Cell Phones as an entitlment and other stupid things

[kytwell 179]

I agree, not everyone needs a cellphone. Although, it may be cheaper to provide a cell phone than pay for a land line on a monthly basis. For people living in rural areas, a cell phone may be their only option.

I'm in a rural area and reception sucks on a cell; if you can get any reception at all.

[kytwell 179]

I cited your article, twice. I stupidly assumed you had read it.

Do I need to explain to you what payroll taxes are?

Please address my question instead of repeating what you have already said.

Payroll taxes and income taxes are different.

He made the factual claim that 47% pay no federal income tax. And some people actually get a refund bigger than what was withheld.

Payroll taxes are different. Who do they hit the hardest is debatable. A larger amount is paid by the better paid( to a certain threshold), but a bigger amount % wise affect the lower income. At the end of the day though they both paid in and both get benefits. As for the income tax, not so. One paid in, the other gets the benefits(ie a "tax" return bigger than they originally paid in).

[rocks 494]

Payroll taxes and income taxes are different.

He made the factual claim that 47% pay no federal income tax. And some people actually get a refund bigger than what was withheld.

Payroll taxes are different. Who do they hit the hardest is debatable. A larger amount is paid by the better paid( to a certain threshold), but a bigger amount % wise affect the lower income. At the end of the day though they both paid in and both get benefits. As for the income tax, not so. One paid in, the other gets the benefits(ie a "tax" return bigger than they originally paid in).

What he actually said was 47% of people pay no tax. He cited a newspaper as a source, which is where my question about payroll tax is from.

I know that payroll and income taxes are different, obviously, or I wouldn't have asked the question.

As the article states, and I will quote for the third time.

payroll taxes, which fund the big entitlement programs, hit low-income households harder than most since 100% of their income is subject to them. High-income filers pay a lower percentage of their income in payroll taxes since wages subject to the Social Security tax are capped at $110,100

In this instance, low-income households pay more than high-income households. I was wondering how he was going to justify this.

[rocks 494]

I'm in a rural area and reception sucks on a cell; if you can get any reception at all.

That sucks.

Obviously cell phone reception plays a big part in it too, it would just be an alternative for those who are not able to get a land line in their area.

[catknit 144]

I don't neccessarily believe everyone needs a phone in their home, nor do they deserve to have a phone in their home if they can't afford one. 50/60 years ago this certainly wasn't the case, maybe one or two homes in a neighborhood used to have phones. A phone is more of a luxury, not so much a necessity, which is why I said everyone should have access to a phone. I would like to see payphones make a comeback, have at least one centrally located in each neighborhood.roviding free cell phones for everyone. I read somewhere that these gov't subsidized phones include around 200 minutes of air time per month too, that's ridiculous. We have severely clouded the line of what is necessity and what is a luxury over the last few decades.

I could totally see this working in towns/cities, but it would not work in a rural area like we have here. I can completely agree with having a young, strapping 24 year old walking a mile to a phone. Fair enough. An 89 year old, legally blind woman with a cane? Not so much. Especially when she needs the phone to call an ambulance...not really a humane way to deal with our elderly.

I've been curious about the 200 minute thing too. The programs I know about are 200 minutes and I'm curious if that's some weird contractual boondoogle for the providers??? Otherwise, I'd guess there is research out there that proclaims 200 minutes a "reasonable" amount of time for monthly phone use.

And, for nefarious, tin-foil hat conspiracy reasons - having individual phones for people is a much better way to go than a public phone, big brother and all that.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I could totally see this working in towns/cities, but it would not work in a rural area like we have here. I can completely agree with having a young, strapping 24 year old walking a mile to a phone. Fair enough. An 89 year old, legally blind woman with a cane? Not so much. Especially when she needs the phone to call an ambulance...not really a humane way to deal with our elderly.

I've been curious about the 200 minute thing too. The programs I know about are 200 minutes and I'm curious if that's some weird contractual boondoogle for the providers??? Otherwise, I'd guess there is research out there that proclaims 200 minutes a "reasonable" amount of time for monthly phone use.

And, for nefarious, tin-foil hat conspiracy reasons - having individual phones for people is a much better way to go than a public phone, big brother and all that.

I agree wholeheartedly about the elderly and anyone else physically unable to get to a phone, there are always exceptions and there are always people who are more in need than others. It's about time we re-defined those lines between necessities and luxuries, and stop giving away things that everyone else needs to work hard and pay for.

I don't see how anyone would need 200 minutes for emergency phone use, my wife and I don't even use 200 minutes a month total between the 2 of us and she regularly calls her family in Canada.

[rocks 494]

I could totally see this working in towns/cities, but it would not work in a rural area like we have here. I can completely agree with having a young, strapping 24 year old walking a mile to a phone. Fair enough. An 89 year old, legally blind woman with a cane? Not so much. Especially when she needs the phone to call an ambulance...not really a humane way to deal with our elderly.

What about when this 24 year old wants to apply for a job? He doesn't have a computer or he would have Magic Jack and he doesn't have a phone, so how will anyone contact him about his job applications? What if he gets sick and can't walk a mile in the heat to the nearest pay phone, he might need an ambulance as much as an older person. What if it's an emergency and it is the middle of the night and he doesn't have any change for the pay phone? There are too many what ifs for this to be a viable option. There needs to be a phone in their place of residence, it doesn't have to be their own cell phone though.

[Neonred 3,562]

What he actually said was 47% of people pay no tax. He cited a newspaper as a source, which is where my question about payroll tax is from.

I know that payroll and income taxes are different, obviously, or I wouldn't have asked the question.

As the article states, and I will quote for the third time.

In this instance, low-income households pay more than high-income households. I was wondering how he was going to justify this.

The justification for the Social Security tax cap is that if you make $110,000 or even $1,000,000 your benefit is the same. There is a maximum benefit.

[Neonred 3,562]

Plus make sure everyone has internet access? If only it was this simple.

The government has an assistance plan for that too....just spending a little more money.

What about cars? They are important for getting to work. Maybe we should buy cars for poor people too?

[catknit 144]

Rocks - Very true and I think that is part of the basis for the time given, etc now that you've said it. I haven't looked at the brochures lately. Around these parts, the local rumor mill is faster than a phone or internet though - heck, a prospective employer may even just drive to your place to talk to you. It amazes me.

Even if there were tightened restrictions on certain entitlements, you can't fix poor choices and stupid decision making. An example - a guy calls my office wanting to know about home health care options as he's been deemed disabled with arthritis and can no longer cook, clean, get to the toilet, etc. He calls because he hears we have free services. Which we do, if you qualify as a medicaid patient [some percentage of federal poverty limit needs to be met]. He was a senior and receiving SSDI and on medicare. His monthly SSDI payment was too high for him to get medicaid. Since he didn't meet those guidelines, he couldn't get free help. And then the ranting started. He had called the congressman's office about how piss poor the services were here. That his tax money was wasted on other people. That he worked for 25 years in construction and this was all just utter BS. That he had to wait for his brother to come home just to ####### on the toilet...but then it got interesting. #1 - he was mad he couldn't drive his new SUV anymore and that it just sat in the driveway. #2 - he was mad at his landlord for not installing a shower bar in his rental [it was a 1-piece fiberglass or acrylic shower]. #3 - he was mad that his landlord didn't widen the doorways for his wheelchair. #4 - he was mad that medicare wouldn't give him a free scooter. #5 - his rent was too high anyway. #6 - he had to hire a med transport co to get him to the doctor's 10 blocks away and it cost him $200/trip. This was followed up with threats of calling every elected official in the county/state/federal government about how evil our agency is.

Now, here's where the whole "try to make a decent decision" part comes into play. Why on earth still own the SUV? Seriously??? There is your scooter money plus months worth of rent. He lives on a resort island that is 14 miles each way from the major highway. Of course the medical transport company was going to charge him premium prices. He lived in his rental for 7 years and is now asking for some potentially major renovations. Would it be nice if the land lord did it - sure. But, the land lord doesn't have to do it because it's a resort island where vacancies don't sit - which, by the way, explains the top dollar rent.

There is a brand new apartment complex about 20 miles away built exclusively for seniors, ADA compliant apartments, sliding scale rent based on income, transportation to medical offices for $2 - was he interested? No. His preference was to have it his way and complain and be angry. [Plus, he had some choice words about the "type" of people who live in that kind of housing].

I'm guessing when push comes to shove down the road he may sing a different tune. But, for now, he's much happier not being able to have his scooter which would let him move freely around his place [narrower width that would fit through the doors than a wheelchair]. Possibly fall in the shower. But, he can look at his SUV in the driveway and pay a few hundred dollars more rent a month with his "pittance" [a $1450/month SSDI check].

My point - yes, it may suck to leave a place you consider home but you are not helping yourself if you are making really questionable decisions [keep the SUV you can't use and have your brother carry you to the toilet once a day OR sell it and get a scooter - how is this even a question that has been put off for 2+ years?].

[Teddy B 17,252]

What about when this 24 year old wants to apply for a job? He doesn't have a computer or he would have Magic Jack and he doesn't have a phone, so how will anyone contact him about his job applications? What if he gets sick and can't walk a mile in the heat to the nearest pay phone, he might need an ambulance as much as an older person. What if it's an emergency and it is the middle of the night and he doesn't have any change for the pay phone? There are too many what ifs for this to be a viable option. There needs to be a phone in their place of residence, it doesn't have to be their own cell phone though.

At some point the what ifs need to stop and reality needs to set in. We can't keep giving the farm away based on what ifs, we'd be completely bankrupt in a week.

As for the person looking for work, how did they look for work 40 years ago? I believe the same techniques would still apply today, use a relative's or a friend's phone if need be. It may not be as easy as someone with all of the modern technology perks, but then again being poor isn't supposed to be easy, that's the incentive not to be poor. There are so many resources that worked years ago, but people today refuse to use them, simply out of laziness.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Teddy B

[rocks 494]

The justification for the Social Security tax cap is that if you make $110,000 or even $1,000,000 your benefit is the same. There is a maximum benefit.

But is isn't "fair" to tax 100% of a low-income household and not a high-income household, and in addition to that complain when they get tax refunds.

The government has an assistance plan for that too....just spending a little more money.

What about cars? They are important for getting to work. Maybe we should buy cars for poor people too?

That is what public transport is for....

[rocks 494]

At some point the what ifs need to stop and reality needs to set in. We can't keep giving the farm away based on what ifs, we'd be completely bankrupt in a week.

As for the person looking for work, how did they look for work 40 years ago? I believe the same techniques would still apply today, use a relative's or a friend's phone if need be. It may not be as easy as someone with all of the modern technology perks, but then again being poor isn't supposed to be easy, that's the incentive not to be poor. There are so many resources that worked years ago, but people today refuse to use them, simply out of laziness.

40 years ago not everyone had a land line, it was far more of a luxury item. I agree with what you are saying in essence, but I don't think attacking phones is the answer. I'm not sure you've ever been in a situation where you genuinely need assistance, but it's pretty obvious that if someone is looking for work they are trying to earn money, not remain poor.

People more worthy of chasing could be those who spend their food stamps on soda, candy. If you're poor you can drink water and not eat confectionery.

[Teddy B 17,252]

40 years ago not everyone had a land line, it was far more of a luxury item. I agree with what you are saying in essence, but I don't think attacking phones is the answer. I'm not sure you've ever been in a situation where you genuinely need assistance, but it's pretty obvious that if someone is looking for work they are trying to earn money, not remain poor.

People more worthy of chasing could be those who spend their food stamps on soda, candy. If you're poor you can drink water and not eat confectionery.

I'm not just singling out cell phones, it just happens to be the topic of this thread. The cell phones are just a small part of the big problem which is a combination of people abusing the gov't services they receive and the gov't constantly widening their safety net for people who are poor. I can feel badly for anyone who is genuinely down on their luck for whatever reason, and I don't have any problem helping these folks out, but at some point the handouts have to stop and people have to step up and help themselves out of the situation they are in. Otherwise we just breed generations of people that are dependent on these handouts. And when we make living a "poor" lifestyle almost as attractive as actually working for a living, more and more people will chose the easy way out. Sooner or later the scales will tip and the outcome will not be pretty.

[Harsh_77 718]

I'm in the same position as you, and guess what? With Obamacare you and I are going to be paying more tax.

Coz if the ppl who cannot pay for the Obama care would be given Federal or State assistance to pay that…. Huh.

So I have to pay my portion of the Obama Care and then have to pay for someone else too coz they cannot pay their portion?

How does that make any sense?