Here Are The 47% Of The Population Who Don't Pay Federal Income Tax

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

It's called Living within one's means.

Novel idea, eh?

It's more than that. Look at how many of the "Working poor" are under employed by choices? Look at how many have failed to graduate High school. How many had kids they cannot afford? Made bad choice or the use of drugs or alcohol?

Add to the The minimum wage laws that require business to hire only people who will produce enough to cover that cost. Then all the other regulations on race and sexual orientation and it takes even more out of their pockets.

I have a few Friends that are in the lower half of the IQ range. Hard working good people. Most have a decent quality of life and do not begrudge my success. I also have a number of people I know who had all sorts of capability and squandered it through bad choice's. And then a very few more that have it all and are on top of the world.

Life is not fair. No matter what Phil and the rest of the left want it will not happen. By punishing those of use who either by Natural selection or luck or hard work got ours so that they can make it better for those that did not get the breaks is just plain arrogance.

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Phil, beleive it or not I do appreciate the response here. I am going to be busy this afternoon and evening and from 7 am to 11pm tomorrow. I will take the time to craft a thought out response Friday.

while you are driving to the beach? that new benz got auto-pilot?

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by TxAg

You're switching gears now.

You stated his statement would hurt him.

That's completely different than his message to voters.

Lets try it this way; His message is getting buried by his slip of the tongue, regardless of his intent.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

This is a classic example of Liberal Hypocrisy.
Darwinism must be taught in schools but they don't want it to happening real like.,

Some people are born stupid, Some people are born lazy. Some are born stupid and lazy. Why is it our responsibility to feed and cloth them?

And what happened BEFORE big government? Were there bodies stacked in the streets? People dieing of malnutrition? NO they lived with less and worked two jobs. It sucked but thats life.

Because if you don't help feed and cloth them, they will be breaking into our houses to feed and cloth themselves.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Because if you don't help feed and cloth them, they will be breaking into our houses to feed and cloth themselves.

So, do I understand the reason you support helping feed and cloth them is so YOUR shit doesnt get fucked up?

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So, do I understand the reason you support helping feed and cloth them is so YOUR shit doesnt get fucked up?

And because he thinks they'll be criminals.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

And because he thinks they'll be criminals.

There would probably be some element of that. I don't know how much, but some. Desperate people CAN be dangerous.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Because if you don't help feed and cloth them, they will be breaking into our houses to feed and cloth themselves.

Bullshit. Prove your point. During the Depressions we had in the USA the crime rate did not change significantly. The ONLY thing that has really driven the crime rate up is Single mother households. And You know thats due to the Welfare state.

Come back when you have Facts instead of the Liberal Bullshit you keep throwing at us.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Bullshit. Prove your point. During the Depressions we had in the USA the crime rate did not change significantly. The ONLY thing that has really driven the crime rate up is Single mother households. And You know thats due to the Welfare state.

These are vastly different times compared to the 30's. There's a lot less personal responsibility these days.

You have any statistics to support your claim on the single mother household position? If you don't, that's cool. That just makes it your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Because if you don't help feed and cloth them, they will be breaking into our houses to feed and cloth themselves.

Now who's generalizing? Is it your position that the poor are thieves at heart? Maybe, just maybe if we take their entitlements away some may go to work.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

These are vastly different times compared to the 30's. There's a lot less personal responsibility these days.

You have any statistics to support your claim on the single mother household position? If you don't, that's cool. That just makes it your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

First off HE MADE THE statement that if we end social programs crime would go up. He needs to prove HIS statement.

I have posted this dozens of time. He refuse to read it or acknowledge what the NAACP and HHS found.
Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime - June 7, 1995

Testimony

of

Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
Cato Institute

before the

Subcommittee on Youth Violence
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime

June 7, 1995


Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee:

My name is Michael Tanner and I am the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on an issue of extreme importance to the American people. There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the "war on drugs." But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention -- the relationship between the welfare state and crime.

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:


The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)

Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.

Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.

Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.

Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)

I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)

As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.

Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.

The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)

Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)

Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)

Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today. Exactly how welfare should be reformed is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this hearing. The Cato Institute's position, however, is well known. Our research indicates that the current federal welfare system cannot be reformed. Accordingly, we have suggested that federal funding of welfare should be ended and responsibility for charity should be shifted first to the states and eventually to the private sector.(18)

In conclusion, let me simple say that, whatever Congress eventually decides to do in the way of welfare reform, I hope that you will recognize the disastrous consequences of our current welfare system. The status quo is plainly and simply unacceptable. The relationship between our failed social welfare system and juvenile violence and crime is one more urgent reason for reform.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Homicide Rates 1900-1990
And another of murder rate over time

A: Massive urbanization. America changes from mainly farmers to mainly city dwellers. Massive immigration of European groups that had been suppressed for generations by landlords, the government and the church. A small percentage of some immigration groups react to their newfound "liberation" by becoming criminals. The dislocations of WWII were follwed by the easy money of bootlegging.

B: The murder rate from 1870 to 1905 was slightly under or slightly over 1 per 100,000. During this time anyone, balck, white, immigrant, a 14 year old, etc. could buy a firearm anywhere and anytime. If "guns cause murder" as the anti-freedom groups say, why was the murder rate so low when anyone and everyone could buy firearms? It is self-evident that whatever factors increase the murder rate, the open and free sale of firearms is NOT one of them.

C: If "poverty causes crime" as the left-wing anti-guns groups say, why was there a 45% DECREASE in murders during some of the worst years of the great depression?

D: Prohibition repealed. The murder rate DECREASES by 50% between 1933 & 1958. During this time, any adult could buy any kind of firearm, even mail-order purchase of firearms.

E: The landmark 1968 Gun Control Bill is passed. Congress promises the American people this bill will end gun violence in America.

F: The "drug culture" takes hold and the "drug wars" start.

G: Ten million soldiers return to America and leave the armes services after WWII. Many also return after the Korean War. Many undreds of thousands bring back "souvenirs" of every kind, including fully automatic machine guns. Millions of military surplus firearms come into America, literally by the shipload and are sold on the open market. If "guns cause crime" as the gun control groups contend, there should have been and explosion of murder during this time.

H: The 1960 to 1980 period is a mirror image of 1905 to 1933. This time it was the massive urbanization of the Black population, plus renewed massive immigration. As in the 1905-1933 period, a small percentage of the newly "liberated" groups turned to professional crime. The crime family bootleg wars were duplicated by the drug wars. The black drug war criminal gangs of today, like the Sicilian, Italian and Irish gangs of the 1920's will eventually settle down, a process that appears to have already started in the 1980's. The decriminalization of "diet pills" would probably lower the murder rate. Not to the same degree as the repeal of prohibition, but it would help

[VITE1]

Some more.

Homicide and Suicide in America, 1900-1998 | Hacienda Publishing

http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12...ime-in-us.html

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Because if you don't help feed and cloth them, they will be breaking into our houses to feed and cloth themselves.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Because if you don't help feed and cloth them, they will be breaking into our houses to feed and cloth themselves.

This comment is pure .

Not so much because it is absolutely ridiculous (which it is), but because it shows just how delusionally supercilious you really are and just how much you look down on those who are not as well off as you.


When combined with this gem:

These are the hard working Americans that bust their ass so you and I can live comfortable lives.

... it becomes even more clear just how much better you think you are.

Good thing all of these helpless inferiors have people like you to stick up for them.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

This comment is pure .

Not so much because it is absolutely ridiculous (which it is), but because it shows just how delusionally supercilious you really are and just how much you look down on those who are not as well off as you.


When combined with this gem:



... it becomes even more clear just how much better you think you are.

Good thing all of these helpless inferiors have people like you to stick up for them.

My comments are not mutually exclusive. There are millions of hard working Americans earning minimum wage or close to it. They get by with government assistance. If that were to end, some of those people may look at other desperate options.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

My comments are not mutually exclusive. There are millions of hard working Americans earning minimum wage or close to it. They get by with government assistance. If that were to end, some of those people may look at other desperate options.

Again with the fear tactics. You have no evidence to support your claim. What you do have is prejudice. You think that because they are menial laborers they are more likely to go out and commit crimes when desperate.

What did they do BEFORE Minimum wage and Food stamps and section 8 housing?

What you also fail to realize is those very same government programs ENABLE them to stay in those menial jobs.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

VITE1, I haven't read all that but I will

My wife was a single mother for years. She worked two jobs so she could afford a house and support her daughter. (And then I came swooping in with my fabulous hair and saved the day. )

My point is there are still responsible single parents out there. It's not as bleak as many of you here seem to think it is. Maybe I'm just not a "The glass is half empty" kinda person.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

My comments are not mutually exclusive. There are millions of hard working Americans earning minimum wage or close to it. They get by with government assistance. If that were to end, some of those people may look at other desperate options.

Show me someone with no cell phone with a massive data plan, no TV, no car and I might believe that they are actually desperate for things they NEED. If it is really about those desperate for food and shelter... provide them with food and shelter, not a check.

Do you honestly think that half of the population would be starving in a gutter somewhere without a government check?? ...and yes, based on your comments it is pretty easy to see how little you think of people who are not as successful as you. You have shown time and time again that in your eyes they are helpless, inferior people who are completely incapable of succeeding without someone handing them a check.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

VITE1, I haven't read all that but I will

My wife was a single mother for years. She worked two jobs so she could afford a house and support her daughter. (And then I came swooping in with my fabulous hair and saved the day. )

My point is there are still responsible single parents out there. It's not as bleak as many of you here seem to think it is. Maybe I'm just not a "The glass is half empty" kinda person.

72% of Black Americans are born out of wedlock today. 13% in 1965. Up till then Crime rate, Unemployment rates and many other rates had Black America worse off than White America BUT they were in sync. When one went up the other did as well.

That came apart in after 1965 ( Read the Moynihan report)


Having a single mother does not drive a child to a life of crime. Be alienated from society and disconnected from the group does. Single motherhood is the single biggest contributor to it.

And it is enabled by the Welfare state.

[Loco Vette]

As promised:

You need to understand that if I responded to every post it would be a full time job.

Perhaps the burden would be lessened if you didn't deliberately try to go out and post the most inflammatory stuff you can find and then leave it to stink up the place . I have made observations about time requirements many times before, most recently https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/s...earchid=317692

Sorry, but that is not what the data show. See the charts above.

Joe, I covered earlier that payroll taxes that go to systems like medicare and SS are not federal income taxes. The difference is that payroll taxes go to programs that have defined benefits for the individual paying in, as opposed to Federal income tax which is spent at the whim of the .gov. So you're down to the other 28%.And you can take out the characterization of the elderly in your 17% pie slice. My parents are 71 and 73, certainly elderly, and they pay a hell of a lot of income tax. So that pie slice should just be "poor". So the only "legit" slice of the 47% is the disabled one. And that includes such massive disabilities as allergies and bogus back injuries.

So because people lack the intelligence or ability to earn more, that makes them less human? If you are ok living in a society that allows corporations to pay workers $7.25 an hour then you are going to have to accept the fact that these people will need government assistance for food, shelter and medical care.

But I am not responsible for protecting them from the consequences of their bad decisions such as dropping out of school, doing drugs, or having a kid at 12. Far more people out there that are disadvantaged through their own choices than not. And you can sacrifice quality for cost, I.e. multiple family dwellings, etc.

Someone making that kind of wage would die if something as simple as a ruptured appendix happened to them without government assistance.

And I could have died today solely because I drove a smaller car to the beach instead of the F350, under the right circumstances. We all have to face the consequences of our choices. And as for your appendix example, an ER that refuses care to any patient having an actual emergency would face both civil and likely federal penalties.

I sincerely doubt that. Unless they have a mortgage and multiple kids, it is highly likely they do pay income taxes.

Most of them have both of those, as a matter of fact. And since Median household income in the US in 2011 was $50,054, if there is even the slightest correlation between income and taxes most of them are in the 47%. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf Page 13.

I never told you what to pay your staff, I said that the millions of Americans making $290 a week can ill afford to pay income tax and be expected to support themselves.
Do you not see how this statement conflicts with the others you have made? If you impose taxes on the working poor, you will just have to increase their food stamp benefits when they can't afford to eat.

When the cost of a laborer exceeds his productivity, then he loses his job, it gets outsourced, or if on a large enough scale the employer goes bankrupt and both of the first two happen. This is not a moral thing, this is economic reality. If I am forced to pay you more than I derive in productivity from you, the system collapses e.g. USSR. And if the 47% "deserve" not to pay income taxes, then they damn sure did not/do not "build" the infrastructure. Musta been the 53% then.

Well, that's been the policy ever since Bush initiated all the tax cuts. So where the hell are all the jobs? Employment numbers are dramatically down since this policy was initiated. The wealthy don't reinvest, they stick the money we use to tax them back into their pockets.

It worked just fine until the housing bubble created when the libs not only encouraged but required making loans that could not be repaid burst, and triggered a systemic wave of failures.

Gonna head to Chad's bachelor party now. Ball in your court.