No. of Recommendations: 2
At some time in your life, were you ever a member of 47% club (i.e. people whom Romney doesn't care about)?
Yes, I am currently a 47% club member
Yes, I used to be a 47% club member
No, I have never have been a 47% club member
No, I but I wear a 47% club in my pants

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If being a 47% means having collected unemployment at some point in my life then yes, I'm a 47%. I collected unemployment from the State of Tennessee after having worked at the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine for 17 years and then being laid off. My boss said she ran out of money but I suspicion she could see the writing on the wall after I came down with painful arthritis and was hobbling around the UT Vet School for those last two years.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I didn't see the unemployment as something I was scamming from the Government but something I was due after having worked there all those years and then at the point I was starting to fall apart they laid me off. I feel like I had been cast off like an old worn out shoe after it was no longer useful.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm one of the "Never been a 47%er". Being single no matter how little money I made back in the early days I always got clipped for at least a few bucks of income tax.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<< I didn't see the unemployment as something I was scamming from the Government but something I was due after having worked there all those years and then at the point I was starting to fall apart they laid me off. I feel like I had been cast off like an old worn out shoe after it was no longer useful.

Art>>


Art, it sounds as though you were treated generously.


If you were a worn out shoe no longer able to do your work, your employer was entitled to discharge you for cause --- which usually means no unemployment benefits.

By laying you off, you were apparently eligible for unemployment benefits, which employers usually pay for based on the number of workers who collect such benefits.

We are pretty much all destined to be old worn out shoes at some point. It's a fact of life.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I'm one of the "Never been a 47%er". Being single no matter how little money I made back in the early days I always got clipped for at least a few bucks of income tax." - FCorelli


Huh? I guess I don't know what a 47% is? I was married at the time I collected unemployment and since we file joint return we probably paid several thousand dollars of income tax at the time?

It's all just too confusing for me.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
By the grace of a higher power, I've never been a member of the 47% club. I've been lucky enough to have been born in another time. That doesn't mean that I don't identify with them, since I could well have been a member.

That said, I don't have to be a member of the club to vote against anyone who implies that people who are members are deserving of such scorn. We should all worry about the 47% club and help our fellow citizens and neighbors out whenever we can.

PM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
As a college student I didn't make enough to pay income tax a few years, so that would put me in that boat.

Generous Motors also laid me off as a college student co-op (!) after which I got three whole months of unemployment - which went towards tuition.

So, yep, I'm there. Might be again someday when I get old enough.

But even if I've been in the 53% for 25 years now, I think Mitt is a schmuck and not much of a Christian if he doesn't give a toot about the poor, whom I believe Jesus said we're supposed to care about? How we're not supposed to give preference to the wealthy but to treat everyone the same at the banquet??

These so-called Christians seem to forget the teachings of their leader very, very quickly when money comes walking in the door.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Huh? I guess I don't know what a 47% is? I was married at the time I collected unemployment and since we file joint return we probably paid several thousand dollars of income tax at the time?

It's all just too confusing for me.


I agree. I don't think that there really is a 47% that Romney imagines. SGSpouse and I both were eligible for and collected unemployment benefits at different times, but I don't think I've ever come close to avoiding paying some income tax. When I was a grad student, my income as a research assistant was tax free, but SGSpouse worked at IBM during alternate semesters, so we always owed something.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm in the club. In my early 20's, I went to college and worked part time. Made so little money that I didn't owe any income tax. However after I completed my course of study, I became a computer programmer; have sure paid a boat load of federal income taxes since then.

I have always been fiscally conservative. The idea that I would automatically vote for a Democratic for President just because I didn't owe income tax is just plumb crazy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm in the 47% now, as I paid no income taxes for 2011. I was unemployed, and all my capital gains were offset by losses from earlier years.

I expect to pay a lot for 2012 as the stock market has continued to be good to me and I've run out of earlier losses to deduct.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
interesting point of view about Jesus. However, I don't think he was talking to the government when he said "take care of the poor". He was talking to the future church.

I think it is the religious groups (ie. christian churches and the like) who are supposed to take care of the poor and not the government) Although it looks like churches are more concerned with building buildings then helping people.

unless of course, America is a Christian nation...then it needs to uphold the Christian value of taking care of the poor.

I never paid income tax for the seven years I was in the military even though I made about 45-70k a year not counting my 100% free health insurance.

hmmm...Interesting that most military members vote republican when their entire system is Socialist (housing allowance, food allowance, free healthcare and a salary no matter how much or how little a person works).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
interesting point of view about Jesus. However, I don't think he was talking to the government when he said "take care of the poor". He was talking to the future church.

To be fair, he couldn't "talk to the government." It was a Roman dictatorship. The only power structure he could "talk to" was that of religion, and he didn't like that one so much either, which is why he went around telling people to believe in Him, not Them.

I think it is the religious groups (ie. christian churches and the like) who are supposed to take care of the poor and not the government)

That would be fine if they were as powerful as they were for the next 1500 years and performed the same functions. They aren't and they don't. While "charity" used to be a large fraction of what the church did, it is now a tiny percentage.

hmmm...Interesting that most military members vote republican when their entire system is Socialist (housing allowance, food allowance, free healthcare and a salary no matter how much or how little a person works).

You can't convince them of that, no matter how hard you try. It's 100% true, of course, but that doesn't matter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I didn't see the unemployment as something I was scamming from the Government but something I was due after having worked there all those years and then at the point I was starting to fall apart they laid me off. I feel like I had been cast off like an old worn out shoe after it was no longer useful.

Art


I don't know about the state you might be in, but in California there is no payroll deduction to go towards unemployment. That fund is sourced through taxing your employers. Yes, they pay it for you, so I am not sure how one acquires and entitlement or something you are due when you made no contribution towards it.

Thank your employers who get taxed just have you on board and taxed some more as more of you take unemployment decreasing the fund.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But even if I've been in the 53% for 25 years now, I think Mitt is a schmuck and not much of a Christian if he doesn't give a toot about the poor, whom I believe Jesus said we're supposed to care about? How we're not supposed to give preference to the wealthy but to treat everyone the same at the banquet??

These so-called Christians seem to forget the teachings of their leader very, very quickly when money comes walking in the door.


This is quite illuminating.

Giving a toot and living off money month after month for years or longer and having it come out of "others" pockets seem a little demanding and a tad overdone, if you ask me.

Do the wealthy get more unemployment benefits?

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do the wealthy get more unemployment benefits?

-------------------------------

Hmmmmm, I don't know. Can you have a golden parachute and collect unemployment?

As far as the tax paid on them, they max out in our state. Here it's 38,200.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't know about the state you might be in, but in California there is no payroll deduction to go towards unemployment. That fund is sourced through taxing your employers. Yes, they pay it for you, so I am not sure how one acquires and entitlement or something you are due when you made no contribution towards it.

Thank your employers who get taxed just have you on board and taxed some more as more of you take unemployment decreasing the fund.


UE is a government program funded by taxes...like all government programs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
but in California there is no payroll deduction to go towards unemployment. That fund is sourced through taxing your employers. Yes, they pay it for you, so I am not sure how one acquires and entitlement or something you are due when you made no contribution towards it.

It's curious that when Conservatives want to argue about payroll taxes, they say that the employer paid half of Social Security is actually yours, but if didn't have to pay it you would get that money. When the Right calculates the "total taxes" taken out of they paycheck, they invariably include both halves of payroll taxes.

Yet when it is employers paying Unemployment taxes, that money is theirs, not yours.

Are there no rules on Bullsh!t Mountain?

Do the wealthy get more unemployment benefits?

Unemployment benefits are calculated on your prior salary, so "yes", they get more. Additionally, unemploymenbt benefits are not available to part-time, temporary, or recent school graduates or others who have not accumulated enough "working quarters" to qualify.

So, "YES", the well to do get more.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
"hmmm...Interesting that most military members vote republican when their entire system is Socialist (housing allowance, food allowance, free healthcare and a salary no matter how much or how little a person works).

You can't convince them of that, no matter how hard you try. It's 100% true, of course, but that doesn't matter."




This is interesting. I'm retired military and I've often made that point to my fellow military types. Nobody agrees with me, of course. But I point out that:

- health care is taken care of and we generally all get more or less the same treatment regardless of rank;
- There are a number of equalizers. For example, the size of government house you get depends largely on the size of your family. (There are, of course, the junior enlisted, senior enlisted, officer neighborhoods but there is less difference between them than between the "working class" and professional/executive" neighborhoods in the civilian world.
- Salaries are compressed. That is, a colonel makes a lot more money than a private but the difference between their salaries is much less than between an assembly line worker in a civilian factory and the plant manager's.
- Although there is real competition and selectivity involved in progressing to the next higher rank (that competition being more intense and selective the higher one goes) the pay is based on factors like rank and time-in-service. The #1 best performing Major in a unit gets paid the same as the #5 average performing Major (assuming identical years of service.) Of course, the #1 Major is more likely to make Lieutenant Colonel.

Of course, the rigors of military life, especially during wartime and lengthy deployments, are such that it probably makes a lot of sense to have such a system so the guy working on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight operations isn't distracted worrying about whether he can afford a prescription for his sick kid or whether the guy next to him got a bigger performance bonus last quarter. But I have always found it interesting (and a bit disturbing) that so many of my fellow military don't see themselves as being supported by a very robust "safety net" which they are reluctant to extend to others.

friar1610

(Long time early REHP poster who abandoned TMF a long time ago in pursuit of sites more financial/retirement oriented with less political drivel. Sample a few threads back here every so often and this one just caught my eye.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Long time early REHP poster who abandoned TMF a long time ago in pursuit of sites more financial/retirement oriented with less political drivel.

Can you supply the URLs of some of those sites?

Thanks.

culcha
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Can you supply the URLs of some of those sites?"






My favorite early retirement-oriented site is:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/

This site is about early retirement. Although I was a somewhat early retiree (age 58) I am now 67 but still enjoy following this site.

My favorite financial site is:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/index.php

I have, over the years, become convinced that index fund investing is the way to go. This site reinforces my beliefs that I'm not smart enough to beat the market and I have been happily investing this way for quite a while.

I should mention that I was originally brought to TMF 15 or so years ago when I did a web search for "early retirement." That brought me to John Greaney's (intercst) original Retire Early Home Page. Shortly thereafter, he transitioned it to TMF and the REHP board was where we all exchanged views and thoughts on early retirement and FIRE (Financial Independence/Retire Early.) I thought it was a wonderful place to exchange views, learn things from those who had gone before, etc.
after a while, it became a board for political hectoring ands I had no interest in getting into that. The original REHP has since become the "campfire" or something like that and this board was an attempt to let the more liberal members discuss things among themselves. The last time I was on this board - quite a while ago - it seemed like some of the more conservative folks had also taken up residence and it was going political again.

Personally, I don't want to bash either side and am more interested in the substance of investing and FIRE issues. Hence, my affinity for the sites mentioned above.

friar1610
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, the wealthy do receive higher unemployment benefits. The benefits are based on your last salary before becoming unemployed.

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
friar, please stay with us. Your posts add a lot of insight.

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
ezragreen says

interesting point of view about Jesus. However, I don't think he was talking to the government when he said "take care of the poor". He was talking to the future church.

The story is that he was talking to us, the people. The day when we are all part of the "future church" has not arrived, but we do all pay taxes (yes, we all do) to government, and government is supposed to use some of the tax money to take care of the poor.

Simple enough.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
"interesting point of view about Jesus. However, I don't think he was talking to the government when he said "take care of the poor". He was talking to the future church."
----------------------------------
"The story is that he was talking to us, the people. The day when we are all part of the "future church" has not arrived, but we do all pay taxes (yes, we all do) to government, and government is supposed to use some of the tax money to take care of the poor. Simple enough" - crassfool

-----------------


I freely admit that if I'm not forced to pay my fair share I won't. I know I'm a frugal, cheapskate, tightwad and I'm fairly sure pretty much everyone else knows it too. Shaming me hasn't seemed to work so far.

I have read studies online that say that Churches and other charitable organizations fall far short of what is needed to take care of the poor. If not for Government support there would be hordes of poor people who would do whatever it takes to fill their bellies and take care of their families.

I'm sure that this is part of the reason for "welfare." It's not entirely altruistic. Perhaps it's cheaper to pay up front instead of waiting to have to deal with the crime and instability that would be caused by the dispossessed. We might look a lot more like Latin America with stone walls topped with broken glass around our houses if we didn't have the welfare system in place that we do. Our cities might be surrounded by favelas just like many other cities around the world.

To quote Bob Marley, "a hungry man is an angry man."

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think it is the religious groups (ie. christian churches and the like) who are supposed to take care of the poor and not the government) Although it looks like churches are more concerned with building buildings then helping people.

unless of course, America is a Christian nation...then it needs to uphold the Christian value of taking care of the poor.

==============================================
But....it's the government that is funding a lot of the Christian Charities. Here's just one...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities

Catholic Charities received a total of nearly $2.9 billion from the US government in 2010. In comparison, its annual revenue was $4.67 billion. Only about $140 million came from donations from diocesan churches, the remainder coming from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees, and community donations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have been attending the Church of Christ, which is a mainstream fundamentalist church, for the past 39 years with my wife's family.

A large part of what is given to churches ends up paying for preacher's salaries, new buildings, electricity, heat, insurance, etc. Only a very small part of what is given to churches is used for "charity" and that has strings attached to it. It is closely tied to proselytizing, winning souls, etc. Especially in places like Africa, Latin America, and the Philippines.

Very little of what is given to churches here helps the poor in the United States.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think it is the religious groups (ie. christian churches and the like) who are supposed to take care of the poor and not the government) Although it looks like churches are more concerned with building buildings then helping people.



And everyone IN those churches gives the recommented 10%, right?

Right??

<crickets>
Print the post Back To Top