View Full Version : Upcoming elections, and the future of camming
JoJoX
10-05-2012, 04:05 AM
saw this article and remembered this thread.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57486127-503544/porn-star-jenna-jameson-backs-mitt-romney/#postComments
whether the porn ban will happen or not, i think it is completely wrong for jenna jameson to back him up. its easier to do that when you already have a multi million biz DOING PORN. did she forger how she got there?? wtf.
bubblegumbitch
10-05-2012, 08:49 AM
^this is just more publicity for her. it isnt about the industry, this is about her.
Classy_Katy
10-05-2012, 08:57 AM
But that is the right wing attitude "I'm alright Jack...screw them...let them eat cake"
"why should I pay for their "choices"?" = "let me be free to judge and discriminate against others (until I find myself in the same boat)"
ManyRoses
10-05-2012, 10:21 AM
While I agree for the most part that the right diet and lifestyle can go a long way to dealing with many illnesses and chronic conditions.....it ISN'T a cure all. And arguing that people should simply forgo healthcare and eat healthily does absolutely nothing for accidental injury! Eat as perfectly as you want, if a car hits you and you need major surgery, you are going to want healthcare. Often, operations and follow up care are just as crippling as long-term illness, especially if you require multiple surgeries and a long recovery time, or recovery physio. Everyone likes to bring up cancer when talking about healthcare, but I'm honestly more concerned about getting hit by a car and waking up to a mountain of debt!
I also wonder at what point you start crossing the line between personal responsibility and the nanny state. Especially when there are multiple factions arguing that THEIR diet choice is the ultimate healthy one - vegans, raw foodies, and paleo all spring to mind. Where do we draw the line between expecting people to make good decisions to keep themselves healthy, and regulating what people do in their private lives. It's not something that I have the answer to, by any means - at times, I feel as though people who actively damage their health shouldn't be supported by the state, but then I don't know at what point that line should be drawn. Should it just apply to morbidly obese people? Obese people who have been advised by a doctor that they have to lose weight? Not obese people, but anyone who doesn't exercise regularly?
I feel that until those questions are answered, or at least debated, everyone should have the right to food, shelter and healthcare.
twistedprincess
10-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Everyone likes to bring up cancer when talking about healthcare, but I'm honestly more concerned about getting hit by a car and waking up to a mountain of debt!
I've been hit by a car twice and was lucky enough to have no major injuries (and barely any minor ones--I think I was made of rubber as a kid). We had health insurance, so I saw very few bills from the hospital, but from what I did see the ambulance trip, ER visit, x-rays, and ct were all insanely expensive. Without health insurance my family would have been broke paying for it. I can't even imagine what it would have cost if I had been truly injured.
Fridays
10-05-2012, 11:04 AM
Romney is going to win.
twistedprincess
10-05-2012, 11:05 AM
Romney is going to win.
It's not who wins that I'm concerned with, it is whether or not they have the support to pass the things they want to. :)
ManyRoses
10-05-2012, 11:08 AM
I've been hit by a car twice and was lucky enough to have no major injuries (and barely any minor ones--I think I was made of rubber as a kid). We had health insurance, so I saw very few bills from the hospital, but from what I did see the ambulance trip, ER visit, x-rays, and ct were all insanely expensive. Without health insurance my family would have been broke paying for it. I can't even imagine what it would have cost if I had been truly injured.
Exactly!!! Even if someone is as lucky as you were - the cost of an ambulance alone is in the hundreds. Then you get to the hospital, and you are paying for scans, x-rays, usually an IV, PLUS the cost of the stay in a hospital bed.
And even should you stay in your house at all times (and pray you never get hurt there, either), you could be in a situation like my sister, who was born with severe scoliosis - where the spine grows in a curve. That's not something that diet or lifestyle can change, and she had to have a huge series of hospital visits, scans, etc to monitor it for years, before having to have an operation that had he in hospital for a week. Her first 16 years of life would have cost our parents literally hundreds of thousands of pounds (we were in the UK) if not into the million + bracket for just that one condition. If she had been born in the US, and for whatever reason did not have insurance (such as a parent losing a job at some point in those 16 years - suddenly it is a pre-existing condition and isn't eligible for insurance under a new provider), they would either be bankrupt, or she would be severely disabled, deformed, and have a short life expectancy.
Fridays
10-05-2012, 11:09 AM
It's not who wins that I'm concerned with, it is whether or not they have the support to pass the things they want to. :)
its gonna be the same...
they are all friends behind closed doors lol...
Smurfette
10-05-2012, 12:06 PM
Okay so, RE: health, I think avoiding processed foods and maintaining a healthy diet can go a long way towards preventing disease and illness. However, that's not the ONLY factor at work, and to suggest that you just need to drink "Noni juice" or stick to a paleo diet and those things alone will prevent/cure cancer is simply ridiculous and not backed up by one shred of scientific evidence.
Here's the thing though and that's the fact that the increase in most diseases is because of obesity. We can hide this fact but obesity should scare everyone because they are one of the reasons Obamacare is a bad idea. The plan doesn't even include things like preventative care and this would cut down obesity.
Obamacare DOES include preventative care... one of the measures is that it requires insurance companies to cover preventative care. It also prevents companies from denying or dropping you based on pre-existing conditions and allows students to remain on their parents insurance until they're 26. I fail to see what's wrong with any of that.
Also, another reason to oppose Obamacare is that what it will do is require people to pay more in taxes and in many states they will not even be included in healthcare. In Illinois only women with kids basically can get Medicaid so what will likely happen is people without insurance and can't afford it and don't qualify for Medicaid will be screwed.
Taxes only increase for those making over $200K per year. Starting in 2014, families and single adults under the poverty level will be able to qualify for Medicaid and other benefits that will help them.
Let's not forget the religious angle of trying to require religious organizations to offer birth control whether they oppose it or not. I don't feel it is right to tell religious organizations how to live and work nor do I feel birth control is a right. Not against birth control at all, just looking at it from this angle.
Btw, today I got an email from a womans group trying to push 6 months paid maternity leave and free childcare saying it's a woman's right. Sorry but neither are rights. I shouldn't have to pay for someone's choice.
Religious organizations are not being forced to give women free birth control or anything like that. The mandate simply requires that health insurance cover contraceptives. Employers cannot refuse to include contraception in their employees' health insurance plans. Even if they are a religious institution.
IMO, refusing to cover contraceptives for women (who pay INTO their health insurance as well) is pure discrimination.
I wanted to post in this thread today after seeing this article: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/10/04/abortion.rates.plummet.with.free.birth.control
"Abortion rates plummet with free birth control"
If you are truly pro-life and hate abortion, then allowing women access to birth control is the single greatest measure you can take to drastically lower the amount of abortions.
What's that? No, you don't think birth control should be widely accessible and affordable for women everywhere? Then I guess you should admit to yourself that what your "pro-life" stance is *really* about is casting your judgement and discrimination on others just as Classy_Katy said.
Moreover, you will be "paying" for their choices regardless. If a woman can't afford birth control and becomes a single mother relying on welfare and food stamps, you are paying a WHOLE LOT more in taxes to support them.
SarahTime
10-05-2012, 12:59 PM
saw this article and remembered this thread.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57486127-503544/porn-star-jenna-jameson-backs-mitt-romney/#postComments
whether the porn ban will happen or not, i think it is completely wrong for jenna jameson to back him up. its easier to do that when you already have a multi million biz DOING PORN. did she forger how she got there?? wtf.
Why is it "wrong" for her to support a Republican president?
Oh I forgot, Republicans aren't allowed in porn right?
Come on, she makes WELL over $250,000 a year, she's successful and she does not want to be subjected to Obama's beloved "wealth redistribution" by way of taxing wealthy people, thereby essentially punishing them for doing better than others!
I don't either.
It's not "more fair" to tax wealthy people. If the percentage is the same across the board THAT'S FAIR. Wealthy people already pay more because they make more. 20% (as an example) of $500,000 is MORE than 20% of $20,000.
And as far as how she got there..... she got there by WORKING to get there. She didn't get there by way of government programs, handouts, or wealth redistribution. She got there because of the wonderfully free capitalistic society we live in.
Melonie
10-05-2012, 01:07 PM
Taxes only increase for those making over $200K per year.
As I have attempted to factually correct via three different posts which were gutted or deleted altogether, this statement is factually at odds with the published details of the Obamacare law as well as other existing tax laws.
The SSI tax ( = self-employment tax for dancers and camgirls ) is going to increase by 2% no matter how much or how little money is earned in 2013
The federal income tax will 'officially' increase in 2013 ... but in real world terms girls earning $25k per year will probably escape an increase, while girls earning $75k per year might see a 3% increase.
The Alternative Minimum Tax threshold will be lowered in 2013. In real world terms this is likely to mean that girls earning $75k+ per year who live in high tax rate states like NY, IL, CA etc. may see their federal income tax bill increase because their federal tax deduction for state income taxes paid may now be limited.
It's still possible that these laws can be changed by new congressional action before the end of the year. If the Republicans sweep the upcoming elections that has a good possibility of happening. If Obama wins re-election, but Republicans still hold control of the house of representatives, there is little chance of this happening.
think it is completely wrong for jenna jameson to back him up. its easier to do that when you already have a multi million biz DOING PORN. did she forger how she got there?? wtf.
Actually, Jenna is a part of the 'mainstream' porn production industry. Her success has been partly due to 'mainstream' porn video sales ( a la Vivid ) in a day and age before internet 'piracy' made such material available 'for free' at certain websites. Her success is also partly due to sales of her material via cable tv pay-per-view / subscription channels in a day and age before internet 'piracy' made her video available 'for free' ( or at rock bottom prices ) at certain websites. As such Jenna, right along with Vivid and other 'mainstream' adult video producers, ComCast and other cable TV providers offering adult PPV / subscription channels etc., arguably stands to benefit big time if 'independent' websites which currently offer her videos 'for free' ( or at rock bottom prices ) are prevented from doing so in the future via SOPA / PIPA.
And, obviously, Jenna now has a ton of royalty income and investment income which would become subject to much higher capital gains tax rates should Obama be re-elected.
Kellydancer
10-05-2012, 01:39 PM
But that is the right wing attitude "I'm alright Jack...screw them...let them eat cake"
"why should I pay for their "choices"?" = "let me be free to judge and discriminate against others (until I find myself in the same boat)"
But the thing is I HAVE been in their situation and I know how it is. I needed medical many years ago for a needed surgery and Medicaid denied me. Luckily I ended up with a job that offered insurance but if I hadn't I would have been screwed.
When people make choices I shouldn't have to pay. I am tired of paying for the people who were irresponsible while those who weren't suffered because of this.
Smurfette
10-05-2012, 01:40 PM
As I have attempted to factually correct via three different posts which were gutted or deleted altogether, this statement is at odds with published details of the Obamacare law as well as other existing tax laws.
The SSI tax ( = self-employment tax for dancers and camgirls ) is going to increase by 2% no matter how much or how little money is earned in 2013
The federal income tax will 'officially' increase in 2013 ... but in real world terms girls earning $25k per year will probably escape an increase, while girls earning $75k per year might see a 3% increase.
The Alternative Minimum Tax threshold will be lowered in 2013. In real world terms this is likely to mean that girls earning $75k+ per year who live in high tax rate states like NY, IL, CA etc. may see their federal income tax bill increase because their federal tax deduction for state income taxes paid may now be limited.
Thanks for clearing that up, Melonie. I wasn't fully versed on how the laws would affect independent contractors. I don't necessarily blame people for looking out for their immediate self-interest by wanting to reduce their tax burden.
Why is it "wrong" for her to support a Republican president?
Oh I forgot, Republicans aren't allowed in porn right?
Come on, she makes WELL over $250,000 a year, she's successful and she does not want to be subjected to Obama's beloved "wealth redistribution" by way of taxing wealthy people, thereby essentially punishing them for doing better than others!
I don't either.
It's not "more fair" to tax wealthy people. If the percentage is the same across the board THAT'S FAIR. Wealthy people already pay more because they make more. 20% (as an example) of $500,000 is MORE than 20% of $20,000.
And as far as how she got there..... she got there by WORKING to get there. She didn't get there by way of government programs, handouts, or wealth redistribution. She got there because of the wonderfully free capitalistic society we live in.
Again, I don't blame Jenna Jameson for not wanting her taxes to go up. I hate paying taxes and it was very painful and annoying for me to have to hand money over this year when I did mine. However, I suppose it all depends on how you look at the world ideologically. Hyper-individualists do not want to "share" their wealth with anyone else and that's sort of understandable. But I personally am happy to pay taxes when I know it's going towards supporting our UHC system and a decent social safety net for others (I'm in Canada). I think it's a good trade-off.
I personally believe that "no man is an island" and that we're all in this together. I do not want to see other people suffer from poverty, hunger, disease, bankruptcy due to hospital bills, etc. You can say "Well donate to charity then" but charity doesn't affect the ROOT problems, whereas government programs can and DO make a huge difference when it comes to systemic poverty, etc.
It's not "more fair" to tax wealthy people. If the percentage is the same across the board THAT'S FAIR. Wealthy people already pay more because they make more. 20% (as an example) of $500,000 is MORE than 20% of $20,000.
Actually, a flat tax is not fair in any sense of the word. 20% of $20,000 is $4K. $4K to a person or family making $20K is a HUGE amount of money. It can pay for food for the entire year. Or their electric bill, or car payment for the entire year.
20% of $500K is $100K, leaving $400K cash leftover. That rich person's life is not affected detrimentally in any way, whereas the flat tax rate would definitely hurt a poor person in obvious ways.
That's why we have a progressive tax system... to KEEP things fair.
*waits for Melonie to respond with a long post full of numbers and figures* :)
Melonie
10-05-2012, 01:46 PM
^^^ actually, I agree with you that a 'flat tax' would have problems. But so does a tax system which would tax away 50%+ of a hard working person's $500k per year income ... because it kills the incentive to take financial risks and to 'produce' more ... such as investing in a new business venture which would create new jobs and additional tax revenues.
Instead, 50%+ tax rates incentivize high earners to invest in tax exempt municipal bonds. Or it incentivizes the person to move themselves and their financial assets out of the USA. Or it incentivizes the person to 'hide' their money in the Cayman Islands, in Lichtenstein, or in another secret bank account. These are even worse for America, since the gov't not only fails to collect higher amounts of tax revenues, but it actually winds up losing tax revenues that it was formerly receiving.
ShellyConnors
10-05-2012, 01:50 PM
^not to mention the other taxes not included in federal income taxes, that everybody pays equally... like sales tax.
Smurfette
10-05-2012, 01:53 PM
^^^ actually, I agree with you that a 'flat tax' would have problems. But so does a tax system which taxes away 50% of a hard working person's $500k per year income ... because it kills the incentive to 'produce' ... which in turn incentivizes the high earning person to invest their money into tax exempt municipal bonds instead of into a new business venture which would create new jobs and additional tax revenues.
The top marginal tax rate is no where near 50%.... besides it wouldn't affect the full 500k, only income earned after a certain bracket. so a person earning 500K would not pay $250K in taxes, or anywhere close to that.
Why do conservatives always say that high tax rates will "kill incentives" when there is no evidence for that whatsoever? In fact, the evidence shows the exact opposite. The top tax rate in the late 50's, early 60's was 90% and the economy was booming.
Kellydancer
10-05-2012, 01:55 PM
Obamacare DOES include preventative care... one of the measures is that it requires insurance companies to cover preventative care. It also prevents companies from denying or dropping you based on pre-existing conditions and allows students to remain on their parents insurance until they're 26. I fail to see what's wrong with any of that.
But what are the pre existing conditions? I think anything that that person did to themselves should not be covered. Sorry but a 400 person isn't the same as someone who was born with a heart defect. I am fine with including say a gym in the plans and many of the jobs I interview for include paying for my gym membership. Healthy weight means less medical needs.
Taxes only increase for those making over $200K per year. Starting in 2014, families and single adults under the poverty level will be able to qualify for Medicaid and other benefits that will help them.
Not true according to the papers I have seen. Basically everyone will be required to pay for this program and the tax issue is completely separate. In Illinois singles do not qualify for Medicaid and an article I read stated that if a state don't allow singles on the plan this likely won't change. I'll look for the links later but this is why I oppose Obamacare.
Religious organizations are not being forced to give women free birth control or anything like that. The mandate simply requires that health insurance cover contraceptives. Employers cannot refuse to include contraception in their employees' health insurance plans. Even if they are a religious institution.
IMO, refusing to cover contraceptives for women (who pay INTO their health insurance as well) is pure discrimination.
I wanted to post in this thread today after seeing this article:
"Abortion rates plummet with free birth control"
If you are truly pro-life and hate abortion, then allowing women access to birth control is the single greatest measure you can take to drastically lower the amount of abortions.
What's that? No, you don't think birth control should be widely accessible and affordable for women everywhere? Then I guess you should admit to yourself that what your "pro-life" stance is *really* about is casting your judgement and discrimination on others just as Classy_Katy said.
Moreover, you will be "paying" for their choices regardless. If a woman can't afford birth control and becomes a single mother relying on welfare and food stamps, you are paying a WHOLE LOT more in taxes to support them.
I've never said I am prolife. In fact I don't care if someone has an abortion but do not feel taxpayers should have to pay for the procedure. In fact there are many abortion organizations that help with those who need to surgery or the medicine and I have given to those. I am pro responsibility and do not feel I have to pay for someone's poor choices, whether it is obesity or having kids they knew they couldn't afford. I never said I don't believe birth control should be limited, I just don't feel it is my responsibility or taxpayers' to pay for it.
It is not discrimination to not pay for birth control. I guess this could be applied if insurance pays for Viagra and not birth control (which btw I do not support paying for either)but as itself? nope because not all women use birth control. Some are too old, some are celibate, some are lesbian and many other factors. Birth control doesn't affect all women. I'm not bothered if insurance includes birth control in their plans, however my view is if an employer doesn't want to include it they shouldn't have to.
SarahTime
10-05-2012, 01:57 PM
Actually, a flat tax is not fair in any sense of the word. 20% of $20,000 is $4K. $4K to a person or family making $20K is a HUGE amount of money. It can pay for food for the entire year. Or their electric bill, or car payment for the entire year.
20% of $500K is $100K, leaving $400K cash leftover. That rich person's life is not affected detrimentally in any way, whereas the flat tax rate would definitely hurt a poor person in obvious ways.
That's why we have a progressive tax system... to KEEP things fair.
*waits for Melonie to respond with a long post full of numbers and figures* :)
Who are you or I or the government to determine what the $100,000 is worth to the wealthy family? Maybe they have high expenses? Maybe part that $100,000 would have gone to fund a child or grand child's education? Help a son or daughter with a down payment on a home? Donate to a charity? Save for retirement? Maybe $100,000 less in income IS detrimental to that family? What is detrimental to a wealthy family is going to most definitely differ from what is detrimental to a poor family. But who is the one that decides what is "detrimental"?
Trust me, I have BEEN poor. I know what it is like for a family to live on less than $16,000 a year. I didn't come from a wealthy family either. But I FULLY intend to be making over $250,000 in the coming years by my OWN hard work and determination and I don't want to be punished for it.
Maybe a "flat tax" is not the way to go, I am by no means a tax expert. My entire point is that rich people should not have to be taxed at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate for the pure fact that they make more money than someone else.
And the biggest issue here is not even the individual, it's all of the business that make more than $250,000 are taxed at the individual rate, that provide jobs to countless numbers of people, who will be HEAVILY taxed and therefore unable to hire as much, produce as much, etc. This HURTS our economy, it doesn't help it.
Melonie
10-05-2012, 01:59 PM
^^^ again read the fine print. Proposed Obama tax rates on those earning $500k+ will approximately work out as follows. 39.6% federal tax on 'ordinary' income. A new 3 point something % medicare surtax in addition to the 39.6%. A ~9-11% state income tax in NY or IL or CA. Plus the Alternative Minimum Tax ( partially ) disallowing tax deductions for state income taxes paid, for real estate taxes paid, etc. Add that up and it exceeds 50%, BEFORE adding on a 5-7-9% state sales tax on every dollar spent.
Moving way south of the border allowed me to trade my ~40% effective total tax rate in New York for a near zero total tax rate ... with the difference being more than sufficient to cover ALL of my costs of living.
Kellydancer
10-05-2012, 02:02 PM
Here's another thing, I live in Illinois where abortion is relatively easy to find (though we had a woman die from one at PP)and condoms are often handed out at school yet we STILL have a serious out of wedlock on welfare problem. How is it that people who can get pills and condoms easily (including teens)yet still get pregnant? simple, many of them just don't care to be responsible.
Incidentally, I do work for the various food pantries and do not believe people should suffer but having food and having birth control are two different things. We all need food we all don't need to have sex.
ManyRoses
10-05-2012, 04:33 PM
Who are you or I or the government to determine what the $100,000 is worth to the wealthy family? Maybe they have high expenses? Maybe part that $100,000 would have gone to fund a child or grand child's education? Help a son or daughter with a down payment on a home? Donate to a charity? Save for retirement? Maybe $100,000 less in income IS detrimental to that family? What is detrimental to a wealthy family is going to most definitely differ from what is detrimental to a poor family. But who is the one that decides what is "detrimental"?
Trust me, I have BEEN poor. I know what it is like for a family to live on less than $16,000 a year. I didn't come from a wealthy family either. But I FULLY intend to be making over $250,000 in the coming years by my OWN hard work and determination and I don't want to be punished for it.
Maybe a "flat tax" is not the way to go, I am by no means a tax expert. My entire point is that rich people should not have to be taxed at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate for the pure fact that they make more money than someone else.
And the biggest issue here is not even the individual, it's all of the business that make more than $250,000 are taxed at the individual rate, that provide jobs to countless numbers of people, who will be HEAVILY taxed and therefore unable to hire as much, produce as much, etc. This HURTS our economy, it doesn't help it.
Sarah, I agree with you entirely on this one!!! (Remember how I said that I agree strongly with some policies on either side? This is a perfect example!).
I'm not brilliant with taxes or, frankly, math, like Melonie is. But on principle, I feel that charging a higher rate if you earn more just isn't fair. If everyone pays the same %, you will still end up in a situation where people who earn very little, pay very little, and people who earn a lot, pay a lot. Add into that various tax breaks, credits etc for lower income brackets, and you end up with people who are earning very little paying a lower % overall anyway.
I agree with you when you ask who gets to decide what makes a "reasonable" amount to live on - as a single person living alone, I would have much more disposable income at 40K than a family with three children would at 100K. As it would not be particularly practical or viable to try and judge each person's lifestyle and expenses and decide on an appropriate tax rate from that (and again, who would be the judge there?) a flat rate % is the only truly fair way to go about it, IMHO.
Bear in mind that I have no issues with providing tax breaks/credits in certain circumstances, and in all honesty, given the state of the economy, a (small) tax hike all around might end up being necessary. That still doesn't mean that we should have to pay a higher % for earning more money.
And there is definitely a disincentive for people who are on the borderline between tax brackets to earn more. Going from one tax bracket to another with a small raise usually means that you end up taking home LESS money - why would anyone want that? Yes, if you keep earning more and more, then eventually you will break even again, and then start to earn more, but why is it fair to create a situation where working harder means earning less?
Smurfette
10-05-2012, 08:11 PM
There's so much ground to cover... lol. I'll try to respond tomorrow but for now I gotta get to work. Maybe I can work myself into a higher bracket so later on I can sit back, rest my feet upon my mahogany desk and bemoan our unfair taxation system whilst sipping on gin flavored with the tears of a thousand single mothers living in poverty. :D
(*cough* joking)
And there is definitely a disincentive for people who are on the borderline between tax brackets to earn more. Going from one tax bracket to another with a small raise usually means that you end up taking home LESS money - why would anyone want that? Yes, if you keep earning more and more, then eventually you will break even again, and then start to earn more, but why is it fair to create a situation where working harder means earning less?
Sorry... that's quite a stretch. The taxes are marginal... so if you get a raise that brings your income into the next tax bracket, ONLY that income within the bracket will be taxed at the higher rate. As explained below:
An individual pays tax at a given bracket only for each dollar within that bracket's range. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $10,000 in 2009 would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the first dollar to the 8,350th dollar (10% × $8,350 = $835.00), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 8,351st dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% × $1,650 = $247.50), for a total of $1,082.50. Notice this amount ($1,082.50) is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000 (for a tax of $1,500). This is because the individual's marginal rate (the percentage tax on the last dollar earned, here 15%) has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket (here the first $8,350 of income taxed at 10%).
So I honestly can't imagine a situation in which getting a raise would mean making LESS money overall. I used to think the same as you actually until I started reading up on it.
CourtneyRaine
10-05-2012, 08:38 PM
Maybe I can work myself into a higher bracket so later on I can sit back, rest my feet upon my mahogany desk and bemoan our unfair taxation system whilst sipping on gin flavored with the tears of a thousand single mothers living in poverty. :D
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
So I kind of feel a little guilty for starting this thread, because I just wanted to know how this election will impact my ability to get paid to get naked online, and now looking at all of the responses a few days later I'm like woah, what did I start here?! But I love that everyone here is so passionate, educated, and articulate. And Smurfette, you are my new favorite superhero after that last comment, can we please go out for these gin cocktails which you speak of??? :D :P
SarahTime
10-05-2012, 11:17 PM
There's so much ground to cover... lol. I'll try to respond tomorrow but for now I gotta get to work. Maybe I can work myself into a higher bracket so later on I can sit back, rest my feet upon my mahogany desk and bemoan our unfair taxation system whilst sipping on gin flavored with the tears of a thousand single mothers living in poverty. :D
(*cough* joking)
Obviously you believe there to be some truth to your joke.... but I have actually been in pretty bad positions and was barely getting by, was considered to be poor, and I still held the same beliefs I hold now. It's not like I came from wealth, have had everything handed to me, have always had money, etc etc etc. I've worked hard since the day I turned 16... my family was lower end of middle class to poverty at times... it's not like I don't get what it's like to be poor. Most of my family is STILL poor. My sister for example, 3 kids with 3 different dads, living off welfare while barely getting by working a minimum wage job.... I know what it's like from many different angles and I still have always and probably will always believe that it's unfair to tax wealthy people more, among other things.
Melonie
10-05-2012, 11:19 PM
So I honestly can't imagine a situation in which getting a raise would mean making LESS money overall. I used to think the same as you actually until I started reading up on it.
Actually, under the US tax code and social welfare system this is pretty common. The issue arises directly when a person earns one dollar too many to qualify for particular tax credits. More often, the issue arises indirectly when a person earns one dollar too many to qualify for medicaid, for 'food stamps', for utility bill assistance programs, for 'subsidized' housing benefits etc. This black and white eligible versus not eligible situation indeed creates an economic void between the point where the person's income remains one dollar under the eligibility thresholds, and the point where the person's income ( after taxes ) exceeds the equivalent cash value of the 'lost' benefits.
And indeed some Americans have and will turn down working overtime, will turn down marginal promotions etc. because the $1-2-3,000 per year in additional income doesn't come close to covering the costs of paying out of pocket the 'full price' for groceries, for rent, for utilities etc. once eligibility for subsidies has been lost. In fact, if you search through older camming threads you'll find that this very situation was discussed at length in regard to a 'low income' camgirl whose child had health problems. In that particular case, limiting work and income to a $20k per year and continuing eligibility for gov't benefits actually resulted in a net higher standard of living than increasing work and income to $30k per year but having to pay out of pocket to 'replace' said gov't benefits.
SarahTime
10-05-2012, 11:24 PM
Actually, under the US tax code and social welfare system this is pretty common. The issue arises directly when a person earns one dollar too many to qualify for particular tax credits. More often, the issue arises indirectly when a person earns one dollar too many to qualify for medicaid, for 'food stamps', for utility bill assistance programs, for 'subsidized' housing benefits etc. This black and white eligible versus not eligible situation indeed creates an economic void between the point where the person's income remains one dollar under the eligibility thresholds, and the point where the person's income ( after taxes ) exceeds the equivalent cash value of the 'lost' benefits.
And indeed some Americans have and will turn down working overtime, will turn down marginal promotions etc. because the $1-2-3,000 per year in additional income doesn't come close to covering the costs of paying out of pocket the 'full price' for groceries, for rent, for utilities etc. once eligibility for subsidies has been lost.
I'm actually facing this same type of thing right now. My children are on Texas CHIP because I could not afford to cover them on my student insurance. I'm reaching the point of not qualifying and private insurance will cost me $1000/mo for my family (since I won't be able to have student insurance anymore soon, we will all be on private insurance). Do I work LESS so that I can still qualify for them? Or do I work more and pay HUGE amounts?
Well, obviously my choice is to bite the bullet and work more. But then turn right around and pay $12,000 a year for health insurance.
But I can totally see how many people face this situation where they make $1 over the amount and then they are shit out of luck.
Melonie
10-06-2012, 08:36 AM
^^^ indeed this loss of eligibility for social welfare benefits maximum earnings threshold situation has become pervasive in America in recent years ... as evidenced by some 47 million Americans how receiving gov't 'food stamp' benefits. And indeed, millions of Americans now face the same question that you just did ... whether to 'play it safe' and restrict their income to the maximum amount which will still allow them to collect gov't benefits, or to 'take the chance' that by working harder and maximizing their income that they will actually be able to earn enough additional money ( net of taxes ) to be able to afford to pay for 100% of their own food, rent, utilities, health care etc. and still come out 'ahead'.
Not wanting to dwell too heavily on the political aspects, but Democrats tend to exacerbate this 'gap' by providing generous social welfare benefits to those who remain eligible, but at the same time raising taxes on higher earning Americans to pay for the costs of those generous social welfare benefits. Thus in Democrat dominated states - most notably CA and IL and NY - the 'gap' begins at an income level in the low $20k range, and the 'come out ahead' level ( net of taxes ) doesn't begin until income rises near $40k. Not surprisingly, this tacitly encourages lots of 'low income' residents of CA, IL, NY etc. to limit their incomes to maintain social welfare benefit eligibility.
loveshooks
10-06-2012, 01:02 PM
In fact, if you search through older camming threads you'll find that this very situation was discussed at length in regard to a 'low income' camgirl whose child had health problems. In that particular case, limiting work and income to a $20k per year and continuing eligibility for gov't benefits actually resulted in a net higher standard of living than increasing work and income to $30k per year but having to pay out of pocket to 'replace' said gov't benefits.
and of course, your solution is to limit the benefits to which low-income families and individuals would have access, so as to erase this 'disincentive' to higher earnings, correct?
moving on, I sympathize with your situation, Sarah, but I'm not sure how it fits into the discourse of 'personal responsibility' that's been thrown around here alot in the last few pages of this thread. After reading your posts over the past few pages, I'm surprised to learn that you've availed yourself of CHIP. I'm glad your children have had access to health/dental care while you've been in school, but haven't you stated yourself that one shouldn't expect the state to 'pay for one's family'?
Just to be clear, I don't buy into the above argument in any way. I think programs like CHIP are wonderful and I'm glad it exists, and that it's been there for you when you've needed it. Now that you're out of school and your income will be increasing, you will of course 'earn out' of eligibilty. Of course, much of the gap between income levels that sustain eligibility for gov programs and income levels that disallow such eligibility (resulting in higher out-of-pocket costs) could be erased if universalized health/dental benefits were available to all, but I understand that's not a possibility in the US right now, due to the political climate. However, it is possible to create a society wherein access to neccessary social supports and 'incentives to increase income' co-exist.
Such a thing is possible, but I just want to make it clear to everyone reading this that the neo-conservative perspective involves reducing access to social supports, and in some cases, a complete removal of those social supports. The tax cuts proposed by the Reps have to be paid for somehow, and I think one thing this thread reveals is that the discourse of the 'welfare king/queen' doesn't accurately portray the reality that many hard working middle-income families rely upon gov-sponsored programs at times.
Kellydancer
10-06-2012, 01:09 PM
Since my post was removed for some strange reason yes I want to see welfare strictly regulated and curtailed. I do not feel people making $14,000 should be required to pay more in taxes for welfare. I do not feel Medicaid should be more generous for people on welfare over the elderly, the disabled and veterans. These people take priority over those on welfare
Kellydancer
10-06-2012, 01:17 PM
Obviously you believe there to be some truth to your joke.... but I have actually been in pretty bad positions and was barely getting by, was considered to be poor, and I still held the same beliefs I hold now. It's not like I came from wealth, have had everything handed to me, have always had money, etc etc etc. I've worked hard since the day I turned 16... my family was lower end of middle class to poverty at times... it's not like I don't get what it's like to be poor. Most of my family is STILL poor. My sister for example, 3 kids with 3 different dads, living off welfare while barely getting by working a minimum wage job.... I know what it's like from many different angles and I still have always and probably will always believe that it's unfair to tax wealthy people more, among other things.
I have too and oddly it has made me far more conservative. There have been times where I barely made enough to pay rent and buy food and I remember how horrible I feel. There were times where I was so broke I even applied for assistance only to be turned down because I didn't have kids. Eventually I made more money but have been there and instead of making me more understanding it has made me less understanding.
loveshooks
10-06-2012, 01:45 PM
your previous post was removed and your 2nd-above post edited because, while I want to facilitate an open discussion here, I'm not going to let this thread devolve into poor-bashing
I will also continue to edit posts that attempt to fearmonger, implying that if the Dems win suddenly cam customers won't be able to afford our services
this is not dollar den, and I'm keeping this thread open despite the fact that we're not supposed to talk about politics here, because thus far the tenor of the debate has been remained relatively civil. I'm not going to permit cheap shots and forms of argument that cater to fallacies
SarahTime
10-06-2012, 03:22 PM
and of course, your solution is to limit the benefits to which low-income families and individuals would have access, so as to erase this 'disincentive' to higher earnings, correct?
moving on, I sympathize with your situation, Sarah, but I'm not sure how it fits into the discourse of 'personal responsibility' that's been thrown around here alot in the last few pages of this thread. After reading your posts over the past few pages, I'm surprised to learn that you've availed yourself of CHIP. I'm glad your children have had access to health/dental care while you've been in school, but haven't you stated yourself that one shouldn't expect the state to 'pay for one's family'?
Just to be clear, I don't buy into the above argument in any way. I think programs like CHIP are wonderful and I'm glad it exists, and that it's been there for you when you've needed it. Now that you're out of school and your income will be increasing, you will of course 'earn out' of eligibilty. Of course, much of the gap between income levels that sustain eligibility for gov programs and income levels that disallow such eligibility (resulting in higher out-of-pocket costs) could be erased if universalized health/dental benefits were available to all, but I understand that's not a possibility in the US right now, due to the political climate. However, it is possible to create a society wherein access to neccessary social supports and 'incentives to increase income' co-exist.
Such a thing is possible, but I just want to make it clear to everyone reading this that the neo-conservative perspective involves reducing access to social supports, and in some cases, a complete removal of those social supports. The tax cuts proposed by the Reps have to be paid for somehow, and I think one thing this thread reveals is that the discourse of the 'welfare king/queen' doesn't accurately portray the reality that many hard working middle-income families rely upon gov-sponsored programs at times.
I expected someone to give me crap over my kids being on CHIP. No surprise.
I have NEVER, EVER said I was AGAINST any of these government programs. At all. I am against welfare as a paycheck, people who live off the system with ZERO intention of ever trying to better their lives, who feel entitled and feel the purpose of the government is to take care of their basic needs. There is a massive difference between reforming and regulating these welfare programs, and completely removing them. I don't think that ANY Republican has said they want to just completely 100% do away with any of these programs such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
CHIP in Texas is made available to self employed families that is why they have MUCH higher income guidelines, it is separate than Medicaid. It is NOT entirely "free" to me either. There are costs that I have to pay associated with it. I am also COMPLETELY supportive of STATES developing their own health care programs. I do NOT support the federal government taking this over. There's a huge difference. Maybe not being from the United States you might not have any clue what the differences are, I don't know? But there are huge fundamental differences between the government taking over health care, and states deciding what is best for their citizens.
And as far as my family being "paid for".... ha. I have worked since the day I was able - since I turned 16. I have paid into the system for YEARS. Having my children on CHIP is definitely NOT me having my family "paid for" since I have been paying into the system and STILL pay into the system. Many of the families on government assistance don't pay a dime back into the system by way of taxes. Not a cent.
But you know, whatever.
SarahTime
10-06-2012, 03:24 PM
your previous post was removed and your 2nd-above post edited because, while I want to facilitate an open discussion here, I'm not going to let this thread devolve into poor-bashing
I will also continue to edit posts that attempt to fearmonger, implying that if the Dems win suddenly cam customers won't be able to afford our services
this is not dollar den, and I'm keeping this thread open despite the fact that we're not supposed to talk about politics here, because thus far the tenor of the debate has been remained relatively civil. I'm not going to permit cheap shots and forms of argument that cater to fallacies
So basically you will delete posts that imply "fearmongering" by Democrats..... but what about hateful, inaccurate and flat out wrong posts about Republicans? Those can stay, right?
Loveshooks, I have nothing against you but I don't think editing out comments that you do not like that are speaking about Democrats or poor people is very moderate of you, considering you are the moderator of this forum. Either close the whole thing, edit all the posts, or don't edit them. To edit them to make them all one sided is pretty baffling.
loveshooks
10-06-2012, 03:33 PM
^^I have deleted and altered left-leaning posts that I have considered to be offensive to right-leaning members as well, one of which I considered to be an unfair attack upon your personally. In moderating this debate, I have also considered whether those posting are regular contributors to cc, versus those who were dropping into this thread because it granted them another platform to push forth an agenda. Please also note that I did not edit or delete a single post you have made throughout this thread.
just to be clear, I am NOT attacking you using CHIP. I hoped I had made that clear, but I obviously failed it that attempt. What I was striving to do was point out that many hard working families such as your own do avail themselves of gov-sponsored programs. I am not criticizing you for using CHIP. I'm glad it exists and I am glad it has been there for you when you've needed it.
Attacking someone for using a needed service is the last thing I would ever do, It goes against everything I believe. I raised your situation because it speaks to the point I was trying to make, that the trope of the 'welfare abuser' is not reality.
Anyways, this has been a great discussion and I thank everyone for their contributions.