© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I'm not seeing a problem here, unless you're someone who claims a bunch of exemptions to get all your money up front. I have a sister in law that does that every year, and every year it bites her at tax time.
It's wasn't a additional tax, simply a lower witholding amount. Just means that next year the wife & I will get back $3800 instead of the usual $5000.
I, personally, didn't see a whole lot of purpose in giving back what amounts to about $24 a paycheck. That's not very much stimulus, but it makes a good headline I suppose.
Grif..headlines, persona, and percieved image are what's important..
Since 40% of the peeps don't pay taxes anyways..what do they care
Those of us who actually work for a living..well, let's just say I'm in the category of less Gov't, Less taxes, less interference in my personal life.
You want an abortion..go for it, as long as I don't pay for it..we'll see what happens in the end..
You want to do drugs..I'm not paying for your rehabilitation..
Am I far right, no..I just believe that people should take responsibility for thier own actions and decisions..but I should not be obligated to cure/fix those bad decisions
Mike
No biggie, just change your withholding if it affects you. That's what I did...
I read an article recently that West Virginia was going to start drug testing the people that are on welfare. I think that is a great idea if you are going to be living off the government you should have to live by the same rules that all other government workers have to follow. I believe welfare is meant to be a step up but you can't stand up if you are all drugged up.
Welfare drug testing bill reaches House list
Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter
CHARLESTON — Delegate Craig Blair cautioned opponents of his proposed "two strikes and you're out" drug testing of welfare and jobless recipients that opposition could trigger voter resentment.
"There could be a backlash if this bill is opposed," Blair, R-Berkeley, suggested Tuesday, after his long-awaited and controversial bill at last made the House list.
Blair is calling for random drug testing of anyone getting a welfare check, food stamps or unemployment benefits.
Anyone testing positive would be given two months to go through rehabilitation, but if a second test afterward also shows evidence of illegal narcotics, then all public assistance would be shut off immediately.
Blair said he and the supporters of the bill, which include one Democrat, Tom Louisos of Fayette County, plan to write House Judiciary Chair Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, a letter, asking her to place the bill on her committee agenda for a hearing.
If Webster refuses to bring the bill up, Blair indicated the matter could become a political issue for the Republicans.
"The public overwhelmingly supports this bill," the Eastern Panhandle lawmaker said.
"And I would be afraid to keep it from being put before a vote."
Not only must the measure get through Webster's committee, but also needs to be aired by the finance committee.
Blair has erected a special Web site dedicated to the issue, www.notwithmytaxdollars.com.
Co-sponsors of the controversial proposal also include nine fellow Republicans — Delegates Carol Miller and Kelli Sobonya, both Cabell County; Jonathan Miller and John Overington, Berkeley; Troy Andes and Patti Schoen, Putnam; John Ellem, Wood; Ron Walters, Kanawha; and Mitch Carmichael, Jackson.
Blair's proposal likely will incur some keen opposition, not the least of which will be mounted by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sees it as an invasion of privacy rights.
Blair has said he feels any constitutional questions can be satisfied, and, at a news conference last week, the Republicans pointed to the federal welfare reform act in the Clinton administration that allowed states to stop payments to recipients if testing positive for drugs
Some Democrats in the House have questioned the wisdom of testing everyone on the dole, saying the cost could far exceed the number of those found with drugs.
Blair has countered by saying if one woman is weaned from drugs, it will mean one less child born addicted, and ultimately the savings to the state will be enormous.
"If you recall, House Speaker Rick Thompson (D-Wayne) promised to give issues fair and open hearings," Blair said, shortly after the new bills list was released.
"So that's all were asking — a fair and open hearing on this legislation."
Quote from: mdbuike on 05-04-2009 -- 20:43:58
Grif..headlines, persona, and percieved image are what's important..
Since 40% of the peeps don't pay taxes anyways..what do they care
Those of us who actually work for a living..well, let's just say I'm in the category of less Gov't, Less taxes, less interference in my personal life.
You want an abortion..go for it, as long as I don't pay for it..we'll see what happens in the end..
You want to do drugs..I'm not paying for your rehabilitation..
Am I far right, no..I just believe that people should take responsibility for thier own actions and decisions..but I should not be obligated to cure/fix those bad decisions
Mike
I'm not getting the connection between my comment and your response to it, or or your response and the article for that matter.
It isn't an additional tax and has nothing to do with drugs or abortion. It's about payroll witholding levels.
Like Hoopty said, change your witholding and the change makes no difference and won't affect you come tax time.
Quote from: USMCPMEL on 05-05-2009 -- 08:16:43
I read an article recently that West Virginia was going to start drug testing the people that are on welfare. I think that is a great idea if you are going to be living off the government you should have to live by the same rules that all other government workers have to follow. I believe welfare is meant to be a step up but you can't stand up if you are all drugged up.
Welfare drug testing bill reaches House list
Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter
....
Blair is calling for random drug testing of anyone getting a welfare check, food stamps or unemployment benefits...
So let me see if I have this right, you don't think the government has any place in taxing citizens or social policy, but the government
IS entitled to invade your life and your privacy if you lose your job?
:?
When did I say the government had no right to tax?? Or social programs? sir I believe you read 2 posts combined them into one in your mind then responded?
Quote from: USMCPMEL on 05-06-2009 -- 09:27:28
When did I say the government had no right to tax?? Or social programs? sir I believe you read 2 posts combined them into one in your mind then responded?
Could be, not the first time I've had a senior moment.
What I'm asking, basically, is if you think the government is entitled to invade your privacy if you become unemployed.
It is an easy distinction for me becuase I have never done any illegal drugs. Yes I do believe that if you are going to take benefits from the government that you should remain drug free. If you are on unemployement technically you are supposed to be looking for a job so if one comes up what would you say ya I want that job just give me a couple weeks for the drugs to get out of my system? Not trying to get on my soap box just saying.
Quote from: USMCPMEL on 05-06-2009 -- 11:38:11
It is an easy distinction for me becuase I have never done any illegal drugs. Yes I do believe that if you are going to take benefits from the government that you should remain drug free. If you are on unemployement technically you are supposed to be looking for a job so if one comes up what would you say ya I want that job just give me a couple weeks for the drugs to get out of my system? Not trying to get on my soap box just saying.
I'm fine with being drug free, but I don't think that the government has any business violating my, or anyone's, Constitutional rights because they happen to be giving me some of my own money back. It seems to be more of a publicity stunt than to have any real purpose, other than further humiliation of people who lost their job. Unemployment already has time limits. Food stamps are used by more than just welfare people. A lot of junior enlisted qualify for them as well as the working poor. The average payout, here in AZ, is $47 per person in food stamps, not really a King's ransom.
Strict time/income limits on welfare would make more sense, along with training.
So do you believe that it is ok for someone on welfare who is perfectly able to find a job to sit around all day and smoke dope? Just looking for clarification really do not want to start a fight this is a friendly forum.
Quote from: USMCPMEL on 05-06-2009 -- 13:38:10
So do you believe that it is ok for someone on welfare who is perfectly able to find a job to sit around all day and smoke dope? Just looking for clarification really do not want to start a fight this is a friendly forum.
I, personally, don't care what grown ups do with or to their own bodies. Using benefit programs as an excuse to tread on people's rights, to me, is a slippery slope and not very American. I think, for example, you'd find more people with alcohol problems, than drug addicts in this country.
I think if we actually made rules that you have to be actively looking for work or in training to receive welfare benefits, it would prove more useful and less un-Constitutional. A 2 year limit on benefits would help as well. There are plenty of ways to control welfare costs other than violating rights.
Heck, you could even pass a law eliminating welfare.
Well from an economist's viewpoint,
QuoteI, personally, didn't see a whole lot of purpose in giving back what amounts to about $24 a paycheck.
is exactly what is needed.
You are right, $24 a payday is chump change that I know I'll just fritter away on something or other. But that's the whole point, to improve the economy you have to SPEND MONEY.
The first stimulus was a lump sum check that many people either put into savings, or paid down debt with. Saving and/or paying down debt does nothing to stimulate the economy. You have to BUY stuff. Every dollar spent has a multiplier effect of something like 4 to 1 that gets into the economy. So that $24 a paycheck is really boosting the economy by close to $100, every 2 weeks, by 100 million or so recipients. That's a sizeable boost, but like anything as big as the economic system of the US, or world for that matter, you don't turn it on a dime. It will take time. There are already positive signs that things are improving.
Lets hope they keep going in that same direction and people don't get spooked into sucking up even tighter with their spending habits. Now is actually the time to buy things if you have been considering a major purchase and you feel your employment situation is stable. I know I got an awesome deal on a pickup recently and I really wish I had enough discretionary cash (or gonads) to pick up another house or 2 right now.
Quote from: OlDave on 05-06-2009 -- 17:16:00
Lets hope they keep going in that same direction and people don't get spooked into sucking up even tighter with their spending habits.
You have a good point, $24 will get a little something extra.
I get the feeling that the current financial panic was spurred on by the same people who panicked about swine flu. Makes me wish for the days before 24 hour news. My 401k has nearly tripled since December, got to love a good bear market every once in a while.
Quote from: griff61 on 05-06-2009 -- 18:52:02
My 401k has nearly tripled since December, got to love a good bear market every once in a while.
Wow! I should be bugging you for investment advice if you are getting almost a 200% return over 5 months. The Dow is only up about 4.5% in that period and even the Nasdaq is only up 26%.
Quote from: OlDave on 05-07-2009 -- 06:13:58
Quote from: griff61 on 05-06-2009 -- 18:52:02
My 401k has nearly tripled since December, got to love a good bear market every once in a while.
Wow! I should be bugging you for investment advice if you are getting almost a 200% return over 5 months. The Dow is only up about 4.5% in that period and even the Nasdaq is only up 26%.
I dumped most everything into money market in September and then went back to buying a Fidelity Energy fund that was at $115 before the panic but was selling for around $20 in January, it's pushing $50 as of yesterday (up $1.75 to $49.13), so I guess I'm more like 2 1/2 times.
Of course if it goes south I've screwed the pooch...but I have a few years before retirement anyway, so there's time to recover. I'm not close to being a millionaire, but it's nice to be right in the market every once in a while.