Skip to main content

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amounting to roughly $48,000, along with annual property taxes in the neighborhood of $8,000. 

Accounting for these costs, even excluding the 10-percent sales tax, that worker is left with $45,661.

After accounting for $3,600 from annual utilities expenses, $5,300 for annual health insurance costs, the worker is left with $36,761 before groceries, transportation, auto insurance, maintenance and repair costs. 

After accounting for these factors and the 10-percent sales tax, the worker is left with roughly $1,000 per month for entertainment, discretionary expenses, savings and investment. 

Meanwhile, the indigent qualifies for subsidized transportation assistancesubsidized healthcaresubsidized housing and Supplemental Security Income, netting the unemployed indigent more than $1,000 of unearned income each month — in addition to a cash value greater than $3,000 for monthly healthcare and housing — to spend however he likes. 
Remain always wary of the bureaucrats' crafty attempts at substituting the word 'free' for 'subsidized.' It's everywhere an insidious means to conning the public into funding projects that would otherwise fail to interest them if they only knew how they were paying for them.
Of course, all of this is available in addition to CalFresh, formerly known as Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which covers the costs of food, rent, clothing, and other basic living expenses. Indeed, it is potentially far more lucrative to bilk the system as a family than as an individual. 

The indigent enjoys every bit of this without incurring any of the costs, responsibilities or burdens of employment, and his benefit is derived exclusively at the expense of taxpayers who fail to gain anything from the unaccountable investment, which produces nothing in return and merely bids up the prices of scare goods and services that the financiers — the taxpayers — intend to buy or rent. 

So, not only does the redistribution ensure that the indigent will make a living out of non-work, and not only does it prove a wasteful investment for the taxpayer, but the taxpayer pays doubly when he’s faced with those higher prices bid up by the indigent he was forced to support. 

As it turns out, being homeless in California is more lucrative than a $150,000-per-year job, and the professional is being dragged through the mud, fleeced and enslaved as political correctness prevents him from denouncing the fraud.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes