Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (531604)	11/23/2009 11:55:03 AM
From: TimF	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575542

Now at least someone's actually addressing the points rather than casually dismissing them. Well not completely, your seeing one thing as a mistake and so casually dismissing the rest, but at least its a start. ---- In Texas, a family of 3 can get, at most, $170 or so a month. The example was for Virginia. $393 is the apparently the highest possible level for a family of three in VA. workworld.org And TANF is one of the smaller factors in the calculation. Combined payroll taxes and income taxes are larger, and the figures are correct. Food stamps amount to a larger benefit and the figure in the article is correct. People in Household / Maximum Monthly Allotment 1/$200 2/$367 3/$526 fns.usda.gov The Section 8 housing data is correct "Under the voucher program, individuals or families with a voucher find and lease a unit (either in a specified complex or in the private sector) and pay a portion of the rent (based on income, but generally no more than 30% of the family's income)." en.wikipedia.org The article's Medicaid and SCHIPs figures rely on a simplified estimate, but its not a totally unreasonable one. Perhaps a bit high, the basic problem remains. If you get no benefit or very little benefit from moving from $20k to $40k of gross income, rather than a loss in net income, your still seriously discouraging the efforts of the lower middle and upper lower class people. And that's before "health care reform". Which adds to the problem with the way it phases out subsidies. (Of course if it didn't it would create another problem, that of costing too much, and of subsidizing people who are in solidly middle class situations, or perhaps even wealthy people.)