posted
So I'm reading this book called The Betrayal of Work about low income workers. What if all the problems attributed to single mothers were actually caused by the fact that so many of these women have to work jobs in which they are underpaid. Say a woman has 3 children. She'd have to work at least 30-40 hours in order to make at least enough for rent and food, right? Well, the lowest rent you can get is about 600 if you are not living in low income housing. Most people make about $8.50 on such a job. That small amount of money for 3 kids who grow practically every five seconds and constantly eat. Such a woman would have difficulty getting childcare, rides to and from work, not to mention getting leave if one of her children were sick. The children themselves, stuck in a low income bracket would not fair well in society. They would be under prepared, like peasants or serfs back in Europe in the middle ages. Is it any wonder the crime rate is high among people with low incomes? It's not a genetic predisposition towards crime. It's poverty! It's growing up without. What if we paid workers better. Gave them benefits. Cut the salaries of CEOs who get 4 times what an average worker makes and used it to make sure that each worker had sick leave or health insurance, not to mention childcare. Wouldn't this lead to better workers and better products? I'm not suggesting handouts or rewarding people for wanting to take the easy way out which is the way many believers in pure capitalism respond. It's simple logic. It makes no sense that so many people in America work and still have barely enough money to survive. Helping these workers would improve America! They'd have more disposible income, which would help the economy. They'd do their jobs better. After all, the more the gap between the rich and the poor widens, the worse it gets. IT increases the possibility of society collapsing. Trickle down just doesn't work. It's not right for a generation of college and high school grads to have nothing to look forward to but working the worse possible job with the least amount of benefits. It's unfair that child care workers, people who take care of the eldery and clean schools, not to mention help keep food on America's table are not treated with more respect! If this country is to get better, if we really want to do something about crime, apathy, and so many things that plague America we're going to have to do something about this issue! This is what is causing the break down of society, and it has been for a long time. This. Not gayness, not liberals. But greed. It has to stop.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly don't know much about economics, but if you try to increase the pay of the average worker, the cost of products will go up. Unfortunately, CEOs are a marked minority class, so if you reduce their pay 10-fold, you will only have enough extra cash to pay a worker an extra $100 in a year, for example.
As someone pointed out recently (I believe it was in person, not hatrack).... if you really want to take the first step in the pay of the average american worker, be willing to buy American goods. I'm usually not one for the "Buy American" campaign, but he made a good point. When you buy cheap goods from Wal-mart, the money goes straight into the pockets of the corporation, with minute amounts going to the walmart employees, and a minute amount going across seas to pay for sweat-shop workers (or workers with considerably lower cost of living in another country). By buying American goods, you help keep the money circulating in the US.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to solution would involve more than jus buying American goods. Consumers themselves have to be aware of this problem but many just don't seem to care.... It would involve sweeping changes such as better eduaction for low income people, after school programs, even manditory volunteerism for all kids at a certain age.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, you could also make the argument that people who cannot afford children should not actually be having children.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I saw a really neat editorial in our paper a few weeks ago about how increasing minimum wages isn't the way to help low-income families because it actually increases the competition from skilled workers. They argued that offering more free/low cost skills training was the best way to help low-income families by offering them more job possibilities.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manditory volunteerism solves nothing. Absolutly nothing. It is supposed to teach you that it is great to volunteer your time (sweat and tears too), and makes you a better person, a fuller member of the world. That is complete BS. Manditory volunteerism teaches you that people will mandate all sorts of stupid stuff. That 30 hours of volunteering is all takes to improve yourself. The bottom line is if there are places that are willing to take volunteers who are kids of a certain age, some of them will volunteer, some of them won't, and they will all mantain that it is pointless and idiotic to mandate it.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even minimum wage is livable, so long as you don't try and live beyond your means.
This includes children.
I think there are laws of supply and demand, even in terms of employers/employees. I don't think most owners/executives are overpaid, and I don't think many workers are underpaid. They're paid exactly what the job deserves.
I'm rather happy that there are no laws in our Constitution that state that we're required to have a safety net to catch everyone who makes bad decisions or has no desire or motivation to educate themselves and contribute to society.
I mean, I definitely have sympathy for single mothers. Mine had three of us, but I never heard her whine about what she was "owed". She just accepted that she needed to work harder, went out and learned a few things, and found a job with benefits that paid the bills.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what if you do have a job, work hard, try to find other jobs and don't just succeed? America seems to say anyone can reach the top as long as they work hard. This isn't true anymore. It really is not. With the prices of things increasing and the pay staying the same how can anyone get anywhere? Even if you do live way below your means. It would be good idea if taxes were cut for low income workers. After all, what do you do if you are college educated but still can't get a good job?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christy -- right now its pretty much a moot point, as the minimum wage is far below what even unskilled workers are typically paid; competition from skilled workers wouldn't kick in unless it was around $1 or more higher.
However, I agree with the general point. Minimum wage laws are a generally bad way for approaching pay problems except for insuring a certain floor to prevent extreme exploitative situations -- as an economic application they're useless, but as a social one they're not. I'd like to see them go up $.25, myself, but not much more than that.
But yes, free and low cost targeted job training, and job placement services, are more beneficial by far than large increases in the minimum wage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly is the point of having a minimum wage law? Is it that we set the minimum at a level that would support 1 person if they work full time?
Or, is it intended to be enough money to support the average size family with a minimum level of food and shelter?
Or is it something else entirely?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My parents divorced when I was 10 and my sister was eight. Prior to the divorce, we lived in a nice four bedroom home in a upper middle class neighborhood, my Mom stayed at home and my father owned a Real Estate agency. Mom drove a new Chevy and Dad had a new Jaguar.
In the divorce, which was dragged on and on by my parents and the attorneys, basically my Mom and Dad ended up penniless. Mom got the house (and the mortgage payments), Dad got his car and a $500 a month child support bill. He also had to sell his business.
Mom had to go to work and pulled minimum wage as a check-out girl at an autoparts place. Dad had to move back in with his parents and went to work in construction again.
We went from very comfortable to desperately poor in less than a year. Mom busted her butt working overtime and Dad did, too, having at times to pawn things to make the child support payments. Somehow along the way, the water and lights never ever got turned off and Dad never missed a child support payment, he also never missed picking us up every other weekend, even though it meant he had to drive two hours to come get us, two hours more to take us back to his house, and then turn around on Sunday afternoon and make the round trip again.
They were doing this at the age I am now and I can't help but marvel at what they did when they had to do it. Both are doing better now by far, but I can't help but be amazed at how they could dig down and do what had to be done.
And somewhere, along the way, they raised a couple of pretty good kids. No arrests for either my sis or I, both have had fulfilling careers, Sis has a college degree, and we're fairly well adjusted and happily married.
Sometimes, single Moms and Dads, can get the job done, it just depends on how hard they pursue their commitments. My respect grows for my folks every single day.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
IMO, a minimum wage law exists to prevent extreme exploitative situations -- for instance, where a (not illegal) immigrant nanny is paid an abysmal hourly wage by people who terrorize her. Situations that are not common, are not subject to economic adjustments due to extreme externalities, and are generally deplorable. Such situations will always exist even with minimum wage laws, but if even a few are prevented, its worth it.
However, that only applies if the minimum wage is kept below what an unskilled worker doing manual labor makes. Which I am oh-so-happy to report is typically between $5.75 and $6.50 right now.
Once the minimum wage becomes competitive, it creates a whole nest of problems. It must be kept below a competitive value, but not too far below, to have a (small) good effect.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
As a single mother myself, I would propose that the best way out of poverty for single mothers is not through increasing minimum wages, but increasing their ability to do jobs that are above minimum wage. Education and training.
When I first became a single parent, I knew that I had lots of knowledge and skills, but I had no marketable skills. I could barely pull $7 per hour, and that wouldn't pay child care for three kids.
So I found a way (with a support network) to return to college and complete my degree in a more lucrative field, and then secure a job that WOULD support my kids.
Don't just give them an increase for what are minimum wage jobs -- teach them and help them to rise above entry level jobs into jobs that will truly support the family.
posted
I highly recommend the book "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich.
Ehrenreich, a college-educated successful single woman, left her home, took the cheapest lodgings she could find, and accepted whatever jobs she was offered as a woefully inexperienced homemaker returning to the workforce to see if minimum wage was something a person could live on.
She went from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, working as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. She never put her education or job history on her resumes, she took whatever job was available at the time and used only what money she earned to support herself.
The biggest problem in each case was housing. Food wasn't that big a deal, she had no kids, no pets, no designer clothes to keep up on, but she found herself working long hours and more than one job to be able to sleep indoors.
She lists her income and her weekly bills throughout.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to read that book. Reskilling might not be helpful to a majority of workers. The largest increase of jobs are in service positions, not in computer positions or things like that. One solution would be to spend less money towards prisons and more towards schools since education would be a good tool to prevent crime before it even starts.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The minumn wage also effects some union contracts.
Many of the things that people are saying we should provide are things athat at least in the days of yore were provided by the church or the extended family.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not talking about charity, about handouts. I'm talking about at least providing a living wage or beyond. I'm talking about the illogic involved in manufacturing products that people cannot afford to buy because their wages are too low and are used primarily for surviving. Think of it this way, a wealthy person can buy a car in cash. A not so wealthy person has to practically rent a car from some back or the like, which, according to my limited observation, raises the price of the car. If a person gets laid off from their middle class job and has to take a job making about $8.50 how can they afford to pay for their car, let alone rent and clothes? Eventually this will lead to a collapse if the wages of CEOs keeps getting bigger because they cut corners in order to produce products. Not only will less people be able to afford to buy products, but the products will also be inferiorly produced. Pure laisez faire capitalism is ineffective. Plain and simple.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people don't have families, sometimes at all and other times for all intents and purposes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because not everyone has that sort of supportive family Plus it's the snake swallowing his tail. Low income jobs have a negative impact on families and societies, people have to get such jobs because they don't always have enough support from their families. Even if people lived in perfect 2.5 nuclear situations it still wouldn't change the fact that it's good business and beneficial to the country to make sure people can at least afford to do more than just scrape buy! It does an extreme disservice to people who come out of college and DON"T want to rely on family only to find that they'll never, ever get a slice of the American Pie that's why America has to live up to the concept that anyone can succeed and not just make lip service about it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Single moms need help. I don't think we do our society any good by making it so they have to work two jobs to feed their family, because they they are never WITH their family and the best thing we can do for children is have their mothers with them more.
Education and training, are absolute necessities. Tough enforcing of child support payments. Affordable, quality child care so that the hours she's gone she isn't worried about who is taking care of our kids.
Daycare is at a ridiculous state in our society. The workers rarely make much more than, heh, minimum wage. Most are completely unskilled. The turnover rates are astronomical. Yet, if we require day care workers to have a degree in early childhood education, no one will be able to afford it.
Someone suggested lowering the taxes on single parents? They rarely pay any income tax. After head of household, childcare credit, child tax credit, a single parent can usually get by without much in tax.
Though I have an unrelated rant about the childcare credit, I'll save it for another thread. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC fan, if they were actual feminists they would use birth control. I don't think most feminists are in this minimum wage category. They should be, but they get most of their education from TV which gives them neither a sound feminist philosophy nor family values. It gives them whatever will keep them coming back.
Nor is the media entirely to blame. I think it's not too farfetched to say a lot of these women were raised with TV as a babysitter, which is why they turn to it to learn about life.
I obviously think my own religiously oriented family values are best, but living a feminist philosophy with integrity at least keeps one from being a victim. But the media addiction cycle just traps someone into shrinking a little more from their potential as the programs bring back to them what they find irresistable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, the situation they find themselves is just a consequence of their own choices, people should stop making excuses for other people, they should instead let them carry the weight of their responsibilities on their own shoulders.
Well, choices are always made within contexts. If one wants people to make good choices, there's a lot to be said for setting up systems that enable them to make better choices.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On daycare, I think the cost could be controlled by letting folks with education in the field supervise more children. In our state, I think a licensed center can have 6 children per adult, with no more than 2 per adult being under 18 months.
But I think onsite daycare is an often talked about but seldom implemented necessity. Or, alternately, telecommuting. There was a lot more discussion of this when the economy was better.
Though if you have a chronically sick child, extended family or neighborly support is critical. You can't take a sick child to an institutional daycare.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it's not the media, it's not nessasarily personal choices, especially if you have someone who is single and struggling to be independent. It would do no harm to let people be truly independent by paying them enough, providing them with healthcare and with childcare if they need it. By giving them support, lowering their taxes so they can stay off welfare. Furthermore, not every single mother has parents she can turn to... It's complicated. There are thousands of reasons why a mother is force to raise children on her own that have little to do with, "I think i'm going to have a baby today, why not go and find someone and have lots of unprotected sex with them?" There's the death of a spouse, divorce, changes in circumstances. Not to mention families with fathers that either work so much on 2 or 3 jobs that they don't even get seen or don't really work at all... It's complex!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you keep in mind that "being held responsible for those choices" really means something like "driven to a life of crime" or "starving to death in the street," you'll understand why people are discussing safety nets.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC fan, you must consider the context in which the choice was made, as CT pointed out.
People can make bad decisions and it's not because they're lazy or stupid or rebellious. It's because at the time, they thought they were doing the right thing. Only later did it turn out to be wrong.
Sure, stereotypical single moms exist, the ones that are poorly educated, were sleeping around, maybe even addicted, and had a kid and now are existing on public assistance. But there are also struggling women whose husbands have died or abandoned them who are trying their hardest to care for themselves and their kids. Can we extend help to some and not the others? What about redemption, I've known many a person who made mistakes in their life and yet later turned it all around.
Will you say to this young woman "Because you made that one mistake, we will not help you, you must suffer your entire life. And not only that, but we're going to make your children suffer too, because while you're working those two jobs to support yourself, they're going to be in a daycare filled with underpaid, uncaring workers."
Do you really think that's the way to go?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn? Some people might think it's shameful to ask for help... Some people might not even be aware that such resources exist, or they try them and get turned down... Like I said, it's complex, but if society doesn't try to take care of its weakest members they basically can rise up and destroy us. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Getting rid of welfare would make matters worse, so one solution is spend less money punishing people and more trying to pervent them from failing in the first place. It's not to say it will prevent all instances, but it's a start
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think it's probably a great way to maximize the number of kids who start out behind the eight-ball, themselves unlikely to be making the healthiest choices.
I am much, much more committed to the ideal of everyone starting out on a fairly level playing field than with micromanaging consequences for other people who I know little about. Knowing that increasing the literacy rate of women has the strongest impact of any factor in reducing poverty makes me much more interested in setting up a system to promote literacy than with the specific decisions made by a given individual woman.
quote: The number of births to unmarried women reached a record high of 1,365,966 in 2002, up 1 percent from 2001. This increase reflected the growing number of unmarried women rather than an increase in the rate, which was stable at 44 births per 1,000 unmarried women. The birth rate for unmarried teenagers continued to decline.
The teen birthrate falling is due to increased education, I think. A few years back the CDC was worried that abortion rates were falling. Their first hypothesis was that picketing of clinics was intimidating clients. But it turns out there are just fewer teen pregnancies. Either abstinence or condoms are working.
Then get to it. There are around 80,000 children out there needing adoption every year who aren't adopted. If you're serious about adopting children that need help, I hope you've already filed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I know you may be going elsewhere with the quote, but I rejoice every single time I see this:
quote: The birth rate for unmarried teenagers continued to decline.
Isn't that just awesome? I mean, I know there are other things to worry about, and I know we may disagree about what the causes are, but hey ... fewer babies having babies means fewer premature births, fewer incidents of abuse, and so on. Yum-my! I should stop for the day and go back to bed, while I'm still happy.
[Ah, you edited. Pretty clearly we are on the same page. *high-fives
PS I want to live in pooktopia, so I can be a pooktopian. ]
quote: Synesthesia, if society as a whole starts ranking a certain behavior low on their social scale, the phenomenon decreases, and we've seen other societies having this approach and be successful.
But here in the USA such things are considered ok, that's why the problem is so widespread.
OK OSC-fan, here at hatrack you don't say stuff like that without the facts to back it up. Please tell me what societies that you are touting and then tell me their place on the scale of lazzes faire economics. I am going to hazzard a guess that all of them are MUCH more socialistic in their entire goverment than the US. NOT LESS. They provide MORE safety nets not less.
posted
Is anybody else having a hard time realizing that I'm siding with the liberals against a conservative view? Me, the champion of personal responsibility?
I guess we all have our limits. OSC-Fan has gone way too far over the line for me.
No matter what you might think of their mothers, those children didn't choose to be in that situation. And, you say your solution is to adopt her child? What if she doesn't want to give up her child? Are we going to now say mothers must give up their children against their will? (In this I am not talking about abuse or neglect issues, that's a totally separate issue)
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I will say sounds very harsh. Please do realize that I myself am an empathetic person, who crys after seeing a documentery on the poor. Nonetheless, emotion must be kept seperate from law.
And what I have to say is this: I feel bad for the children. But I will not tolerate governemnt stealing money from me at gun point to give it to the children. That is charity. The government is forcing me to give charity. That is socialistic, and a violation of my rights. It's my money. And government has no right to steal money from me.
Ah, but then, what about the children? Yes, I feel bad for them--and I give my own money, currently around 1/10 of it, to them. I do that because I want to. And that's how it should be. It's too bad that they are poor, but it's not government's responsibility to steal money and give it to charity.
And furthermore, it's not my fault that this mother decided to have children. But now that she does have them, I am glad to support them. But I am not glad to have my money forced away into their hands.
Giving charity should, in a capitilistic society, be a personal choice. And, this is the part that will get me castigated, if people end up in a situation where they have nothing, and no one is willing to give them money, then those people will die. That they will die does not give government the permission to steal from me to support them.
Nickel and Dimed is a propoganda book. The person even states that she wrote the book with the intention of finding out about the poor's plight. Hardly an unbiased approach. I do not have it on me, so there will be no detailed critique, at least unless people want it.
To summarize my ramble in point by point form:
a) Government does not have the responsiblity of giving charity (though I do allow for exceptions for mentally insane people and similar) b) Giving charity is a personal commitment c) Hence, the government taking my money to give it away is wrong and a violation of my rights
quote:Nickel and Dimed is a propoganda book. The person even states that she wrote the book with the intention of finding out about the poor's plight. Hardly an unbiased approach.
Ahhhh, me - what HAS happened to our education system these days?
At least give the author points for clearly stating her purpose and intent in researching (via life experience) and writing about the topic. That's a bit more honest that most corporate-funded statistical analysis that finds its' way into the elite research journals . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am horribly offended at your insinuation that I am an idiot, a fool, a by-product of the current educational system.
quote: At least give the author points for clearly stating her purpose and intent in researching (via life experience) and writing about the topic. That's a bit more honest that most corporate-funded statistical analysis that finds its' way into the elite research journals . . .
She did the experiment not interested in surviving, but in being humiliated and upset so she could write a book that made people feel bad. I don't know. There are people in Russia, in Mexico, and India, who make much less than she did. Somehow, not only do they survive, but a lot of them are happy. There are no statistics of happiness, but if you look at Mexican lower class having a party, they are having FUN. They are enjoying themselves.
Anyway, I feel bad for you. You have such a warped viewpoint of the world that you have to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as brainwashed by an educational system. I hope you get past this psychological block. Maybe if you hurried to a psychiatrist, and spent the rest of your life under care, you will.
posted
Here's the thing.. pure capitalism is ineffective! IT wastes the environment, it tries to produce things at the cheapest way posible. We might as well go back to a system of slavery. Look at it this way, we have to pay taxes in order to keep the government running. However, When it comes to people who are low income, their tax dollars should, in my opinion stay with them. Mostly it's because I earn so little money. The fact is that social programs are nessasary, otherwise... things would be much worse than the way they are now. If these children don't get the best education and resources they can, but not nessasarily will, grow up on the very bottom and if that happens... Crime results..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, I don't think you understand the concept of value very well.
People in many of those countries are able to survive on far less because the value of their money is much greater in certain ways -- wrt shelter, in particular. You cannot except in highly unusual circumstances find shelter in the united states for the price you can in most less developed countries. Even if all other prices were the same (which they typically are not -- transportation even on the public system is almost always several times more expensive, for instance), its possible for someone living in the US to make a lot more money and still be less able to provide the basics.
To whit, when US_Shelter_Cost - Other_Shelter_Cost > US_Income - Other_Income such a situation would arise (assuming all non shelter costs are equal, which has already been observed is not so in favor of the people in other countries)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to wander off topic, but just out of curiosity...
quote:Isn't that just awesome? I mean, I know there are other things to worry about, and I know we may disagree about what the causes are, but hey ... fewer babies having babies means fewer premature births, fewer incidents of abuse, and so on. Yum-my! I should stop for the day and go back to bed, while I'm still happy.
Emphasis mine. When I was pregnant I was reassured many times that I had every chance of delivering a healthy baby and was not considered a high risk pregnancy. Is there a higher risk for premature births among teens due to physical reasons or because of other factors like poor nutrition, drug abuse, and/or not getting regular care?
Oh, and that news makes me happy too .
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
hi hope i can drag this out of a my muddled brain, but in relation to phantos government stealing his money for forced charity, what right does anyone have to hog a disproportionate amount of resources to create this wealth thereby denying it to anyone else. As to the low income/wages implementation of a fair days work for a fair days pay would be good, shame the worlds not fair though.
posted
*pat pats phanto* There, there, dear - take a deep breath and relax - I won't tweak your nose anymore. I didn't realize how sensitive you were feeling. I interpreted your comments as hardline and responded accordingly. My apologies.
Now - about the book.
I thought it was a good read and had important things to say, particularly to those folks that maybe have not tried to make ends meet on a minimum wage job that offers no medical, dental benefits or leavetime. And as she reports, she started off better than most. A car and an initial budget so that she could afford first/last and deposit. She also really drives home the point that the despair many people in poverty live with did not affect her - she KNEW she had an out if things were too tough. Her goal in writing this book was to try living like the working class poverty ridden(as it were), to see if it could be done, if it were possible, and to report back to the readers on her experiences. Her book was never intended to present a "numbers" study of people in poverty. There's plenty of those. She did intend to open some eyes. I think that's a good thing. And needed.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia: Some one with the low income, like we are discussing here doesn't pay federal income tax. They may even make some money from it. They do pay local and state taxes. If low income people did not pay local tax, there would be some local goverments that would have zero (or near zero) revenue. Sales taxes are payed by everyone equally, there is no effiecent way to reduce the poor's tax burden here. Other than what is already done in some places. Take PA for example. In Penn. there is a statewide sales tax of 6% (Philly and Pittsburgh have a 7% sales tax imposed by the state instead of the 6% supposedly to pay for the sports stadiums built in those cities). This tax is on everything purchased except food (prepared food is taxed), and clothing.
There are other programs that they can get some income / stuff from too. WIC, foodstamps, foodbanks, etc. WIC certainly has more than enough funding given that it is running tv ads.
The contuined insinuation that the poor are being kept in poverty by the tax system just doesn't hold water. Further more you give justification for the poor to pay some taxs. You said "we have to pay taxes in order to keep the government running." we in this case being society. Are the poor not part of society?
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: hi hope i can drag this out of a my muddled brain, but in relation to phantos government stealing his money for forced charity, what right does anyone have to hog a disproportionate amount of resources to create this wealth thereby denying it to anyone else. As to the low income/wages implementation of a fair days work for a fair days pay would be good, shame the worlds not fair though.
Who exactly is hogging these resources? The rich invest their money, they don't stuff it under their beds.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Emphasis mine. When I was pregnant I was reassured many times that I had every chance of delivering a healthy baby and was not considered a high risk pregnancy. Is there a higher risk for premature births among teens due to physical reasons or because of other factors like poor nutrition, drug abuse, and/or not getting regular care?
Hey, ladyday! As far as I know, the higher risks for the pregnancy of a teenager are due to comorbid factors (more likely to have STDs, be using recreational drugs, and especially much less likely to have good prenatal care).
And may I say, with all sincerity, that I wish all mothers could be half the mother you are.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah -- I'm still reeling over OSC-fan's post of:
quote:Unless something happens that is beyond their control" could be considered the death of a spouse; in which case I understand.
But I thought we were talking about single mothers by choice.
Divorce is a choice unless it's extremely necessary for sake of children's mental and physical health.
I know very few single mothers who are single by choice.
I became a single mother when my husband LEFT - physically moved out -- to a whole 'nother state -- without any notice, or without any forwarding address. He just went through an "I can't cope" stage and disappeared. There, he continued to roam around the country racking up huge financial bills (which, as his spouse, I was responsibile for by law, even though he was no where around) until I had to finally file for divorce to protect myself from financial litigation that was no fault of my own (other than being stupid in my pick of a husband). I paid off his bills. I raised my kids. In 13 years of being single again, I have never got one dime of child support.
You know, you call yourself a conservative Christian, and I call myself a conservative Christian, but I sure wouldn't want someone with your lack of empathy in my church and in my circle of friends. You make Christianity look bad.
quote:Belle, I was talking about their family as in single mother's parents not her children
When I became a single parent, I actually was earning more than my own mother. My father is dead. Many single parents have parents who are as poor, or poorer, than they are. So your idealistic view in this fails again.
Thankfully, I DID have a support structure in a very caring and supportive church, which made me believe in myself and in God's love, enough to get to where we are today.
I know I'm belaboring the fact that OSC-fan hasn't brought facts to the table. In some ways it feels mean to be doing it, but she has to understand that at a certain point facts are required in order to back up seemingly spurious claims. It is an integrity issue, and right now I don't see much from her.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
