Anonymous wrote:

I dare you to say that to the face of a single mother of 2 earning 50K for whom that extra $150 a month means the difference between being able to get to work and not. Would you do it? I bet you would, and I bet you would laugh at her, too, you Grinch.

People like you can't even fathom how difficult it is for a large sector of the American public, the working poor. Shame on you, especially in this supposed season of giving and charity.

We have so many single mothers as compared to the 50's and 60's. Why is that?


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-americas-marriage-crisis-makes-income-inequality-so-much-worse/280056/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Rs are doing everything they can to rape the environment and my kid's future

Yes, your future depends on subsidies and handouts from others.

Maybe you should try a little pride and strive towards self-sufficiency. What a concept!

Wow, you really hate the working poor, don't you? Either that or you have absolutely no ability to imagine other people's lives.

Anonymous wrote:The Rs are doing everything they can to rape the environment and my kid's future

Yes, your future depends on subsidies and handouts from others.

Maybe you should try a little pride and strive towards self-sufficiency. What a concept!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

Your existence depends on handouts from complete strangers? Too bad for you.

The sugar train is finally ending. Wahoo!

I dare you to say that to the face of a single mother of 2 earning 50K for whom that extra $150 a month means the difference between being able to get to work and not. Would you do it? I bet you would, and I bet you would laugh at her, too, you Grinch.

People like you can't even fathom how difficult it is for a large sector of the American public, the working poor. Shame on you, especially in this supposed season of giving and charity.

The Rs are doing everything they can to rape the environment and my kid's future

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

Why do you think everyone in the DMV earns $300K a year? We are not all lobbyists you know!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

Your existence depends on handouts from complete strangers? Too bad for you.

The sugar train is finally ending. Wahoo!

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Anonymous wrote:Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Enjoy the extra traffic on the road!

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Tax bill eliminates the ability for employers to write off the transit and parking subsidies they give their employees. And without that incentive, you can pretty much guarantee that most employers will not hand them out.

I assume this will also worsen traffic as people start to drive instead of taking public transportation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gop-tax-bill-commuters-20171216-story.html