Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Coito ergo sum]

You have no idea whether she cleans her house. Some wealthy folks do engage in homemaking tasks, and don't leave it all to assistants. Although, having an assistant in the house with five kids, if one has the means, is not a crime.

I don't give a rats ass if she cleans her house or not, and I never said it was a crime to hire help.

You're the one who said you were wondering about it.

I also said I don't give a rats ass if she did or not. I really think we have a communication problem.

The communication problem is yours. You wondered about it in one post. I responded. Then you said you didn't give a rats ass. Time runs in a linear fashion so future events follow past events.

[Coito ergo sum]

The vast majority of illegal domestic workers are running their own businesses.

non taxable cash. it's business in name only, not on books. I've known quite a few, so I do know something on the subject.

Which is a boon to them, since they would normally be taxed on that money, they pocket it.

Cash is not "nontaxable." It is completely taxable, and subject to tax. What they do is commit the crime of tax evasion by not declaring their cash income. Nothing is stopping them from filing accurate tax returns.

And, cash businesses are just as much businesses as other businesses. The hot dog vendor who only takes cash is running a business. Same with illegals who clean houses.

[Coito ergo sum]

Either way, you don't know what you're talking about, because the vast majority of cleaning people work independently and are hired by the average person who needs a cleaning service, and nobody verifies their citizenship, so they charge the going rate, which isn't cheap. And, you don't have any idea whether the Romneys are employing an illegal alien or underpaying them. It's just more nonsense

YES I DO know what I'm talking about because I ran a cleaning service when I lived in NY. And, I repeat, it's good, clean non taxable cash. I never said anyone verifies their citizenship. And I never said the Romneys are employing illegal alien or underpaying them, as a fact.

So it's just more of your twisted nonsense.

So, just what did you mean when you wrote this: "So, has Mrs. Romney cleaned her house yet? Or does she have an illegal maid working 24/7 for $1 a day.?"

Squirm all you want. You said it.

[kiki5711]

The vast majority of illegal domestic workers are running their own businesses.

non taxable cash. it's business in name only, not on books. I've known quite a few, so I do know something on the subject.

Which is a boon to them, since they would normally be taxed on that money, they pocket it.

Cash is not "nontaxable." It is completely taxable, and subject to tax. What they do is commit the crime of tax evasion by not declaring their cash income. Nothing is stopping them from filing accurate tax returns.

And, cash businesses are just as much businesses as other businesses. The hot dog vendor who only takes cash is running a business. Same with illegals who clean houses.

ANd this is all new information how exactly?

[kiki5711]

Either way, you don't know what you're talking about, because the vast majority of cleaning people work independently and are hired by the average person who needs a cleaning service, and nobody verifies their citizenship, so they charge the going rate, which isn't cheap. And, you don't have any idea whether the Romneys are employing an illegal alien or underpaying them. It's just more nonsense

YES I DO know what I'm talking about because I ran a cleaning service when I lived in NY. And, I repeat, it's good, clean non taxable cash. I never said anyone verifies their citizenship. And I never said the Romneys are employing illegal alien or underpaying them, as a fact.

So it's just more of your twisted nonsense.

So, just what did you mean when you wrote this: "So, has Mrs. Romney cleaned her house yet? Or does she have an illegal maid working 24/7 for $1 a day.?"

Squirm all you want. You said it.

I think you really don't understand my way of expressing myself.

Did anyone else think that I was seriously posing this as a debatable question?

[Coito ergo sum]

The vast majority of illegal domestic workers are running their own businesses.

non taxable cash. it's business in name only, not on books. I've known quite a few, so I do know something on the subject.

Which is a boon to them, since they would normally be taxed on that money, they pocket it.

Cash is not "nontaxable." It is completely taxable, and subject to tax. What they do is commit the crime of tax evasion by not declaring their cash income. Nothing is stopping them from filing accurate tax returns.

And, cash businesses are just as much businesses as other businesses. The hot dog vendor who only takes cash is running a business. Same with illegals who clean houses.

ANd this is all new information how exactly?

Well, you said it was "non taxable cash," so apparently it's new information to you, since it is not at all "non taxable."

You said that it is a "business in name only, not on books," which is completely wrong, since cash businesses are just as much "on the books" businesses as any other business. So, apparently, that is news to you too.

[Coito ergo sum]

Either way, you don't know what you're talking about, because the vast majority of cleaning people work independently and are hired by the average person who needs a cleaning service, and nobody verifies their citizenship, so they charge the going rate, which isn't cheap. And, you don't have any idea whether the Romneys are employing an illegal alien or underpaying them. It's just more nonsense

YES I DO know what I'm talking about because I ran a cleaning service when I lived in NY. And, I repeat, it's good, clean non taxable cash. I never said anyone verifies their citizenship. And I never said the Romneys are employing illegal alien or underpaying them, as a fact.

So it's just more of your twisted nonsense.

So, just what did you mean when you wrote this: "So, has Mrs. Romney cleaned her house yet? Or does she have an illegal maid working 24/7 for $1 a day.?"

Squirm all you want. You said it.

I think you really don't understand my way of expressing myself.

Did anyone else think that I was seriously posing this as a debatable question?

Oops, my bad. There I go ruining the thread again, trying to substantively discuss the OP on the "Serious Stuff - News, Current Events and Politics" section of the forum.

[kiki5711]

Well, you said it was "non taxable cash," so apparently it's new information to you, since it is not at all "non taxable."

You said that it is a "business in name only, not on books," which is completely wrong, since cash businesses are just as much "on the books" businesses as any other business. So, apparently, that is news to you too.

It's taxable if you include it as your income on tax returns. If you don't, than it's just extra cash in your pocket. I did not keep any books, but I kept the cash.

So apparently, you misunderstood me again.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, you said it was "non taxable cash," so apparently it's new information to you, since it is not at all "non taxable."

You said that it is a "business in name only, not on books," which is completely wrong, since cash businesses are just as much "on the books" businesses as any other business. So, apparently, that is news to you too.

It's taxable if you include it as your income on tax returns. If you don't, than it's just extra cash in your pocket. I did not keep any books, but I kept the cash.

So apparently, you misunderstood me again.

It's taxable whether or not you include it as income on your tax returns. It's tax evasion if you don't include it.

It's easy to misunderstand you when you use words incorrectly. Cash is not "nontaxable" no matter what you do with it. If it's income, it's taxable. Whether you commit tax evasion or not is your call -- the money remains taxable.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, if you want to get back on track with the OP you could respond to some of my previous posts?

If you feel like it. Otherwise I'll just move on...

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, if you want to get back on track with the OP you could respond to some of my previous posts?

If you feel like it. Otherwise I'll just move on...

I did get back on track. Others derailed it again, but I should probably move on from discussing kiki's posts at all. They don't seem to relate to anything.

I did not mean to ignore your posts. I am sure I responded to you on this thread. Remember, I was gone about a week after being told I ruined the thread by posting too much. Then nobody, including the person who chastized me, discussed the issue further. So, for some reason, we had a person come to a thread she had no interest in actually participating in, berate a member, and then kill the serious discussion of the OP.

The last thing you posted is here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172856 (that link includes my response to it - you didn't, as far as I can tell, comment after that).

The next two of your previous posts - going back to May 2 - are here -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1172355 - and so are my responses.

Anyway -- that's a while back, so I'm not sure what I missed. But, It seems to me that I addressed the things you raised. If there is something I missed, let me know. I would love to give you the courtesy of a polite reply.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, if you want to get back on track with the OP you could respond to some of my previous posts?

If you feel like it. Otherwise I'll just move on...

I did get back on track. Others derailed it again, but I should probably move on from discussing kiki's posts at all. They don't seem to relate to anything.

I did not mean to ignore your posts. I am sure I responded to you on this thread. Remember, I was gone about a week after being told I ruined the thread by posting too much. Then nobody, including the person who chastized me, discussed the issue further. So, for some reason, we had a person come to a thread she had no interest in actually participating in, berate a member, and then kill the serious discussion of the OP.

The last thing you posted is here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172856 (that link includes my response to it - you didn't, as far as I can tell, comment after that).

The next two of your previous posts - going back to May 2 - are here -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1172355 - and so are my responses.

Anyway -- that's a while back, so I'm not sure what I missed. But, It seems to me that I addressed the things you raised. If there is something I missed, let me know. I would love to give you the courtesy of a polite reply.

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172945

[hadespussercats]

Coito, if you want to get back on track with the OP you could respond to some of my previous posts?

If you feel like it. Otherwise I'll just move on...

I did get back on track. Others derailed it again, but I should probably move on from discussing kiki's posts at all. They don't seem to relate to anything.

I did not mean to ignore your posts. I am sure I responded to you on this thread. Remember, I was gone about a week after being told I ruined the thread by posting too much. Then nobody, including the person who chastized me, discussed the issue further. So, for some reason, we had a person come to a thread she had no interest in actually participating in, berate a member, and then kill the serious discussion of the OP.

The last thing you posted is here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172856 (that link includes my response to it - you didn't, as far as I can tell, comment after that).

The next two of your previous posts - going back to May 2 - are here -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1172355 - and so are my responses.

Anyway -- that's a while back, so I'm not sure what I missed. But, It seems to me that I addressed the things you raised. If there is something I missed, let me know. I would love to give you the courtesy of a polite reply.

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172945

Oh. And please consider this: http://www.change.org/petitions/don-t-s ... oms-credit
in your response.

[Coito ergo sum]

By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."

Well. Not precisely.

Let's reverse the sex roles in a hypothetical scenario-- you and your wife have twins. Before they were born, you both had jobs outside the home. But they take a lot of time and attention, and for various reasons you've discussed between the two of you, you decide they shouldn't go into daycare when they're so small (maybe they were born a little early, being twins... whatever. You get the idea.)

For various reasons, you guys decide that trying to breastfeed two little twins is more trouble than it's worth, so you decide to bottle-feed. This frees your wife to go back to work, full-time. Maybe she's been offered a promotion she'd like to take. You decide between the two of you that you will stay home with the twins until they're in school.

You need new shoes. Who pays for them? You need to pay for your share of the family's lodgings (rent, mortgage, whatever)-- your wife pays for all of it. You want a new laptop. Your wife pays for it.

Is this all just generosity on your wife's part towards you? Some, maybe, but not all, right? You're taking care of important, labor-intensive, time-intensive work your family must have. Aren't you getting paid for your time?

No.

Surely, in your example, my wife isn't doing "nothing" when she comes home. Maybe she helps with the dishes, cooks the occasional meal, does some work around the house to "pitch in" even though I am the main homemaker. We get in some fights here and there, because she's not "helping out" enough at home, from time to time -- that sort of thing. Yet, we don't deduct any "pay" from what I get, because she's pitching in on the house and child care. There is no hourly pay assigned to these homelife tasks. It's a division of labor around the home. In our case, in the example you gave, we chose to have twins, and we opted for one of us to not be gainfully employed.

The basic gist of it is -- there are no hours being clocked. All that is being done is what we choose to do with our lives.

And if not, shouldn't you be?

"Should" is a tricky word sometimes. Should or shouldn't I be paid for my time in doing the things I choose to do. Cleaning the house. Cooking. Doing the laundry. Changing diapers. Etc.

Well, if my wife and I were of a mind to doing that, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I.e., if my wife and I agreed that we'd assign an hourly rate for my work, and I'd give weekly progress reports to her to make sure I'm not goldbricking, and that sort of thing, and then she'd pay me, and that's the money I have to work with, I guess there is nothing "wrong" with that.

That being said, to make a legal requirement of it is really ludicrous. One, in a marriage, when one person works and earns money, that money is legally BOTH of theirs. If my wife and I filed for divorce, anything accumulated or earned during the marriage would be as much mine as hers. Just because my wife brings home the bacon doesn't mean I can't legally spend it without her permission. The idea of a spouse paying another spouse implies that the spouse who earns the wages in the outside work has a greater right to that money than the stay at home spouse, and the stay at home spouse is only being allocated some of it based on some agreed upon metric. That isn't the case. In my view, when two people are married, if one works and makes $100,000 and the other makes $100,000 the two of them have $200,000. If one makes $100,000 and the other makes $50,000, then they both have $150,000. If one makes $100,000 and the other makes $0, then they both have $100,000. They divvy up the house work and child care as they see fit, as they arrange between themselves.

Lastly, I assumed you meant that I should be paid by my wife, which I obviously disagree with. If there is someone else that you're suggestion should pay the wages, I'll address that to.

I wan't saying anything at all about what your wife does or doesn't do when she comes home. Sure, people take care of their homes and families when they're not at an out-of-the-home job. I'm talking about the 8+ hours a day you are on duty while she's out.

As for legal requirements, what do you think alimony is?

Within a marriage, do you think one partner should have to ask another if it's okay to buy something? what determines who does the asking, and who gives permission (this is inside a marriage-- I'm not talking about legalities here.)

Are new shoes different from a house? And if your wife keeps an account in her name only, in which she puts all her earnings, you may have legal right to that money, but how do you get it, without having to ask for it (or getting a lawyer?) Should you have to ask her if you can get new shoes for you and the kids? (for example?) Isn't that degrading?

Why do you think conventional legal marriage makes the partners an economic unit?

You didn't answer the "who pays?" question, and whether that means, if one spouse pays the other for the housework, whether that absolves the paying spouse from having to do anything? How is the amount of work and the wage to be set?

Why do I think conventional legal marriage makes the partners an economic unit? In terms of property distribution, a divorce is splitting up the economic unit of a marriage. So, I think that, because the law says so. I also see that as making rational sense, because it ought not be possible for spouses to come to an arrangement for dividing up income producing work, and other work like child care, in a certain way, and then having one spouse who foregoes income producing activities in favor of child care being left in the lurch - remember the one that stays home and takes care of the kid not only foregoes income, but benefits, social security, unemployment compensation eligibility, and all sorts of other long term things. I also think it makes little sense to set one spouse up as the employer of the other. The one paying the salary is the one who gives the orders. If my wife in your example doesn't like the quality of my homemaking work, then what does she do? Dock my wages? Have a "come to Jesus" meeting with me? Discipline me? Fire me?

Most of these ideas of paying a spouse to stay home, however, either don't specify who pays, or are really looking for stay at home spouses to get checks from the government for doing what everybody has to do - take care of their home and family.


You said, "I wasn't saying anything at all about what your wife does or doesn't do when she comes home. Sure, people take care of their homes and families when they're not at an out-of-the-home job. I'm talking about the 8+ hours a day you are on duty while she's out. " Those aren't separate issues. If my wife comes home, and there is still stuff left for her to do, then maybe I haven't been doing my job. Being "on duty" is not necessarily working. If my wife is paying, then I'm sure she'll want me to get to work in the morning, take a 15 minute break in the morning, take a 1/2 hour lunch, and another 15 minute break in the afternoon, and put in the rest of the time actually working. If I can't clean a house, take of a child, and have dinner ready when my wife comes home, then she may well think she's not getting her money's worth. If she has to do work around the house after she comes home from work, then I've obviously not gotten it done, so she may want a credit back for idle hours spent during the day. Maybe she'll set up room-cams in our house, so she can review my work during the day, to make sure my efficiency is at a reasonable level.

What do I think alimony is? It's not payment for housework. Alimony is a payment from one spouse who has the "ability to pay" some money towards the upkeep and maintenance of another spouse who has a "need" (meaning he or she can't handle their own living expenses for either a temporary, or less commonly a permanent basis. The idea of alimony is exactly what I described when referring to the assets and income of spouses being BOTH of theirs. So, if I stayed home with the kids for 10 years, and was out of the job market and took care of the home and family instead, and then my wife ditches me, it's not fair that she leave me high-and-dry. That's the same argument that women have made forever. They "work" at home and with the family, and if a guy takes his six figure salary away, and leaves her with nothing, she'd be eating off a hot-plate in a basement apartment working for minimum wage.

As far as what arrangements spouses make between each other, they can do as they please. I think most people do make distinctions between shoes and houses, since a house is a major purchase. However, legally, one spouse can take the 100,000 dollar savings they have in a joint account and spend it all or gamble it away. It's both of their money. If they have separate accounts in their name, then of course, the one not on the account isn't going to be allowed to withdraw funds. BUT, if they were to split up, even accounts in their own names are part of the marital estate - and will be added together and divided up. So, if the "earning" spouse has $100,000 in an account in her own name, and I have no account of my own, and we divorce, then I'm entitled 1/2 that money in a community property state, and an "equitable" portion (which could conceivably be more than half, or less, depending on the facts and circumstances) in an equitable distribution state.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, if you want to get back on track with the OP you could respond to some of my previous posts?

If you feel like it. Otherwise I'll just move on...

I did get back on track. Others derailed it again, but I should probably move on from discussing kiki's posts at all. They don't seem to relate to anything.

I did not mean to ignore your posts. I am sure I responded to you on this thread. Remember, I was gone about a week after being told I ruined the thread by posting too much. Then nobody, including the person who chastized me, discussed the issue further. So, for some reason, we had a person come to a thread she had no interest in actually participating in, berate a member, and then kill the serious discussion of the OP.

The last thing you posted is here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172856 (that link includes my response to it - you didn't, as far as I can tell, comment after that).

The next two of your previous posts - going back to May 2 - are here -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1172355 - and so are my responses.

Anyway -- that's a while back, so I'm not sure what I missed. But, It seems to me that I addressed the things you raised. If there is something I missed, let me know. I would love to give you the courtesy of a polite reply.

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172945

Oh. And please consider this: http://www.change.org/petitions/don-t-s ... oms-credit
in your response.

I don't get why your posting that.

I would think you'd be all in favor of the CARD Act in that regard.

Anyway, the Card Act does have stay at home moms (AND STAY AT HOME DADS - I fucking hate how these issues are always phrased in sexist manner) only relying on their own personal income if they apply for a credit card -- but, of course, that is if the husband is not a cosigner on the account. So, the idea is that one spouse, who has no income, can't get a credit card that he has no income to pay, and then charge up the card, and there would be nothing the credit card company could do, because unless they have the other spouse signed on the dotted line, they can't collect from the other spouse's income.