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: i-node who wrote (794135)	7/10/2014 12:13:14 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578460

>> I don't know about Arkansas but based on my understanding of welfare there is no way in hell someone is better off on welfare than working in Seattle. NO WAY IN HELL. Now maybe its possible in Arkansas with its lower standard of living but not in most other parts of the country. I can't really say about Seattle or Arkansas. But we also know neither of those places is typical. Pennsylvania, we know about. Where a single parent is better off with a $29,000 job plus welfare benefits than with a $69,000 job. That MIGHT be atypically high, but I don't really know. First you said someone would be better off being on welfare and not working. Then you give me an example of some single parent in PA who works and gets welfare. That's not what you claimed originally. Secondly if I remember correctly, this whole scenario was done up by some wacko R in PA. So link plz. In Colorado, a single parent with zero income can take home just shy of $30,000 (tax free) in benefits -- the taxable equivalent of maybe 30-35K. That's consistent with the nationwide results from CBO: I found a similar chart in this PDF but no mention of CO: cbo.gov Link plz.