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

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

The Cost of Government is What It Spends, Not What It Taxes

The cost of government is the quantity it spends, not the quantity it taxes; that cost representing the financial burden imposed upon those who pay the taxes and all who transact within that economy or through its common currency. Likewise, governments can either take the people’s money through taxation or they can take the people’s purchasing power through money-printing (or the like).  Therefore, the argument against tax cuts requires further context to appreciate why tax cuts have failed and will continue to fail to deliver economic growth, especially where those tax cuts promote or serve excess indulgence and cheap speculation. In short, it’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive, or that reducing the tax liability of the wealthiest in society “doesn’t work”; rather, the fact is that the public debt is so high that the country simply cannot afford those tax cuts without defaulting on its debts or — which is the same — covering them through inflation (i.e. money-printing,...