# Jobs every where jobs.



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Jobs every where there jobs to be had. Just my travels last week turned up close to a dozen different jobs.


After I was released from the hospital and starving from the food the hospital fed me I was ready for some of that bad for you stuff. Arbors provides that just fine and a bit on the pricey side but lots of options to choose from.

Any way they had a help wanted sign posted, Minimum wage of course but flexible hours.


Went to get some fuel in Kare's ride a help wanted sign posted there and of course wages to low to b e able to afford to raise a family at minus wages.


Stopped at Hardees for Breakfast on the way to a car show and they also had help wanted signs out. Once again minimum wages and flexible hours but again you can not raise a family on the pay. Doubt if you could even afford a car newer than 10 years old even.


On our way home from the car show I stopped to fill up the Buick with fuel. Again there was a help wanted sign out for a minus wage job. I suppose if you could work 4 8 hour shifts a day you may be able to raise a family on that pay.


Kare and I went to Meijers Monday. Of course they are hiring alway have and probably always will. Minim wages paid and flexible hours as long as it is there flexibleness.


Knew a lady who tried to work there for a little extra jingle. Think she lasted 2 months, go to work at 4PM today and get out at midnight, Next shift starts at 2AM, a day off and they schedule a meeting. You are required to attend for no pay.

Even the car wash had a sign out for help. OH what a job soaking wet all day from day lite till dark from spring theu winter. Of course rthe pay is great, Ya right Michigans minum wage.


Yes a lot off jobs to be had today but not a one I see as being any more than summer work for high school kids wanting to earn some jingle for college.



 Al


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yes, there are "more jobs" now, but as you pointed out three are needed to make ends meet.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Our Georgia Gov. just announced the building of a new Amazon fulfillment center that would provide 1000 new jobs and a Kroger center that would provide 400. That was just today. New factories going up as fast as they can find builders to build them in my area. Fast food and car washes are meant to be jobs for teenagers so that they can get some walking around money.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

alleyyooper said:


> Yes a lot off jobs to be had today but not a one I see as being any more than summer work for high school kids wanting to earn some jingle for college.
> 
> 
> 
> Al


That might be because most of the higher hourly/salaried jobs are advertised in different ways (online vs. a sign in the window) than the minimum wage/high turnover jobs.

The higher education/more money jobs are definitely out there too. I have one kid in the tech industry who happens to be getting ready to change companies, so put his resume on all of the resume sites. He says he's getting emailed by recruiters constantly (nowadays you post your resume online and if you're in a high demand field THEY contact YOU). He's in the middle of doing his research on their companies so he's not wasting anyone's time dragging things out with recruiters from companies he's not interested in, but could probably have an offer tomorrow if he wanted one. A nephew who is career military says he has civilian companies contacting him often, and another nephew in the entertainment field (concert/party planning company) just changed jobs because he got a solicitation out of the blue by a company that offered him half again what he was making at his old job. My brother in law is a welder and has no interest in changing where he works but has had several job offers just from people bumping into him and finding out that he's a welder, work unseen.

You just don't see the ads unless you're looking for them - online - anymore.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

A minimum wage job beats no job if one has no income. If you can't make ends meet you need to adjust your lifestyle to fit between them. In my area there are plenty of jobs and people are doing well.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Our Georgia Gov. just announced the building of a new Amazon fulfillment center that would provide 1000 new jobs and a Kroger center that would provide 400. That was just today. New factories going up as fast as they can find builders to build them in my area. Fast food and car washes are meant to be jobs for teenagers so that they can get some walking around money.


From a quick Google search the pay is around $30-35K for both Amazon and Kroger. That's assuming full time hours. Can a family live on that?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

alleyyooper said:


> Minimum wage of course but flexible hours.





alleyyooper said:


> of course wages to low to b e able to afford to raise a family at minus wages.





alleyyooper said:


> again you can not raise a family on the pay. Doubt if you could even afford a car newer than 10 years old even.





alleyyooper said:


> I suppose if you could work 4 8 hour shifts a day you may be able to raise a family on that pay.





alleyyooper said:


> Minim wages paid and flexible hours as long as it is there flexibleness.



Sheesh! 
Are all entry level no brain jobs required to pay enough to raise a family? 
What about the things that entry level jobs teach? They give as much as they pay.

How about an alternative?
Get two jobs. 
Learn to speak English correctly
Get more education.
That's just three things.........


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> From a quick Google search the pay is around $30-35K for both Amazon and Kroger. That's assuming full time hours. Can a family live on that?


Nearly three grand a month? I would certainly hope so!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Taxes, insurance, etc. would drop the take home pay considerably.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> From a quick Google search the pay is around $30-35K for both Amazon and Kroger. That's assuming full time hours. Can a family live on that?


Easily, if they live like they make that much. Most people want to act like they make 100K plus and that is how they get into trouble. I made less than that for some time and managed to feed my family, not get rained on, get to and from were I was going, pay off debt and save for retirement. I also knew families who made 3 to 4 x that who struggled, but, they had some nice toys.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nearly three grand a month? I would certainly hope so!


A lot of homesteading families can live on much less than 35k a year, though there is a demographic that wants people to believe otherwise.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Easily, if they live like they make that much. Most people want to act like they make 100K plus and that is how they get into trouble. I made less than that for some time and managed to feed my family, not get rained on, get to and from were I was going, pay off debt and save for retirement. I also knew families who made 3 to 4 x that who struggled, but, they had some nice toys.


How long ago did you totally support a family on the take home pay of a $30-35K job? We did it 30 years ago, but it was decent money then. I'm talking realistically, current economy, average family.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

One of the local handymen wanted $400 to change out two water heaters for me last week. I did them myself and was back home before lunch...


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

We have several gated communities being built about 30 minutes north. They put in a bunch of shopping centers and new restaurants. The road to my sons therapy started building an industrial park last year with several businesses and huge buildings all hiring. They opened a gold mine in my county and they are always hiring. 

Where I work we are always hiring. And we start out at $11/ hr. In a low cost of living area where the median income is mid 40s.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Trying to raise a family on jobs meant for teenagers needing money for date night is like trying to win the Daytona 500 in a Ford Pinto.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> One of the local handymen wanted $400 to change out two water heaters for me last week. I did them myself and was back home before lunch...


Is that something the average homeowner can do? Or because you do it all the time it wasn't an issue?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Trying to raise a family on jobs meant for teenagers needing money for date night is like trying to win the Daytona 500 in a Ford Pinto.


And that is what much of the "job growth" is right now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> How long ago did you totally support a family on the take home pay of a $30-35K job? We did it 30 years ago, but it was decent money then. I'm talking realistically, current economy, average family.


4 to 5 years ago, after my daughter was born.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is that something the average homeowner can do? Or because you do it all the time it wasn't an issue?


It's all pretty cut and dry unless you run across one in an attic...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> 4 to 5 years ago, after my daughter was born.


Did your wife work?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Oh and my tiny town is getting a tire factory. We have some animal vitamin company that is expanding and they start out at a good rate.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> And that is what much of the "job growth" is right now.


Not true. There are so many of those jobs open because those willing and able to do something more don't have to take them. The Fast food joints around here, are having a very hard time finding and keeping people.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did your wife work?


Not since she got pregnant with our child until recently.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> It's all pretty cut and dry unless you run across one in an attic...


Perhaps Mr. Pixie and I are just extremely inept, we replaced our own about 10 years ago, it wasn't simple. Plumbing rarely is.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Not since our child was born until recently.


Wow. You should give classes on how to own a home, have a family, save for retirement, and work for little money. Truly amazing.

ETA: I imagine the cost of living in the area had something to do with it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can a family live on that?


Yes they can.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

This is a homesteading forum, where people desire to learn and/or share about self sufficiency.
It is about using your skills and determination to solve issues in place of throwing money at problems.
I can spend $400 at the grocery store or plant a garden, grow a cow and not spend $400 at the grocery store.
If folks believe they need to be taking home 6 figures to be even with everyone else, they might want to look elsewhere for their patch of heaven.
Homesteading isn't built on what is fair or equal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is that something the average homeowner can do?


Yes it is.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Not to mention all the construction jons for all this commercial building that is going on. Its crazy. The town this is all happening in is also building this huge new high school and stadium.. Last year it was a new elementary and middle school. This is all the way to my soms therapy sessions. So I drive it several times . I might be biased, because of the exposure.

If you cant find a decent paying job there is probably an underlying reason. Alot of these places background check and drug test.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Plenty of elitists would love to make my neighbors to believe they are suffering. Silly rabbits.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Depends on where you live and how you live I think. 

I'm not a huge Dr. Phil fan but I do like his saying that money problems rarely have anything to do with money. 

We knew people who were constantly broke when we were just starting out in the military. I was able to stay home with the kids when I got out because we lived simply while other people making exactly the same military income complained about having to be dual-income and still up to their eyeballs in debt.

Even now, when the husband makes considerably more (exponentially more?) than he did when we started out, I still stay at home and we can really do whatever we want financially, even though we live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. Still, some of the people he works with one spouse making exactly the same salary as my husband are dual income and up to their eyeballs in debt (one of his best work friends just filed bankruptcy, wife is in a white collar management job). I'm seriously talking about people making in the quarter of a million per year range and they're functionally broke. If you don't know how to manage money it doesn't matter how much you make.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. You should give classes on how to own a home, have a family, save for retirement, and work for little money. Truly amazing.


Not that difficult. No travel for some years. No restaurants for some years. I was only saving up to the match in my 401K. Rice and beans diet and took all of the training I could get my company to spring for. Cost of living is lower here than up Nawth.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> This is a homesteading forum, where people desire to learn and/or share about self sufficiency.
> It is about using your skills and determination to solve issues in place of throwing money at problems.
> I can spend $400 at the grocery store or plant a garden, grow a cow and not spend $400 at the grocery store.
> If folks believe they need to be taking home 6 figures to be even with everyone else, they might want to look elsewhere for their patch of heaven.
> Homesteading isn't built on what is fair or equal.


The topic was a bunch of minimum wage jobs, you brought in homesteading. Do cows grow free? If you're working two minimum wage jobs when do you have time to care for stock, gardens, upkeep on your place (how did you buy the place?) The real world is much much harder.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> This is a homesteading forum, where people desire to learn and/or share about self sufficiency.
> It is about using your skills and determination to solve issues in place of throwing money at problems.
> I can spend $400 at the grocery store or plant a garden, grow a cow and not spend $400 at the grocery store.
> If folks believe they need to be taking home 6 figures to be even with everyone else, they might want to look elsewhere for their patch of heaven.
> Homesteading isn't built on what is fair or equal.


Yup. My goal is to spend as little $ as possible for day to day stuff. Then when we have a need or want to splurge the $ is there for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> And that is what much of the "job growth" is right now.


It's still growth.
That beats what we had before.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Not that difficult. No travel for some years. No restaurants for some years. I was only saving up to the match in my 401K. Rice and beans diet and took all of the training I could get my company to spring for. Cost of living is lower here than up Nawth.


No, you should teach the world how to do that. Truly amazing.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> Not that difficult. No travel for some years. No restaurants for some years. I was only saving up to the match in my 401K. Rice and beans diet and took all of the training I could get my company to spring for. Cost of living is lower here than up Nawth.


Live like no one else now so you can live like "no one else later..."- dave Ramsey


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Yup...seeing those "carrier opportunities" here in Jersey my self everywhere...
But even if you can make a living out of two of them when your wife also does two, you might get around just fine...
But...have you ever tried to safe 1 millions for decent retirement on that?
Thats pretty much what it needs to survive around 26 years of growing medical bills while living retired...
Feeling bad for the coming generations...more and more people, more and more automatic production and AI taking more and more jobs...at some point, not to far ahead, we will be all "replaceable"...so "jobs" will be the answer...for a lot of us...or at least our kids...
Even education will not safe you, cause who can afford sending the kids to a college when being on Jobs...
Its a pretty bad cycle...
Maybe some of the socialism ideas are not to bad...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, there are "more jobs" now, but as you pointed out three are needed to make ends meet.


That's simply false.
If your "ends" don't meet, it's your own fault.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The topic was a bunch of minimum wage jobs, you brought in homesteading. Do cows grow free? If you're working two minimum wage jobs when do you have time to care for stock, gardens, upkeep on your place (how did you buy the place?) The real world is much much harder.


Why do you turn good news bad?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

dmm1976 said:


> Not to mention all the construction jons for all this commercial building that is going on. Its crazy.


Same here. There is so much construction being done that the construction workers are booked solid for months in advance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Meinecke said:


> Maybe some of the socialism ideas are not to bad...


Move to a socialist country if that's what you want.
Don't pretend it's really "better" though.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps Mr. Pixie and I are just extremely inept, we replaced our own about 10 years ago, it wasn't simple. Plumbing rarely is.


You Tube can be a great place to learn...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Why do you turn good news bad?


Why are you making this personal?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Meinecke said:


> Yup...seeing those "carrier opportunities" here in Jersey my self everywhere...
> But even if you can make a living out of two of them when your wife also does two, you might get around just fine...
> But...have you ever tried to safe 1 millions for decent retirement on that?
> Thats pretty much what it needs to survive around 26 years of growing medical bills while living retired...
> ...


Ding, ding, ding, the answer is Socialism. What a wonderful idea. What can go wrong?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you should teach the world how to do that. Truly amazing.


Dave Ramsey already does. I am living proof that it works. Simple. Live below your means while fighting to increase your means.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> You Tube can be a great place to learn...


I agree wholeheartedly on Google and Youtube. Did you learn online, or by watching your family? Who's job it was to do such things?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you making this personal?


Purely observing your line of thought. Were you making it personal in your reply to @alleyyooper ?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps Mr. Pixie and I are just extremely inept, we replaced our own about 10 years ago, it wasn't simple. Plumbing rarely is.


Plumbing is the worst. I brag on my husband constantly about how he can fix/make/do anything, but plumbing is one thing he hates with an unholy passion. I mean he can do it, but he sounds like the father in a Christmas Story the whole time.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Meinecke said:


> Feeling bad for the coming generations...more and more people, more and more automatic production and AI taking more and more jobs...at some point, not to far ahead, we will be all "replaceable"...so "jobs" will be the answer...for a lot of us...or at least our kids...


Encourage your children to learn to invent, build, repair said technology.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> Same here. There is so much construction being done that the construction workers are booked solid for months in advance.


My old buds in the HVAC, plumbing and electrical trades and losing work because they don't have the coverage. Meaning, they cannot find decent help fast enough to keep up with the business. They are willing to train and pay well above the standard for people who are willing and will just show up.
It isn't grade school money, but enough to support a family that is smart with their finances.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *Why* are you making this personal?


Why do you do it?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree wholeheartedly on Google and Youtube. Did you learn online, or by watching your family? Who's job it was to do such things?


I've learned a lot on-line. I watched several things in my younger years. I still wont pay a handyman $100 an hour unless it's on a 12/12 roof. I replaced all my windows before I had internet...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> Plumbing is the worst. I brag on my husband constantly about how he can fix/make/do anything, but plumbing is one thing he hates with an unholy passion. I mean he can do it, but he sounds like the father in a Christmas Story the whole time.


Replacing that water heater was awful. We're pretty handy, and that was really beyond our capability, we did eventually accomplish it. He was so foul I came upstairs and swore I wasn't going back down there unless he caught on fire. Which was a possibility because of the soldering of the pipes.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Mish said:


> Plumbing is the worst. I brag on my husband constantly about how he can fix/make/do anything, but plumbing is one thing he hates with an unholy passion. I mean he can do it, but he sounds like the father in a Christmas Story the whole time.


Hot water is on the left and waste runs downhill...


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

My housing costs ( mortgage utilities )are $1400. I could get that lower if we refinanced ane lowered the house payment. Instead we will continue and have the house paid off in 9 years vs 15-30. 


My husband works as a kitchen manager. Makes a decent wage. They are constantly hiring . 

I work part time at a big box store. I make almost the same hourly as my husband. Just because we've both stayed with our jobs and gotten raises and taken advantage of benefits. 

We are considered low income. But yet we thrive. And we are happy. And not in debt. We recognize our needs from our wants and delay gratification. Plan for the future. If we really want something we wait til we have the $ to buy it. 

I find it kind of insulting that us poor people are always looked upon like...oh they dont know any better they cant figure out how to take care of themselves they need us to gice them what they need so they can have what they want.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree wholeheartedly on Google and Youtube. Did you learn online, or by watching your family? Who's job it was to do such things?


Yeah, pre-YouTube trying to get by. 

We learned to do things ourselves by trial and error. If you don't have the money to pay someone to do it, you figure it out or go without.

Most things are pretty easy if you think about it long enough. The stuff that isn't, generally we'd know someone who knew what they were doing and ask them to explain it or show us how. Oh, and I think we used to own a set of like handyman/fix it books we found for pennies at a used book store. That was invaluable for fixing cars, which we did a lot instead of buying new.

YouTube is super icing on that cake, but you could totally do it before YouTube as well, just needed more human resources if you got stuck. Of course we both came from really poor backgrounds where you tape things together until the tape won't hold, which kind of put us in the mindset of figuring out how to fix things instead of just going out and buying new stuff if something broke. Hillbilly ingenuity. heh.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm

*Fastest Growing Occupations*
PRINTER-FRIENDLY 

*Fastest growing occupations:* 20 occupations with the highest percent change of employment between 2016-26.

_Click on an occupation name to see the full occupational profile._

*OCCUPATION* *GROWTH RATE, 2016-26* *2018 MEDIAN PAY*
*Solar photovoltaic installers*







105%

$42,680 per year
*Wind turbine service technicians*







96%

$54,370 per year
*Home health aides*







47%

$24,200 per year
*Personal care aides*







39%

$24,020 per year
*Physician assistants*







37%

$108,610 per year
*Nurse practitioners*







36%

$107,030 per year
*Statisticians*







34%

$87,780 per year
*Physical therapist assistants*







31%

$58,040 per year
*Software developers, applications*







31%

$103,620 per year
*Mathematicians*







30%

$101,900 per year
*Physical therapist aides*







29%

$26,240 per year
*Bicycle repairers*







29%

$28,960 per year
*Medical assistants*







29%

$33,610 per year
*Genetic counselors*







29%

$80,370 per year
*Occupational therapy assistants*







29%

$60,220 per year
*Information security analysts*







28%

$98,350 per year
*Physical therapists*







28%

$87,930 per year
*Operations research analysts*







27%

$83,390 per year
*Forest fire inspectors and prevention specialists*







27%

$39,600 per year
*Massage therapists*


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

TripleD said:


> Hot water is on the left and waste runs downhill...


It's the "something always leaks" part that drives him crazy. Spending hours joining pipes and you think you're done and then suddenly there's water somewhere. That's generally when I leave the area to save my eardrums.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

dmm1976 said:


> We are considered low income. But yet we thrive. And we are happy. And not in debt. We recognize our needs from our wants and delay gratification. Plan for the future. If we really want something we wait til we have the $ to buy it.
> 
> I find it kind of insulting that us poor people are always looked upon like...oh they dont know any better they cant figure out how to take care of themselves they need us to give them what they need so they can have what they want.


Your post is worth the bump.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

There are many people making low wages that are being supplemented by the government via medicaid, SNAP, WIC, etc. and that's the only way they are making ends meet. Which is fine by me, but many don't believe these programs should exist.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Replacing that water heater was awful. We're pretty handy, and that was really beyond our capability, we did eventually accomplish it. He was so foul I came upstairs and swore I wasn't going back down there unless he caught on fire. Which was a possibility because of the soldering of the pipes.


We literally had to have a water heater replaced last year, and had a slab leak at the same time, so had to reroute the hot water lines up through the attic to the other side of the house instead of digging up the floors. He had just finished running hard-line irrigation to the entire back yard (and my garden) and flatly refused to touch the water heater or deal with plumbing in the attic. We did pay someone to do that save on the inpatient mental hospital stay, totally worth it.

*edit although he couldn't even help himself, followed the plumber around the whole time, even in the attic, watching.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

I am a fan of the show American Greed. It amazes me is how fast these con-men (and women) can burn through tens of millions of (other peoples) money. On the other hand, my son-in-law's father has a job as a coffee machine service tech and supported a wife and 8 kids - their home is absolutely beautiful, remodeled with a lot of sweat equity. Their family has no money problems since they manage so wisely. And my son-in-law's father has a no-stress job that he loves - he gets done with his job at a set time and then goes fishing in the evening or spends time with family.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are many people making low wages that are being supplemented by the government via medicaid, SNAP, WIC, etc. and that's the only way they are making ends meet. Which is fine by me, but many don't believe these programs should exist.


And we have been fooled into believing that is necessary. We have been fooled that we can't get by without handouts from BDG. It is not true, it is simply an excuse to stop trying.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> From a quick Google search the pay is around $30-35K for both Amazon and Kroger. That's assuming full time hours. Can a family live on that?


In Georgia, yes. In a North of the Mason Dixon line slum pit like New York, no. It's mainly influenced by the people that live there. The more like aggravating, hateful yankees people act, the more people charge them for things.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

hey if the govt wants to give me something I'll take it...why not. Thing is in our case I could go back to work full time. We could double our income easy within a year or two.but id havr to br away from home 50-60 hours a week. Id probanly double my commute. Wed have to have 2 cars for sure. We would probably spemd alot morw on convenience items and food....have a smaller garden. Id have to look business appropriate so more $ on clothes makeup hair. Daycare...

And id be miserable. All I want is to hang out at home with my favorite people and pretend i live on the prairie. Sew, cook, garden play with my chickens. 

And I dont know many low income peope in my area that dont have smart phones and new gaming systems and dressed to the nines. They get govt assistance...so they dont have to spend their money on certain needs they can go ahead and keep up with the kardashians.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> We literally had to have a water heater replaced last year, and had a slab leak at the same time, so had to reroute the hot water lines up through the attic to the other side of the house instead of digging up the floors. He had just finished running hard-line irrigation to the entire back yard (and my garden) and flatly refused to touch the water heater or deal with plumbing in the attic. We did pay someone to do that save on the inpatient mental hospital stay, totally worth it.
> 
> *edit although he couldn't even help himself, followed the plumber around the whole time, even in the attic, watching.


LOL. There are somethings that are just easier (and much less stressful) to hire out. 

I remember a time about 35 years ago I woke up to Mr. Pixie with a library book and a carburetor on the rental apartment kitchen table. He labeled every part so he could clean it and put it back together correctly. He did it too. That was the car I used to get to college. It had a toggle switch instead of a key because it was easier to do than replace the ignition, I had to put down a towel because there was a crack in the floor and when it rained I'd get wet, I also had to carry jugs of water because there was a slow leak in the radiator. We never worried about anyone stealing it.. 

The thing is it's harder to work yourself up from low wages now than it was then.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

barnbilder said:


> In Georgia, yes. In a North of the Mason Dixon line slum pit like New York, no. It's mainly influenced by the people that live there. The more like aggravating, hateful yankees people act, the more people charge them for things.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> hey if the govt wants to give me something I'll take it...why not. Thing is in our case I could go back to work full time. We could double our income easy within a year or two.but id havr to br away from home 50-60 hours a week. Id probanly double my commute. Wed have to have 2 cars for sure. We would probably spemd alot morw on convenience items and food....have a smaller garden. Id have to look business appropriate so more $ on clothes makeup hair. Daycare...
> 
> And id be miserable. All I want is to hang out at home with my favorite people and pretend i live on the prairie. Sew, cook, garden play with my chickens.
> 
> And I dont know many low income peope in my area that dont have smart phones and new gaming systems and dressed to the nines. They get govt assistance...so they dont have to spend their money on certain needs they can go ahead and keep up with the kardashians.


Exactly. But those same people that don't want taxes to go to help people, would say that it doesn't matter that you'd be miserable. Their motto is "suck up it buttercup". 

I try not to judge people on what it _looks_ like they have. I shopped at thrift stores years ago and we dressed well on little to nothing. Families help out on phones and gaming systems as gifts too.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I got out of the army in 1964. back then you couldn't buy a job.. 
More than once I lied my qualifications. job might last a few months before they realized I lied. but I made money in the mean time..
when I finally got a good job, I held on to it. for the first 6 years my wife stayed home and took care of our 1, then 2 and finally 3 children.. during that time I worked two full time jobs. non-related types of jobs.
I managed to go to school and learned drafting .
I bought a book about building a house. I built our home with the help of my wife. 
I wanted a snow mobile, bought a rototiller instead. had a nice 1/2 acre garden. 
got fired again from a modular house building factory.
On the way home, I stopped at a realtor office and purchased a building lot. went immediately to the bank and took out a loan with the lot as collateral. (which I didn't pay for until I got the loan ) I think in today's mind set, I would go to jail for that.. Anyway, by the time I got home, I was a contractor.
Self taught. books. no you tube back then.
I built several houses from the footings up to the roof.
Yes, I could still live on $35,ooo/year..
plumbing is distasteful, but doable..IMHO
I tell my grandson, if you don't want to learn how to fix things around the house, you had better get a GOOD paying job..
An old guy I worked with one time told me. 
you don't have to make a fortune, all you have to do is make $1.oo a day more than you spend.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> In Georgia, yes. In a North of the Mason Dixon line slum pit like New York, no. It's mainly influenced by the people that live there. The more like aggravating, hateful yankees people act, the more people charge them for things.


Wow. That's not very nice, is it?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Yes, I could still live on $35,ooo/year..
> plumbing is distasteful, but doable..IMHO
> I tell my grandson, if you don't want to learn how to fix things around the house, you had better get a GOOD paying job..
> An old guy I worked with one time told me.
> you don't have to make a fortune, all you have to do is make $1.oo a day more than you spend.


Very practical and timeless financial advice.
Self sufficiency isn't a gift or talent, it is learned.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> LOL. There are somethings that are just easier (and much less stressful) to hire out.
> 
> I remember a time about 35 years ago I woke up to Mr. Pixie with a library book and a carburetor on the rental apartment kitchen table. He labeled every part so he could clean it and put it back together correctly. He did it too. That was the car I used to get to college. It had a toggle switch instead of a key because it was easier to do than replace the ignition, I had to put down a towel because there was a crack in the floor and when it rained I'd get wet, I also had to carry jugs of water because there was a slow leak in the radiator. We never worried about anyone stealing it..
> 
> The thing is it's harder to work yourself up from low wages now than it was then.


Haha, I had one of those cars too! It was my newly divorced, active duty military single mother car, and I think I got the car for like 50 bucks so I didn't really fix it as much as just tried to keep it running. Ditto on the radiator/carrying water. Also carried oil around because it burned through it like gas. Something was up with the starter/alternator/battery system (who knows what) so I got to be expert at parking on hills and getting guys to push me, popping the clutch. I had the road-view floor on the passenger side too, and something was wrong with the hood latch system (also not sure the actual hood was attached firmly to the hood frame) so I had rolls of duct tape in the car to tape the hood down if it got loose. 

I actually got called into my commanding officer's office and dressed down about how my car was an embarrassment to the United States Marine Corps (apparently he had seen it in the parking lot of the place I worked and kept asking whose car it was until he found me). I told him I wasn't trying to embarrass anyone on purpose, and it was an embarrassment to me, too. If he had a better suggestion I was all ears...I was bringing home about $600 twice a month at the time. He didn't. Asked me if I could at least buy a can of spray paint that matched the body color to try to hide the rust and duct tape lol

I'm not really sure it's harder to work yourself up today than it was when I started adulting around 1990. I took my only option for getting out by going into the military and having them pay for my college degree. My husband chose a military career and a college degree over working at a gas station. We didn't have families that could pay for us to go to school, so had to figure it out ourselves, too, just like the kids nowadays. I think this has been the story for many, many years where I come from, and everyone knows it and does what they can/are willing to do. It's just new to the areas that have had it pretty good for a long time and suddenly it wasn't. I come from a place where it hasn't been good for quite awhile, as does the husband.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

We did what we had to do. I think most people do now as well, although I do think some things were easier back then. There's no way a car like I drove back then would pass inspection now, it shouldn't have then.

We did our adulting in the 80s, and education was a lot cheaper. I had student loans, but nothing compared to the costs now. Mr. Pixie's RN:BS was $40K (he graduated in 2006), and that was bare bones as he'd had many of the pre-reqs through an associate's degree. The cost of books, clinicals, etc. were horrendous. My degree was less than half that in 1983. Even with the Air Force paying for our youngest's tuition, her room and board for four years at VMI her education was $35K when she graduated in 2007.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I have often said that they should have a class in high school on learning how to manage money..
also one on how to take care of a baby.. You know, like they do with some men who have to carry a baby doll around all day..
there is an expense to having you tube. however, in today's world, it seems that nobody is without the internet..
I often see new pick up trucks driving around with a quad runner in the back.. driven by very young men.
I wonder how far in dept they already are ?
My wife had a car that the reverse went out.
she drove it for many months. she too learned how to park where she didn't have to back out.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> ur Georgia Gov. just announced the building of a new Amazon fulfillment center that would provide 1000 new jobs and a Kroger center that would provide 400. That was just today.


Think about this also. Those 1400plus people have to eat and will want shopping near work and home. Think of the jobs created to supply those needs. Think of the jobs created to build the 700,000 square foot Amazon facility.(not sure of the size of the Kroger facility) The upkeep of the infrastructure associated with that massive building. New route drivers for deliveries to and from. Contractors hired for upkeep/repair of said facility, etc., etc..


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> We did what we had to do. I think most people do now as well, although I do think some things were easier back then. There's no way a car like I drove back then would pass inspection now, it shouldn't have then.
> 
> We did our adulting in the 80s, and education was a lot cheaper. I had student loans, but nothing compared to the costs now. Mr. Pixie's RN:BS was $40K (he graduated in 2006), and that was bare bones as he'd had many of the pre-reqs through an associate's degree. The cost of books, clinicals, etc. were horrendous. My degree was less than half that in 1983. Even with the Air Force paying for our youngest's tuition, her room and board for four years at VMI was $35K when she graduated in 2007.


I know the cost of education varies greatly by state, and by which school you decide to go to. My son graduated from the UC system in 2015 and room/board was on the order of like 12-14k a year (he switched from dorms to on campus apartment so I can't remember exactly but it was somewhere in that neighborhood). He could have saved all of that room/board money by living with us and commuting to school. He could have cut it quite a bit more by getting roommates in an off-campus apartment. He could have also cut it substantially by dropping the "board" part and grocery shopping/cooking his own meals. He could have cut the tuition part even more by going to community college and living at home until he got his associates, and then transferring to the state college. Those costs were entirely his choice. Still, cash price of four years of tuition, room and board at a good (and actually better than good in his career field) state college was under 100k. If he'd lived at home it would have been around 45k in tuition for a 4 year degree. He was able to buy most of his textbooks as e-books which also cut costs substantially. He could get an entire semester's worth of virtual textbooks for what I paid for one of my hard-copy textbooks in the late '90s (granted, I was a fine art major and those books are EXPENSIVE, but still). 

I think a lot of the problem nowadays is still people thinking they need to go to a private college for a degree they could easily get at a state college after two years at community college (which is still dirt cheap pretty much anywhere). Really, unless you're in pre-med or pre-law or one of the fields it's going to require 8 years of school to practice in and you have to compete for post-graduate slots, it doesn't matter if you got your degree at a Local Yokel community college/state college combination or at Princeton once it comes to getting a job.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

If you don't have the money to pay for college there are still many good jobs out there. All of the skilled trades are starving for help. Entry level pay around here is $30,000 plus, learn the trade, work a little OT, take on a little added responsibility and it's not out of the realm to be earning $75 -100k in a few years.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mr. Pixie's costs would have been much higher if he hadn't done the first two years of the nursing program at a CC. It's much cheaper, and it doesn't matter where you get your pre-reqs. His BS is from a private school that prepared him for the administrative position he has today. In this area, that school is something employers notice. People need to shop around for an education too. 

Our oldest was able to rent most of her books, she graduated from nursing school last year. She did it without loans by going part time and paying cash. She'll have to take a loan for the BS program she starts online this fall, but her employer will reimburse her.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> If you don't have the money to pay for college there are still many good jobs out there. All of the skilled trades are starving for help. Entry level pay around here is $30,000 plus, learn the trade, work a little OT, take on a little added responsibility and it's not out of the realm to be earning $75 -100k in a few years.


My oldest nephew is still upset that I never taught him to weld. I was making over $35 an hour 20 years ago doing mobile work.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fishindude said:


> If you don't have the money to pay for college there are still many good jobs out there. All of the skilled trades are starving for help. Entry level pay around here is $30,000 plus, learn the trade, work a little OT, take on a little added responsibility and it's not out of the realm to be earning $75 -100k in a few years.


Skilled trades have costs too. Our son in law is an journeyman electrician, and he had to have classes (2 years?) and the tests for Apprentice and Journeyman weren't cheap. I imagine plumbers and other skilled trades are the same, most need classes and certification. 

But yes, there are good jobs that don't involve college.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> From a quick Google search the pay is around $30-35K for both Amazon and Kroger. That's assuming full time hours. Can a family live on that?


Yes they can, unless they have 5 cell phones, satellite TV, a 2 pack a day smoking habit and all the trendiest duds.
Nobody starts on top, and entry level just means entry level, it's not a life sentence.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Mr. Pixie's costs would have been much higher if he hadn't done the first two years of the nursing program at a CC. It's much cheaper, and it doesn't matter where you get your pre-reqs. His BS is from a private school that prepared him for the administrative position he has today. In this area, that school is something employers notice. People need to shop around for an education too.
> 
> Our oldest was able to rent most of her books, she graduated from nursing school last year. She did it without loans by going part time and paying cash. She'll have to take a loan for the BS program she starts online this fall, but her employer will reimburse her.


Yeah, I think being smart about it is where it's at  I think, as in most things financial, a lot of the population just isn't smart. I absolutely agree that there are fields in which the school plays an important part (medical most definitely being one of them), but in a lot, or even most, fields, it really doesn't matter in practicality. I think I even remember reading that something like only 30% of people even work in their degree field upon graduation, which just seemed weird to me until I realized it holds true for most of the people I know. Anyway, yeah, you have to be a smart consumer, just like anything else. Sometimes it's worth the splurge as in your cases, I just think too many people who don't need to splurge just because.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Well alot of it is social media too. Everyone has to be IG ready and post all their good stories. 

I dont usually watch regular tv but it was playing last night when I was gaming and there was just show after show that was talking about celebritied and their SM posts , how cute their kids are and how wondderful their kives are and how awrsome they are and all the stuff they sell( cosmetics , clothes, fragrances all the celebs have their own lines now)...who do they think is buying their products?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. You should give classes on how to own a home, have a family, save for retirement, and work for little money. Truly amazing.
> 
> ETA: I imagine the cost of living in the area had something to do with it.


You do know people don't stay at their starting wage forever right?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The topic was a bunch of minimum wage jobs, you brought in homesteading. Do cows grow free? If you're working two minimum wage jobs when do you have time to care for stock, gardens, upkeep on your place (how did you buy the place?) The real world is much much harder.


So you'd do away with minimum wage jobs?
Just close up businesses and eliminate the need for those people?
Then what?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Why do you turn good news bad?


Because she needs to trivialize the job situation in order to hate Trump more


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Skilled trades have costs too. Our son in law is an journeyman electrician, and he had to have classes (2 years?) and the tests for Apprentice and Journeyman weren't cheap. I imagine plumbers and other skilled trades are the same, most need classes and certification.
> 
> But yes, there are good jobs that don't involve college.


In most cases the majority of craft training is on the job, however there will likely be some after hours classroom type training as well. Costs for the books and tests and certifications are usually covered by the employers with the understanding that the employee stays on board for min. XX amount of time, rather than bail out and go work for the other guy with his new certifications. 

I'm sure this varies wildly company to company, but they make it very easy and low cost to learn a trade. The main thing the employee has to do is put in his time.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> In most cases the majority of craft training is on the job, however there will likely be some after hours classroom type training as well. Costs for the books and tests and certifications are usually covered by the employers with the understanding that the employee stays on board for min. XX amount of time, rather than bail out and go work for the other guy with his new certifications.
> 
> I'm sure this varies wildly company to company, but they make it very easy and low cost to learn a trade. The main thing the employee has to do is put in his time.


That's my brother-in-law's story. He was a self-taught welder (also worth noting that he's an older guy on a second career) and got hired on at an auto manufacturer after a practical test. They don't require that welders are certified but will pay for training and certification testing if the employee so desires. He's in that process right now.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Meinecke said:


> Yup...seeing those "carrier opportunities" here in Jersey my self everywhere...
> But even if you can make a living out of two of them when your wife also does two, you might get around just fine...
> But...have you ever tried to safe 1 millions for decent retirement on that?
> Thats pretty much what it needs to survive around 26 years of growing medical bills while living retired...
> ...


If you live on minimum wage your entire life, then there's something wrong with you, not the jobs.
It's just a start, getting in the door, not a life long commitment.
I started off working for $1.67 an hour, and now I make more than that, quite a bit more.
I didn't have to raise a family on $1.67 an hour, I didn't have to buy a home on $1.67 an hour, and I didn't buy a new car on $1.67 an hour.
I didn't have cable TV, I didn't hang out in bars or go to restaurants on $1.67 an hour.
I paid my rent and utilities and bought a few groceries, and I went to work every day.
I didn't stay at $1.67 an hour, it was just a start.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> How long ago did you totally support a family on the take home pay of a $30-35K job? We did it 30 years ago, but it was decent money then. I'm talking realistically, current economy, average family.



Note you can't.

Let's see.

Not sure taxes but let's say take home of 85%-so $2700

Family of 4-say rent of $875
Food-$175/week so another $825
Health Insurance-$?
Tenant Insurance-Vehicle Insurance-$200
Utilities-heat/electric/phoneetc-$150
Vehicle paymentt/saving for vehicle-$250
Clothing/Sundrties assuming young family $100 month
Unexpected expenses $100 month
Gas-$80 month
Other user fees/taxes/etc $50 month

So being optimistic with take home pay and low on on expenses-can't make it.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is that something the average homeowner can do? Or because you do it all the time it wasn't an issue?


Only if they want tehir home insurance invalidated if that heater leaks


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are many people making low wages that are being supplemented by the government via medicaid, SNAP, WIC, etc. and that's the only way they are making ends meet. Which is fine by me,* but many don't believe these programs should exist*.


How many of those people do yo know?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> If you live on minimum wage your entire life, then there's something wrong with you, not the jobs.
> It's just a start, getting in the door, not a life long commitment.
> I started off working for $1.67 an hour, and now I make more than that, quite a bit more.
> I didn't have to raise a family on $1.67 an hour, I didn't have to buy a home on $1.67 an hour, and I didn't buy a new car on $1.67 an hour.
> ...


In a perfect world I agree.

But at times we have sen adults working those jobs.

I started at $3/hr myself. I got by. But no way with a family or if anything unexpected happened.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> In a perfect world I agree.
> 
> But at times we have sen adults working those jobs.
> 
> I started at $3/hr myself. I got by. But no way with a family or if anything unexpected happened.


There are millions of people that make decent (or even good/excellent) wages in the US that could be wiped out financially with a major illness or injury.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> Only if they want tehir home insurance invalidated if that heater leaks


I did not think about that...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> In a perfect world I agree.
> 
> But at times we have sen adults working those jobs.
> 
> I started at $3/hr myself. I got by. But no way with a family or if anything unexpected happened.


Did you sit there making $3 forever, or was it a start?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Because she needs to trivialize the job situation in order to hate Trump more





Cornhusker said:


> How many of those people do yo know?


I've given my opinion, I didn't do it in a nasty or personal manner. Can you do the same?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Skilled trades have costs too. Our son in law is an journeyman electrician, and he had to have classes (2 years?) and the tests for Apprentice and Journeyman weren't cheap. I imagine plumbers and other skilled trades are the same, most need classes and certification.
> 
> But yes, there are good jobs that don't involve college.


Anything worth having is worth working for, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've given my opinion, I didn't do it in a nasty or personal manner. Can you do the same?


I think I do a pretty good job of biting my tongue most of the time.
I can get a bit testy too, and I know I shouldn't.
Some things just test me though.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are millions of people that make decent (or even good/excellent) wages in the US that could be wiped out financially with a major illness or injury.


I know people like that.
Their insurance premiums and deductibles shot up so high it was like not having insurance, and the premiums themselves were crippling.
Seems like it only affected working people though.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Beginning teacher pay when I started was $600 a month on a 10 month contract. $6000 a year.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I know people like that.
> Their insurance premiums and deductibles shot up so high it was like not having insurance, and the premiums themselves were crippling.
> Seems like it only affected working people though.


I agree, the very rich are self funded for medical care, the rest of us can just lose everything in the event of a major illness or injury. 

Does that seem right to you?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

keenataz said:


> Note you can't.
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> ...


Im not sure why theyd need to spend 175 a week on groceries. We spend 300-400 per month. And 100 a month on clothes. No way. That's nuts. Our budget.

House (includes insurance and taxes), electric, water, garbage pick up, internet, car insurance. Phone. $1400. 
Bare bones no fluff and no real "splurging" wed add groceries $400
Gas $150
Household stuff like tp cleaners laundry $20
Toiletries I'm about $7
Car maintenance fund $50
Home maintenance and garden $75
Clothes fund $20
Animals $50
$2150

Adding our fluff funds:
Christmas fund $40
Holiday and random gifts fund $20
Blow dh $100
Blow me $20
Video game $6
Fishing $10
Back to school $15
$2363
Emergency fund : anything left over

We are a family of 3 though. At a little less than 3k a month. 

I keep track of every penny in YNAB ( youneedabudget.com) this is an amazing tool . it gives me reports on how much i spend on average each month and on what.

We don't forecast out income we only budget what $ we have now and plug it into appropriate budget lines based on priority. 

We plan for upcoming expenses by putting aside a little a month we follow dave Ramsey mostly.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Note you can't.
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> ...


We can find suitable housing for $400/month. Not the best, but, serviceable. 
My family spends less than half of that on food. Adjust your tastes. 
More since Obamacare came to be.
Own our house, but, vehicle insurance costs us ~ $125 on two cars/month
Electric is about right.
You can buy a serviceable car for ~2000 May not be a beamer, but, it will get you from A to B.
I don't spend $100 per year on clothing. 
Unexpected? Keep $1000 emergency fund.
Gas? About right. 
Other taxes yeah, about right. 

So, It can be done. It may take a reduction in standard of living, but, you will be motivated to improve your lot.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

We usually use our tax refund to fully fund our car and home maintenance first then other sinking funds then splutge a little then the rest goes into budgeting the next months expenses. Our goal is to have 6-9 months incomr in the emergency fund then start theowing the extra into fully funding our retirement accounts every year.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

keenataz said:


> Note you can't.
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> ...


You can, and a lot of people do. It's going to depend on expenses, and those depend on location and choices.

You're guessing on rent. It's a lot higher than your guess here. It's a lot lower than your guess where my siblings live.

Your food guess seems very high to me. I have a household of four adults and our grocery bill is around $75 a week. What are your theoretical people eating?

Health insurance will vary wildly based on location. In my state, the lower your income the more heavily subsidized your health insurance is. You qualify for Medi-Cal here if you make under $33,000/per family of 4. If your income is low enough you don't even pay a single co-pay.

Vehicle insurance also varies wildly by location, also age of vehicle and type of coverage, and how badly you drive. Most poor people I know (myself included) didn't have anything worth insuring in our homes so skipped renter's insurance entirely. If you need renter's insurance, maybe there are some other expenses you could cut.

Utilities vary wildly by location. I do know it's always cheaper to heat/cool a smaller place than a larger place, and putting on extra clothes instead of turning the heat up, or taking clothes off/turning on fans/opening windows instead of turning the A/C up will help tremendously. A landline will cost between $10/20 a month. I didn't have a phone when I was broke, I had a nice neighbor that let me use hers for free in emergencies. I have a flip phone now which costs me $10 a month.

I never had a vehicle payment when I was "poor." I drove the car I bought cash from working in high school until it died, then bought a piece of junk for $50. Got rid of that one when we got paid a car in trade for painting the exterior of someone's house, which we then traded in on our first new car after we were able to afford payments some years later. We never had more than one car until we weren't technically poor anymore, whoever had to be to work last dropped the kids and the other one off and did the reverse at night. We bought a cash clunker for our teenagers to share when they were learning to drive, one of the "kids" still has it 10 years later, has never had a car payment in her life. Run your cars until they die or become too expensive to fix, don't trade in for a new one every time you pay one off or get bored with what you have. Choices make your expenses vary wildly.

Clothing $100 a month? Maybe if you have twin infants and buy new. My kids wore hand-me-downs from cousins/friends and thrift store clothing for longer than they wanted to. As their mom, I did too. I can't remember the last time I've bought clothing, personally. Definitely never spent $1200 a year on clothes at any point in our family of 4's lifetime, even having one boy and one girl that couldn't share hand-me-downs forever. Sundries definitely not $100 a month, again, except with infants and diapers. I could see that, but that's a finite moment in time and you could get around that with cloth diapers - one time expense.

Unexpected expenses do happen and vary wildly. Learning to do things yourself can save a lot of money. You have a point on the medical emergencies, I just don't know how often those are a thing for young families, especially if you're already counting health insurance and/or medicaid into the finances. 

Gas prices vary widely by location. Gas costs vary wildly by how far you drive. Gas is expensive here and people have to commute long distances to work, husband drives 50 miles one way. Gas is cheap where my sister lives and her commute is about 5 miles. I bet our gas budgets are insanely different. Choices.

I don't know what other users fees/taxes/etc. is actually comprised of.

I know this is long, but we act like a salary of some random number means the same thing in, oh, southern California as it does in, let's say, north Alabama. And that this number will be spent by different people on the same things in the same way. It's literally pulling random numbers out of a hat and pretending they're accurate or realistic in any way for everyone, everywhere and not based on a whole bunch of different costs, circumstances and choices.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, the very rich are self funded for medical care, the rest of us can just lose everything in the event of a major illness or injury.
> 
> Does that seem right to you?


Nope, that's why I was against Obamacare.
He bankrupted a lot of families with that ill-conceived boondoggle.
He should have taken the time to do it right, but it's too late now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, the very rich are self funded for medical care, the rest of us can just lose everything in the event of a major illness or injury.
> 
> Does that seem right to you?


The fact of the matter is that you are guaranteed nothing nor should you be. If you are worried about it, put a few $'s each month in an emergency fund over a decade or two you may be in a much better situation if you find yourself in a catastrophic emergency.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Cornhusker said:


> Nope, that's why I was against Obamacare.
> He bankrupted a lot of families with that ill-conceived boondoggle.
> He should have taken the time to do it right, but it's too late now.



The worst part was when all of a sudden people that wete considered part time but working 35 hours a week were suddenly cut down to 20 . then to make ends meet you had to get 2 part time jobs. No fun to try and schedule that...been there done that. I ended up doimh alot of cash jobs like bartending and catering.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Nope, that's why I was against Obamacare.
> He bankrupted a lot of families with that ill-conceived boondoggle.
> He should have taken the time to do it right, but it's too late now.


Yes, I agree. There should have been a single payer system rather than subsidized heath insurance. And I'll betcha a donut that medical bills have bankrupted more Americans than the ACA ever did. 

Perhaps looking forward we can take the time to do it right.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> The fact of the matter is that you are guaranteed nothing nor should you be. If you are worried about it, put a few $'s each month in an emergency fund over a decade or two you may be in a much better situation if you find yourself in a catastrophic emergency.


Thursday's fact-

Life isn't fair.
Never was.
Never will be.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> How long ago did you totally support a family on the take home pay of a $30-35K job? We did it 30 years ago, but it was decent money then. I'm talking realistically, current economy, average family.


Up until about five years ago when the last boy graduated and moved out. Did it on $5k 30 years ago with 3 teens in the house. It's about living within ones means.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Because she needs to trivialize the job situation in order to hate Trump more


Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!



Irish Pixie said:


> I've given my opinion, I didn't do it in a nasty or personal manner.


Opinions vary.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The fact of the matter is that you are guaranteed nothing nor should you be. If you are worried about it, put a few $'s each month in an emergency fund over a decade or two you may be in a much better situation if you find yourself in a catastrophic emergency.


I have excellent insurance, and I will until the day I die. It was planned that way. 

No one should lose their house and life savings because they got sick, that's my opinion, and yours (collective you) will vary.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

couple things..

Did Al inquire about starting wage?
Those are entry level jobs, unless for management type position.
Jobs are a by product of running a business and income is based on type of job, need (employer) and the applicant qualifications.
A lot of those companies may have a management trainee program and could help some get ahead.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, I agree. There should have been a single payer system rather than subsidized heath insurance. And I'll betcha a donut that medical bills have bankrupted more Americans than the ACA ever did.
> 
> Perhaps looking forward we can take the time to do it right.


Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy"


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have excellent insurance, and I will until the day I die. It was planned that way.
> 
> No one should lose their house and life savings because they got sick, that's my opinion, and yours (collective you) will vary.


Seems you, like I, planned for life's little quirks. It is not my fault that so many fail to plan, nor should it be my responsibility.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, the very rich are self funded for medical care, the rest of us can just lose everything in the event of a major illness or injury.
> 
> Does that seem right to you?


Yes, it's "right".
It's called "reality".
Life isn't a Disney movie.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy"


And we're done with rational discussion...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> And we're done with rational discussion...


I agree, when someone starts spouting the "need" for government funded healthcare, all reason has been abandoned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps looking forward we can take the time to do it right.


Yes, it will be repealed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> And we're done with rational discussion...


That happened way back in the beginning.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I agree, when someone starts spouting the "need" for government funded healthcare, all reason has been abandoned.


Just so it's clear, that was a "death squad" comment, right? So based on your statement, "Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy" the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid have been killing people off rather than treating them for decades? 

I don't want to put words in your mouth.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Move to a socialist country if that's what you want.
> Don't pretend it's really "better" though.
> View attachment 78120


She moved from one, now she wants to turn this country into what she left.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, the very rich are self funded for medical care, the rest of us can just lose everything in the event of a major illness or injury.
> 
> Does that seem right to you?


Nope,vthat doesn't seem right. There is no reason for the rest of us to lose everything in the event of a major illness. That's the purpose of buying insurance.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just so it's clear, that was a "death squad" comment, right? So based on your statement, "Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy" the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid have been killing people off rather than treating them for decades?
> 
> I don't want to put words in your mouth.


The VA has waiting lines so long that people die waiting( and that is the one version of single payer that is Constitutionally defendable). Medicare/aid is a joke of monumental proportions and does little more than warehouse the elderly until they give up the ghost.
So, to answer your question, it wasn't a "death squad" comment, it was more of a "government is totally incompetent" comment.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just so it's clear, that was a "death squad" comment, right? So based on your statement, "Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy" the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid have been killing people off rather than treating them for decades?
> 
> I don't want to put words in your mouth.


There have been major issues with the VA for decades. The politicians who are supposed to keep this stuff under control run their lips a lot, hold a lot of hearings, stump a bunch, nothing changes. People do suffer and die while waiting for care, or receive substandard care while the political Kabuki theater does what it does and nothing changes. Some VA facilities are better than others. Hopefully you live near one of the "good" ones. Too bad if you don't, nobody who can do anything really cares.

Medicare is going to be spending more than it takes in starting next year. Projections show it becoming insolvent in 2026. Politicians ignore it, run their lips about it, hold a lot of hearings, stump a bunch, and nothing changes. I just figure it won't be around in anything resembling its current form when I'm old enough to qualify. Same with Social Security.

I can't see how adding everyone to either one of these overburdened/under performing single-payer systems would make it any better. 

Interestingly, the military has been going toward pushing more healthcare onto civilian contractors/providers/insurance companies because you get better care in a more cost efficient manner than when the government administration/government facilities were bureaucratizing/treating everyone. They're also contracting civilian companies to do things the military used to handle, like running base housing and handling all the logistics for PCS moves and a whole bunch of other stuff - think we talked a little about how fast little Pixie's things go to her. Things are about a million times better in all categories now than they were in the late 80's when I first started having to deal with any of it. If the government was better or more efficient than civilian companies at anything, you can believe the military would be doing it themselves instead of contracting it out. They're going the opposite direction from complete government control of everything, which tells me more than I need to know.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

People never think they make enough money. We have adults with little to no skills that believe they are owned a big paycheck simply for showing up. Then it has become a "must-have" for everyone in the home to have a cell phone, cable, internet, cars, all the latest and greatest whatever. BUT they expect to do that doing an entry level job that requires not skills to do. And they seem happy to stay in that role yet complain about it. ANYONE in the U.S. can start a business. Anyone! And you don't have to invest a bazillion dollars to do so. You do, however, have to bust your butt to be successful. 
I started a new business this year. Junk removal, that's what I'm doing. I'm booked through the end of August at this point. I worked with realtors who have people selling their homes that need junk removed. I worked with families that are cleaning out mom and dad's place after they pass away. I worked with older folks that need to down size. I clean up construction debris. I have a pick-up and a trailer and if I need someone to help with heavy lifting, I have a couple of 20-ish young guys that I hire on a per project basis. I made 4k my first month for only a few days of working. I do bust my tushy and I sometimes feel like I've been hit by a truck after a long day of lugging crap out of a house, but I'm making money and enjoy what I'm doing. 
I think American has become the land of excuses and blame everyone else for my problems.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines. 

The pursuit...meaning you have to actuallu go after it. You have to determine what will make you happy and how to get there. And you have the liberty to do so.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> There have been major issues with the VA for decades. The politicians who are supposed to keep this stuff under control run their lips a lot, hold a lot of hearings, stump a bunch, nothing changes. People do suffer and die while waiting for care, or receive substandard care while the political Kabuki theater does what it does and nothing changes. Some VA facilities are better than others. Hopefully you live near one of the "good" ones. Too bad if you don't, nobody who can do anything really cares.
> 
> Medicare is going to be spending more than it takes in starting next year. Projections show it becoming insolvent in 2026. Politicians ignore it, run their lips about it, hold a lot of hearings, stump a bunch, and nothing changes. I just figure it won't be around in anything resembling its current form when I'm old enough to qualify. Same with Social Security.
> 
> ...


It was the generalized statement of "Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy" that I was reacting to, and I never said they were well run. And I said many, many times the VA needs massive improvement. I asked if they had just let people die rather than treat them for the decades they've been in use. 

Do you have a link on the medicare information? I'd qualify for it the next year, and I haven't read anything that indicates it's pending insolvency. 

I believe there would be an overall improvement, as there are other countries that have no problem with a single payer system. It couldn't be run as it is now, of course. 

BTW, it took the civilian company days longer than promised to move the Pixies from VA to CA, two years ago... They slept on the floor for 5 days. So we're at 50% right now, next year will be the tie breaker.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, I agree. There should have been a single payer system rather than subsidized heath insurance. And I'll betcha a donut that medical bills have bankrupted more Americans than the ACA ever did.
> 
> Perhaps looking forward we can take the time to do it right.


Wouldn't that be something?
The government putting the needs of the people ahead of their own political agendas....we can dream huh?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was the generalized statement of "Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy" that I was reacting to, and I never said they were well run. And I said many, many times the VA needs massive improvement. I asked if they had just let people die rather than treat them for the decades they've been in use.
> 
> Do you have a link on the medicare information? I'd qualify for it the next year, and I haven't read anything that indicates it's pending insolvency.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I know you weren't pointing the death panel thing at me, just putting in my two cents 

There are a lot of reports (like news reports as well as personal anecdotes) about people dying while waiting for care at VA hospitals. Some as egregious as this one https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/health/veterans-dying-health-care-delays/index.html. Unfortunately the media has moved on to bigger and better things, but it's still happening according to the Veteran's groups I keep up with.

Here's kind of a clearinghouse of articles from different sources about the Medicare issue (googling something like "When does Medicare become insolvent" will bring up a bunch of other sources too): https://khn.org/morning-breakout/tr...ospital-fund-expected-to-be-depleted-by-2026/

Poor little Pixies, that always sucks when it happens  Our record was when we moved from NC to CA in '95. They lost our stuff somewhere in transit, took them 3 months to find it and then another 2 months to deliver it after they found it (original estimate was 4-6 weeks total). When it finally did show up a bunch of stuff was just smashed, and I'm pretty sure we had some stuff that belonged to someone else but they wouldn't take it back and find the rightful owner. The worst part was that I had an antique dining table/chair set that had been left to me by a great aunt which showed up with the table and one chair intact, and the other 3 chairs wrapped in paper the size and shape of three closed umbrellas. They must have backed over those chairs at least three times each with the truck, only thing I can figure lol. Since then we tried to do Dity moves no matter how far we had to haul our stuff...plus they used to pay you extra to move yourself because that kind of stuff happened so often, all the claims and time and effort they cost, it was cheaper to pay people to move themselves in the long run. I don't think they do that anymore though.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said they were well run. And I said many, many times the VA needs massive improvement. I asked if they had just let people die rather than treat them for the decades they've been in use.


And I said that the government is ill-equipped and incapable of administrating healthcare. The VA should be a shining example as to why we should keep government as far away from healthcare as possible.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

*Veterans have opportunity to grow with USDA*
Few pairings more closely align than Veterans and farming. The skill sets developed in military service match many of the characteristics of a successful agricultural professional.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture knows what Veterans bring to the table and is committed to assisting Veterans across the country to keep America’s food supply safe and


 AL


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> And I said that the government is ill-equipped and incapable of administrating healthcare. The VA should be a shining example as to why we should keep government as far away from healthcare as possible.


They manage it with medicare. The simple truth of the matter is that we already have government healthcare via medicare and medicaid. The only people in this country that _dont_ have worry free healthcare are the (dog whistle) working and middle class. 

So if you oppose a single payer option you're essentially voting to continue single payer for everyone but you -and pay for them out of your pocket.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Single payer does not mean the government runs health care. It means that all the same doctors, hospitals and clinics run their business just the same. The only difference is that, what is paid for a medical service or procedure is negotiated ahead each year by representatives of the taxpayers and the providers and then paid for by the taxpayers. It would not be the same thing with Veterans.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

dyrne said:


> They manage it with medicare. The simple truth of the matter is that we already have government healthcare via medicare and medicaid. The only people in this country that _dont_ have worry free healthcare are the (dog whistle) working and middle class.
> 
> So if you oppose a single payer option you're essentially voting to continue single payer for everyone but you -and pay for them out of your pocket.


I would vote to end Medicare/aid as well. I have seen what Medicare does to old folks. I have paid for things, for others, that should have been paid by Medicare and my private insurance wouldn't even ask any questions before they paid, so, sorry using medicare/aid as an example doesn't make me want the idiots involved, in any way.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Single payer does not mean the government runs health care. It means that all the same doctors, hospitals and clinics run their business just the same. The only difference is that, what is paid for a medical service or procedure is negotiated ahead each year by representatives of the taxpayers and the providers and then paid for by the taxpayers. It would not be the same thing with Veterans.


The problem with that is that your representatives are your politicians, or worse yet, bureaucrats your politicians appoint. Politicians have already proven themselves unable to look out for the actual good of their constituents with the two single payer systems we already have. No one is willing to do the dirty work necessary (and risk ruining their reelection chances) to make sure the taxpayers are getting the services they pay for, as is already proven by the inability to fix the VA system or solve the very serious financial problems in the Medicare system.

You're letting the wolves guard the...wolves.



dyrne said:


> They manage it with medicare. The simple truth of the matter is that we already have government healthcare via medicare and medicaid. The only people in this country that _dont_ have worry free healthcare are the (dog whistle) working and middle class.
> 
> So if you oppose a single payer option you're essentially voting to continue single payer for everyone but you -and pay for them out of your pocket.


Couple of posts up from yours I provided links that show that Medicare is a hair's width from being insolvent. You cannot use Medicare as a successful single payer system unless you don't care that it's going bankrupt. Maybe we can start bartering for medical care after that point.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Single payer does not mean the government runs health care. It means that all the same doctors, hospitals and clinics run their business just the same. The only difference is that, what is paid for a medical service or procedure is negotiated ahead each year by representatives of the taxpayers and the providers and then paid for by the taxpayers. It would not be the same thing with Veterans.


Whomever pays ultimately runs healthcare. A bunch of competing private companies, while not ideal, is much preferable to a bunch of silly government bureaucrats who are answerable to no one.


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> I would vote to end Medicare/aid as well. I have seen what Medicare does to old folks. I have paid for things, for others, that should have been paid by Medicare and my private insurance wouldn't even ask any questions before they paid, so, sorry using medicare/aid as an example doesn't make me want the idiots involved, in any way.



The thing is, there is no future in which we do not have medicare and medicaid. I might agree with you but it would only be worth discussing in some sort of new society or utopia. In the US you will not find a single politician from even the most libertarian wing of the Republican congress willing to even consider killing either of those programs. So again, you're voting for healthcare for the poor and the rich on the backs of the moderately ok working class and middle class.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

dyrne said:


> The thing is, there is no future in which we do not have medicare and medicaid. I might agree with you but it would only be worth discussing in some sort of new society or utopia. In the US you will not find a single politician from even the most libertarian wing of the Republican congress willing to even consider killing either of those programs. So again, you're voting for healthcare for the poor and the rich on the backs of the moderately ok working class and middle class.


Sure there is. It's the future in which we stick our fingers in our ears and repeat, "I can't hear you" or "But, that's not fair!" while the watchdogs tell us that the current system is simply unsustainable financially and is going to go bankrupt in most of our lifetimes. 

It's a very real possibility at this point, and becomes more real if Medicare for all becomes a thing.

All of this supports the argument not to let these spineless weasels anywhere near important decisions like your health care.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

dyrne said:


> The thing is, there is no future in which we do not have medicare and medicaid. I might agree with you but it would only be worth discussing in some sort of new society or utopia. In the US you will not find a single politician from even the most libertarian wing of the Republican congress willing to even consider killing either of those programs. So again, you're voting for healthcare for the poor and the rich on the backs of the moderately ok working class and middle class.


I will not support expanding such immoral and ill-advised programs. They will collapse under their own weight soon enough.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Anybody on ACA? My spouse and I are, it runs $1285 per month for some average insurance coverage with high deductibles and no dental or vision coverage. Could buy it for about half that price on the open market before ACA came along.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mish said:


> Sure there is. It's the future in which we stick our fingers in our ears and repeat, "I can't hear you" or "But, that's not fair!" while the watchdogs tell us that the current system is simply unsustainable financially and is going to go bankrupt in most of our lifetimes.
> 
> It's a very real possibility at this point, and becomes more real if Medicare for all becomes a thing.
> 
> All of this supports the argument not to let these spineless weasels anywhere near important decisions like your health care.


Not thrilled with bureaucrats making personal decisions for me. BUT better that than somebody making decisions while jumping up and down on my grave saying they made an extra $5 for their shareholders by denying me an aspirin.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HermitJohn said:


> Not thrilled with bureaucrats making personal decisions for me. BUT better that than somebody making decisions while jumping up and down on my grave saying they made an extra $5 for their shareholders by denying me an aspirin.


The thing of it is, that is not how it works. Private insurance has to at least mostly satisfy their customers. If they let you die for want of an aspirin, your family and friends would be around to raise holy hell and affect their bottom line. Government bureaucrats get a bonus for saving money (or, at least the government version of saving money which means don't spend it until September 29th then spend it all on totally useless crap before the COB on the 30th.) and are so well insulated that they will never answer for piss poor results of their check marks.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Fishindude said:


> Anybody on ACA? My spouse and I are, it runs $1285 per month for some average insurance coverage with high deductibles and no dental or vision coverage. Could buy it for about half that price on the open market before ACA came along.


Some people could through their employer. Most without job based coverage couldnt. if you read the fine print, most individual policies before ACA pretty much made them pointless. Cheap but didnt cover anything. 

See that was the problem many people with gold plated coverage had their gold plated blinders on, long as they got theirs for "free", who cares about anybody else. The real incentive was that insurance coverage was costing employers so much they were dropping it like no tomorrow. The insurance companies and the health care industry was getting ready to collapse. Obama pretty much let the insurance companies write the ACA cause he knew if they opposed it, be a rerun of defeat of Hillarycare in the 90s. And the insurance companies knew if something wasnt done, then they had no customers. So they compromised.

Obamacare sucks but nobody had the balls to offer single payer for a third the cost per individual covered. To make healthcare work, somebody has to stop using it like a luxury cash cow.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The thing of it is, that is not how it works. Private insurance has to at least mostly satisfy their customers. If they let you die for want of an aspirin, your family and friends would be around to raise holy hell and affect their bottom line. Government bureaucrats get a bonus for saving money (or, at least the government version of saving money which means don't spend it until September 29th then spend it all on totally useless crap before the COB on the 30th.) and are so well insulated that they will never answer for piss poor results of their check marks.


Yea, cause everybody wants a ten year court battle after the victim has already died. When you are in need of treatment now that is denied by your insurance company, you dont have ten years to fight it out in court to force them to abide by their contract. Its easy to hate more deductions from your paycheck when you are young and feel immortal, but you get old and medical care gets expensive or not available cause doctors only want the rich as customers, then you understand. Course heck maybe you will live to 120 when you die from getting hit by a bus and never be sick a day in your life, I sure wouldnt know, but for most people it doesnt work that way.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> Not thrilled with bureaucrats making personal decisions for me. BUT better that than somebody making decisions while jumping up and down on my grave saying they made an extra $5 for their shareholders by denying me an aspirin.


Already happening. Votes aren't the only reasons politicians do/don't do things. The other one would be getting paid off by people who want their votes to go one way or another. I don't have the money to pay them to work in my best interest, you don't have the money to pay them to work in your best interest, guess who does? Insurance companies, medical companies, drug companies, hospitals, medical associations, blah blah blah.

Secondarily, right now, if the person making decisions for you (assuming you're not already in one of the single-payer systems) doesn't make you happy, you can go find someone else to make decisions for you. Once the government makes decisions for you, ain't no one else to run to if you're not happy as a customer, and no one to complain to if you feel you're being treated unfairly. At this point, remind yourself that you don't have the money necessary to make politicians do what you want, look around at who does, and see if you _really_ are going to be better off under single-payer.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mish said:


> Already happening. Votes aren't the only reasons politicians do/don't do things. The other one would be getting paid off by people who want their votes to go one way or another. I don't have the money to pay them to work in my best interest, you don't have the money to pay them to work in your best interest, guess who does? Insurance companies, medical companies, drug companies, hospitals, medical associations, blah blah blah.
> 
> Secondarily, right now, if the person making decisions for you (assuming you're not already in one of the single-payer systems) doesn't make you happy, you can go find someone else to make decisions for you. Once the government makes decisions for you, ain't no one else to run to if you're not happy as a customer, and no one to complain to if you feel you're being treated unfairly. At this point, remind yourself that you don't have the money necessary to make politicians do what you want, look around at who does, and see if you _really_ are going to be better off under single-payer.


Govt is the last resort and usually only resort for the little guy. Least it is when we arent in a Gilded Age where everybody is bought off and votes dont matter. The corporate types dont give a rats behind whether you live or die. There IS NO COMPTETITION. Competition in the new Gilded Age is pure fairy tale. Healthcare isnt getting more competitive, ITS CONSOLIDATING into fewer and fewer hands. At least with govt single payer, nobody is kicked of their house with all the scams of this or that being out of network and all loopholes they write into the policies.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> Sorry, I know you weren't pointing the death panel thing at me, just putting in my two cents
> 
> There are a lot of reports (like news reports as well as personal anecdotes) about people dying while waiting for care at VA hospitals. Some as egregious as this one https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/health/veterans-dying-health-care-delays/index.html. Unfortunately the media has moved on to bigger and better things, but it's still happening according to the Veteran's groups I keep up with.
> 
> ...


I know that overall the VA is not well run and does not meet the requirements of our veterans. I started this thread last year, and it's a decent read. https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/t...at-a-salt-lake-va-clinic.570069/#post-8037029 I've never said the VA was a standard that national health care should be modeled, perhaps I should have stuck with Medicare and Medicaid. 

That sucks. Was it like that every time you (or your husband) was transferred? Was it because of policy or personnel? No accountability? Currently, as of two years ago anyway, the Navy won't even let them pack their own stuff, it's done by the company because of liability. Or maybe it's because he's an officer? Actually, my daughter was an officer too, and they moved her from Hampton Roads, VA to her deployment at Dover Mortuary quickly, but that was limited stuff. 

My opinion is that the insolvency issue is political, and we'll have to continue to watch the situation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Whomever pays ultimately runs healthcare. A bunch of competing private companies, while not ideal, is much preferable to a bunch of silly government bureaucrats who are answerable to no one.


Do you think that the insurance companies are answerable to anyone other than their shareholders? They aren't, and they deny claims for treatment every day.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dyrne said:


> They manage it with medicare. The simple truth of the matter is that we already have government healthcare via medicare and medicaid. The only people in this country that _dont_ have worry free healthcare are the (dog whistle) working and middle class.
> 
> So if you oppose a single payer option you're essentially voting to continue single payer for everyone but you -and pay for them out of your pocket.


This is it exactly. Thank you.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> Govt is the last resort and usually only resort for the little guy. Least it is when we arent in a Gilded Age where everybody is bought off and votes dont matter. The corporate types dont give a rats behind whether you live or die. There IS NO COMPTETITION. Competition in the new Gilded Age is pure fairy tale. Healthcare isnt getting more competitive, ITS CONSOLIDATING into fewer and fewer hands. At least with govt single payer, nobody is kicked of their house with all the scams of this or that being out of network and all loopholes they write into the policies.


Government as an entity cares even less about you than a corporation. Government/politicians does nothing for the little guy unless there are enough of them to sway a vote, if there's a bigger guy waving more money, they'll forgo the votes, take the money and run. You can look at any major issue today and see how true this is, they solve nothing. The little guy is still suffering, corporations are still thriving. They're all too big to fail, you're not.

At a minimum corporations have to_ do or provide_ something to encourage you to buy from them, unless government has allowed them to form a monopoly (either by outright allowing it as in the form of power companies, or ignoring it in terms of price fixing or price hiding, as in medical care). Corporations cannot force you to do anything, unless they have the machinations of the government behind them. The two of them in bed together (which they most definitely be in single-payer) with absolutely no oversight is a road to hell paved with good intentions.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think that the insurance companies are answerable to anyone other than their shareholders? They aren't, and they deny claims for treatment every day.


They are regulated by each state in which they operate. They are accountable to their policy holders who get to choose their insurance company. 

Single payer is like passing a law that every child gets a pony. Even if it is legislated, there aren't enough ponies for everyone.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> They are regulated by each state in which they operate. They are accountable to their policy holders who get to choose their insurance company.
> 
> Single payer is like passing a law that every child gets a pony. Even if it is legislated, there aren't enough ponies for everyone.


Health insurance companies are state regulated, no one has indicated otherwise as far as I've seen. All for profit companies are (there are some non profit health insurance companies) accountable only to their shareholders.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> Did you sit there making $3 forever, or was it a start?


It made me go back to school and get a further education so I wouldn't be minimum wage forever.

The strange thing, I loved that job. Working pumping gas, changing oil, tires etc. But minimum wage, nope. The first couple of months were good. I was living at home. Then my dad started charging R&B. Best thing that happened to me.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> We can find suitable housing for $400/month. Not the best, but, serviceable.
> My family spends less than half of that on food. Adjust your tastes.
> More since Obamacare came to be.
> Own our house, but, vehicle insurance costs us ~ $125 on two cars/month
> ...



Low 3 bedroom up here is $900, 
Family of 4 with 2 growing kids-I will stick by my numbers. But also remember a gallon of milk here is close to $5
Health insurance-won't comment
We own our house but have insurance, and it is crazy. Over $$2500 a year
Utulities ok
Vehicle-if you're working needs to be dependable and a $2000 car will need $$$ repairs
Again growing family of 4 will spend more on clothes depending on growth stage
Emergency-we had to get our deep well pumped replaced last years $2400


So I stand by that a family of 4 would hard pressed to make it on that money.

Of course that is not considering location


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Up until about five years ago when the last boy graduated and moved out. Did it on $5k 30 years ago with 3 teens in the house. It's about living within ones means.


So 30 years ago in 1989, you were making much less than minimum wage.

I really have to doubt that.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> Single payer: "Because dead people don't file for bankruptcy"


Nope we walk into the hospital and a week later walk out healthier and with no bill.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know that overall the VA is not well run and does not meet the requirements of our veterans. I started this thread last year, and it's a decent read. https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/t...at-a-salt-lake-va-clinic.570069/#post-8037029 I've never said the VA was a standard that national health care should be modeled, perhaps I should have stuck with Medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> My opinion is that the insolvency issue is political, and we'll have to continue to watch the situation.


Yeah, the VA is just, well, we all know how it is as an organization. There are a lot of people in the organization that care and try to change things, but the organization as a machine is awful. I guess that's my point, government is a machine and the little people in it who care are often unable to do anything to steer the machine on a different course, and many times end up just fighting the machine to keep themselves afloat to help the people they're able to help. The ones steering the machine aren't usually interested in the things the people in the machine or the people that depend on the machine are interested in unless it affects them in some way. Working for the government often makes you feel the way you feel when you look up in the night sky and see all those stars and realize how insignificant you and your life really are in the grand scheme of things. Except the night sky isn't a powerful entity filled with people all with differing motives and intentions. You realize the Goliath you're fighting the moment you step inside the beast and try to affect any change, no matter how small, and how little your good ideas, money saving moments of brilliance or empathy for those entreating the machine to help them matter to the machine as it chugs along. As much as it matters to the stars. Woooh, doing too much philosophizing after overdosing myself on bleach cleaning the bathroom 

The insolvency is political in that it's not being dealt with. It's not political in that it's going to cost a lot more money than we're currently paying (or even than we're projecting to need to pay) and will be kaput if we don't all pay more into it, use less of it, or push the age back at which we can use it, drastically. That's just for a portion of our population, I can't imagine how much more drastic the changes would have to be put get everyone into Medicare and not have it immediately implode. Interesting and scary times.



Irish Pixie said:


> That sucks. Was it like that every time you (or your husband) was transferred? Was it because of policy or personnel? No accountability? Currently, as of two years ago anyway, the Navy won't even let them pack their own stuff, it's done by the company because of liability. Or maybe it's because he's an officer? Actually, my daughter was an officer too, and they moved her from Hampton Roads, VA to her deployment at Dover Mortuary quickly, but that was limited stuff.


No, that was the worst one. Luckily we had family in California so could borrow things like cribs and sundries while we waited in limbo, didn't have the money to replace most of it and you wouldn't be reimbursed until they officially declared it lost. Delays of a month or two over the 4-6 weeks they normally told you to expect weren't unusual though, and broken/lost items were the norm. Most individual units seemed to have a "TMO lost my stuff" lending library of sorts, household goods like pots and pans, dishes, silverware, air mattresses, cribs, kids' clothing, etc that you could borrow until your stuff came in, that's how common it was. Total nightmare that was totally normal.

I'm sure the reason was of all of the above. Plus I think now you get a direct moving company, like the same company picks up your stuff, warehouses and/or transports it like they would any individual household. Computerized systems today have to make a huge difference. Back in those days it was picked up (sometimes by the military, sometimes by private companies - if I'm remembering right, could be confusing my timeline with the private companies coming in a lot later), and then was transported to a warehouse with everyone else's boxes of crap and furniture. I don't have any idea how they kept them separate or organized, at one point during the lost stuff fiasco I was told they don't keep them in individual containers or units or anything, and that's why they didn't know where our specific stuff was. Anyway, then they'd be put into shipments with other people's stuff going to the roughly the same area at roughly the same time and put into another warehouse until you scheduled a delivery, and then they'd put it on a truck with other people's stuff going to near the same place and deliver several lots off the same truck. The lower ranking you were, the less weight you were allowed, so the less stuff you could transport, and so the higher the likelihood of your stuff getting mixed in with other people's stuff or just plain lost during various parts of the process. I don't think being an officer had much to do with it except for the weight limit thing, husband did the first half of his career as enlisted and then became an officer for the second half, they still took forever to deliver. Only the small satisfaction of being able to yell at more people about where your stuff was without getting yourself in trouble, I guess


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mish said:


> At a minimum corporations have to_ do or provide_ something to encourage you to buy from them, unless government has allowed them to form a monopoly (either by outright allowing it as in the form of power companies, or ignoring it in terms of price fixing or price hiding, as in medical care). Corporations cannot force you to do anything, unless they have the machinations of the government behind them. The two of them in bed together (which they most definitely be in single-payer) with absolutely no oversight is a road to hell paved with good intentions.


But that is the point, they have bought the right to consolidate into an oligopoly if not a monopoly. You at least still have a vote for those in public office, you have no vote in the consolidated private market other than to just do without. So dying by doing without healthcare is only better in that it doesnt force your remaining family out on the street. Oh guess the wealthy can jet off to cheaper better health care elsewhere. Most cant.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> But that is the point, they have bought the right to consolidate into an oligopoly if not a monopoly. You at least still have a vote for those in public office, you have no vote in the consolidated private market other than to just do without. So dying by doing without healthcare is only better in that it doesnt force your remaining family out on the street. Oh guess the wealthy can jet off to cheaper better health care elsewhere. Most cant.


Who did the corporations buy that right from? Serious question.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mish said:


> Who did the corporations buy that right from? Serious question.


You amass money you gotta spend it somewhere. The insurance and medical industries have amassed lot of money and want to protect their cash cows. We havent had serious anti monopoly legislation or enforcement of the old anti monopoly laws for decades. Non-profit health care/insurance is a distant memory. Course people keep voting the same idiots in again and again cause they promise to let them keep their bangy things and not kill fetuses (feti?) Anyway one issue politics will get you down that road. You vote for evil to further your pet issue and you get more evil than you ever bargained for.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> You amass money you gotta spend it somewhere. The insurance and medical industries have amassed lot of money and want to protect their cash cows. We havent had serious anti monopoly legislation or enforcement of the old anti monopoly laws for decades. Non-profit health care/insurance is a distant memory. Course people keep voting the same idiots in again and again cause they promise to let them keep their bangy things and not kill fetuses (feti?) Anyway one issue politics will get you down that road. You vote for evil to further your pet issue and you get more evil than you ever bargained for.


So I guess that's my point. We're wanting to turn over the entire healthcare system to the idiots that got us where we are right now because they were paid off by the corporations to set up the system we have (they want to protect the corporate cash cow as well). Turn it over to the failed watchdogs, and you get no choice whatsoever, and absolutely no one to complain to because the government has to answer to literally no one. They've been proving that over and over to us and we still won't believe it.

People aren't suddenly going to start voting against their selfish interests and elect politicians that will do the right thing - heck, even if we wanted to they'll lie right to your face to get into office. We have a terrible track record at picking people who will do what they say. Politicians aren't going to suddenly go against their selfish interests and do what needs to be done, bugger the consequences. They have a terrible track record at that. 

Why do you think the "evil" "idiots" we vote in will suddenly turn into benevolent angels once single-payer is implemented? Serious question again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think that the insurance companies are answerable to anyone other than than their shareholders? They aren't, and they deny claims for treatment every day.


They also approve claims every day.



keenataz said:


> So I stand by that a family of 4 would hard pressed to make it on that money.


People shouldn't have kids if all they can make is minimum wage.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They also approve claims every day.
> 
> 
> People shouldn't have kids if all they can make is minimum wage.


True, and insurance companies are answerable to the insurance commissioner of each state and to the state attorneys general. 
Also answerable to tort claims by policy holders.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> It made me go back to school and get a further education so I wouldn't be minimum wage forever.
> 
> The strange thing, I loved that job. Working pumping gas, changing oil, tires etc. But minimum wage, nope. The first couple of months were good. I was living at home. Then my dad started charging R&B. Best thing that happened to me.


My favorite job was the feedlot.
I loved racing around in my feed truck feeding cows all day and before quitting time, we'd go read bunks and do any re-feeds we might need.
Sometimes we'd take a little time and go shoot prairie dogs.
It was a great job, but it didn't pay very well, so I moved on.
It's what grownups do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Forcing to sue for treatment (or wrongful death) isn't answerable, it's legal.

ETA: There is no federal oversight on health insurance (or any other insurance, except possibly flood) it's all on a state by state basis, and varies widely.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> Nope we walk into the hospital and a week later walk out healthier and with no bill.


Unless you really really really need help, then you can't stand n line for 6 months and come here.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mish said:


> So I guess that's my point. We're wanting to turn over the entire healthcare system to the idiots that got us where we are right now because they were paid off by the corporations to set up the system we have (they want to protect the corporate cash cow as well). Turn it over to the failed watchdogs, and you get no choice whatsoever, and absolutely no one to complain to because the government has to answer to literally no one. They've been proving that over and over to us and we still won't believe it.
> 
> People aren't suddenly going to start voting against their selfish interests and elect politicians that will do the right thing - heck, even if we wanted to they'll lie right to your face to get into office. We have a terrible track record at picking people who will do what they say. Politicians aren't going to suddenly go against their selfish interests and do what needs to be done, bugger the consequences. They have a terrible track record at that.
> 
> Why do you think the "evil" "idiots" we vote in will suddenly turn into benevolent angels once single-payer is implemented? Serious question again.


You dont have a vote far as monopolistic corporations go. The govt is the only thing big enough to change them and only thing you have even small say in.. If you give up on govt, you handed the keys of your life over to the greedy rich. With govt you eventually you get enough people mad enough about health care, you get change. Though by that time usually quite few have to die for any change to happen. You just roll over for the corrupt and greedy and you just well shoot yourself now. Cause rolling over doesnt change anything.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Forcing to sue for treatment (or wrongful death) isn't answerable, it's legal.
> 
> ETA: There is no federal oversight on health insurance (or any other insurance, except possibly flood) it's all on a state by state basis, and varies widely.


This makes no sense. It’s jibber jabber. . Using the court system to hold a company accountable certainly makes them answerable to something. That’s the entire point of tort law. 
And as I said, insurance companies are certainly answerable to each state’s AG and the the insurance commissioner. I never mentioned anything federal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> This makes no sense. It’s jibber jabber. . Using the court system to hold a company accountable certainly makes them answerable to something. That’s the entire point of tort law.
> And as I said, insurance companies are certainly answerable to each state’s AG and the the insurance commissioner. I never mentioned anything federal.


Jibber jabber? LOL

You said it yourself, torte LAW. The only people that for profit companies are answerable to are shareholders. Forcing an insurance company to pay for treatment, or death benefits, is legal. 

State by state insurance complaints vary, in New York it would be a waste of time to file with the Attorney General. One would file a complaint with the NYS insurance department and your Congressional representative. The Congressional complaint holds more weight. Hence, varies by state, as it's not covered by federal regulation.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Jibber jabber? LOL
> 
> You said it yourself, torte LAW. The only people that for profit companies are answerable to are shareholders. Forcing an insurance company to pay for treatment, or death benefits, is legal.
> 
> State by state insurance complaints vary, in New York it would be a waste of time to file with the Attorney General. One would file a complaint with the NYS insurance department and your Congressional representative. The Congressional complaint holds more weight. Hence, varies by state, as it's not covered by federal regulation.


It’s “tort”, not “torte” and as I said... tort law, the AG of each state, and each state’s insurance commissioner (or whatever it’s called in an individual state) makes insurance companies answerable to an entity, whether it’s a commission, a judge and jury, or an AG, your opinion on what is a waste of time, notwithstanding.
Your pointless repetition of “it’s not federal” has no bearing. No one said there was federal oversight.
You posted that insurance companies answered to no one but their shareholders and you are clearly wrong.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> Unless you really really really need help, then you can't stand n line for 6 months and come here.


No you don’t. When you really need help, you are seen quickly 

Now I agree less acute problems do have a waiting period.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> It’s “tort”, not “torte” and as I said... tort law, the AG of each state, and each state’s insurance commissioner (or whatever it’s called in an individual state) makes insurance companies answerable to an entity, whether it’s a commission, a judge and jury, or an AG, your opinion on what is a waste of time, notwithstanding.
> Your pointless repetition of “it’s not federal” has no bearing. No one said there was federal oversight.
> You posted that insurance companies answered to no one but their shareholders and you are clearly wrong.


Sorry about the autocorrect spelling error. I’ll work on that. 

And it’s clearly your opinion, and just as clearly you disagree with me. So I will just say have a wonderful night.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry about the autocorrect spelling error. I’ll work on that.
> 
> And it’s clearly your opinion, and just as clearly you disagree with me. So I will just say have a wonderful night.


You are more than welcome to repeat the same nonsense as many times as you please if it makes you feel right.

I’m curious what you think a state insurance commission is for if not oversight of insurance industry in that state? do you think it’s my opinion that each state has an insurance commission or department? Or is that a fact?

ETA:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_commissioner


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only people that for profit companies are answerable to are shareholders.


Repeating misinformation doesn't make it true.


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

There are jobs out there but a lot of those jobs people don't want.
Then there are jobs out there that people want because it has something going on for them.
So they fill those jobs and leave the other jobs behind, which leaves an opening.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is that something the average homeowner can do? Or because you do it all the time it wasn't an issue?


It should be something most anyone can do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

keenataz said:


> So 30 years ago in 1989, you were making much less than minimum wage.
> 
> I really have to doubt that.


You can doubt all you want, but I was there, and know a bit more about it than you do. From 1979 up until mid 96 I earned very little working for myself doing farm labor, some carpentry and fixing cars, when and if I could find it. Even after 96 when I got into real estate my hourly "earnings" was less than minimum wage. The advantage to that however is that it put me in a position to make good money by investing small amounts for very good returns. $4 $5 k for a down payment allowed me to purchase a $25 k property, resell for $40 maybe $50 k in short time. It doesn't take long to put oneself in a position to make good money that way. It also requires putting your backside at risk. The smallest mistake can cost you many thousands.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Scoffers gonna scoff, but wouldn't most folks want to exaggerate their wealth rather than their poverty?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Nope we walk into the hospital and a week later walk out healthier and *with no bill*.


You pay all year long even if you don't get sick.
Why pretend it's "free"?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Trade School!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

tiffanysgallery said:


> There are jobs out there but a lot of those jobs people don't want.
> Then there are jobs out there that people want because it has something going on for them.
> So they fill those jobs and leave the other jobs behind, which leaves an opening.


I've worked many a job I didn't want or like, but I worked them anyway. When something better came along, I turned in my 2 weeks notice and moved on and up.
There's no shame in working a lower wage job while looking for something better. The shame is if you'd rather have a handout than work.
Also, some of those low paying jobs don't require a drug test like the better jobs do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Every backhaul is someone’s front haul.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

I got out of the Army in 1969 and got a full time job making $375 per month. My first raise was $15 per month. It wasn't a great job, but I took 5 promotions that required a move. Worked there 22 years, decided to leave, typed my resignation letter and ran it to the post office and mailed it before I changed my mind. Walked away with a few hundred thousand in profit sharing and founded a successful mortgage company with less than $4000 and managed that until I retired 10 years ago..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ever notice that Families tend to work enough Adults to bring at least $70,000 ?

To clarify,
70,000 seems to be a pretty good incentive point not everyone makes that of course and of course some make more but after that amount it seems like the striving goes down exponentially.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever notice that Families tend to work enough Adults to bring at least $70,000 ?


Able bodied adults should be working unless needed in the home or in school.. IF ADDITIONAL INCOME IS NEEDED.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever notice that Families tend to work enough Adults to bring at least $70,000 ?


Nope


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

There are also a lot of capable people out there who could step right in to good paying jobs if they would just get off their butt and do so. My buddies son is a prime example. Nice kid, 22 years old, presentable, fairly sharp and many companies would be pleased to have him assuming he would be reliable. Problem is, he likes to smoke dope, just got fired on a random test from last employer and won't get another "good" job unless he gets off the weed for 30 days so he can test clean. Then of course he will have to stay clean .... big question mark.

He's going to be one of these folks on a survey that would be listed as low income, and the unknowing would say ... "There are no good jobs for these young kids like him". I don't think his smoking pot is a serious drug problem. He's got more of a get off your butt, do something and stick with it program.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> The VA has waiting lines so long that people die waiting( and that is the one version of single payer that is Constitutionally defendable).


Could you explain how the VA healthcare system is constitutionally defendable and other government healthcare systems or not?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Fishindude said:


> There are also a lot of capable people out there who could step right in to good paying jobs if they would just get off their butt and do so. My buddies son is a prime example. Nice kid, 22 years old, presentable, fairly sharp and many companies would be pleased to have him assuming he would be reliable. Problem is, he likes to smoke dope, just got fired on a random test from last employer and won't get another "good" job unless he gets off the weed for 30 days so he can test clean. Then of course he will have to stay clean .... big question mark.
> 
> He's going to be one of these folks on a survey that would be listed as low income, and the unknowing would say ... "There are no good jobs for these young kids like him". I don't think his smoking pot is a serious drug problem. He's got more of a get off your butt, do something and stick with it program.


 But are those companies willing to pay for what they really want ? That is a employee who looks like your Buddies son but doesn’t smoke dope. 
That’s a value added thing just as if he had a college degree .

It makes no in difference whether it’s an important job requirements such as operating a train or a semi truck or if it is simply that the owner of the company doesn’t like dopers but if you want or you need to pay more.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you explain how the VA healthcare system is constitutionally defendable and other government healthcare systems or not?


Military is constitutionally authorized. (Article one section eight) Other forms of health care are forbidden. (Tenth amendment)


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Nope


Study up then report back.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> You dont have a vote far as monopolistic corporations go. The govt is the only thing big enough to change them and only thing you have even small say in.. If you give up on govt, you handed the keys of your life over to the greedy rich. With govt you eventually you get enough people mad enough about health care, you get change. Though by that time usually quite few have to die for any change to happen. You just roll over for the corrupt and greedy and you just well shoot yourself now. Cause rolling over doesnt change anything.


But the corporations are only monopolies because the government has allowed them to become that. You're blaming the effect and giving control to the cause.

You thinking the government isn't run by the greedy rich? How many poor people you see there in Washington running things? Where do these politicians go if they ever leave "public service"? They take their cushy jobs in the corporations they've been passing laws for all those years. Really, please people, wake up.

How are all the mad people in Venezuela doing changing things they don't like right now? You really want to have to go through THAT to get something done? Because once the government takes control of something, they don't let go without more than a vote from the people.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Study up then report back.


Study up on I don't know any families that work enough adults to earn $70,000?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Fishindude said:


> There are also a lot of capable people out there who could step right in to good paying jobs if they would just get off their butt and do so. My buddies son is a prime example. Nice kid, 22 years old, presentable, fairly sharp and many companies would be pleased to have him assuming he would be reliable. Problem is, he likes to smoke dope, just got fired on a random test from last employer and won't get another "good" job unless he gets off the weed for 30 days so he can test clean. Then of course he will have to stay clean .... big question mark.
> 
> He's going to be one of these folks on a survey that would be listed as low income, and the unknowing would say ... "There are no good jobs for these young kids like him". I don't think his smoking pot is a serious drug problem. He's got more of a get off your butt, do something and stick with it program.


I have a nephew like that.
Or at least he was like that.
Finally figured out he was the one keeping him poor, got off the dope, got a real job, got married, doing well.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Military is constitutionally authorized. (Article one section eight) Other forms of health care are forbidden. (Tenth amendment)


I don’t see anything in there at all the mentions healthcare for anyone unless you’re talking about this;
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *GENERAL WELFARE* of the United States;”
And that is usually used to support public healthcare systems


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Study up on I don't know any families that work enough adults to earn $70,000?


Do you mean you don’t know any families with a $70,000 a year income?
Do you know families below that threshold with two wage earners ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t see anything in there at all the mentions healthcare or anyone unless you’re talking about this;
> “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *GENERAL WELFARE* of the United States;


Read down. Congress is authorized to pay for our army and navy. That includes health care if promised as part of a soldiers compensation for service. Then read the tenth amendment which forbids the excersize of powers not specifically granted by the constitution.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Read down. Congress is authorized to pay for our army and navy. That includes health care if promised as part of a soldiers compensation for service. Then read the tenth amendment which forbids the excersize of powers not specifically granted by the constitution.


 Oh Im having a hard time finding this part. “That includes health care if promised as part of a soldiers compensation for service. ”
If they can do it as part of promises for the military why can’t they do it as part of promises for the general welfare? It’s only a few words later in the section 8 ?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> Plumbing is the worst. I brag on my husband constantly about how he can fix/make/do anything, but plumbing is one thing he hates with an unholy passion. I mean he can do it, but he sounds like the father in a Christmas Story the whole time.


Lol, me too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Plumbing I enjoy , It’s the working environment that usually sucks .


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

dmm1976 said:


> Im not sure why theyd need to spend 175 a week on groceries. We spend 300-400 per month. And 100 a month on clothes. No way. That's nuts. Our budget.
> 
> House (includes insurance and taxes), electric, water, garbage pick up, internet, car insurance. Phone. $1400.
> Bare bones no fluff and no real "splurging" wed add groceries $400
> ...



YNAB is awesome.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you mean you don’t know any families with a $70,000 a year income?
> Do you know families below that threshold with two wage earners ?


Not saying that at all, I know many families that make 70 and above.
I also know many families who make less and get along just fine.
I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

$70,000 Orso is the general happiness point. 
People strive harder to make more money when they make less than that.

Many families have discovered that two $35,000 a year wage earners equals $70,000 a year .


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> $70,000 Orso is the general happiness point.
> People strive harder to make more money when they make less than that.
> 
> Many families have discovered that two $35,000 a year wage earners equals $70,000 a year .


This is totally location dependent. $70,000 here and you are counting your pennies. $70,000 where my sister lives and you live like a king.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Correct and thus the General Orso 

You know him he’s the commander of the weasel word army ........


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I've seen the polling on that 70k = the peak happiness point.
There are so many variables that it has no value any more than for entertainment purposes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Oh Im having a hard time finding this part. “That includes health care if promised as part of a soldiers compensation for service. ”
> If they can do it as part of promises for the military why can’t they do it as part of promises for the general welfare? It’s only a few words later in the section 8 ?


Are you suggesting that our military not be compensated?
If you read on down in section eight you will find those "specified powers" regarding general welfare.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I am suggesting that I don’t see any specific authorization for lifetime health benefits for the military .
Do you mean to say that as long as someone has been military they are Constitutionally entitled to lifetime health benefits?


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

My happiness level went up markedly when my wife started making $70,000, along with me. She effectively got her salary doubled for doing the same job. Her boss took away all of the impossible, dangling carrot incentives, with the potential of making $70,000, and started paying her what she was worth as a home building project engineer.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Military is constitutionally authorized. (Article one section eight) Other forms of health care are forbidden. (Tenth amendment)


But not a full time military 

And it says nothing about meducal care for life


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I am suggesting that I don’t see any specific authorization for lifetime health benefits for the military .
> Do you mean to say that as long as someone has been military they are Constitutionally entitled to lifetime health benefits?


We're not guaranteed lifetime benefits. You pay a premium for your healthcare upon retirement. If you don't pay the premium at any point, your healthcare is revoked. It's basically cheaper health insurance, not guaranteed free lifetime health benefits.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Study up then report back.


Not many area if the country have a $70,000 average household income maybe you should study up.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Read down. Congress is authorized to pay for our army and navy. That includes health care if promised as part of a soldiers compensation for service. Then read the tenth amendment which forbids the excersize of powers not specifically granted by the constitution.


What authorizes anyone to offer benefits for enlistment


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> $70,000 Orso is the general happiness point.
> People strive harder to make more money when they make less than that.
> 
> Many families have discovered that two $35,000 a year wage earners equals $70,000 a year .


Money makes few people happy


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

coolrunnin said:


> What authorizes anyone to offer benefits for enlistment


Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Health_System

Changes in the perception of health care after World War II and an assessment of medical services provided to dependents caused Congress to re-evaluate the dependent health care benefit in the late 1950s. Changes in tax law had induced business and industry to begin offering a health care benefit as an employment incentive. A 1956 Department of Defense estimate was that 40 percent of active duty dependents did not have access to federal facilities due to distance, incomplete medical coverage at the federal facility, or due to the saturation of services at military treatment facilities. Congress responded by passing the Dependents Medical Care Act of 1956 and the *Military Medical Benefits Amendments of 1966*. These acts created the program known as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS).


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Money makes few people happy


 I think that’s why happiness doesn’t keep going up the more money you have. I believe it’s the ability to pay the bills that relive stress that makes people happy .
A reasonable house a reasonable car paying for your kids college ,having health insurance and car insurance etc. etc. I think it tends to add up to around 70 grand


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So those of you that are against a national healthcare plan on constitutional grounds would be OK if the Congress offered lifetime healthcare for anybody and their dependants that did a one day enlistment?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Not many area if the country have a $70,000 average household income maybe you should study up.


 Why ? I never said it did .
If you would study what was said you wouldn’t create false insinuations. 
Or would you ?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> $70,000 Orso is the general happiness point.
> People strive harder to make more money when they make less than that.
> 
> Many families have discovered that two $35,000 a year wage earners equals $70,000 a year .


It is strange how math works


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why ? I never said it did .
> If you would study what was said you wouldn’t create false insinuations.
> Or would you ?


Just reading your words, and they are incorrect. 
You want to clearly convey a message, then type clearly.

Median household income isn't your number.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cr I I think I figured out what you meant. I tried to clarify the post


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> So those of you that are against a national healthcare plan would be OK if the Congress offered lifetime healthcare for anybody and their dependants that did a one day enlistment?


Are we just going into hypothetical territory now? Because that's not how any of that works.

No, I wouldn't be OK with that hypothetical scenario.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why not ?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not ?


Because the benefits that are offered to military enlistees are employment benefits, just like any other job. You also have to actually retire from the military to get further health insurance, which means at least 20 years of service in most cases (medical retirements and early retirements that are periodically offered to cut personnel are two other reasons you might do less than 20 years).

It's just a silly hypothetical and in no way relates to how any of that actually works.

*edit - another fun fact, by "accepting" the retirement pension - technically retainer pay - and further health insurance, you are also agreeing to forever be available to be called up should the government need your services at any point, for the rest of your life (well, functional life, another 30 years post retirement). So they're also basically requiring lifetime military service upon accepting any "lifetime" benefits.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It relates to how it COULD work if it it was needed to get around the constitution. 
From what you said it actually sounds fair. A life time enlistment In return for. Lifetime care .
In fact I think that would Justify healthcare for everyone on the basis that we need to keep everyone in the best shape to fight if needed .


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Trying to raise a family on jobs meant for teenagers needing money for date night is like trying to win the Daytona 500 in a Ford Pinto.


AMC Gremlin


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I could have done without you mentioning Gremlin. One of the ugliest vehicles ever made.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The Pacer edges the Gremlin...


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

I know several folks that survive on 14,000 and less a year


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I don't know where we are at in this thread. Insurance? Military? Medicare? 

But as far as jobs go, many companies here are raising wages. Like 50-60%. I think that is what is causing the lower paying jobs to be vacant. I mean think about it. Has anyone had that many McDonalds close lately? It still takes people to man it. Those people are going from an entry level position to a better job. That leaves it open for others that did not have a job at all to get one. Maybe some of those on welfare can now have a chance to get off of it because in this type of economy you can rise up the ranks fairly quick if you really want to.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> I don't know where we are at in this thread. Insurance? Military? Medicare?
> 
> But as far as jobs go, many companies here are raising wages. Like 50-60%. I think that is what is causing the lower paying jobs to be vacant. I mean think about it. Has anyone had that many McDonalds close lately? It still takes people to man it. Those people are going from an entry level position to a better job. That leaves it open for others that did not have a job at all to get one. Maybe some of those on welfare can now have a chance to get off of it because in this type of economy you can rise up the ranks fairly quick if you really want to.


U r right. I remeber McDonalds paying a bonus to new hires in order to find employees and the wages were better


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I don't know *where we are at in this thread.* Insurance? Military? Medicare?


"Lost in Space" comes to mind.
It started in "The Twilight Zone".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I am suggesting that I don’t see any specific authorization for lifetime health benefits for the military .
> Do you mean to say that as long as someone has been military they are Constitutionally entitled to lifetime health benefits?


Only if they were promised those benefits as part of their compensation when they agreed to sign up. That falls under the heading of paying our debts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> It relates to how it COULD work if it it was needed to *get around the constitution.*
> From what you said it actually sounds fair. A life time enlistment In return for. Lifetime care .
> In fact I think that would Justify healthcare for everyone on the basis that we need to keep everyone in the best shape to fight if needed .


and therein lies the problem at it core. Getting around our constitution instead of upholding it!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

True and not true at the same time . I could have made a better choice of words
If I had said. “ complying with the constitution “ it would have been more correct.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Complying with the constitution is easy, just do what it says without trying to sneak stuff in that shouldn't be there.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Lost in Space" comes to mind.
> It started in "The Twilight Zone".


Danger Will Robinson.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Complying with the constitution is easy, just do what it says without trying to sneak stuff in that shouldn't be there.


 Hasnt it seemed odd to you that the federal government already runs three different national healthcare programs that nobody complains about but when they want to start a fourth one everybody goes wild and says it’s not constitutional. ?
The constitution is a simple document there’s nowhere in there that it denies the right of creating a national healthcare system it’s just it Has to be done for the right reason.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Hasnt it seemed odd to you that the federal government already runs three different national healthcare programs that nobody complains about but when they want to start a fourth one everybody goes wild and says it’s not constitutional. ?
> The constitution is a simple document there’s nowhere in there that it denies the right of creating a national healthcare system it’s just it Has to be done for the right reason.


Nope, of those three, one is acceptable. The other two are not and should be done away with. The tenth amendment denies the legality of their existence.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Which one do you find acceptable ?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you explain how the VA healthcare system is constitutionally defendable and other government healthcare systems or not?


The Federal government is tasked with raising and maintaining the military. The VA is supposed to be a means to that end.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Which one do you find acceptable ?


Acceptable or constitutional? The va is constitutional. Wouldn't say it's necessarily acceptable due to its very poor record of patient treatment.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Acceptable or constitutional? The va is constitutional. Wouldn't say it's necessarily acceptable due to its very poor record of patient treatment.


I think it depends where you are located. Some VA localities give great service. Some VA localities arent worth the bother. And frankly having any available treatment without perpetual debt, beats not being able to afford any treatment. Not going to the doc cause you are afraid of losing your house is choice some have to make. Even some with so called insurance. Supreme Court now ruled you arent entitled to know the price of any medical service beforehand. Its all on a wing and a prayer what you end up paying. Lot of tricks to force you out of network and do workarounds any limits in desired compensation and supposed coverage. If you are sick now, being homeless doesnt help no matter what the 1%rs think. They obviously were mostly born with a silver spoon up their rear and never faced a day of hunger or slightest deprivation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> I think it depends where you are located. Some VA localities give great service. Some VA localities arent worth the bother. And frankly having any available treatment without perpetual debt, beats not being able to afford any treatment. Not going to the doc cause you are afraid of losing your house is choice some have to make. Even some with so called insurance. Supreme Court now ruled you arent entitled to know the price of any medical service beforehand. Its all on a wing and a prayer what you end up paying. Lot of tricks to force you out of network and do workarounds any limits in desired compensation and supposed coverage. If you are sick now, being homeless doesnt help no matter what the 1%rs think. They obviously were mostly born with a silver spoon up their rear and never faced a day of hunger or slightest deprivation.


I've always been lucky in life. I've never been mistreated by insurance companies. My government? That's a whole different horse. The less they meddle the better my life runs!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Acceptable or constitutional? The va is constitutional. Wouldn't say it's necessarily acceptable due to its very poor record of patient treatment.


 I would’ve thought the VA would be the least constitutionally acceptable of any of them .
Surely that the treaty obligations that created the Indian healthcare service make it most constitutionally acceptable ?
Most here seem to agree with the tri-care for active-duty military personnel is acceptable .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've always been lucky in life. I've never been mistreated by insurance companies. My government? That's a whole different horse. The less they meddle the better my life runs!


You have indeed been very blessed or perhaps just easily satisfied?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I would’ve thought the VA would be the least constitutionally acceptable of any of them .
> Surely that the treaty obligations that created the Indian healthcare service make it most constitutionally acceptable ?
> Most here seem to agree with the tri-care for active-duty military personnel is acceptable .





AmericanStand said:


> You have indeed been very blessed or perhaps just easily satisfied?


they have always paid as agreed. I'm satisfied with that.

Please take the time to read article one section eight. Congress is empowered specifically to provide for both army and navy, and is also empowered to make any laws, rules and govern them. Therefore the va is completely within the confines of the constitution. Medicare is not authorized, nor is Medicaid, social security and a host of other alphabet soup programs currently on the books, but unconstitutional. Not only are they not authorized they are forbidden by the tenth amendment.

Treaties are also a power granted to the president by the constitution. (With 2/3 of senate approval)


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've always been lucky in life. I've never been mistreated by insurance companies. My government? That's a whole different horse. The less they meddle the better my life runs!


Times change. I remember when Blue Cross was nonprofit and very honorable. You got a fair shake. Last time I had a Blue Cross individual policy, they did everything in their power to avoid paying. And doctors billing services have their scams to avoid cost constraints. I got whipsawed with 1000 different billings from a single office visit for next six months after that visit. They billed, Blue Cross denied and short of hiring tag team lawyers to follow me to each office visit it was hopeless. When you are sick and have no support system, this becomes overwhelming.

Like it or not the American health care system is broken. Its all about ultimate greed at this point. Been nice if everybody worked together like 1980s and earlier, but not the way it is anymore. Now they all want to kick you while you are down and grab any assets you have. Its all just sad story UNTIL ITS YOU THAT GETS SCREWED OVER.


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

those days are gone HJ! I can't speak for other parts of Canada but ours is definitely broken also.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

newfieannie said:


> those days are gone HJ! I can't speak for other parts of Canada but ours is definitely broken also.


You may or may not get good care, imagine any national health system is bit like the VA here where some places its very good and some its pretty poor depending who is in charge locally/regionally, but at least when you go to the doc it isnt a roll of the dice whether you become destitute or not. Private care here is such a roll of the dice and reminds me of a quote from Dirty Harry "... *you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?*"


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

newfieannie said:


> those days are gone HJ! I can't speak for other parts of Canada but ours is definitely broken also.


A policy for two people in their early sixties is close to 2000.00 a month with a 7500.00 deductible per person in my area.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A policy for two people in their early sixties is close to 2000.00 a month with a 7500.00 deductible per person in my area.


And before Obama care was rolled out it was less than half that much. Hmmmmmm


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

To


Yvonne's hubby said:


> And before Obama care was rolled out it was less than half that much. Hmmmmmm


No it was not. I having been administering the company medical plan for 17 years. It has gone up at a pretty consistent rate every year.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> To
> 
> 
> No it was not. I having been administering the company medical plan for 17 years. It has gone up at a pretty consistent rate every year.


Right. My rates went from 325 a month to over seven hundred the month ocare passed. (Not when it was rolled out) Same thing happened to most Americans at the same time if the media can be trusted at all.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Mine went from $485 to almost $1000. Now down a hair to $875.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And before Obama care was rolled out it was less than half that much. Hmmmmmm


It's free for illegal invaders.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No it was not. I having been administering the company medical plan for 17 years. It has gone up at a pretty consistent rate every year.


So you say.
Everyone else's experience seems to be different though.
Which should we believe?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's free for illegal invaders.


Thats good to know!


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> Everyone else's experience seems to be different though.
> Which should we believe?


Believe your own eyes, if indeed you are paying actual attention. those in denial seemed to have been getting "free" medical insurance through employer and somehow convinced themselves Obamacare interfered with this perk. And they were clueless how the prices were ESCALATING EXPONENTIALLY before Obamacare. 

Thats what got the politicians attention and the cooperation of the insurance oligopoly. Employers were getting out of the medical insurance as an employment perk due to rapidly escalating prices. The insurance oligopoly didnt care so much about individual policies, but when business purchases of group plans falling precipitously, well the system was on edge of collapse. What better than to force employers to offer insurance and to force individuals to buy it. Oligopolies and monopolies love to be in bed with big govt. They didnt like previous Hillarycare proposal cause that kinda eased them out of the picture and dried up their cash cow.

Somebody gotta pay so when employers forced to offer insurance or pay penalty, they offered it but started putting some of cost burden onto those employees that had been getting a free ride. When the free ride is over you try to find somebody to blame.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

The free ride is still alive, you just have to conform to the type of person the government is trying to breed...…..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I suspect the reason that everyone thinks that the price of healthcare went up crazy that’s because those for him it went down don’t really say much.
The way I understand it there were significant reductions in cost for those with pre-existing conditions. 
One thing it did do was a lot of those with pre-existing conditions to shop for a different health care plan


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> And *they were clueless* how the prices were ESCALATING EXPONENTIALLY before Obamacare.


I'm not sure why you would think that.
People typically have a very good idea of what they spend and what employers provide.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The employees in our company had no idea what their health insurance cost until it started being put on their W2s.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> $70,000 Orso is the general happiness point.
> People strive harder to make more money when they make less than that.
> 
> Many families have discovered that two $35,000 a year wage earners equals $70,000 a year .


Money has NOTHING to do with being happy


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you would think that.
> People typically have a very good idea of what they spend and what employers provide.


How? Employers rarely released what their portion of benefits cost.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> The employees in our company had no idea what their health insurance cost until it started being put on their W2s.


That's a shame, but believable.
The only way an employee WOULD know the employer's cost is if they were told and sometimes I'd have to ask to find out, but I always knew.
Most didn't care though until it started coming out of THEIR pocket.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> How? Employers rarely released what their portion of benefits cost.


I find that hard to believe. As an employer it was always disclosed as part of the benefit package and as a manager the same thing applies.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

po boy said:


> I find that hard to believe. As an employer it was always disclosed as part of the benefit package and as a manager the same thing applies.


I believe you would be the exception to the rule.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> That's a shame, but believable.
> The only way an employee WOULD know the employer's cost is if they were told and sometimes I'd have to ask to find out, but I always knew.
> Most didn't care though until it started coming out of THEIR pocket.


I cannot remember when it was not put on their w-2. How many employers that pay 100% of the group insurance cost.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

po boy said:


> I cannot remember when it was not put on their w-2. How many employers that pay 100% of the group insurance cost.


It wasn't put on w-2's until Obama care required you be taxed on it.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> I believe you would be the exception to the rule.


An exception would be not disclosing the benefits. It's part of the incentive offered to potential new hires.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> *How?* Employers rarely released what their portion of benefits cost.


People know what portion they had to pay, and what the plans provided.
When costs rose, benefits typically went down and employee's contributions increased.
Plus people talk about these things.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

po boy said:


> I cannot remember when it was not put on their w-2. How many employers that pay 100% of the group insurance cost.


I never knew an employer to put it on a W-2 until Obamacare required it for IRS purposes.
There are few who pay 100% now, but I know some who still get that perk.
If you're older than 50, most of us remember when it was common.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Money has NOTHING to do with being happy


Maybe not, but I tend to be happier if I have a little.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think some employers used Obama care as an excuse to quit paying for healthcare .
Suddenly a lot of people who had no idea what their employer was paying for healthcare had to pay the full price of their healthcare all while taking a pay cut


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you would think that.
> People typically have a very good idea of what they spend and what employers provide.


But were they aware what the insurance cost the EMPLOYER? Employers were just dropping insurance as a perk except for the top tier employees. It got too expensive. When Obamacare required they offer it to all employees if company over certain size, then they offered it but started shifting cost of it to the employees. They were required to provide group insurance, they werent required to pay for it out of company coffers. Thus those that used to get free medical coverage started to have to pay for it with ever increasing deductions from their paycheck.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

po boy said:


> An exception would be not disclosing the benefits. It's part of the incentive offered to potential new hires.


Kinda. 
Most employers didn’t want you to know what your healthcare was costing them. They buy it by the group but when they disclose it as a benefit they usually say something like “healthcare like this would cost you $800 a month “
And individually it might have but they didn’t want you to know that as a group they were buying it for 325 .
A benefit is only reasonable when a company can obtain a substantial discount over what one in individual can


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Money may not bring happiness, but lack of money can bring unhappiness..... meaning money necessary for basic ongoing heat and shelter, food, transportation, etc. Money for luxury, who cares? Not worth the effort to earn money for frivolity, least IMHO. I am easily entertained with freebies from scrap pile. I still have an old Sony 19" CRT tv. Dont need anything more modern. When it goes to electronic heaven, just hook converter box up to whatever $5 computer monitor I have setting around. Or think of it, may still have an old black and white crt tv out in storage. It used to be my backup when occasionally lightening take out color one I was using. That would be fine.... Thrift stores dont even stock CRT tvs anymore.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Money has NOTHING to do with being happy


 I’m willing to try and experiment. Give me all your money and We will see if I’m happy or you are !


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Also it was a tax deductible expense for employers until Obamacare passed. When the tax deduction was eliminated, so went any incentive to pay any of the premiums for employees. Prior to that the employer's could be considered private tax info and they had no legal requirement to disclose it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Also it was a tax deductible expense for employers until Obamacare passed. When the tax deduction was eliminated, so went any incentive to pay any of the premiums for employees. Prior to that the employer's could be considered private tax info and they had no legal requirement to disclose it.


It is still an employer tax deduction.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> It is still an employer tax deduction.


OK, correction.
The deduction was changed and reduced.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> OK, correction.
> The deduction was changed and reduced.


No, no changes in employer paid health insurance. No reduction. They can still deduct the entire amount they pay as an expense.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Now it is taxed to the employee.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Now it is taxed to the employee.


No, it is not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> But were they aware what the insurance cost the EMPLOYER?


Just ask for a raise and they will be quick to tell you how much they are "paying you" in benefits.


----------



## lmrose (Sep 24, 2009)

GTX63 said:


> A lot of homesteading families can live on much less than 35k a year, though there is a demographic that wants people to believe otherwise.


It sometimes depends what one expects out of life. If you want new cars, expensive houses, name brand everything then it will cost much more to live and care for a family than if you are frugal. Even being frugal if you pay rent or mortgage, heat and power, taxes, health insurance , transportation plus food it can add up to a lot. Whether one can live on minimum wage depends what minimum wage is where you live and how much everything costs. Here minimum wage is about $11.65 I believe BUT all consumer goods have drastically inflated prices including food. As Nova Scotia and some other provinces push toward a $15 an hour minimum wage the big box stores like Walmart, Dollarama and others such as fast food restaurants plan to cut employee wages by limiting them to fewer and part time hours a week. The companies won't be paying benefits so the minimum wage earner loses even more unless they can hold down two part time jobs. Definitely homesteading families can live on less than that 35K a year if they develop the skills they need to grow food, make do and control their wants.We always say; "It's not what you earn that counts; but what you don't spend that counts." and learn to be content if you and food and shelter and clothes to keep warm.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> No, it is not.


So the expense of health insurance is deductible to the employer and not taxable to the employee?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> So the expense of health insurance is deductible to the employer and not taxable to the employee?


Correct. Health insurance is a deductible expense for the employer on the portion they pay. It is also a pre-tax deduction for the portion and employee would pay. It however is not be tax deductible expense for a person who buys their own insurance and does not get it deducted from their paycheck. Self employment is another thing and depends on the structure of the business.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> So the expense of health insurance is deductible to the employer and not taxable to the employee?


I hope not because if so I owe the IRS. I think it is taxable if you cover you spouse on your employee insurance policy. That is what I heard but don't know if that is true. I think if PW has been doing it for 17 years she might know just a little bit about it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I hope not because if so I owe the IRS. I think it is taxable if you cover you spouse on your employee insurance policy. That is what I heard but don't know if that is true. I think if PW has been doing it for 17 years she might know just a little bit about it.


Not taxable if spouse or children are covered. It is one of the few benifits that is not taxable. The insurance companies want it that way.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe not, but I tend to be happier if I have a little.


Not having money can make one unhappy, but having money does not make one happy


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m willing to try and experiment. Give me all your money and We will see if I’m happy or you are !


Try taking it and see how happy I am


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Not having money can make one unhappy, but having money does not make one happy


I agree with that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

W


HDRider said:


> Try taking it and see how happy I am


lol woah friend just trying to help you out. 
I think the key here is that money can relieve stress and less stress tends to make people more happy


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> I hope not because if so I owe the IRS. I think it is taxable if you cover you spouse on your employee insurance policy. That is what I heard but don't know if that is true. I think if PW has been doing it for 17 years she might know just a little bit about it.


Spouse and children's health care premiums are still a pre-tax payment when deducted from your paycheck. Life insurance payments are deducted after tax is figured.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I don't think it is fair or right that health insurance premiums paid to an employer are pre-tax and self paid insurance monies are taxed. People who pay their own insurance should be allowed that payment as a deduction as long as they include the payment info with their return.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> I don't think it is fair or right that health insurance premiums paid to an employer are pre-tax and self paid insurance monies are taxed. People who pay their own insurance should be allowed that payment as a deduction as long as they include the payment info with their return.


I completely agree.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Not taxable if spouse or children are covered. It is one of the few benifits that is not taxable. The insurance companies want it that way.


So once again the companies get the gold mine and the little guy gets the shaft.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> W
> 
> lol woah friend just trying to help you out.
> I think the key here is that money can relieve stress and less stress tends to make people more happy


I also increases stress, because you never seem to have enough.

Think of yourself offering to unload everyone's burden of money, obviously you don't have enough of your own.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> I also increases stress, because you never seem to have enough.
> 
> Think of yourself offering to unload everyone's burden of money, obviously you don't have enough of your own.


 Lol stress burdens or money ?
I’m just one of those guys willing to help out.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> No, no changes in employer paid health insurance. No reduction. They can still deduct the entire amount they pay as an expense.


OK, I guess the IRS and .gov websites were lying to me quoting 35% and 50% deductions instead of the previous 100% deduction for employers.
This might be a good time to mention that unlike congress, I DID read the bill before it was passed.


https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care...ing-the-small-business-health-care-tax-credit



> The Affordable Care Act includes the small business health care tax credit, which can benefit small employers who provide health coverage for their employees.
> 
> The small business health care tax credit benefits employers who:
> 
> ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I have to admit it doesn’t make sense that employee benefits are not 100% deductible.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> OK, I guess the IRS and .gov websites were lying to me quoting 35% and 50% deductions instead of the previous 100% deduction for employers.
> This might be a good time to mention that unlike congress, I DID read the bill before it was passed.


Do you have a link for those deductions? I still believe you are wrong. I believe you are confusing the small business tax credits with the 100 percent business deduction.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep, I added a link to my previous post.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep, I added a link to my previous post.


See what I added. You are confusing business deductions and tax credits. Not the same thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://healthcoverageguide.org/reference-guide/laws-and-rights/tax-implications/

"Generally speaking, any expenses an employer incurs related to health insurance (for employees or for dependents) are 100% tax-deductible as ordinary business expenses, on both state and federal income taxes. "

"
Employers should also be aware that the Affordable Care Act offers small businesses healthcare tax credits to help offset the cost of insurance.

The small business healthcare tax credits have been available since the 2010 tax year. To qualify for a tax credit of up to 35% of premium costs now and 50% in 2014, small business owners must pay at least half of employees’ healthcare premiums and have 25 or fewer full-time equivalent employees who earn an average of $50,000 or less per year."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So can a small business still get a 50% tax credit for healthcare?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> So can a small business still get a 50% tax credit for healthcare?


A small business can, if it meets certain qualifications.


"Here are some facts that will help you understand this tax credit and how it may affect your small business or tax-exempt organization:


Credit percentage is 50 percent of employer-paid premiums; for tax-exempt employers, the percentage is 35 percent.
Small employers may claim the credit for only two consecutive taxable years beginning in tax year 2014 and beyond.
For 2015, the credit is phased out beginning when average wages equal $25,800 and is fully phased out when average wages exceed $51,600. The average wage phase out is adjusted annually for inflation.
Generally, small employers are required to purchase a Qualified Health Plan from a Small Business Health Options Program Marketplace to be eligible to claim the credit. Transition relief from this requirement is available to certain small employers."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Let’s see how this math works out .
The company tells their employees they offer a healthcare plan worth $10,000
They actually pay $7500 for it and get a $3750 deduction so it only cost them $3750?
But if they ask the employees to contribute $250 a month their actual cost is $4500 and their deduction $2250. So their final cost is also $2250.
So saving the company $1500 costs the employees $3000.
That 50% deduction thing does some interesting things to employee contributions.

Oops forget all that I see it’s just a temporary thing


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> See what I added. You are confusing business deductions and tax credits. Not the same thing.


Ok, I figured someone would want to argue about that.
I'm still putting in 300 ft. of fence at mom's so I'll save us both some time.
Obamacare didn't do a thing to insurance, credits, deductions and taxes.
Employers still are getting all their deductions, that's why no one has stopped providing it at work.
Employees aren't being taxed now for the employer contribution.
The IRS is still allowing that and collecting double from the employees.
(BTW, that's how I know it changed, because of that added box on W-2's now)
Out of 3,000 pages, they didn't change any of the tax laws relating to insurance provided, now considered to be income that is taxed.


None of that happened, everything is just as it was and Obamacare is constitutional and great for American business.
Amen.
The sermon is over.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, I figured someone would want to argue about that.
> I'm still putting in 300 ft. of fence at mom's so I'll save us both some time.
> Obamacare didn't do a thing to insurance, credits, deductions and taxes.
> Employers still are getting all their deductions, that's why no one has stopped providing it at work.
> ...


It is on the W2's. Other than that nothing is changed. They are not collecting double from the employees. There is no payroll taxes on the health insurance paid by your employer. You also don't pay payroll taxes on health insurance if it is deducted from your paycheck. It is pre tax.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> OK, I guess the IRS and .gov websites were lying to me quoting 35% and 50% *deductions* instead of the previous 100% deduction for employers.


Your link is talking about "tax *credits*", not "deductions".



> Understanding the Small Business Health Care Tax *Credit*


https://www.fiscaltax.com/tax-blog/the-difference-between-a-tax-deduction-and-a-tax-credit


> The difference between a deduction and a tax credit is straightforward. A deduction is an amount allowed to be taken off your total taxable income. It reduces the amount of tax you owe. A tax credit is an amount that is allowed to reduce your total tax amount due. It may even result in refund money.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Wr


po boy said:


> I find that hard to believe. As an employer it was always disclosed as part of the benefit package and as a manager the same thing applies.


Yeah we have a whole week every year where our employer outlines every benefit available to its employees. From the ones that provide at no cost to the ones that employees pay a small portion. They make a point to let you know how to translate your use of those benefits into a dollar amount to make it seem like its part of your compensation in addition to your $ income. Ita usually also a week where they give us treats and prizes.

This is always the week leading up to the company associate survey. Lol.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The company I just left provided a booklet each year and showed each benefit. It showed it exactly what the benefit cost, what they paid, and what we paid.

Insurance is expensive. I went to the open market, and was shocked. Anyone that says 0bamaCare did not drive up the cost of private insurance is misinformed, or not telling the truth.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Something occured to me , If we add the benefits of say...a single mother with one child. Who is working full time at $8 an hour. About $16k a year. Would probably get at least $300/ month in SNAP. Daycare subsidy about $600/ month, in my state avg $500 per month medicaid spending. Thats another 16k a year. Plus whatever tax credit every year maybe 2k at least. If you dont count the taxes that are being refunded. So 34k a year of cash and benefits. I didnt include wic....i think both of these examples the mother would qualify. 

Considering a single mother of one child who makes say 35k a year , $16 per hour full time. May not qualify for any of that so pays an insurance premium of $500 i think the child would still be covered under medicaid in both situations. $150 a week for day care. And $300 a mo th for groceries....ends up with $16k of expenses so is in the same boat.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> The company I just left provided a booklet each year and showed each benefit. It showed it exactly what the benefit cost, what they paid, and what we paid.
> 
> Insurance is expensive. I went to the open market, and was shocked. Anyone that says 0bamaCare did not drive up the cost of private insurance is misinformed, or not telling the truth.


But but Obama said we would save a couple hundred a month! Was he misinformed or just not being honest?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But but Obama said we would save a couple hundred a month! Was he misinformed or just *not being honest*?


PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice.


Also the lie that we would have a public option.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

dmm1976 said:


> Something occured to me , If we add the benefits of say...a single mother with one child. Who is working full time at $8 an hour. About $16k a year. Would probably get at least $300/ month in SNAP. Daycare subsidy about $600/ month, in my state avg $500 per month medicaid spending. Thats another 16k a year. Plus whatever tax credit every year maybe 2k at least. If you dont count the taxes that are being refunded. So 34k a year of cash and benefits. I didnt include wic....i think both of these examples the mother would qualify.
> 
> Considering a single mother of one child who makes say 35k a year , $16 per hour full time. May not qualify for any of that so pays an insurance premium of $500 i think the child would still be covered under medicaid in both situations. $150 a week for day care. And $300 a mo th for groceries....ends up with $16k of expenses so is in the same boat.


You are describing exactly how Walmart and other companies paying minimum wage are subsidized by the Taxpayer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You are describing exactly how Walmart and other companies paying minimum wage are subsidized by the Taxpayer.


This makes it even worse: "Today, *Walmart* released its quarterly earnings report which showed *Walmart's tax *rate dropped from 33% in Q1 of 2017 to 19% in Q1 of *2018*. As a result of the TrumpTax, the drop in *tax* rate gave *Walmart* an additional $373 million in *tax *breaks. May 17, 2018"

From: https://notonepenny.org/new-walmart...-tax-rate-drops-to-19-thanks-to-gop-tax-bill/


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

HDRider said:


> You are describing exactly how Walmart and other companies paying minimum wage are subsidized by the Taxpayer.


Does someone not working receive these taxpayer subsidies being listed such as SNAP, Medicaid etc. as someone who works at Walmart?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Tobster said:


> Does someone not working receive these taxpayer subsidies being listed such as SNAP, Medicaid etc. as someone who works at Walmart?


In my state i think if you dont have kids you have to work at least 20 hours a week pr be in some training to get snap. Indont know abput medicaid . I think it depends on if the state expanded medicaid or not.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This makes it even worse: "Today, *Walmart* released its quarterly earnings report which showed *Walmart's tax *rate dropped from 33% in Q1 of 2017 to 19% in Q1 of *2018*. As a result of the TrumpTax, the drop in *tax* rate gave *Walmart* an additional $373 million in *tax *breaks. May 17, 2018"
> 
> From: https://notonepenny.org/new-walmart...-tax-rate-drops-to-19-thanks-to-gop-tax-bill/


Worse?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> This makes it even worse: "Today, *Walmart* released its quarterly earnings report which showed *Walmart's tax *rate dropped from 33% in Q1 of 2017 to 19% in Q1 of *2018*. As a result of the TrumpTax, the drop in *tax* rate gave *Walmart* an additional $373 million in *tax *breaks. May 17, 2018"
> 
> From: https://notonepenny.org/new-walmart...-tax-rate-drops-to-19-thanks-to-gop-tax-bill/


It isn't Mr. T's fault. Congress wrote the laws. They just playing the game.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Tobster said:


> Does someone not working receive these taxpayer subsidies being listed such as SNAP, Medicaid etc. as someone who works at Walmart?


Of course.

Adder - You do have to work a crappy job and have kids to get Earned Income Credit.

The United States federal earned income tax credit or earned income credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. The amount of EITC benefit depends on a recipient's income and number of children.​


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

For @Irish Pixie and others

The *tax* bill is initiated in the House of Representatives and referred to the Ways and Means Committee. When members of this committee reach agreement about the *legislation*, they write a proposed law. After Congress *passes* the bill, it goes to the president, who can either sign it into law or veto it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

So what the liberals on this thread are saying is more jobs are bad.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> For @Irish Pixie and others
> 
> The *tax* bill is initiated in the House of Representatives and referred to the Ways and Means Committee. When members of this committee reach agreement about the *legislation*, they write a proposed law. After Congress *passes* the bill, it goes to the president, who can either sign it into law or veto it.


Cool beans. @HDRider, the same would be true for Obamacare? In that it was passed by Congress? So it's been incorrectly blamed on President Obama all these years. Correct?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> So what the liberals on this thread are saying is more jobs are bad.


They simply do not understand. Try to help them understand.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> So what the liberals on this thread are saying is more jobs are bad.


Where is that? I missed it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Cool beans. @HDRider, the same would be true for Obamacare? In that it was passed by Congress? So it's been incorrectly blamed on President Obama all these years. Correct?


0 had as much to do with 0bamaCare as Trump did with the tax cut.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where is that? I missed it.


I suspect he took what you said about Walmart paying less taxes as it maybe created jobs, directly or indirectly. Walmart's gain is spent someway or another, and spending sometimes creates jobs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> So what the liberals on this thread are saying is more jobs are bad.


That appears to be accurate.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Of course.
> 
> Adder - You do have to work a crappy job and have kids to get Earned Income Credit.
> 
> The United States federal earned income tax credit or earned income credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. The amount of EITC benefit depends on a recipient's income and number of children.​


Thanks. I was not sure how it worked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Cool beans. @HDRider, the same would be true for Obamacare? In that it was passed by Congress?


It was passed solely be Democrats.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> 0 had as much to do with 0bamaCare as Trump did with the tax cut.


Thanks for the confirmation. And it wasn't a tax cut for everyone, it was a huge tax cut for the rich. 



HDRider said:


> I suspect he took what you said about Walmart paying less taxes as it maybe created jobs, directly or indirectly. Walmart's gain is spent someway or another, and spending sometimes creates jobs.


Thank you for your opinion. 

Can anyone provide a link? I see where Walmart is adding robots, but not jobs. I know our Walmart has more self checkout registers that those manned with a person. And regardless, the pay per hour was not increased to the amount that would allow many of it's employees to avoid government programs. Who gained in that situation? Not the employees or the taxpayers.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I suspect he took what you said about Walmart paying less taxes as it maybe created jobs, directly or indirectly. Walmart's gain is spent someway or another, and spending sometimes creates jobs.


Except that Walmart has been deleting jobs with technology for about 5 years now.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where is that? I missed it.


Go back through.
It's either the jobs don't pay enough so they don't count, or they are crappy jobs.
Probably just more that they can't bring themselves to give Trump credit for it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks for the confirmation. And it wasn't a tax cut for everyone, it was a huge tax cut for the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Naturally the more you make, the bigger the cut. Our corporate tax rate dropped from the highest in the world, to something more in line with the rest of the world.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement on how best to serve the less fortunate, and the role of government.

We will never bridge that gap.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

coolrunnin said:


> Except that Walmart has been deleting jobs with technology for about 5 years now.


Since Obama


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> Except that Walmart has been deleting jobs with technology for about 5 years now.


The whole world is replacing people with technology. I have personally displaced over 50,000 people with technology. Time marches on, some call it progress.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

dmm1976 said:


> In my state i think if you dont have kids you have to work at least 20 hours a week pr be in some training to get snap. Indont know abput medicaid . I think it depends on if the state expanded medicaid or not.


I think you're right, depends on the state. AFAIK California has only income eligibility and doesn't require work/training.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> The whole world is replacing people with technology. I have personally displaced over 50,000 people with technology. Time marches on, some call it progress.


Not saying it's bad it just is.

But they sure aren't spending it on labor.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Since Obama


Not sure what he has to do with it but carry on.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Go back through.
> It's either the jobs don't pay enough so they don't count, or they are crappy jobs.
> Probably just more that they can't bring themselves to give Trump credit for it.


You indicated that tRump's tax cuts (that he shouldn't get credit for because it was Congress' doing) to Walmart indicated they added jobs, right? Can you link proof? 

Are you saying that jobs that require the employee to have government assistance are a good thing? I thought that was bad, or at least there has been a lot of complaining about people on government assistance by people in your demographic.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> Except that Walmart has been deleting jobs with technology for about 5 years now.


Walmart has 2.2 million employees right now, the same number they had in 2015


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Walmart has 2.2 million employees right now, the same number they had in 2015


Yet they added 25 stores in 2017/18










ETA: I regret the snarky "Huh" I posted, so I removed it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet they added 25 stores in 2017/18
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is called productivity. That is called an efficiency gain.

Every business in the world tries to do more with less cost.

Ask me some more questions. I want to help you understand.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> Except that Walmart has been deleting jobs with technology for about 5 years now.


Doesn't that create jobs in technology?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> That is called productivity. That is called an efficiency gain.
> 
> Every business in the world tries to do more with less cost.
> 
> Ask me some more questions. I want to help you understand.


My point is, Walmart hasn't added employees as a result of tRump's massive tax cut as was indicated in an earlier post.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> My point is, Walmart hasn't added employees as a result of tRump's massive tax cut as was indicated in an earlier post.


My point is, the money they saved on taxes went on to be spent on other things.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> My point is, the money they saved on taxes went on to be spent on other things.


I'm sure it did.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> My point is, the money they saved on taxes went on to be spent on other things.


Which created more jobs. No matter how you slice it unemployment has reached all time lows, our economy is good, and our country is great!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure it did.


And ever how they spent it most likely created jobs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> And ever how they spent it most likely created jobs.


Most likely. Perhaps some were even decent jobs that didn't require government assistance.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Most likely. Perhaps some were even decent jobs that didn't require government assistance.


I've never heard of a private sector job that did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Most likely. Perhaps some were even decent jobs that didn't require government assistance.


You have to think building robots pays more than minimum wage, and we can also hope they were built in the USA.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've never heard of a private sector job that did.


As was discussed earlier, many minimum wage job workers get substantial government assistance.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You have to think building robots pays more than minimum wage, and we can also hope they were built in the USA.


Yup, I do. That is what I was indicating with "Perhaps some were even decent jobs that didn't require government assistance."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, I do. That what I was indicating with "Perhaps some were even decent jobs that didn't require government assistance."


That is how I took it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> As was discussed earlier, many minimum wage job workers get substantial government assistance.


True. But it's not "required".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True. But it's not "required".


Do you pass by a $100 bill laying on the ground, or do you pick it up?

You are not required to pick it up


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Do you pass by a $100 bill laying on the ground, or do you pick it up?
> 
> You are not required to pick it up


Exactly.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> It isn't Mr. T's fault. Congress wrote the laws. They just playing the game.


And of course they just happened to write the law that way with no influence?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was passed solely be Democrats.


And the tax cut was passed solely by Republicans. Noodle on that


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> And of course they just happened to write the law that way with no influence?


They wrote something he would sign. Just like he tries to influence any bill while he is in office. That is why House bills never pass the Senate. The Senate cares about what he will sign. We have a two party system and that is how things work. I'd expect you should know this kind of thing.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True. But it's not "required".


 I think you are wrong on that. 
In most places to get by on a minimum wage job government assistance is required


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Walmart boosted their starting hourly wage and paid out bonuses Costing $300 million. This wage increase was in addition to a one billion spent in 2015 in wage improvements.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

po boy said:


> Walmart boosted their starting hourly wage and paid out bonuses Costing $300 million. This wage increase was in addition to a one billion spent in 2015 in wage improvements.


I saw that article. I just don't think that $22K (assuming it's full time, but it's unlikely it is) is a decent wage. And most people with a child(ren) trying to live on it will require government assistance.

Again, who made out on the tRump's tax cut to Walmart? It wasn't the employees or taxpayers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> In most places to *get by* on a minimum wage job government assistance is required


Most reasonable people don't expect to support a family on a minimum wage job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I saw that article. I just don't think that $22K (assuming it's full time, but it's unlikely it is) is a decent wage.


When you start a business you can pay more.



Irish Pixie said:


> And most people with a child(ren) trying to live on it will require government assistance.


People with children should learn to make more money.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I saw that article. I just don't think that $22K (assuming it's full time, but it's unlikely it is) is a decent wage. And most people with a child(ren) trying to live on it will require government assistance.
> 
> Again, who made out on the tRump's tax cut to Walmart? It wasn't the employees or taxpayers.


How do you cut the tax on someone who pays no taxes, or most likely gets unearned income when they file taxes?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I saw that article. I just don't think that $22K (assuming it's full time, but it's unlikely it is) is a decent wage. And most people with a child(ren) trying to live on it will require government assistance.
> 
> Again, who made out on the tRump's tax cut to Walmart? It wasn't the employees or taxpayers.


You complain when jobs are created. You complain when people get raises.

What do you want?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> How do you cut the tax on someone who pays no taxes, or most likely gets unearned income when they file taxes?


I don't know what you're asking. Someone making $22K isn't paying taxes, and if they have a kid they're definitely getting earned income credit.



HDRider said:


> You complain when jobs are created. You complain when people get raises.
> 
> What do you want?


Either a working wage or people to stop denigrating those who both work and get government help.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know what you're asking. Someone making $22K isn't paying taxes, and if they have a kid they're definitely getting earned income credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Either a working wage or people to stop denigrating those who both work and get government help.


You said "who made out on the tRump's tax cut to Walmart? It wasn't the employees or taxpayers", so here, read my answer again. You a smart girl, you can figure it out. "How do you cut the tax on someone who pays no taxes, or most likely gets unearned income when they file taxes?" BTW - Cute typo

I do not denigrate them. I just don't want to give them MY money.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most reasonable people don't expect to support a family on a minimum wage job.


Is that a lie that you just made up or do you have some proof of this?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

@Irish Pixie pay attention to my "Income Inequality" thread. We are on the same side. You just want to fight me too badly.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Is that a lie that you just made up or do you have some proof of this?


I guess if a person is so dense they cannot rise above a minimum wage job, then they might believe they could raise a family on it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> How do you cut the tax on someone who pays no taxes, or most likely gets unearned income when they file taxes?


 Who pays no taxes ? It’s not the poor so it must be the rich.

Do you suppose those people living on $22,000 don’t pay any taxes?
I doubt if there are 1000 people in the country that qualify for that description


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Doesn't that create jobs in technology?


No it really doesn't


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I guess if a person is so dense they cannot rise above a minimum wage job, then they might believe they could raise a family on it.


 Sure I suppose they might not be any smarter than you


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Who pays no taxes ? It’s not the poor so it must be the rich.
> 
> Do you suppose those people living on $22,000 don’t pay any taxes?
> I doubt if there are 1000 people in the country that qualify for that description












https://us.icalculator.info/tax-calculator/annual.html


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find that highly unlikely. I will agree that government assistance makes it easier to live a better lifestyle but required to get by? No way.
> .


I don’t think you can feed children bread and beans for their entire lifetime. When you’re raising the kids do you need more than the bare minimum to sustain life
Lots of single men live on almost nothing but I’ve noticed if you bring a woman into that household with a child all of a sudden you have to stuff. 
Things like washers And detergent and children wearout clothing and school books. And of course daycare , a building of some sort to live in. Hello course a woman herself seems to require more than a male yellow feminine products healthcareEtc etc.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Who pays no taxes ? It’s not the poor so it must be the rich.
> 
> Do you suppose those people living on $22,000 don’t pay any taxes?
> I doubt if there are 1000 people in the country that qualify for that description


I think they are referring to federal income tax. In that case about 47% of our freinds and neighbors pay zero.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am not patronizing you. Don't be so sensitive. I thought my answer was plain and simple. Sometimes people, never you of course, act like they don't understand something, when in fact they don't like it, or don't agree with it.

I knew no such thing. I read what you wrote.

I like to see less of MY money go into those coffers. Government are very inefficient.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think you can feed children bread and beans for their entire lifetime. When you’re raising the kids do you need more than the bare minimum to sustain life
> Lots of single men live on almost nothing but I’ve noticed if you bring a woman into that household with a child all of a sudden you have to stuff.
> Things like washers And detergent and children wearout clothing and school books. And of course daycare , a building of some sort to live in. Hello course a woman herself seems to require more than a male yellow feminine products healthcareEtc etc.


My kids never went without good food, clothes and a roof over their heads. They did do without luxuries like power, running water, telephones and hundred dollar nikes. They were always clean, well fed, well loved and cared for. I never earned close to minimum wage during my family raising years, but I did work long hours at whatever job I could find.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> View attachment 78214
> 
> 
> https://us.icalculator.info/tax-calculator/annual.html


Lol so you are show us a chart of the Rich mans taxes and try to imply that poor people don’t pay any ,that’s funny !


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol so you are show us a chart of the Rich mans taxes and try to imply that poor people don’t pay any ,that’s funny !


$30,000 with two kids is rich?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My kids never went without good food, clothes and a roof over their heads. They did do without luxuries like power, running water, telephones and hundred dollar nikes. They were always clean, well fed, well loved and cared for. I never earned close to minimum wage during my family raising years, but I did work long hours at whatever job I could find.


 I have no doubt that your children were well raised. 
BUT
Some of the things you listed would result in DCFS removing your kids.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> $30,000 with two kids is rich?


Not what I said is it?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Not what I said is it?


You said my chart show rich people's tax. It show a $30,000 income.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I have no doubt that your children were well raised.
> BUT
> Some of the things you listed would result in DCFS removing your kids.


It didn't. No reason it should.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> It is on the W2's. Other than that nothing is changed. They are not collecting double from the employees. There is no payroll taxes on the health insurance paid by your employer. You also don't pay payroll taxes on health insurance if it is deducted from your paycheck. It is pre tax.


You are correct.
There's no *income tax* on that amount..............just *FICA* taxes (SS and Medicare).
That wasn't there before Obamacare was it?

https://finance.zacks.com/taxable-income-include-pretax-health-insurance-8310.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Pre-tax medical insurance is not subject to fica. That link is misleading. This link from the same site says different.

https://finance.zacks.com/pretax-vs-aftertax-medical-premiums-4678.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Directly from the IRS.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employee-benefits

"
*Health Plans*
If an employer pays the cost of an accident or health insurance plan for his/her employees, including an employee’s spouse and dependents, the employer’s payments are not wages and are not subject to Social Security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes, or federal income tax withholding"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

OK.
They explained it better in this link.
Most of the time it isn't counted as income.
https://finance.zacks.com/health-insurance-benefits-considered-income-irs-7128.html

Sorry PW, you were right and I was wrong.
Anytime the IRS starts adding boxes with numbers on W-2's, my suspicion level rises proportionally.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It didn't. No reason it should.


 I agree
But they don’t.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> You said my chart show rich people's tax. It show a $30,000 income.


 Income tax is pretty much a game for the well off
That’s what I ment. 
The chart is clear people making $30,000 don’t pay federal income tax.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I agree
> But they don’t.


I'm courious what you think they would have removed my kids for?
In my state composting toilets are acceptable, so is spring water.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I have to applaud your state for that .
Here power water and lights refrigeration and toilets are required.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

When insults happen, threads get closed.


----------

