Food Stamps

Why is there no *prohibited topic* test to receive public assistance?

I have to get tested at work so I can collect my paycheck. WTF is up with that?

Why is there no *prohibited topic* test to receive public assistance?

I have to get tested at work so I can collect my paycheck. WTF is up with that? Originally Posted by BobbyBrown

You allow your employer to trample your civil rights, That's WTF is up with that. From my experience in management, those that use a mildly psychoactive substance, medicine in some states,are sometimes your best workers. I have a friend who got his policy at work changed when he pointed out that The "Medicine" stays in your system for about 30 days, while far more dangerous substances stay in your system for a day or 2. The prohibition against this medicine is one of the great social injustices of the 20th, and now the 21st, century.

You allow your employer to trample your civil rights, That's WTF is up with that. From my experience in management, those that use a mildly psychoactive substance, medicine in some states,are sometimes your best workers. I have a friend who got his policy at work changed when he pointed out that The "Medicine" stays in your system for about 30 days, while far more dangerous substances stay in your system for a day or 2. The prohibition against this medicine is one of the great social injustices of the 20th, and now the 21st, century. Originally Posted by drluv1

That's priceless!

I love the idea that the lobbyists are the ones who shoot down the idea of a flat tax, in reality its the states. The concept of a flat tax is all encompassing. It includes your state and federal tax's, and is rolled into the price of every product you pay for. Thsi would also eliminate the idea of the IRS, and the whole concept of payroll taxes, as that would make it double taxation on us. Thsi concept of a flat tax is constantly shot down due to the inability to say what portion of that tax collected actually goes back to each state to fund its "programs" that are funded by that money.Steve Forbes actually had what seemed to be the best plan that i can remember, a 17% flat tax with any where between 6-8% going back to the states. The general concept is great, as it woudl make every person in this country, pimps, delaers, and regular joe's allike, pay the same rate of tax on every product. yes the overall structure of product pricing would change, but at the same time, you would have more money in your pocket to begin with.

When your benefits run out, you still get counted as long as you keep reporting yourself as unemployed. ie keep asking for help looking for a job or training to find one.

so some are still counted. some fall off till they find a job on there own, then counted as employed.
I always found the employment office to useless other than the check. ie found my job/s on my own. So I know at one time I was not counted.

Why is there no *prohibited topic* test to receive public assistance?

I have to get tested at work so I can collect my paycheck. WTF is up with that? Originally Posted by BobbyBrown

There was until the "masses" started hollering lawsuits, civil rights, ect... Then the spineless politicians nixed it.

Why is there no *prohibited topic* test to receive public assistance?

I have to get tested at work so I can collect my paycheck. WTF is up with that? Originally Posted by BobbyBrown

I mentioned this in one of my posts, I agree!

Why is there no *prohibited topic* test to receive public assistance?

I have to get tested at work so I can collect my paycheck. WTF is up with that? Originally Posted by BobbyBrown

Who is going to pay for the PROHIBITED TOPIC tests? The tax payers?

I mentioned this in one of my posts, I agree! Originally Posted by Lexxxy

If someone receives a food stamp stipend based on having 4 kids in the household - and the mother PROHIBITED TOPIC on occasion (which is now legal in some states, by the way)....you wanna take the food stamps away from the kids because the mother PROHIBITED TOPIC?

Don't try telling me you "don't want any children to go hungry" because i ain't buyin' it.

Just a flat 15% rate would be a pretty sizable tax increase for me (as a tax payer who has only mortgage interest, state/local taxes, and charitable contributions as deductions). I don't mind the concept of my paying more, but not so that people who make substantially more than me can pay less. Originally Posted by Doove

Not trying to focus in on just what you are paying, but I find this odd. 15% would be an increase? I have no idea how much you make, but I am barely making ends meet and I am paying taxes in the 34% to 37% range (Including federal, not sure why you did not mention that). My job pays the bills, but by no means do I consider myself well to do. I always thought of myself at the low end of being able to hobby. If I made any less, I don't think I could hobby at all.

Who is going to pay for the drug tests? The tax payers? Originally Posted by BlackJedi

Yes, think of all the drug screening jobs it would create.

If someone receives a food stamp stipend based on having 4 kids in the household - and the mother PROHIBITED TOPIC on occasion (which is now legal in some states, by the way)....you wanna take the food stamps away from the kids because the mother PROHIBITED TOPIC?

Don't try telling me you "don't want any children to go hungry" because i ain't buyin' it. Originally Posted by Doove

This is priceless as well. I love how you construct your argument. First you start by saying "someone" receives food stamps, but then later say that you're taking the food stamps away "from the kids". Almost like we would be going over to there house and personally ripping the stamps right out of the little children's hands. I suppose the children would also be minorities and disabled as well? I also love how you throw in the mother PROHIBITED TOPIC "ON OCCASION". Just awesome! I would assume you think it would be alright if the mother was also PT Method prohibited topics on an hourly basis??? Then you go one to mention it is legal in some states. More awesomeness! I hate to break it to you, but it is still ILLEGAL in New York State. Perhaps we should limit the discussion to the rules of the state we reside in in this section of the forum. Beyond all of that, your post was pure genius!

Not trying to focus in on just what you are paying, but I find this odd. 15% would be an increase? I have no idea how much you make, but I am barely making ends meet and I am paying taxes in the 34% to 37% range (Including federal, not sure why you did not mention that). My job pays the bills, but by no means do I consider myself well to do. I always thought of myself at the low end of being able to hobby. If I made any less, I don't think I could hobby at all. Originally Posted by GP

All flat tax proposals i've seen only deal in federal income taxes - so i'm only referencing federal income taxes.

This is priceless as well. I love how you construct your argument. First you start by saying "someone" receives food stamps, but then later say that you're taking the food stamps away "from the kids". Originally Posted by GP

Really GP? I responded to someone's comment by pointing out what it meant in real life terms.

Your rant was just dumb.

Really GP? I responded to someone's comment by pointing out what it meant in real life terms.

Your rant was just dumb. Originally Posted by Doove

Yes REALLY! I disagree with your assessment. I think it has quite a bit of merit to it.

Steve Forbes actually had what seemed to be the best plan that i can remember, a 17% flat tax with any where between 6-8% going back to the states. The general concept is great, as it woudl make every person in this country, pimps, delaers, and regular joe's allike, pay the same rate of tax on every product. yes the overall structure of product pricing would change, but at the same time, you would have more money in your pocket to begin with. Originally Posted by Justapervert

You say "flat tax", but then you describe what sounds an awful lot like a national sales tax. Not the same thing.