Text 14321, 80 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 23:14:41 av Wendy of NJ (691.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Being Poor
======================
On Wed, 09 May 2007 12:16:23 -0700, Jon Schild <jjs@xmission.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Charlie Edmondson wrote:
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 02:07:56 GMT, Wendy of NJ <voxwoman@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I found this during my online wanderings and thought it may be
>>>> germaine to some various discussions going on now.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003704.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Amen to that.
>>>
>>> Someone posted it the other day, BTW . . . forget who . . . but as I
>>> said at the time, I hope that those who wonder why I get hot under the
>>> collar when politicians minimize the plight of the poor and complain
>>> about taxes on the rich will take a look at it.
>>>
>> Ah, yes, and then we explain to you, to whom all of these are about 
>> 'other people' that most of us IDENTIFY with many of the things in that 
>> list, having been there at some time in our lives.
>> 
>> Especially when you won't define that 'rich' that you think deserve all 
>> those taxes (since you feel you are one of them) but we realize that 
>> most of the 'rich' who will be the brunt of these taxes is US, and we 
>> certainly ain't rich!
>> 
>> Charlie
>> 
>
>That's true.  The "fleece the rich" philosphy made it impossible for me 
>to help my kids much in college. It also made it impossible for them to 
>get any help, because any of the school loans that have any connection 
>to the school are "need-based" and the "counsellors" all said "your 
>father makes enough to pay for your schooling.  No loan."  The fact that 
>well over half of my salary went to taxed, court-ordered alimony and 
>court-ordered child support was not considered. My gross income was 
>above some imaginary line. They were not even allowed to work in any of 
>the work-study type programs, for the same reason.  This leaves separate 
>bank loans, which they couldn't get because they were under age, and 
>which I couldn't get for them because the bank DID consider expendable 
>income rather than gross, or work in a regular job away from campus, for 
>a supervisor who doesn't care what your class schedule is and won't 
>cooperate with things like finals week. Meanwhile, all the higher taxes 
>I paid because I was over the "rich" line went to help the children of 
>dropouts have an easy ride.

This is the "hidden" cost of divorce that everyone forgets about until
it's too late. If you were still married to your babymama, this would
not have been an issue. (and I'm not suggesting that you do that,
either, but pretty much all divorced parent run into the additional
costs of maintaining their children in 2 seperate homes).

And their mother? Couldn't SHE have gotten the loans for these
children? Since she was the recipient of alimony and child support,
and all that...

(and don't think that we haven't been living under the 18-year "prison
sentence" of usurious child support, either, because we HAVE) If I
wasn't working, we would not have been able to have a roof over our
heads or food on the table, because my husband's child support
obligation usually took 75% or more of his gross pay (not take home),
because he lost his "good" job, and had to scramble for a series of
crappy jobs.

And I was one of the only kids in my class at college that was paying
full tuition, because my father refused to disclose his finanical
information to the university. He'd rather pay. So he did.

-Wendy
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)