I’M GOING ROGUE
I have at last begun to realize the insincerity and personal disengagement the cyber world of social network sites has offered us.
As an individual who has lost the closeness of friends and well-known acquaintenances due to distance, age, the personal habit of smoking, health, pacifism and lack of a religious belief, I have become addicted to a popular social network.
Although other participants in my virtual world were chosen or accepted, I was aware that most were only acquaintenances or friends of other acquaintenances. I suppose I needed interaction from others and ignored that for which I was fully aware. But the emergence of a “friend report card” to evaluate your compatibility with a “friend” really brought my awareness to the forefront. The report card is promoted as a form of “entertainment” however in my opinion it seeks to bring forth the realization that cyber friends are not truly friends, they may as well be delusions.
I have spent many hours the past couple of years in my own delusion of friendship, liking, posting and reposting everyone elses quotes, philosophies, supporting for, etc., extending sympathies and expounding on my political beliefs but with this revelation I have re-entered the real world. I will spend my time enjoying things I want to do and possibly maintain the real friendships in my life. I may even begin sending an actual written letter to those who have not yet joined the Cyber World.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
IN THE FACE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
IN THE FACE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND OTHER DISCRIMINATORY REQUIREMENTS
How do I begin to talk about our taxes and how they are impacted by the implication of the above title? It would probably take less time and less energy and thought to just take notice of the “Bake Sale” of cupcakes at Berkley as was on the news today; however, I had already begun to assimilate a lot of data from government sites relating to the impact of taxes on an individuals purchasing power in the USA.
Before reading this you may remember that Texas, Illinois and other states have implemented the “Dream Act”, assisting some illegal immigrants in obtaining their college degrees. Without being explicit I will just say that every ethnic group in America receive some type of discriminatory assistance, that is other than Caucasian American born citizens, who contribute to their causes, many that are funded by tax dollars.
So today I will share with you some of the facts. But remember that there are many fluctuations regarding the numbers that I will post. The numbers here are based on the states of Mississippi, Massachusetts and California.
These states were chosen from the National Stats of median hourly wage including all occupations From the Bureau of Labor as of May 8, 2010 because. Mississippi has the lowest average hourly income and nearly the highest State Sales Tax. Massachusetts has the highest average hourly income and one of the lowest State Sales Tax. California has the highest State Sales Tax. Also keep in mind that State Income Taxes and tax exemptions for food purchases have not been included. These two facts vary from state to state and were not considered in the states I have elected to concentrate on.
Assuming that the cost of housing is 30% (28-33) of income
And the cost of food is 12%
And utilities are 8% (heating & electrical only)
Payroll tax are Fed Income Tax 15%
Social Security 6.2% (4.2% this year)
Unemployment 6.4% (self employed 10.4%)
And that your income is (Based on national average (combined all occupations)
Mississippi $12.83/hrLowest & State Sales Tax 7%
Massachusetts $25.82/hrHighest & Sales Tax 5%
California has the highest sales tax:
Wage $18.21 Lowest average Sales Tax ( 7.5%)
Wage $24.39 Highest Average Sales Tax(7.5%)
Several States have no state sales tax
Spendable income after cost of housing, utilities and Payroll taxes and State Income Tax:
This formula does not account for other necessities such as transportation and insurances for home, auto, life and health care. Nor does it take into account that some states have sales tax exemptions for food.
Mississippi housing cost: $12.83X30% = $3.84
Utilities 8%=$1.02
Payroll Tax IRS 15%=$2.07
Social Security 6.2%=$0.85
Unemployment 6.4%=$0.88
Balance ………………………… …..$4.17/hr
Balance after State Sales Tax@7%=$3.87/hr
Massachusetts housing costs:$25.82X30% = $18.07
Utilities 8%=$2.08
Payroll Tax IRS15%=$3.97
Social Security6.2%=$1.60
Unemployment6.4%=$1.65
Balance $8.77
Balance After State Sales Tax @5% $8.33
California has the highest sales tax:
Wage $18.21 Lowest average @( 7.5%)
Wage $24.39 Highest Average @(7.5%)
Low Wage Housing @ 30%……=$5.46
Utilities @ 8% =$1.45
Payroll Tax IRS@ 15%=$2.73
Social Security @6.2%=$1.12
Unemployment @6.4%=$1.16
Balance $6.29
Balance after State Sales Tax @7.5% ($0.47)$5.82
High Wage Housing 30%=$7.31
Utilities 8%=$1.97
Payroll 15%=$3.65
Social Security 6.2%=$1.51
Unemployment 6.4%=$1.56
Balance = $8.39
Balance after State Sales Tax @7.5%($.062)=$7.77
The actual percentage of income after housing, utilities, taxes and sales tax assuming all income is used for purchasing and does not allow for insurances, medical, transportation and other essential needs.
Mississippi 30%
Massachusetts slightly over 32%
California @ low Wage 32%
California @ high Wage slightly over 31%
COST OF LIVING numbers are based on 100. The lower the number, the least the COL is. The Higher number reflects a higher COL. The numbers are reflective of deviations from the base of 100.
Mississippi 13
Massachusetts 41
California 49
I suggest that anywhere 30 to 32 percent of wages is inadequate to properly purchase Transportation (even public transportation), Health Insurance (or co-pay when insurance is purchased), Home and Auto Insurance, Life Insurance, Education, Clothing, Home maintenance,and communication expense. Heaven forbid entertainment (including television) and travel.
Thank you for reading, please post your comments on this blog.
How do I begin to talk about our taxes and how they are impacted by the implication of the above title? It would probably take less time and less energy and thought to just take notice of the “Bake Sale” of cupcakes at Berkley as was on the news today; however, I had already begun to assimilate a lot of data from government sites relating to the impact of taxes on an individuals purchasing power in the USA.
Before reading this you may remember that Texas, Illinois and other states have implemented the “Dream Act”, assisting some illegal immigrants in obtaining their college degrees. Without being explicit I will just say that every ethnic group in America receive some type of discriminatory assistance, that is other than Caucasian American born citizens, who contribute to their causes, many that are funded by tax dollars.
So today I will share with you some of the facts. But remember that there are many fluctuations regarding the numbers that I will post. The numbers here are based on the states of Mississippi, Massachusetts and California.
These states were chosen from the National Stats of median hourly wage including all occupations From the Bureau of Labor as of May 8, 2010 because. Mississippi has the lowest average hourly income and nearly the highest State Sales Tax. Massachusetts has the highest average hourly income and one of the lowest State Sales Tax. California has the highest State Sales Tax. Also keep in mind that State Income Taxes and tax exemptions for food purchases have not been included. These two facts vary from state to state and were not considered in the states I have elected to concentrate on.
Assuming that the cost of housing is 30% (28-33) of income
And the cost of food is 12%
And utilities are 8% (heating & electrical only)
Payroll tax are Fed Income Tax 15%
Social Security 6.2% (4.2% this year)
Unemployment 6.4% (self employed 10.4%)
And that your income is (Based on national average (combined all occupations)
Mississippi $12.83/hrLowest & State Sales Tax 7%
Massachusetts $25.82/hrHighest & Sales Tax 5%
California has the highest sales tax:
Wage $18.21 Lowest average Sales Tax ( 7.5%)
Wage $24.39 Highest Average Sales Tax(7.5%)
Several States have no state sales tax
Spendable income after cost of housing, utilities and Payroll taxes and State Income Tax:
This formula does not account for other necessities such as transportation and insurances for home, auto, life and health care. Nor does it take into account that some states have sales tax exemptions for food.
Mississippi housing cost: $12.83X30% = $3.84
Utilities 8%=$1.02
Payroll Tax IRS 15%=$2.07
Social Security 6.2%=$0.85
Unemployment 6.4%=$0.88
Balance ………………………… …..$4.17/hr
Balance after State Sales Tax@7%=$3.87/hr
Massachusetts housing costs:$25.82X30% = $18.07
Utilities 8%=$2.08
Payroll Tax IRS15%=$3.97
Social Security6.2%=$1.60
Unemployment6.4%=$1.65
Balance $8.77
Balance After State Sales Tax @5% $8.33
California has the highest sales tax:
Wage $18.21 Lowest average @( 7.5%)
Wage $24.39 Highest Average @(7.5%)
Low Wage Housing @ 30%……=$5.46
Utilities @ 8% =$1.45
Payroll Tax IRS@ 15%=$2.73
Social Security @6.2%=$1.12
Unemployment @6.4%=$1.16
Balance $6.29
Balance after State Sales Tax @7.5% ($0.47)$5.82
High Wage Housing 30%=$7.31
Utilities 8%=$1.97
Payroll 15%=$3.65
Social Security 6.2%=$1.51
Unemployment 6.4%=$1.56
Balance = $8.39
Balance after State Sales Tax @7.5%($.062)=$7.77
The actual percentage of income after housing, utilities, taxes and sales tax assuming all income is used for purchasing and does not allow for insurances, medical, transportation and other essential needs.
Mississippi 30%
Massachusetts slightly over 32%
California @ low Wage 32%
California @ high Wage slightly over 31%
COST OF LIVING numbers are based on 100. The lower the number, the least the COL is. The Higher number reflects a higher COL. The numbers are reflective of deviations from the base of 100.
Mississippi 13
Massachusetts 41
California 49
I suggest that anywhere 30 to 32 percent of wages is inadequate to properly purchase Transportation (even public transportation), Health Insurance (or co-pay when insurance is purchased), Home and Auto Insurance, Life Insurance, Education, Clothing, Home maintenance,and communication expense. Heaven forbid entertainment (including television) and travel.
Thank you for reading, please post your comments on this blog.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECEPIENTS
Questioning some posts on FB about testing recipients of welfare benefits peaked my interest in the facts. I suppose the interest stemmed from having been the child of welfare recipients for several years.
We were on welfare because a social worker felt that our “self-sustained” livelihood did not meet the social norms of the day. Housing and clothing were less than average but food was plentiful and nutritious, without pesticides or chemical preservatives.
The social worker insisted that they provide assistance and it was accepted. However, they failed to say that once assistance was accepted, the small farm from which our food was grown or gathered had to be liquidated. Necessitating the purchase of house only. So my parents complied and my father began working the timber industry (Uneducated, farming was his only experience and skill to provide for his family).
He soon became ill from a back injury and heart disease and could not continue to work. Diagnostic tools and treatment were not yet available in those days. The humility and illness eventually led to depression and the use of barbiturates as prescribed by his physician. He was not a user of alcohol at any time.
So it is my opinion that the welfare system drove my father and our family into dependence on the welfare system.
So those who categorize welfare recipients as possible drug users disturb me. Here are some facts:
1.) The Welfare Reform Act was authorized but not required in 1996. The act imposes mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receive welfare assistance.
2.) Drug use among welfare recipients is no greater than the rest of the population, as a percentage.
3.) According to a study by the National Institute of Alcohol and Alcoholism shows no difference between the general population and welfare recipients.
4.) Seventy percent of drug users who are ages 18-49 are employed full time. It is presumed that a much higher percent are alcohol users.
5.) The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person. But the cost to for personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality, to run confirmatory tests to find false positives, cross identification with legal prescribed drugs and poppy seeds is not included.
6.) Since the relativity of substance abuse between the general population and welfare recipients are equal, it is important to note the findings of an employer of 10000 employees. About one half of one percent (49) of the employees tested positive. They estimate that the cost to test all employees was $20,000. It was fiscally unsound.
7.) The above numbers do not include any possible legal costs that might be incurred if prosecuted and the cost of incarceration if convicted.
8.) The cost for drug testing and the consequences does NOT include testing for the use of alcohol.
I am not a drug abuser, and do not want to imply that I approve of substance abuse.
My purpose is to state that ALL WELFARE RECEPIENTS are not “druggies” or “alcoholics”.
Required drug testing of welfare recipients is fiscally irresponsible and useless.
We were on welfare because a social worker felt that our “self-sustained” livelihood did not meet the social norms of the day. Housing and clothing were less than average but food was plentiful and nutritious, without pesticides or chemical preservatives.
The social worker insisted that they provide assistance and it was accepted. However, they failed to say that once assistance was accepted, the small farm from which our food was grown or gathered had to be liquidated. Necessitating the purchase of house only. So my parents complied and my father began working the timber industry (Uneducated, farming was his only experience and skill to provide for his family).
He soon became ill from a back injury and heart disease and could not continue to work. Diagnostic tools and treatment were not yet available in those days. The humility and illness eventually led to depression and the use of barbiturates as prescribed by his physician. He was not a user of alcohol at any time.
So it is my opinion that the welfare system drove my father and our family into dependence on the welfare system.
So those who categorize welfare recipients as possible drug users disturb me. Here are some facts:
1.) The Welfare Reform Act was authorized but not required in 1996. The act imposes mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receive welfare assistance.
2.) Drug use among welfare recipients is no greater than the rest of the population, as a percentage.
3.) According to a study by the National Institute of Alcohol and Alcoholism shows no difference between the general population and welfare recipients.
4.) Seventy percent of drug users who are ages 18-49 are employed full time. It is presumed that a much higher percent are alcohol users.
5.) The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person. But the cost to for personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality, to run confirmatory tests to find false positives, cross identification with legal prescribed drugs and poppy seeds is not included.
6.) Since the relativity of substance abuse between the general population and welfare recipients are equal, it is important to note the findings of an employer of 10000 employees. About one half of one percent (49) of the employees tested positive. They estimate that the cost to test all employees was $20,000. It was fiscally unsound.
7.) The above numbers do not include any possible legal costs that might be incurred if prosecuted and the cost of incarceration if convicted.
8.) The cost for drug testing and the consequences does NOT include testing for the use of alcohol.
I am not a drug abuser, and do not want to imply that I approve of substance abuse.
My purpose is to state that ALL WELFARE RECEPIENTS are not “druggies” or “alcoholics”.
Required drug testing of welfare recipients is fiscally irresponsible and useless.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
I cannot comment on the days observations, left all the political, morose and just plain negativity behind and Baked a couple of loaves of Whole Wheat White bread from Scratch. I've still got some practicing to do on that, but They will be edible.
I am also working on a pineapple crochet table cloth. I'm about half way done. It will be about 50 inches across when it is finished. It is being crocheted with the finest (30) cotton thread.
And I have a painting on the easel, lots to do on this one yet, but it takes time. I am using a photo of my front yard as it leads into the back yard and love the arbor with the purple Clematis climbing it. Sorry for the picture of the painting. It shows very little definition of the flowers.
So that's what keeping me busy in these turmoiltious times:)
Friday, September 9, 2011
ARE YOU DEPRESSED YET?
ARE YOU DEPRESSED YET?
Amidst the “pomp and circumstance” President Obama met his commanded audience in the center of a well-choreographed stage delivering his “plan” to put people to work. Although he was met by hand shaking, a few hugs and an occasional peck on he cheek; the hand clapping, also a requirement in these circumstances, does not truly reflect the guests approval of his plan or his presidency, nor that of the John Q Public while the most recent polls indicate the lowest in his administration. Depending upon whose poll to believe it is somewhere between 29 and 42. Most people are aware of all of the above, except for his true followers who love him when he is in his campaign mode.
However, my point is this:
He frequently said during this speech that the new “Back to Work” plan would be paid for.
He says that he will be addressing how it will be paid for next Monday.
And that he will be giving more details on how it will be paid for the Monday after that.
Isn’t that a little bass-ackward? When I make out my monthly budget, and if I have an unexpected expense, I first look at my usual and unavoidable expenses and then see what I can cut back on to meet the unexpected one. What I don’t do is meet the unexpected one and then try to find some cut backs that allow me to do that. I have a limited income with a small amount of cash to pay for optional choices. I would not want to put another expense on a credit card thus diminishing if not exceeding my “optional choice cash”.
It is my feeling that I would view the “Back to Work” plan more credible had the president began with telling us what “cut backs” would be made to afford the cost of his new “plan”.
I also question the impact that a reduction of payroll taxes will have, not only on the economy but on any individual earning only minimum wage. Any individual earning $8.87/hour will earn $1400.00/month. If 6.5% of that is the current amount of the payroll tax it is $91.00, reduced to 3.5% tax as suggested it would be $49.00/month. Oh yes, sounds pretty good but it isn’t even one days pay which would be $70.00, $49.00 would hardly allow for the increased cost of food and other necessary cost of living expenses being imposed by state and local taxes.
I have also notice that it is not uncommon for the Dow to go south the days following an appearance by the president.
Well, blah, blah, blah and whine, whine, whine…. what else is new? It could be “High Alert” in New York and DC with the approaching anniversary of 9/11. I fail to see why we call it an anniversary, since most anniversaries are celebrated for a positive experience. (Much like everyone calling a convicted felon Mr. Or Mrs./Ms). What’s that all about? Isn’t Mr., Mrs. or Ms a form of respect? It could be the raging fires in Texas, the flooding water, evacuations and devastations on the East Coast. Oh and lest we forget the wars we are involved with in the Mideast.
So now if you aren’t already depressed, YOU SHOULD BE!
Amidst the “pomp and circumstance” President Obama met his commanded audience in the center of a well-choreographed stage delivering his “plan” to put people to work. Although he was met by hand shaking, a few hugs and an occasional peck on he cheek; the hand clapping, also a requirement in these circumstances, does not truly reflect the guests approval of his plan or his presidency, nor that of the John Q Public while the most recent polls indicate the lowest in his administration. Depending upon whose poll to believe it is somewhere between 29 and 42. Most people are aware of all of the above, except for his true followers who love him when he is in his campaign mode.
However, my point is this:
He frequently said during this speech that the new “Back to Work” plan would be paid for.
He says that he will be addressing how it will be paid for next Monday.
And that he will be giving more details on how it will be paid for the Monday after that.
Isn’t that a little bass-ackward? When I make out my monthly budget, and if I have an unexpected expense, I first look at my usual and unavoidable expenses and then see what I can cut back on to meet the unexpected one. What I don’t do is meet the unexpected one and then try to find some cut backs that allow me to do that. I have a limited income with a small amount of cash to pay for optional choices. I would not want to put another expense on a credit card thus diminishing if not exceeding my “optional choice cash”.
It is my feeling that I would view the “Back to Work” plan more credible had the president began with telling us what “cut backs” would be made to afford the cost of his new “plan”.
I also question the impact that a reduction of payroll taxes will have, not only on the economy but on any individual earning only minimum wage. Any individual earning $8.87/hour will earn $1400.00/month. If 6.5% of that is the current amount of the payroll tax it is $91.00, reduced to 3.5% tax as suggested it would be $49.00/month. Oh yes, sounds pretty good but it isn’t even one days pay which would be $70.00, $49.00 would hardly allow for the increased cost of food and other necessary cost of living expenses being imposed by state and local taxes.
I have also notice that it is not uncommon for the Dow to go south the days following an appearance by the president.
Well, blah, blah, blah and whine, whine, whine…. what else is new? It could be “High Alert” in New York and DC with the approaching anniversary of 9/11. I fail to see why we call it an anniversary, since most anniversaries are celebrated for a positive experience. (Much like everyone calling a convicted felon Mr. Or Mrs./Ms). What’s that all about? Isn’t Mr., Mrs. or Ms a form of respect? It could be the raging fires in Texas, the flooding water, evacuations and devastations on the East Coast. Oh and lest we forget the wars we are involved with in the Mideast.
So now if you aren’t already depressed, YOU SHOULD BE!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Just wondering
I woke up this morning to 54 degree weather and after having skipped the 5 mg of blood pressure last night, I am beginning to feel like myself. I have even baked a fresh loaf of banana bread this morning. The thing I am wondering about though is: It is often said that one out of every four (?5) folks 65 and over fall, need help and/or break a bone, often a hip. I would like to know how many of those that fall are actually being over treated with drugs like BP meds and others. Oh, I know "you must take your BP meds to avoid a stroke", but every time I have suggested my dosage is too much, another test for another cause is ordered. The first time was a test for sleep apnea (cost $4000), the last time angiogram to see if my stents are plugging up....no they were clean, but while under the anesthetic they decided to stent an existing collateral flow. NO, I don't feel better! I'm having a damned hard time getting up in the morning. So why is another cause of sleeping too much and feeling very tired and fatiued even looked for until a trial of less medication!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)