For all you hard working MGTOW taxpayers here's where your money goes

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhzIcD2GQ22IwGko57

You can tell by her demeanor she doesnt want to work. Second how can she give her son a better life when she can’t show him one? What can this bimbo t~~~ tell or show him? Father is a jailbird(typical) and look at all the help this lazy walrus gets,now ask yourself men if this were you what would your lovely government do for you even though you feed the machine?

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[RoyDalParticipant]

Oh, not all of the tax money goes to people like her. A nice chunk of it goes to the men with badges and guns who collect the money first.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[OneforfreedomParticipant 930]

Very humbling video. Thank you for sharing.

I just found her statement that McDonalds should give her enough money for her not to rely on the government to be slightly troubling.

They showed her budget to be ~K from income and K from government. so If she doesn’t want to rely on the government, she’s expecting K/year from McDonalds. This more than doubles what McDonalds is paying her right now. And I’m not sure she and her coworkers are entitled to such a large amount of revenue; McDonalds offered them a job and they took it; McDonalds is not a social welfare state.

[Dark KenshiParticipant 2132]

The little special snowflake does a F~~~ING bad decision, and is up to US to pay for her screw up?

No f~~~ing s~~~, woman. Men should not pay for a kid that is NOT his own.

I feel for the kid, who is an innocent in all this, but, sorry son. Your mother has just f~~~ed you up bit time.

Woman, now you HAVE to endure the bad choices you’ve made. F~~~ you.

Thanks.

"Young was I once, I walked alone, and bewildered seemed in the way; then I found me another and rich I thought me, for man is the joy of man." Odin, Hàvamàl, stanza 47.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 25018]

She has a bigger house than me, lives in the city while I’m stuck in the boonies and did you see the slightly well hidden smart phone she was teaching her child to use.

This was not unplanned. She knew that if she had a child she would only have to work part time to support it. I agree she’s raising a thug with a thug daddy alpha. And, she won’t cook so she doesn’t really care about the child.

In NYC there trying to impose free daycare from age 1 and a half.

On a positive note, as more women earn more than men it is working women that are paying for these lard asses (notice how she isn’t unfed, quite the opposite, a land whale).

Go your own way, plant a garden and let working women pay for other women to sit on their asses and pump out womb turds.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[MochaParticipant 90]

Oneforfreedom wrote:

I just found her statement that McDonalds should give her enough money for her not to rely on the government to be slightly troubling.

McDonald’s can afford to pay their workers enough to get off of government welfare, but they’d rather abuse the system to get taxpayers to absorb their payroll costs. This is, in practice, corporate welfare not social welfare.

[Cipher HighwindParticipant 1144]

To even a farthing of one’s money go to such a c~~~ cannot be a good feeling. I pity the tax victims.

[BurgundyParticipant 1525]

Can’t wait till the welfare system goes belly up.

[OneforfreedomParticipant 930]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

Go your own way, plant a garden and let working women pay for other women to sit on their asses and pump out womb turds.

Do you have a vegetable garden? I’m interested in this idea but have no clue where to begin.

Mocha wrote:

McDonald’s can afford to pay their workers enough to get off of government welfare, but they’d rather abuse the system to get taxpayers to absorb their payroll costs. This is, in practice, corporate welfare not social welfare.

See your view is that just because McDonalds CAN afford to pay workers enough that they SHOULD.

My view is that she is not entitled to anything- McDonalds does not HAVE to do anything; even if they can give her a six-figure income and still profit….the business is McDonalds. The owner of McDonalds is the one entitled to all profits and deciding the wages. If she doesn’t like that, she can leave. McDonalds owes her nothing.

[Mango IngawayParticipant 2264]

Two words: bad decisions.

It is a common failing of childhood to think that if one makes a hero out of a demon the demon will be satisfied.

[Robert HallamParticipant 696]

I actually empathise with this particular woman, She is one of the more responsible ones. But you can see it is only going to end up in a vicious cycle. And if she gets horny, you can bet she’s gonna’ have unprotected sex just to try and keep/hook a guy and then she’s pregers again by a second man. Don’t ever date a single mother. Easy sex, but a night mare.

We have much the same problem here in Western Canada with First Nations Youth. A vicious cycle.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

Oneforfreedom wrote:

H.R. Pufnstuf wrote:

Go your own way, plant a garden and let working women pay for other women to sit on their asses and pump out womb turds.

Do you have a vegetable garden? I’m interested in this idea but have no clue where to begin.

Mocha wrote:

McDonald’s can afford to pay their workers enough to get off of government welfare, but they’d rather abuse the system to get taxpayers to absorb their payroll costs. This is, in practice, corporate welfare not social welfare.

See your view is that just because McDonalds CAN afford to pay workers enough that they SHOULD.
My view is that she is not entitled to anything- McDonalds does not HAVE to do anything; even if they can give her a six-figure income and still profit….the business is McDonalds. The owner of McDonalds is the one entitled to all profits and deciding the wages. If she doesn’t like that, she can leave. McDonalds owes her nothing.

Unfortunately that was the same argument used during the industrial revolution to keep people working in factory tenemants, indebted to the company store in preptuity. Kids as young as 5 or 6 forced to clean dangerous machines that not infrequently cut their fingers/hands/arms off.

I’m all for adam smith’s free market, but it was designed to operate on the individual level. When it was published in 1776, for decades afterward you could count on your fingers the number of corporations that were allowed to be formed. They had to have a specific purpose like building a bridge etc and they had a defined lifespan.

This crap about paying slave wages and letting the welfare system pick up the difference while they pocket they money they would be forced to pay in wages if it were truly a free market is borderline fraud in my book. But what are you going to do? Eliminate welfare? Sure – you ever see the LA riots? Think Reginald Denny – coming soon to your neighborhood.

No matter how screwed up mom is, do you really want to see kids starving in the street? Really?

If there’s another solution than making these megacorps pay their fair share, I’d love to hear it. If McDonalds was a mom-n-pop operation it would be different. When you have a group of 1% that control 42% of the nation’s wealth and growing, don’t you think something’s gone a little off the rails? How much is too much? Seriously – when do we say enough is enough? When it’s half a percent controlling 60%? 80%? 95% Give me a number.

We seemed to do fine (fiscally) during the 50’s when we had a 90% top tier tax rate.

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

We did fine in the 1950’s when we had a 90% top tier tax rate.

But only about 10,000 people out of 45.6 million taxpayers, paid it. About 0.02%. On incomes of 140,000 1958 dollars (about 1,120,000 in today’s devalued fiat currency), you paid over 80%. There were a lot more tax shelters in the 1950’s also. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808

The reality is, even if you taxed those with high incomes at 100%, you couldn’t pay for the government we enjoy (or despise) in America — it’s mathematically impossible. There aren’t enough rich. As for me, I don’t feel the top 0.02% should pay any more than i do — after all, they receive the same police, fire protection, and roads.

The woman in this video is in some ways admirable — she’s working, and wants a better life for her boy. She made irresponsible decisions but is trying to build a better life for him. Even so, I’d rather see the child go out for adoption or to an orphanage if he cannot be raised without subsidies. She doesn’t seem interested in working hard to advance to a managerial position at McDonald’s. McDonald’s encourages employees to get GED’s. They recently raised wages 1 usd /hr at all their company owned stores. They pay vast amounts of taxes, and their customers pay vast amounts of sales taxes. I also think you should not receive more than ,000 (or some reasonable number) of child benefits from the government, if you want more than that you should have to agree to be sterilized before any more free money is given out.

What is the ‘fair share’ for a ‘megacorp’? Shouldn’t companies purchase the lowest cost goods, services, and labor? When I buy something for my company, that’s what I do! Otherwise the company couldn’t make a profit.

As for marginal tax rates, before 1913, the federal income tax rate was 0%. People seemed to get along okay. Granted, we couldn’t have all those fun wars, foreign aid, welfare state, farm subsidies, social security, medicare, medicaid, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Health & Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, etc. In those bad old days, if we wanted something, we had to WORK for it!

Keymaster: Why can’t I type a dollar sign in a post? Does it need escaped?

[LowKeyParticipant 702]

Kid has an iPhone at the age of 1, geezus I had a gerber and beat up toy plastic car when I was that age

Don't let defeat, defeat you; Let defeat be your greatest teacher.

[AngularParticipant 114]

Well tbh shes above-normal in responsibility i can find you one with 14 kids who says” my children are hungry and someone has to pay for them”
Some nerve on these women, at least this one has a job and only 1 kid thats commendable, but who knows maybe someone will hear her story and get her out of this situation and making society forget about the millions of women who made bad decisions and they are just disasters.

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Oneforfreedom wrote:

If there’s another solution than making these megacorps pay their fair share, I’d love to hear it. If McDonalds was a mom-n-pop operation it would be different. When you have a group of 1% that control 42% of the nation’s wealth and growing, don’t you think something’s gone a little off the rails? How much is too much? Seriously – when do we say enough is enough? When it’s half a percent controlling 60%? 80%? 95% Give me a number.
We seemed to do fine (fiscally) during the 50’s when we had a 90% top tier tax rate.

I wanted to address a couple points here. Yes, we did fine in the 1950’s when we had a 90% top tier tax rate.

But how many people actually earned enough to be taxed above 80%? Answer: About 10,000 taxpayers out of 45.6 million total — about 0.02%. And at what income did one pay over 80%? Over $140,000 in 1950 dollars — about 8 times that in today’s fiat-currency dollars, due to inflation. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808?mg=id-wsj

Unfortunately, you cannot soak the rich enough to pay for the Big Government we enjoy (or despise, in my case) today. So you HAVE to tax the Little People like me at high marginal rates, or your house of Big Government income transfer cards falls down. My income is far from the top 0.02%, but I don’t think they should pay ANY more than me. Why? They aren’t getting any more roads, police protection, fire protection, etc than I am! In fact, I believe there should be a CAP above which you pay no more income tax. I’m not jealous of those high earners.

As for the woman in this video, I actually respect her — she DOES work — which puts her above a significant fraction of my fellow Americans who are leaches! She made some very irresponsible decisions to have a child she couldn’t afford with a thug. But she seemed to be living modestly, sharing rent with a sister, and trying to make a better life for her son. I do think she needs a different attitude to work, though — McDonald’s PROMOTES it’s employees. She should strive to become a manager.

I do wonder, though, if it would be better if the child were put up for adoption or put in an orphanage, rather than subsidizing this woman.

What is a ‘fair share’? Is not McDonald’s paying vast amounts of sales and income taxes? McDonald’s pays the going rate for labor — the least it has to. Just like when I go shopping, I try to pay minimum price for products, or when I buy goods and services for my employer. You’re basically advocating State controlled or State owned enterprises that are managed based upon politics rather than profit.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Mocha wrote:

McDonald’s can afford to pay their workers enough to get off of government welfare, but they’d rather abuse the system to get taxpayers to absorb their payroll costs. This is, in practice, corporate welfare not social welfare.

Funny, I don’t see you sending her a check out of your income. And yet you feel entitled to tell others what they should do with theirs?

McDonald’s operates on a franchise basis. She is not employed by McDonald’s. She is employed by a McDonald’s franchise. And the average franchise makes around $125,000 a year in profit, only a portion of which becomes actual income for the franchise owner. You can make more money as a plumber than a McDonald’s franchise owner with a hell of a lot less risk and liability. So no, “McDonald’s” can not afford to be a socialist sugar daddy for minimum wage workers, especially when those workers make irresponsible choices like having children they are incapable of supporting.

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

No matter how screwed up mom is, do you really want to see kids starving in the street? Really?

“Want” has nothing to do with anything.

As long as women continue to irresponsibly have children they are incapable of feeding, we will have starving children.

Abstinence is free. Birth control is cheap (and “free” if you are female). Abortions are legal. Women have ZERO excuses for having children they cannot feed.

[Anonymous 11]

She’s young enough to go get more education which would be free for her. My biggest problem with her is that she is not putting any effort into furthering her skills. Depending on McDonalds is not exactly a good long term strategy, Why should she care? She has all of her basic needs taken care of by the State.

[Cipher HighwindParticipant 1144]

Biggvs_Dickvs, you are a baboon’s ass: red and full of it.

A – Federal revenue as a percent of GDP has averaged around 17%, undulating between 15% and 20%. This is notwithstanding the top marginal income tax rate.

B – I will not be extorted by gutter rats and their spawn in order to legitimise this country’s bloated welfare state that disproportionately favours females. Their kids are not my problem; she should have though about that before being knocked up by a bum. I say bring on the riots; the gene pool could use some chlorine.

C – Re. labour conditions – volenti non fit injuria.

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

Cipher: I pretty much agree with you 100%, except I think your statement about federal revenue comprising 15 and 20% requires qualification.

Before the mid 1930’s, it was 5%. Then it shot up and stayed in the range you indicate: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFRGDA188S — I realize this is a long time ago, but what I’m getting at, government was much smaller only 100-120 years ago. It grew with the World Wars and never shrank back down.

Total US Government revenue rose from 7% in 1900 to over 35% today: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

I agree about the top marginal rates not having much impact. Soaking the rich won’t make an unsustainable system, sustainable. Even if it did, it’s unethical in my opinion.

And unfortunately, you are and will be exploited by gutter rats and their spawn, at least if you work in the taxable economy like I do. It’s not as though we have much choice. My co-workers laugh when I bandy about words like ‘extortion’ and call registration and permit fees ‘protection money’ and call government programs ‘rackets’ — literally using terms of organized crime to discuss the State and its apparatchiks. They prefer polite terms like ‘income tax witholding’. I wonder what they say when I leave the room, I’ve even described municipalities as a mayor’s ‘Gangland territory’ or ‘turf’. haha!

The direct language you use to describe these behaviors bring to mind another important point: There is no SHAME in collecting benefits today. And no PRIDE or RESPECT for working for what you have nowadays. Indeed, in a typical discussion, YOU would be shamed for use of these terms, but the recipients of bennies would NEVER be shamed! Think about that for a minute. How wrong is it that the guy paying for SNAP, AFDC, etc, gets shamed for describing it for what it is?

Sadly, the riots are mis-directed — typically, at businesses in urban poor communities, and at whites. The real culprits are the government handouts that foster generational dependencies, and the War on Drugs — the invisible (to the media and public) 500 lb gorilla in the room. While I object to unjustified police violence, and believe it ought to be punished, it is a statistically insignificant problem in America. The problem with news in America is not only HOW stories are covered, but even more importantly, WHAT stories receive coverage and attention. Policemen killing a handful of black men every year, is NOT what is keeping the black man down in America. It is the destruction of the family and personal responsibility. I know several black women that are raising their GRANDCHILDREN because of two generations of irresponsible children… Terms have been removed from the modern politically correct dialogue — terms like ‘vagrant’, ‘indigent’, etc.

As for C, I studied Latin in High School, and I love your comment. Yes, you enter employment voluntarily, you can quit at any time if you don’t like the conditions. And your employer can fire you at any time (at least in States like where I live; it is an ‘at will’ State).

[Author]

Posts