Explain to me the American mindset around work, entitlement, and earning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the American mindset regarding “work, entitlement and earning”:

“If you work, you should be entitled to keep as much as you earn as is possible”


That’s it. Very simple and easy to grasp.

This is also the culture around much of the world. If you don't work, you don't eat around much of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the American mindset regarding “work, entitlement and earning”:

“If you work, you should be entitled to keep as much as you earn as is possible”


That’s it. Very simple and easy to grasp.

This is also the culture around much of the world. If you don't work, you don't eat around much of the world.

Well, developing countries are called that for a reason. And those countries have high rates of civil violence. Gee, I wonder if the two are related?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of universal health care or socialized medicine.

My Obamacare runs $900 per month with a $6000 deductible.
I get no subsidy as I earn over $46,000 per year in my state.

I preferred what I had before Obamacare. My blue cross was $250 per month with a $1500 deductible. My blue cross that I had before Obamacare covered a lot more.

Yes, but the dozens of willfully unemployed losers living in their parents’ basements applaud your subsidizing all their healthcare with your $11,000 in annual premiums.

Ok, ok…. they don’t really applaud you… To them you’re just another rich a-hole not paying her “fair share”.

I'm the original poster that pays $900 per month. I don't feel like earning $46,000 as a single person in my state makes me wealthy. It means the middle class is heavily subsidizing those refusing to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of universal health care or socialized medicine.

My Obamacare runs $900 per month with a $6000 deductible.
I get no subsidy as I earn over $46,000 per year in my state.

I preferred what I had before Obamacare. My blue cross was $250 per month with a $1500 deductible. My blue cross that I had before Obamacare covered a lot more.

Yes, but the dozens of willfully unemployed losers living in their parents’ basements applaud your subsidizing all their healthcare with your $11,000 in annual premiums.

Ok, ok…. they don’t really applaud you… To them you’re just another rich a-hole not paying her “fair share”.

I'm the original poster that pays $900 per month. I don't feel like earning $46,000 as a single person in my state makes me wealthy. It means the middle class is heavily subsidizing those refusing to work.

It’s not middle class versus the poor. It’s middle class AND the poor versus the upper class. You are not rich and nobody except the upper class are living luxuriously. You’ve been brainwashed.

“Middle class” seems to be a euphemism for “white” in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of universal health care or socialized medicine.

My Obamacare runs $900 per month with a $6000 deductible.
I get no subsidy as I earn over $46,000 per year in my state.

I preferred what I had before Obamacare. My blue cross was $250 per month with a $1500 deductible. My blue cross that I had before Obamacare covered a lot more.

People earning up to $51,520 were eligible for premium subsidies for 2021. Also, ARPA ramps that even higher for 2022, providing premium subsidies for singles earning up to $76,560, and broadly caps one's premiums at 8.5% of their annual income.

It seems like you're either missing out on some assistance you're eligible for, or you're not telling us the whole story. Can you please elaborate?

Yes the $46,000 for one was the 2020 or 2019 figure. I see that it is now up to $51,520 to get a subsidy for one. I don't qualify for the subsidy as
I am single and earned over the $51,000 threshold. I'm not sure what ARPA is but I have my taxes prepared by a CPA.
Essentially if you hustle and you work you end up paying for those that don't contribute to society.

I believe that this is the reason that Hillary lost to Trump. Many working people were paying reasonable insurance rates and then under Obamacare (mandated by law) their premiums increased four fold with less coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of universal health care or socialized medicine.

My Obamacare runs $900 per month with a $6000 deductible.
I get no subsidy as I earn over $46,000 per year in my state.

I preferred what I had before Obamacare. My blue cross was $250 per month with a $1500 deductible. My blue cross that I had before Obamacare covered a lot more.

People earning up to $51,520 were eligible for premium subsidies for 2021. Also, ARPA ramps that even higher for 2022, providing premium subsidies for singles earning up to $76,560, and broadly caps one's premiums at 8.5% of their annual income.

It seems like you're either missing out on some assistance you're eligible for, or you're not telling us the whole story. Can you please elaborate?

Yes the $46,000 for one was the 2020 or 2019 figure. I see that it is now up to $51,520 to get a subsidy for one. I don't qualify for the subsidy as
I am single and earned over the $51,000 threshold. I'm not sure what ARPA is but I have my taxes prepared by a CPA.
Essentially if you hustle and you work you end up paying for those that don't contribute to society.

I believe that this is the reason that Hillary lost to Trump. Many working people were paying reasonable insurance rates and then under Obamacare (mandated by law) their premiums increased four fold with less coverage.

tell us what you REALLY mean, dog Whistler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of universal health care or socialized medicine.

My Obamacare runs $900 per month with a $6000 deductible.
I get no subsidy as I earn over $46,000 per year in my state.

I preferred what I had before Obamacare. My blue cross was $250 per month with a $1500 deductible. My blue cross that I had before Obamacare covered a lot more.

People earning up to $51,520 were eligible for premium subsidies for 2021. Also, ARPA ramps that even higher for 2022, providing premium subsidies for singles earning up to $76,560, and broadly caps one's premiums at 8.5% of their annual income.

It seems like you're either missing out on some assistance you're eligible for, or you're not telling us the whole story. Can you please elaborate?

Yes the $46,000 for one was the 2020 or 2019 figure. I see that it is now up to $51,520 to get a subsidy for one. I don't qualify for the subsidy as
I am single and earned over the $51,000 threshold. I'm not sure what ARPA is but I have my taxes prepared by a CPA.
Essentially if you hustle and you work you end up paying for those that don't contribute to society.

I believe that this is the reason that Hillary lost to Trump. Many working people were paying reasonable insurance rates and then under Obamacare (mandated by law) their premiums increased four fold with less coverage.

Insurance costs were going up at a fast pace every year BEFORE Obamacare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you "happy to pay more taxes" should donate to charity. The rest of us are not "happy" to. We are stlll paying for aftercare, our own student loans, and saving for our own kids to go to college. Its not my responsibility to do that for other people too. But you are free to donate your money if you like!

You’re an idiot. You do realize that you wouldn’t have had to do any of this if there were higher taxes, correct?

Wrong. At our income we [b]don’t[b]qualify for $hit. So my taxes will go up but I will get no additional benefit. Hard pass.

Currently, that is. You don’t seem to understand the term “universal” in “universal healthcare.”

Since when are we talking about universal healthcare? I am talking about loan forgiveness/free college, and child tax credits and free/heavily subsized daycare and maternity leaves. I am not in favor of any of those things. To me, universal healthcare is in a different category. I'm not saying I'm definitely for it, but depending on how it is designed and implemented, I am more amenable to that than any of the other things we've been discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of universal health care or socialized medicine.

My Obamacare runs $900 per month with a $6000 deductible.
I get no subsidy as I earn over $46,000 per year in my state.

I preferred what I had before Obamacare. My blue cross was $250 per month with a $1500 deductible. My blue cross that I had before Obamacare covered a lot more.

People earning up to $51,520 were eligible for premium subsidies for 2021. Also, ARPA ramps that even higher for 2022, providing premium subsidies for singles earning up to $76,560, and broadly caps one's premiums at 8.5% of their annual income.

It seems like you're either missing out on some assistance you're eligible for, or you're not telling us the whole story. Can you please elaborate?

Yes the $46,000 for one was the 2020 or 2019 figure. I see that it is now up to $51,520 to get a subsidy for one. I don't qualify for the subsidy as
I am single and earned over the $51,000 threshold. I'm not sure what ARPA is but I have my taxes prepared by a CPA.
Essentially if you hustle and you work you end up paying for those that don't contribute to society.

I believe that this is the reason that Hillary lost to Trump. Many working people were paying reasonable insurance rates and then under Obamacare (mandated by law) their premiums increased four fold with less coverage.

There's still something more you're not telling us. For 2021 and 2022, there is no premium subsidy cliff - even if you make over 400% of the FPL, the American Rescue Plan caps premiums for your benchmark plan (typically the lowest-cost silver plan) at 8.5% of your income.

In any event, your assertion that working people were paying reasonable rates saw their premiums increase fourfold with less coverage is not borne out by the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

The how predicates the answer. No I do not want to fund extraneous social benefits that raise my federal taxes and provide no further benefits to myself or my family - just takes money for our pocket.

Police, fire, roads, health insurance, military are a common good. Susan sitting at home making formula at 3PM is not.

That's ass-backward. You have to define the scope of the project before any costs or funding mechanisms can be designed. Remember, we are not talking about a private entity here, but a government, which by design only collects revenue for specific purposes - it's written into our constitution.

[Anonymous]

The term “working class,” implying that there are people who aren’t working at all in comparison, is a dog whistle that is no different from Reagan’s “welfare queen” rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

The how predicates the answer. No I do not want to fund extraneous social benefits that raise my federal taxes and provide no further benefits to myself or my family - just takes money for our pocket.

Police, fire, roads, health insurance, military are a common good. Susan sitting at home making formula at 3PM is not.

F*** you, I've got mine!

Nope, I paid for mine. Time for you to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

The how predicates the answer. No I do not want to fund extraneous social benefits that raise my federal taxes and provide no further benefits to myself or my family - just takes money for our pocket.

Police, fire, roads, health insurance, military are a common good. Susan sitting at home making formula at 3PM is not.

Be careful. Extreme inequality causes crime and eventually violent revolutionary tactics.

Yeah, so does unemployed bums sitting at home in mom’s basement being radicalized by 4Chan. Go out and get a job Mark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

The how predicates the answer. No I do not want to fund extraneous social benefits that raise my federal taxes and provide no further benefits to myself or my family - just takes money for our pocket.

Police, fire, roads, health insurance, military are a common good. Susan sitting at home making formula at 3PM is not.

Be careful. Extreme inequality causes crime and eventually violent revolutionary tactics.

Yeah, so does unemployed bums sitting at home in mom’s basement being radicalized by 4Chan. Go out and get a job Mark.

Don’t complain about crime if you’re not willing to take long-term steps to address the root causes of it.

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of companies, particular in the fast food sector, shouldn’t exist and I hope they run out of workers and go out of business.