equals receiving more benefits.


We both agree on that. I was simply pointing out that adding husbands to get child support does not help.



If you think that women don't game the system and have more kids to increase their benefits, you are absolutely kidding yourself.


If they can do math they would be fools to have another kid to pick up less than $100 a month.


Welfare fraud cases are not isolated incidents,.... they are rampant. The state could employ an army of investigators and never keep up. Not to mention many state financial workers don't care about reporting fraud to investigators because "it's all gov't money anyhow".

I think there is a good deal of welfare fraud. Back when I was doing in home visits I saw some but it was not rampant. Today, I don't know. But having more kids, while stupid, is not fraudulent.


In your model you're assuming the 4 deadbeat fathers are all paying child support payments on time and in full. They are as much to blame here as any "welfare queen" ever would be. If she isn't receiving any of the support the state is picking up the slack.

Again I was referring to an anecdotal case where purposely having multiple fathers increased the mother’s income. I agree with you such is very rare. Most of these losers marry losers that cannot or will not pay child support


They can go after the fathers. Although the average number of cases on a support enforcement officers desk in this state is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,...... maybe you can shed a little light on that considering your experience.

I have been out of it more than a few years, so I guess I am no expert, but that caseload isn't all that bad. Washington was a national leader in efficient management of cases. The national child support program was modeled after Washington’s. The director at the time, Bob Quarry, had been in the Berlin airlift and he modeled the caseload management after that. Each officer grabs a case does the next logical action, say calling an employer to garnishee wages, then puts that case as idle and does the next logical step in the next case. So he may have one hell of a ,lot of cases "open" but it’s not like he's wading thru one till completion then picking up the next. I worked in a state office as part of my indoctrination. Its damn hard work and often frustrating. If an absent father stays in one job it’s pretty easy to collect support. But if a douche bag is willing to move every three months its damn hard to get anything out of him. But I do agree they could use more officers.

One problem with a meat axe approach to budget balancing is across the board cuts. When I was active in the program each officer was bringing in about ten times his wage. Yet when they had a budget crunch they laid off child support workers.

If you think that women don't game the system and have more kids to increase their benefits, you are absolutely kidding yourself.


If they can do math they would be fools to have another kid to pick up less than $100 a month.

You're giving them entirely too much benefit of the doubt.

Welfare fraud cases are not isolated incidents,.... they are rampant. The state could employ an army of investigators and never keep up. Not to mention many state financial workers don't care about reporting fraud to investigators because "it's all gov't money anyhow".

I think there is a good deal of welfare fraud. Back when I was doing in home visits I saw some but it was not rampant. Today, I don't know. But having more kids, while stupid, is not fraudulent.

I should have clarified. Having more children is certainly not fraud. Even if the intended purpose is to collect more benefits, it's almost impossible to prove. Welfare fraud more commonly comes in the form of the father living in the same household while working and contributing to the overall household income. Recipients know full well if that income is included,...... their benefits come to a stop.

In your model you're assuming the 4 deadbeat fathers are all paying child support payments on time and in full. They are as much to blame here as any "welfare queen" ever would be. If she isn't receiving any of the support the state is picking up the slack.

Again I was referring to an anecdotal case where purposely having multiple fathers increased the mother’s income. I agree with you such is very rare. Most of these losers marry losers that cannot or will not pay child support

I think you would find you and I agree on things much more than we disagree. It's the way to solve them where we will differ

They can go after the fathers. Although the average number of cases on a support enforcement officers desk in this state is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,...... maybe you can shed a little light on that considering your experience.

I have been out of it more than a few years, so I guess I am no expert, but that caseload isn't all that bad. Washington was a national leader in efficient management of cases. The national child support program was modeled after Washington’s. The director at the time, Bob Quarry, had been in the Berlin airlift and he modeled the caseload management after that. Each officer grabs a case does the next logical action, say calling an employer to garnishee wages, then puts that case as idle and does the next logical step in the next case. So he may have one hell of a ,lot of cases "open" but it’s not like he's wading thru one till completion then picking up the next. I worked in a state office as part of my indoctrination. Its damn hard work and often frustrating. If an absent father stays in one job it’s pretty easy to collect support. But if a douche bag is willing to move every three months its damn hard to get anything out of him. But I do agree they could use more officers.

One problem with a meat axe approach to budget balancing is across the board cuts. When I was active in the program each officer was bringing in about ten times his wage. Yet when they had a budget crunch they laid off child support workers.

Case in point to the last item. Adding more support enforcement officers in a budgetary crisis isn't currently feesible. Private support enforcement agencies exist that work in conjunction with state enforcement agencies. They are efficient and cost the taxpayer zero.

SW

I didn't know about the private contractors. How do they make money - a percent of recoveries? If so, doesn't that cost the state in terms of not recovering the full amount to offset TANF payments.

The state always gets paid first. Most private contractors who perform this service won't take cases where state benefits exceed a certain amount. Otherwise, they would be working for the state.

They do get paid a percentage of recovery based on fees that the non-custodial parent will pay at the time of garnishment, lien, or recovery, and the custodial parent will have to take a hit in what they would have received in total.

Better than what they would have gotten otherwise.

The best scenario would be a balance of private contractors and state enforcement for recovery of back child support. State enforcement working on recovering what is owed to the state to recoup expenditures in benefits paid. Private contractors working on all other claims. Of course, the custodial parent would have the option of choosing since going the private route would cost them something.

SW

When I was with OCSE, federal law required collection action on all TANF cases. Failure to effectivley work those cases resulted in a 5% reduction of federal match on TANF - then called AFDC. The states had the option of not working the non TANF cases.

BTW the WA program was so considered so good that when Alaska decided to finally implement the CSE requirements they pretty much just copied the WA law. (With a slightly different child support calculator.) I know this because the then director of the AK CSE office and I drew it up late one Sunday night. It passed the AK senate unanimously.

I see you are choosing to ignore her too. Good call.

Nobody is stopping you from writing a check to the US Treasury. You and Bill Gates Sr. should have lunch to determine how much extra you'd like to pay. It's very simple. I'll even give you an atta boy if we ever happen to meet.

Seems like a no brainer if you feel that way.....?

Refund check? You get a refund? I don't get no refund. I write 'em a check, in fact. Have for a few years now. Kinda happens when you don't owe anybody, I guess. I claim zero dependents all year and they want more...wtheck am I doing wrong? Geez, I'm dumb.

Your short formed out, so to speak. Want one worse? Be single. Tax rate jumped from 15% @ 49k to 25% @ 39k when I got rid of the ex! Maybe I should have kept her ............................ nah / bad idea!

Glad you kept your head on that one!
In response to the % increase.......Damn!