Tax return is nearly $3000 LESS because I worked part-time last year!

[luvsJack]

Biggest thing that needs to change in Washington and in Main St USA-- Mindset

People need to develop the mindset that while the govt is there to help, they shouldn't be the primary source of help..

To go along with that, the people that we elect need to get rid of the mindset that they can spend their way to winning an election, get expensive projects to their districts or vote for more entitlements and the voters will send them back to Washington..

I was watching the news tonight, talking about the big blizzard we had in the Chicago area.. first group of people they talked to whined and complained about how their street hadn't been plowed yet and they couldn't make it to work today and probably won't until tomorrow, they said it was the cities fault.. the next story was about another street that hadn't seen a snow plow , those people banded together and cleaned their own street off with their own snow blowers and shovels, made it to work today and obviously will tomorrow as well.. How refreshing that second story was to watch..

Yeah, we saw a lot of that after Katrina. A lot of people just got up and did what had to be done to put their lives back together. And then they helped their neighbor get themself back together. At first I looked at it like you are the folks and the snow. But then I realized the difference. We had the equipment we needed and the man power to get things rolling again, others did not. Take my family, we had a power saw and dh just started removing trees and then his brothers showed up and they got all the downed trees out of the way. My sister's driveway was blocked too and her dh was in New Orleans. Of course we cleaned her driveway for her and got any trees off her house but had we not been there, she would not have been able to do it herself. She would have needed the help of the county to remove the trees.

My point is that everyone's situation is different and everyone's abilities are different. And some just are not as able to help themselves as others.

You are right that the government is there to help not be the sole income for a family for life. But, we have to make sure that those folks we want off welfare have the skills to provide for themselves.

The system needs a complete overahaul and ALL overspending and waste should be cut. And the cuts need to come from the top all the way to the bottom. Government services for low income people needs a complete overhaul in their policies so that they are able to catch those that are frauding the government and stop those that are staying on the welfare merry go round by choice.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Can I just say this is the first post from you in this thread that I can say ? I don't think anyone is denying there is abuse in the system and there needs to be a way to eliminate that. But "throwing the baby out with the bath water" (getting rid of ALL welfare, handouts, credits, etc) isn't the answer. There are people those programs DO help, and without those programs would be stuck under a bridge.

But.... until we stop these programs, people will get used to them and expect them, and now they are such monsters in size that they are too hard to manage..

 

[Colleen27]

Don't know if its true, but a local guy on the radio claimed pork projects only make up .06% of the federal budget..

That sounds about right, though there is no one universal definition of what constitutes a pork project so I'd expect some variation. The thing is, certain line items get to be politically fashionable places to look for cuts because they make for good soundbites and media spin, whether or not there's really any significant savings potential there.

But.... until we stop these programs, people will get used to them and expect them, and now they are such monsters in size that they are too hard to manage..

I don't believe that to be true at all. I think the media and the 24/7/365 campaigning political culture has framed this debate in terms of the worst case scenarios, and as a consequence people who have little or no first hand experience with welfare populations go straight to the ghetto projects image of the poor. I live in a blue collar community outside of Detroit. Our countywide unemployment rate is almost 20%. I've known a lot of people who have been on assistance at some point in time, but very, very, very few fit the mold that comes up time and again on these sorts of threads of welfare recipients.

Welfare provides a very poor standard of living, as in constantly on the edge of foreclosure/eviction but at least there's food on the table, and only the minority of recipients that are either cheating the system or grew up on assistance and don't know anything else are content with that. Most recipients are people who worked, fell on hard times, and want to work again, and I just can't see cutting them off and leaving them to hunger and homelessness out of anger directed at the few that do fit the ghetto stereotype.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Welfare provides a very poor standard of living

A family of 4 in Illinois can qualify to up to around $650 a month in food stamps, that more than our family of 4 spends, now we might even spend a little less because the state just raised our income taxes so we lost about $185/month in net income..

They talked about limiting the brands they could buy, basically generic, but they decided against it because it wasn't "fair"... They switched from using food stamps to a debit card because they didn't want to embarrass the people using them.. See the trend?

 

[LoveBWVVBR]

A family of 4 in Illinois can qualify to up to around $650 a month in food stamps, that more than our family of 4 spends, now we might even spend a little less because the state just raised our income taxes so we lost about $185/month in net income..

They talked about limiting the brands they could buy, basically generic, but they decided against it because it wasn't "fair"... They switched from using food stamps to a debit card because they didn't want to embarrass the people using them.. See the trend?

I have zero issues with Foodstamps or WIC. Children need to be fed, and these programs are a necessary safety net so children don't go hungry. One of my best friends is a degreed social worker, and yet she is paid so poorly that she qualifies for foodstamps. I actually pushed her repeatedly to apply for them, and she only finally caved in when she realized that she couldn't pay $1000/month in daycare, pay her rent, and still afford healthy food for her family on her social worker salary. She works her tail off a whole lot more than 40 hours a week in a profession that we as a society need but obviously don't value.

What I DO have an issue with is what gets bought with Foodstamps. Granted, I'm not the most observant person, so my friend the social worker filled me in on this one. She talks a LOT about how her clients buy the cheapest food possible w/their Foodstamps so as to have full pantries She is always talking about "Honey Buns" and how her clients will fill their carts with these sweets rather than with "real" food. I think that nutrition classes should be mandatory for those receiving foodstamps. Also, maybe classes in smart shopping, how to compare prices, etc. would help. A lot of it is just ignorance of what constitutes healthy food.

I don't spend anywhere close to $615/month to feed our family of 4 and we eat nearly all organic food. I coupon like crazy, though. Most people who are just squeaking by don't have the time on their hands to coupon like I do, so I understand why their Foodstamp allotment would be so high.

As for the EBT card - again, no issues with it. Why should people be humiliated because they are down on their luck? I highly doubt that most people like being on Foodstamps.

 

[Colleen27]

A family of 4 in Illinois can qualify to up to around $650 a month in food stamps, that more than our family of 4 spends, now we might even spend a little less because the state just raised our income taxes so we lost about $185/month in net income..

They talked about limiting the brands they could buy, basically generic, but they decided against it because it wasn't "fair"... They switched from using food stamps to a debit card because they didn't want to embarrass the people using them.. See the trend?

That's looking at only one small part, though - food assistance based on having no other income. How much is available to pay the rest of the bills? Here, cash assistance is a few hundred dollars a month, not enough to pay utilities much less rent/mortgage or transportation expenses, and programs that go beyond that (section 8 housing, shut-off prevention) are limited in availability even for those who qualify. The waiting list for housing is years long and the funds for utility assistance usually run dry within the first half of the fiscal year.

Food stamp benefits are pretty average as far as grocery budgets go and are based on the USDA "thrifty" food plan. Some of us - especially suburbanites with the desire to shop sales and access to multiple grocery stores - can spend less and still eat well, but the amount is rooted in nationally averaged prices for a particular selection of products.

There are practical problems with the idea of limiting food stamps. First and foremost is the "food desert" effect in our major cities; buying store brands is a no-brainer when you are shopping in a major chain grocery, but many of the small groceries/corner stores in major cities (particularly in poorer urban settings) aren't large enough to have a generic brand and thus only stock name brands. In the city of Detroit, for example, there are NO chain groceries at all - for poor families to use their food stamps solely on store brands would mean forcing them to do their shopping in the suburbs.

There is also the fact that name brands are frequently on sale at better prices than store brands, and may be eligible for manufacturers coupons to further reduce the cost.

And the food stamp debit cards significantly reduced administrative costs and cut down on fraud. The idea that it was done to avoid recipient embarrassment is simply urban legend. It was done for the same reason state-collected child support was moved to direct deposit or state-issued bank card only - because electronic distribution is less costly, less prone to errors, and less vulnerable to theft/abuse than old fashioned paper-and-postage distribution.

 

[Ava]

Consumption taxes are heavily biased against the working classes who need to spend virtually all of their income on essentials like food and clothing, and still allows the wealthy an "out" by the fact that it only covers goods and services purchased in the United States. For those who can readily afford foreign travel (as well as those of more limited means who live near borders - I can be in Canada in 5 minutes), it encourages making purchases in other countries to avoid US taxation.

Meanwhile, people living paycheck to paycheck see an immediate 20% jump in their cost of living with no accompanying tax cut or pay raise, and we have more people who can't afford to put food on the table or shoes on their kids' feet. The highest effective tax rates are paid by the poorest families, and you discourage the middle classes from consuming, which has the effect of increasing savings rates but also of slowing economic recovery/growth and costing jobs at the low-wage, frivolous-spending establishments that employ most of the working poor.

So don't tax food, or clothing items under a certain $ amount. Many states do this already. My state has no sales tax on food (only beverages like soda that are subject to a bottle deposit are taxed). And up until last summer we also had no sales tax on clothing/shoes under $110. Several nearby states have no sales tax on clothing/shoes. I don't see anything wrong with having a flat tax on non-necessities and no tax on food & clothing. This would alleviate the burden on the poorest families who spend most of their income on necessities. I do understand your point that a higher tax on non-necessities would discourage the middle classes from consuming; however if income tax is reduced or eliminated in favor of consumption taxes the middle classes will have more disposable income to spend.

There are practical problems with the idea of limiting food stamps. First and foremost is the "food desert" effect in our major cities; buying store brands is a no-brainer when you are shopping in a major chain grocery, but many of the small groceries/corner stores in major cities (particularly in poorer urban settings) aren't large enough to have a generic brand and thus only stock name brands. In the city of Detroit, for example, there are NO chain groceries at all - for poor families to use their food stamps solely on store brands would mean forcing them to do their shopping in the suburbs.

This is a problem in NYC as well. There are many areas without good options for food shopping, so people are forced to either travel outside of their neighborhood (by bus/subway, since most don't own cars) or shop at small groceries or bodegas with high prices and a poor selection of goods. There are groups working in the city to alleviate the "food desert" problem, but part of the battle is outreach and educating people about the options available to them.

And the food stamp debit cards significantly reduced administrative costs and cut down on fraud. The idea that it was done to avoid recipient embarrassment is simply urban legend. It was done for the same reason state-collected child support was moved to direct deposit or state-issued bank card only - because electronic distribution is less costly, less prone to errors, and less vulnerable to theft/abuse than old fashioned paper-and-postage distribution.

This. It's difficult to use a stolen EBT card when it has the owner's photo printed right on the front of it.

 

[MrsPete]

What I DO have an issue with is what gets bought with Foodstamps. Granted, I'm not the most observant person, so my friend the social worker filled me in on this one. She talks a LOT about how her clients buy the cheapest food possible w/their Foodstamps so as to have full pantries She is always talking about "Honey Buns" and how her clients will fill their carts with these sweets rather than with "real" food. I think that nutrition classes should be mandatory for those receiving foodstamps. Also, maybe classes in smart shopping, how to compare prices, etc. would help. A lot of it is just ignorance of what constitutes healthy food.

I agree with you -- teaching people to cook good, healthy food is an excellent idea. Every time I cook dried beans (which are NO EFFORT in a crock pot, only slightly more so on a stovetop) I think to myself, "This $1 bag of beans will be a main dish for my family for TWO MEALS -- a pan of cornbread adds another .75 cents. WHY are there hungry people in America?"

However, did you ever read Amy Dacyzyn's book (I probably murdered the spelling of her name) The TightWad Gazzette? She wrote that she saw this same issue, and she VOLUNTEERED to put together a class on healthy nutrition and inexpensive foods for the people who get Food Stamps in her county . . . and she essentially had her hand slapped, saying that it would be insulting to the recipients.

 

[Muushka]

I agree with you -- teaching people to cook good, healthy food is an excellent idea. Every time I cook dried beans (which are NO EFFORT in a crock pot, only slightly more so on a stovetop) I think to myself, "This $1 bag of beans will be a main dish for my family for TWO MEALS -- a pan of cornbread adds another .75 cents. WHY are there hungry people in America?"

However, did you ever read Amy Dacyzyn's book (I probably murdered the spelling of her name) The TightWad Gazzette? She wrote that she saw this same issue, and she VOLUNTEERED to put together a class on healthy nutrition and inexpensive foods for the people who get Food Stamps in her county . . . and she essentially had her hand slapped, saying that it would be insulting to the recipients.

I believe it. Sad, isn't it?

 

[JodiR]

Another wonderful story of how important it is to transfer wealth from the "privileged" to the less fortunate.

My sister just called and told me about a woman that she works with. She is a single mom, part-time server at a restaurant and has two children. She will be using her $6500 tax refund to pay for a "chest enhancement."

My husband I both work full time and we are trying to figure out how to help our son with college costs when he starts in the Fall. We will get no help from the government, because we "make too much money", but the amazing tax code instead allows for this kind of abuse.

I agree on the college... my dd started college in August. We pay out of pocket $3,300 a semester. $6,600 a college year. We aren't taking out any parent loans. We can afford it but man it hurts.

 

[SunnieRN]

I was a sinle parent, put myself through nursing school, working to support the family. I never got EIC, not sure why, as I know it existed. In fact I still paid federal and state taxes.

I know a lot of people who qualify for EIC. They feel as if they 'deserve it'. I am not arguing that point either way. I can see a family getting every penny returned from their with holdings, if they have a low income and qualify, but I pay taxes in the 25% range, with my house loan and only make 70K a year. This year I am only getting 20% returned, vs one family I know who paid in approximate what I am getting back, in, but they are getting a return of 11K!!

 

[Liberty Belle]

Erased.

I need to stop reading these things.

 

[collegejunkie]

i haven't read through the whole thing passed the first few pages, but my mom cut down her hours significantly because one year she just got royally screwed. there was no point in her working that much to end up with 1/3 of what she was making. even when i'm older, my future hubby and i have talked about how to manage taxes because it's a waste of time to work and not have the money we earned.

 

[williamson_ja]

I haven't read the whole thread here either, but can understand the frustration. Since we have been married, we have gotten a tax return of about $2500 each year. Last year, I decided to pick up a part time job helping with the after school program at our elementary school. I only earned $7000 in the whole year. This year, we are paying $3000 in taxes from that difference in income. It is so frustrating to have worked all year and spent that time away from my kids... and in the end I only netted about $500 because I did have some taxes taken out of my check in the first place. Uggh. Not sure what I'm going to do this year. My dh just thinks that I need to have more taxes taken out of my checks. That doesn't seem to be a solution to me. Even if I take a ton of taxes out of my checks, I'm still making next to nothing doing this. Right now, I'm commited to finishing out the school year. I can't disappoint the kids. AFter that... who knows. It just doesn't make financial sense to be out there working all year for that little of return.

 

[LoveBWVVBR]

I haven't read the whole thread here either, but can understand the frustration. Since we have been married, we have gotten a tax return of about $2500 each year. Last year, I decided to pick up a part time job helping with the after school program at our elementary school. I only earned $7000 in the whole year. This year, we are paying $3000 in taxes from that difference in income. It is so frustrating to have worked all year and spent that time away from my kids... and in the end I only netted about $500 because I did have some taxes taken out of my check in the first place. Uggh. Not sure what I'm going to do this year. My dh just thinks that I need to have more taxes taken out of my checks. That doesn't seem to be a solution to me. Even if I take a ton of taxes out of my checks, I'm still making next to nothing doing this. Right now, I'm commited to finishing out the school year. I can't disappoint the kids. AFter that... who knows. It just doesn't make financial sense to be out there working all year for that little of return.

Did anything else in your financial situation change or was the increase in taxes purely based upon the 7K that you earned? That doesn't make a ton of sense, but I guess that it's possible. Did you bump your family over a threshhold where you lost the child tax credit or the EIC? I wouldn't work a lot of hours for $500/year, but that's just me. Heck, you could find stuff around your house to sell on Ebay and make more than that, KWIM?

 

[williamson_ja]

Did anything else in your financial situation change or was the increase in taxes purely based upon the 7K that you earned? That doesn't make a ton of sense, but I guess that it's possible. Did you bump your family over a threshhold where you lost the child tax credit or the EIC? I wouldn't work a lot of hours for $500/year, but that's just me. Heck, you could find stuff around your house to sell on Ebay and make more than that, KWIM?

Yes, it bumped us out of the EIC bracket. My husband deals with the taxes each year, so I didn't realize that we were so close to the top of that. It's a hard job to just quit. The kids are counting on me. There are projects and opportunities that I have promised them we will do and I plan on finishing out the year (school year) for that reason.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Yes, it bumped us out of the EIC bracket. My husband deals with the taxes each year, so I didn't realize that we were so close to the top of that. It's a hard job to just quit. The kids are counting on me. There are projects and opportunities that I have promised them we will do and I plan on finishing out the year (school year) for that reason.

While your take home pay hasn't increased much, at least you aren't a burden on the taxpayers of the country, which is a good thing..

 

[kkmcan]

I have the same scenario. I took a part time aide job at an elementary school and made $7000 for the school year. We got a lot less back for our tax refund- like $3000 less. It feels like I worked for nothing as well as not having that time.

I spend more at the grocery store since I just run in and grab whatever and get out. I didn't have the time to shop sales or clearances so I ended up spending my hard earned paychecks on convenience food. So frustrating!

I know I won't be going back next year. I will finish the school year. I might try subbing next year though for just a few days a week. This job I have now is everyday right in the middle of the day so theres no time before or after work to get anything done before my kids come home from school. With working 2-3 full days I will have the other 2 days a week to do my shopping, cleaning, appts etc. We'll see if its worth it though. I don't want to work for nothing!

 

[williamson_ja]

While your take home pay hasn't increased much, at least you aren't a burden on the taxpayers of the country, which is a good thing..[/QUOTE

I totally agree with you here! That does make me feel good at least. lol.

 

[LovableGluttons]

While your take home pay hasn't increased much, at least you aren't a burden on the taxpayers of the country, which is a good thing..[/QUOTE

I totally agree with you here! That does make me feel good at least. lol.

Isn't also enjoyable for you to work?

That alone seems like a big factor in doing what you do.

If it caused financial strain on your household, I could see stopping.

The enrichment of being employed in something that you enjoy is worth a lot!