Entry 578--Moomie Cavitt

Moomie Cavitt--and others like her--don't go to a coffee shop or a bakery for a rest or to relax, but to show off their screaming fashion accessories.

This bitch writes as if her loss of business is a bad thing. If a cunt like this leaves and never goes back, great! If a place doesn't welcome brats, that's somewhere I want to go! I'm sure I would spend at least $5 for every $1 she did.

Because you can!! Because all your money is disposable!!
Frothy coffee drinks and fat laden pasteries for everyone!!!

The forum on this article is rich with idiot breeders.

Unfortunately, Big Government makes me dispose some of my income and send it the way of the breeders.

If I had my way, we would all pay the same percentage for taxes. It would mean no more moomies--the so-called "working" ones--getting refunds that are more than what they had deducted from their paychecks. I'm fucking sick of subsidizing their moovans, big-screen TVs and vacations!

I understand your anger but I've yet to see hard data on the common complaint about parents getting so much more at the expense of CF people. Last I checked, the tax deduction for children was about $1000 per year. It's not even remotely possible to feed a kid for $1000 a year, let alone house, clothe, educate and provide medical and dental care. I get a far greater deduction for the interest I pay on my 3 bedroom, 2 bath tax deduction. Does anyone know where one can find the data supporting the contention that the CF are supporting the childed? I'm not slamming anyone, but would like to see some verifiable support for this. How do you know you are subsidizing these things? Again, I just want to see the data from which this position is derived, not saying anyone is wrong. I really don't know if they're wrong.

Here's one. I know this family personally. They have a disabled child, and the state pays for everything. These people make 200,000 per year, and they have very good health ins. Because the kid is disabled, they qualify for all kinds of help. There is no income limit. They get child care, all medical expenses paid in full, they even deduct the cost of the kids special wheelchair, that the state paid for. They get so many benefits, it's unbelievable! These people could easily afford to pay the co-pays, but they don't have to. They make more money off of this kid, than most people earn in a year, and they brag about it, too. Moo even admits that she seeks these benefits out. Her kid is entitled to these benefits, and she's going to see that he gets everything he's due. Grrrrr!!!
I'm not complaining about families that need the help. Disabled kids' care does cost a fortune, but this is crazy. They don't need the help, and it's as available to them, as to anyone.

That's one family. What I'm curious about is if there are any statistics to show that CF people are subsidizing childed people in general?

And if these people are making $200K annually and have good insurance, someone needs to talk to the authorities. Public assistance is intended for those who are unable to help themselves due to low or no income, no insurance, etc. Sounds like the welfare scandals in California some years ago. I worked with a woman in about 1971 who always worked under the table (no deductions), had several Social Security numbers, several credit cards and collected welfare under 2 or 3 names, some with kids, some not. I never knew which last names she used to defraud the welfare system so I wasn't able to turn her in. Believe, if I'd known, I would have squawked good and loud.

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=6223

try this out, its a lot of info, some is hard to understand

http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/taxbrd99.html

this is slightly easier to read

i think you would have to look at 2 studies to get the information you need, the amount a mother/father get by having a kid, from governments, and the tax burdens of the single..

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4514&sequence=3

this is a very very hard read,

Shares of Tax Liabilities for Households with Children, by Household Income Category, 1979 to 2000


Effective Federal Tax Rates for Nonelderly Childless Households, by Household Income Category, 1979 to 2000

It's not just one family. Have a disabled kid- get a free ride. Both of these people work for the city of L.A. The govt. throws benefits their way. I called her, she gave me this info: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html.
It's all here.

I didn't read the first site, urban.org, in great detail as it seemed to address an effort to equalize the benefits and responsibilties of custodial and non-custodial parents. The fact that the government has actively pursued or assisted in pursuing non-custodial parents who failed to pay child support is a substantial benefit. Without the child support, a custodial parent and the children involved could conceivably be dependent on welfare. I worked with several women back in the 70s who were custodial parents and had to work 2 or even 3 jobs to keep themselves and their kids fed, housed and clothed and stay off welfare because the father disappeared and the law refused to help.

The site for Oklahoma doesn't really help since each state has its own income tax regulations. There are 5 or 6 states that have no state income tax at all. Oklahoma is the 6th or 7th poorest state in the Union and taxes there are nothing compared to California. I've lived and worked and paid taxes in both states so I know this for a fact. When I lived in North Dakota, the state income tax was so much lower than California that I received a raise in net pay even though my gross salary was about $2500 a year less. Washington State had no income tax when I lived there. So, you see, individual state tax tables don't really help. I may have paid more OK state income tax than my neighbor with 3 kids but my income was $20,000 a year higher than his and his wife's incomes combined. They weren't stupid or semi-skilled, either. He was a journeyman welder and she was a Director of Nursing. Most jobs in Oklahoma just don't pay well, especially in comparison to places like California or Washington or Missouri or Illinois.

The Supplemental Security Income is available to others besides disabled children. The rules are stated pretty plainly that the income of the household in which the disabled child resides is taken into consideration in the award of SSI. It's also pointed out that SSI is handled differently in each state. Frankly, it sounds like the people you know who claim to be getting all these goodies from the government aren't being totally forthright. If they are making $200K and have good insurance, I suspect they are either lying to you about how much they get or need to be reported for defrauding the government.

None of these show exactly how CF people specifically are subsidizing those with children. Insofar as taxes, unless proven otherwise, I'm more inclined to get my knickers in a twist over rich people and big corporations getting major tax breaks when they control so much of the wealth. The $1000 per child tax credit is bupkes in comparison. The company I work for received a tax refund of $1 billion (yes, that's billion with a b) a couple years ago. That's a hell of a lot more than what some joker makes off the kids.

Has anyone ever done any studies comparing CF/CL/EN and childed tax rates, benefits and such within similar income levels? As in comparing the taxes and such between a single CF person, single person with children, married CF couple and married couple with kids, all at the same annual income level.

Parents get more than just a $1,000 tax credit per child.

Their tax brackets are lower than singles and marrieds with no children. They also get deductions for day care, personal exemptions for each kid and educational tax shelters. There are also additional child tax credits. The kids do not have to be disabled for the parents to qualify for these things.

I know some CF people who calculated their tax burden as the CF people they are, and then figured what it would be with one, two and three kids. The difference, even with only one kid, was much higher than $1,000.

I would still like to see some kind of objective comparison. If we hope to gain any redress of inequities, we have to have objective, independently verifiable data or our arguments will be undermined. Just saying you know someone who did some personal calculations or you know someone who got away with scamming the system doesn't really support a common contention that there are inequities in the tax system. For each "someone" you know, someone else knows "someone" on the other end of the stick.

So many of the posts on CF sites complain about tax inequality, about how the CF are subsidizing large vehicles, big houses, etc. and how parents are making out like bandits, and poor us, we can hardly make it each month; then, turn around and someone else is saying how, as CF, they can have a nice home, nice car, go on nice trips to exotic places ("And we can do that beecaauuussse ...."). You can't have it both ways.

No one seems to twig to the fact that income level and personal money management probably have more to do with it than any tax breaks or credits. In the long run, it's cheaper not to have kids, tax break or not, because they cost a lot to have. The last figure I saw published a few years ago was around $250,000, not including college. Personally, I'd rather put $250K into lots of other things, but to each his own.

And if you want to go that route, I'm single and I'm sick of underwriting married people getting a better tax deal than I do. I pay everything out of one income while married people have the resources of two incomes. I spent many years subsidizing someone else's purchase of a home before I was able to jump on that bandwagon and get my own tax break. So having or not having children is not the only inequity in the tax system.

Wow! You've lived everywhere! I can only speak for Ca., but it's so easy to get welfare, here, it's sickening! And, yes, the taxes are murder! It's like a foreign country, here. Everything is ass- backwards. The rich have their loopholes, poor and, illegals, get a free ride, the rest of us pay through the nose.
Here's another benefit- Disability pay for women on maternity leave. I think that one's federal. Then, they complain that they only get 70% of their regular pay. Companies usually don't count that as sick time, either, so if they have days, they can use those to get additional money. I suppose what really angers me is that companies will bend over backwards to accommodate the childed, at the expense of everyone else. By that, I mean they're getting preferential treatment, flexible schedules, and the rest of us have to take up the slack when they take time off for a sick kid. It's funny how they get nice tans on those days. We know they're lying, so does the boss, but nobody says a word. Sorry, got a little off the subject, there. Really, though. Pregnant women should save their own money for their maternity leave. The govt.(us), shouldn't pay for that. Parents shouldn't get any kind of deductions for their kids, in my opinion. They do use more resources, and should have to pay the same or more than the rest of us. It's not the amount of money, it's the principle. We all pay for the schools, for example, but we don't attend them. Parents are getting a big break, there. Their deductions could buy an awful lot of books...

I remember how generous California welfare has always been. I grew up south of San Diego and one of my mother's major squawks was how a pregant Mexican woman could come up to San Diego for the day, go into labor, have the kid in the U.S., which means the kid is a U.S. citizen, and then collect welfare. I never saw anything supporting that; it was just my mother's rant, but I know welfare was easy to get if you wanted it.


As far as I know, disability is paid by the states, not the federal government, and doesn't apply to mat leave, which the employer pays for, not the government. I would guess that mat leave is handled somewhat differently from one state to another with some kind of federal guidelines. I've never heard anyone complain about getting lower pay due to mat leave or disability but some people complain no matter what. Sick leave is different from mat leave/family leave and when sick leave is used up, no matter what for, it's used up. I don't see how childed employees can use sick leave to make money any more than non-childed. Parents are absolutely not the only ones who abuse sick leave. Calling in sick when you're not is definitely not exclusively a parent thing.

And the variation among different company policies in re: childed versus non-childed is considerable. Where I work, people with children don't get anything special. Flex time is available to everyone, sick leave policy is equally applicable, mat leave is 8 weeks, there's family leave for other than maternity available to everyone, same sex partners can be included for insurances same as heterosexual couples. If a parent has to leave to tend a sick child, their work is left until they get back unless there's an emergency (in fact, I knew someone who was fired for taking his kid with a 103 temp to the hospital on Christmas Eve so things are not as cut and dried as they may seem). For some types of positions, people can elect to telecommute but that's not reserved for parents only. Frankly, I have never been asked to cover for a parent, I've never worked where someone could leave early for child related reasons without making up the time or being docked for it, nor have I ever been passed over for promotion or given lower pay or anything even remotely along those lines due to being CF. Again, I've found that there is a huge difference from one employer to another. I don't know if it's due to company size, type of industry, region or what.

The whole thing is that there are plenty of complaints on both sides of the fence but no factual information proving the validity of the complaints. Personal experience is limited so trading stories about this welfare cheat here or that benefit-abusing parent there doesn't really show the overall situation. I really don't care that parents get tax breaks for their kids. It's miniscule compared to what the wealthy individuals and corporations get. Since I don't pay for anyone's mat leave, I don't care about that, either, especially since mat leave is part of the Family Leave Act in which people have the right to take leave to care for elderly parents or an ill spouse. I'm not willing to lose the benefit that would be mine for non-maternal family leave so, in fairness, I can't get worked up about mat leave.
Again, one always hears one-sided complaints but no factual information proving one thing or another. The problem with all of these things is that I've never seen any unemotional comparison of the costs of having kids versus not having them, taxes, employment benefits, costs, everything included.

i think you will never find the information, not that it doesnt exist, but the true facts would cause a backlash of epic proportions,

What kind of backlash? What is there to backlash against? Facts are facts and one cannot legitimately pursue a course of action to a successful conclusion if one has a shaky foundation for that action.

but theres facts and what the mothers think are facts, if say the cf find, they pay more they will be unhappier and will strike back at the government for all this waste, if the mothers find they arent getting more, they will do the same.. no matter who wins, one group will lose..

I would still like to see some kind of objective comparison. If we hope to gain any redress of inequities, we have to have objective, independently verifiable data or our arguments will be undermined. Just saying you know someone who did some personal calculations or you know someone who got away with scamming the system doesn't really support a common contention that there are inequities in the tax system. For each "someone" you know, someone else knows "someone" on the other end of the stick.

The rates in the Single-No Kiddies and Married-No Kiddies categories are higher than those in Parunt categories. Moomies and Duhddies get tax breaks "for the chiillldddrreen" in the form of credits and subsidies. Personally, I would like to see a tax where everyone pays the same percentage with no special treatment for anyone. (It would be a lot easier to calculate, too!)

So many of the posts on CF sites complain about tax inequality, about how the CF are subsidizing large vehicles, big houses, etc. and how parents are making out like bandits, and poor us, we can hardly make it each month; then, turn around and someone else is saying how, as CF, they can have a nice home, nice car, go on nice trips to exotic places ("And we can do that beecaauuussse ...."). You can't have it both ways.

Yes, I have seen such complaints and bragging. Since parents pay less per $ of income, I understand the bitching. I'm not one of the braggers because I rent, belong to a car-sharing group and seldomly go more than 25 miles from home.

Data presented by one special interest group, be it CF or parents, is not objective, verifiable data. What I mean is a university or government agency type of study. And, no, just because there are parents among those groups, that doesn't mean they skew the data. Is there anything comparing, withing the same income bracket, the taxes, deferments, costs, etc. of having children versus not having them?

Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion but it isn't objective and I've yet to see anything factual supporting a specific position. The child tax credit, as noted before, is miniscule compared to what Martha Stewart or IBM get in tax breaks. The City of Chicago gave Boeing $30 million in tax breaks to entice the company to move its headquarters there. The State of Washington also gave Boeing huge tax breaks in the 100s of millions to keep 787 production in the Puget Sound. These are far, far larger than what parents get. And, I've seen nothing to indicate that the tax credit makes much of a dent in the cost of child-rearing so I don't believe that parents make out in the long run.

And there is absolutely nothing to prove that the child tax credit is so large that it allows someone to buy a bigger house, car or whatever. They either go way into debt, make a lot more money or manage their money well. All of that is a the result of a personal choice available to anyone. Nor is there any backup that CF are subsidizing anything like that. I think this "subsidizing" business is something someone made up and disseminated for the sole purpose of creating dissension.

You also have to look at all of the tax on the local levels as well. Someone like the wife and I are paying taxes that go to schools and kids programs in the city that we will never use. While parents are paying into the same systems without the CF dollars those programs would fail.

What I'm looking for is not general information but specific data showing that there is a substantial difference in costs between having and not having children. Taxes are not the only costs one incurs. Taxes are also quite fluid in that there are many permutations based on income level, a plethora of deductions (not only children), deferrments and such. Do you know where there is any objective data that compares childed versus non-childed?

Morganmad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So many of the posts on CF sites complain about
> tax inequality, about how the CF are subsidizing
> large vehicles, big houses, etc. and how parents
> are making out like bandits, and poor us, we can
> hardly make it each month; then, turn around and
> someone else is saying how, as CF, they can have a
> nice home, nice car, go on nice trips to exotic
> places ("And we can do that beecaauuussse ....").
> You can't have it both ways.
>
>

This is a good point. I've noticed this contradiction many times and it makes me wonder which is the case!