DomAviator
Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet
So let me get this straight DA. Are you saying that you have no problem with these two people staying single, living in seperate places, and getting their legally entitled SSI/SSD? As boy friend and girl friend they can get X amount of cash as long as they live in seperate housing but should get less if they live together as a couple?
Hell, love happens and most people want to shack up. Living together and not claiming each other as dependents is not illegal. Many Senior Citizen couples live this way because Marriage or Common Law loweres their Social Security income. There's no social security fraud or illegalities here with deciding to just live together. It's not a scam nor a bypass of the law. Instead, it is the law that you can choose not to be married by the State/Government and still get your original SSI/SSD income. If you think that just living together should be illegal, then write your congressman or bring it up as a question at the next presidential debate.
For now, this situation is proof that the US government does not truely support marriage.
First of all - as for the first part - yes that is EXACTLY what I am saying. The law provides benefits based on the # of persons in the household. Jack living at 123 Main Street gets X and Jill living at 456 Main Street also gets X. When you become "Jack and Jill" at one address you are a two person family unit you get Y, which is not X twice. The reason this is calculated this way is because traditionally a married couple supports ONE household and hence pays only one rent, one water, one electric, one phone, etc.... The adjusted difference is to accomadate the increase of a second person in that ONE household not the maintenence of two households.
As a point of fact, living together and not reporting your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME when living off the tit of the American taxpayer, is illegal. It is fraud. I can live with Britt if we so choose until one of us dies of old age and thats legal and I have no problem with it. Ive got my salary that I draw from the biz, and shes got her 42K from the school district and we are actually paying in not taking out. It changes when you start sucking the system.
HOWEVER, if she were to decide that teaching has given her "anxiety disorder" so she can no longer work, and to move in with me and attempt to obtain benefits as a single person househol when she did not actually have any living expenses whatsoever because shes living in my house she would be a criminal. What is your monthly rent? Nothing my bf owns the house! Utility bills? Dunno he pays them. Yeah right, those answers would get her bennies wouldnt they? Ah but alas if she were to conveniently neglect to mention me, she would be rolling in the bennies until such time as someone called the 800 # and got her ass picked up by the IG as it should be.
What this question proposed is "double dipping" getting the American taxpayer to foot the bill to feed, house, clothe, shelter, and care for two parasites living on two separate host organisms when in reality Uncle Sam need only provide one dog for them to suck the life blood from. One person household X dollars, two person household Y dollars not XX dollars. Then to add insult to injury - the name change??? So they dont even appear to be "shacking up" which I have no problem with anyway??? Yeah thats right hunny I love you so much that were gonna go to walmart buy us two rings, cohabitate, and even use the same last name... Everything ya get from being married - except the reduction in benefits that comes from anally raping the American taxpayer to support one two person household instead of two individual households....
Thank God some states like Texas still have common law marriage.... Because at least this little scam would buy them federal prison time for social security fraud here. See, in Texas they WOULD be married despite their little attempt not to. They would have met the three part test:
1) The must have agreed to be married. (Which their little ceremony would cover)
2) They must have held themselves out as married. (The name change or saying this is my wife will cover that)
3) Theyt must have cohabitated in the state.
VOILA! Pull that shit in Texas and congrats felons, you are actually married and fraudulently collecting bennies as two singles.
As for the assetion that a reduction in bennies means "the US Govt is antimarriage" that is utterly absurd. Its simple math, it costs less to maintain one house with two people than it costs to maintain two houses. Food costs and other incrimentals go up proportionately but overall living expenses are not doubled. Before my divorce I had three additional people living with me - speaking of essentials only (ie not the cost of Louis Vuitton purses, designer clothes for a wife and two kids, piano lessons, martial arts classes, happy meals, etc but just food, utilities, etc) my monthly cost savings after they moved out was around 10%. Conversely, then my incremental cost for adding the essentials for 3 additonal people was an increase of 10% over my single living cost. Thus, were I living paycheck to paycheck I would have needed a 10% raise, not a 300% raise for the additional three people. My mortgage payment remains constant regardless of the number of people living here, my house is airconditioned to 68 degrees whether I am not home, I am home alone, I am here with Britt, or I have the whole fucking neighborhood over. DirectTV is not priced "per viewer" and Vonage doesnt care how many people use the phone.....
Britt could move in tommorrow, and I wouldnt have to double my income! All I really have to cover is food, a little more water from a couple of extra toilet flushes and another shower a day, a slight increase in electric usage from appliances she uses that I dont like curling irons and a blow drier. etc... THAT is how the govt formula works, and it is correct. Teh get more money than either would individually, but less than both separately. BUT they arent living seperately, so to collect more than the joint benefit is fraud and they deserve prison time.
< Message edited by DomAviator -- 7/20/2008 1:07:37 AM >
|
Marrage - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread