What is my responsibility to the poor?

[WestCoastRunner]

For one thing, I believe that a big chunk of those who are poor, are damned bad at managing money and making decisions. That being the case, perhaps they shouldn't be managing money and should have a lot more decisions made for them.

Argus, there are plenty of 'working poor' who are very good at managing income with very low wages and are doing extremely well given the circumstances. As far as other people making decisions for them, just where do you get off making statements like this.

[WWWTT]

Now I pay a LOT of taxes. And a lot of those taxes go to helping the poor, either by paying for the things they don't have to pay for (one third of adult Canadians pay no income taxes) or by paying for things like welfare, repeat pogey, and CPP.

I scanned over all the comments here and I do not see any links backing up your claim.

Until you can provide a link to back up your claims, I must conclude that you are only scapegoating a class within our society for some reason that is not clear to me.

I'll tip my hat off to you Argus, you managed to squeeze 4 pages out of this lame/feeble/weak/pathetic opener with no back-up!

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Society has a responsibility towards the least fortunate because by helping them it has been shown that it is a net benefit to society. e.g. providing welfare to poor people keeps them from going hungry. Hungry people steal food and commit crime.

Yes they do, however...

...it is well known that poor people commit more crime.

More, in what way? Wealthy people commit crimes that are often far more enormous and have far more impact on the general well being of society in comparison to those committed by poor people. Some of of the more heinous crimes committed by rich people has undermined our economy and contribute to poverty and create more unemployed and poor people. Argus mentioned the wide disparity in political influence enjoyed by rich people compared to the rest of us and especially poor people. I was under the impression that using money to buy political influence was a crime. All things considered I think poor people are no where near as guilty as rich people when it comes to crime or more of it.

Of course so much of the crime associated with poor people wouldn't even be considered criminal were it not for our morally debatable drug prohibition laws. Probably imposed and maintained at the behest of rich people with more influence than brains.

[-1=e^ipi]

Eyeball, type crime statistics by income in google or go to stats-can website or something. Like seriously. The correlation is well known and I explained the mechanism of causation.

I'm also not really sure why you are trying to argue against a point that can be used to justify some income redistribution to reduce crime rates.

Edited April 1, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you question that public housing units have parking? Ever been near any of them?

Seriously, are we at the point that we are going to drive around and judge whether folks deserve social services/housing because they drive and own a car (it could be a 20 year old car, but still, they are driving a car instead of taking public transit)?

[eyeball]

Eyeball, type crime statistics by income in google or go to stats-can website or something. Like seriously.

It stands to reason given there are more poor people. That's why I'm asking more in what way? In a qualitative sense I think it's debatable who's committing more crime and in a way that has a greater negative impact on society and poverty.

I'm also not really sure why you are trying to argue against a point that can be used to justify some income redistribution to reduce crime rates.

Not so much against as alongside, because I'm far more interested in redistributing power and influence. If these were distributed equally as they're supposed to be, I don't think there would be anywhere near the amount of poverty there is in the world or growing resentment against the poor.

I don't think any debate about income distribution or poverty and responsibility of society to these is justified without including an equal amount of discussion about wealth and it's influence on governments that all too often are responsible for determining how opportunity is distributed.

[-1=e^ipi]

It stands to reason given there are more poor people.

You can evaluate crime statistics on a per capita basis.

Sigh... 3 minutes on google and I find this:

http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/povertycrime.php

It is a very good regression analysis that controls for many variables. If you have any questions regarding how to read the regression tables you can ask me.

Not so much against as alongside, because I'm far more interested in redistributing power and influence. If these were distributed equally as they're supposed to be, I don't think there would be anywhere near the amount of poverty there is in the world or growing resentment against the poor.

There is this thing called democracy... where everyone gets a vote...

Of course we could always follow the North Korean example and make everyone have the same level of income.

[eyeball]

There is this thing called democracy... where everyone gets a vote...

Yes...but only a few get influence.

You can evaluate crime statistics on a per capita basis.

Groovy. Now lets evaluate crime statistics on a per income basis. Don't forget to control for political influence.

Good luck finding many stats on white collar crime. Go figure.

DETECTION OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME IS HINDERED BY THE OPERATIVE STRUCTURE OF SUCH CRIME. BY ITS NATURE, IT IS NONPHYSICAL, COVERT, AND NOT IMMEDIATE IN IMPACT. WHILE MONETARY IMPACT MAY BE MEASURABLE, THE SOCIAL, PHYSICAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COSTS ARE FOUND TO BE INCALCULABLE BECAUSE WHITE-COLLAR CRIME IS DEEPLY INTERWOVEN IN THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY, 2ND PROSECUTION HAS REQUIRED LONGER, MORE SOPHISTICATED AND COMPLICATED INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS. THIS, IN ADDITION, TO LIGHT SENTENCES AND FINES HAS TENDED TO DISCOURAGE INCREASED PROSECUTION. SUCH EVALUATIONS LEAD TO THE CONCLUDING LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY DETER SUCH CRIME BY INCREASED PENALTIES AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR VICTIMS.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=4415

[-1=e^ipi]

@ eyeball, so you cite some random outdated 1970 opinion piece that does not try to measure or compare crime between income groups. Okay... 'white collar' crime exists. Your point? It doesn't make the correlation & causation between crime and poverty go away.

Where as I cite a 2006 econometric article that uses data from 322 different metropolitan areas in the United States to examine the relationship between poverty and crime. It explains its methodology & the sources of data, and even after controlling for geographic location, race, age, unemployment and population density it still finds that poverty has a large, positive and statistically significant (beyond 5% confidence level) effect on crime.

Somehow, I think I give 10000x more weight to the econometric study then the nearly half-century old lawyer paper.

[eyeball]

@ eyeball, so you cite some random outdated 1970 opinion piece that does not try to measure or compare crime between income groups. Okay... 'white collar' crime exists. Your point?

That there's more of it in a qualitative way, than just the quantitative amount you're stuck on. It impacts whole economies and financially stresses millions of people, many to the point of poverty. Fraud, embezzlement, the Lehman's and Madoff's come to mind. So to do the deaths and sickness suffered by who knows how many thousands due to environmental crimes, consumer product safety issues etc etc. Get your nose out of your books and scan the news from time to time.

It doesn't make the correlation & causation between crime and poverty go away.

If anything it contributes to poverty - it could very well make the causation and correlation between poverty and crime come back.

This paper discusses the financial, physical, and moral effects of white-collar crime and concludes that its impact on the community's social fabric is more important than dollar losses.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=77821

It's worth noting that as white collar crime appears to be on the increase street crime is on the decrease. That could certainly change however if governments continue treating white collar crime with the same trepidation that they do, climate change for example.

A conventional viewpoint expressed in Government reports and professional articles has maintained that the public does not view white-collar crime as serious, but few empirical studies have actually supported this opinion.

Probably due to all that influence peddling and vote buying that Argus implied is happening. He probably knows better than most of us just how much correlation there is between income and political influence given he works for the CRA. His apparent pay-grade judging by his stated income tax rate, suggests he's probably high enough in the organization to see the crime happening above him but his lament about having no influence suggests he's still just a power-poor shmoe like the rest of us. Interestingly enough I recall reading somewhere recently that there is more resentment and jealousy and stress in the workplace over the difference a few dollars makes than there is between Joe Lunch-pail at minimum wage and his CEO who more often than not makes millions. Why Argus feels compelled to take out his frustration on those way down the food chain from him is probably worthy of even more scientific inquiries. Whatever the reason I'm betting it makes those above him laugh even harder on their way to the bank.

[-1=e^ipi]

That there's more of it in a qualitative way, than just the quantitative amount you're stuck on.

What prevents you from estimating, quantifying and monetizing the alleged damages from white collar crimes and comparing it to the damages for other crimes in other income groups? And how does white collar crime make the link between poverty and crime go away?

Sorry, but your 99% occupyism isn't very convincing to me. Here, I'm trying to discuss the importance of reducing poverty to reduce crime rates, and you are trying to demonize income and somehow pretend the link away because the evidence doesn't fit with your predetermined dogmatic view.

Get your nose out of your books and scan the news from time to time.

So that is what you say to people who present you with statistical evidence and an economic explanation for the link between poverty and crime? This sounds a lot like what the 911 truthers say when they are confronted with evidence.

This paper discusses the financial, physical, and moral effects of white-collar crime and concludes that its impact on the community's social fabric is more important than dollar losses.

https://www.ncjrs.go...t.aspx?ID=77821

Oh look, another lawyer paper from before I was born. And again it does little statistical analysis or provide much evidence beyond opinion. But that is to be expected since lawyers are trained to approach things dogmatically. Look, the paper even contains an implicit ad populism fallacy in its abstract:

'the public generally ranks white-collar violations as serious'

If anything it contributes to poverty - it could very well make the causation and correlation between poverty and crime come back.

'come back'? Did the casual link temporarily disappear or something.

[Argus]

Seriously, are we at the point that we are going to drive around and judge whether folks deserve social services/housing because they drive and own a car (it could be a 20 year old car, but still, they are driving a car instead of taking public transit)?

Yes, we are. Why shouldn't I be judging whether people need MY money? Because there is no such thing as the tax fairy. Taxes are simply money collected from people like me to spend on poor people.

And BC had a point about if you were really poor you wouldn't have a dining room.

When I was poor, I was working and never given any money from the government, and I couldn't afford a car. How do you get to be in public housing while still being able to afford to insure and operate and maintain a car?

[Argus]

They contribute by not rioting and stealing your stuff.

I seriously wonder whether we'd be spending more on them in jail than we do otherwise.

Are you advocating some central planning???

We already have central planning that looks after the poor. Why would it not make sense to locate them together, where social service agencies can help them? Put them up in a dorm, complete with free food. Then they don't have to worry about paying bills and can focus on getting some training or education. Heck, you could even have daycare services there. Seems like a nifty idea.

[Argus]

Argus, there are plenty of 'working poor' who are very good at managing income with very low wages and are doing extremely well given the circumstances. As far as other people making decisions for them, just where do you get off making statements like this.

Why are people poor in a country with a relatively equal education system? I understand there are disabilities for some of those, esp on welfare, and single parenthood. But the majority of working poor are entirely healthy. Why are they so poor? I'm guessing if you analyzed most poor people you'd find they made some poor decisions in their lives, and are probably still making them.

[Argus]

I scanned over all the comments here and I do not see any links backing up your claim.

Until you can provide a link to back up your claims, I must conclude that you are only scapegoating a class within our society for some reason that is not clear to me.

Do you want a citation that water is wet, too? I didn't bother to offer a cite because it's extremely well-known, especially to people with an interest in government and politics.

[WWWTT]

Do you want a citation that water is wet, too? I didn't bother to offer a cite because it's extremely well-known, especially to people with an interest in government and politics.

No, I want a link showing where your tax dollars actually go!

This is not a science physics thread debating the properties of water.

Until you provide a link supporting your claim, I WILL conclude that you are fabricating ( or at the very least exaggerating)!

That simple, and I believe that this request is in order.

WWWTT

[-1=e^ipi]

We already have central planning that looks after the poor. Why would it not make sense to locate them together, where social service agencies can help them? Put them up in a dorm, complete with free food. Then they don't have to worry about paying bills and can focus on getting some training or education. Heck, you could even have daycare services there. Seems like a nifty idea.

That sounds more like providing specific government services than central planning and trying to micromanage the decisions of the poor people.

I'm skeptical about central planning because the costs of implementation in trying to allocate economic aid to poor people can be large (high bureaucratic costs). I'm quite skeptical about the way things are currently done and wonder if simply implementing a guaranteed income + flat tax would be preferable to welfare + EI + minimum wage + progressive tax system, etc.

Why are they so poor? I'm guessing if you analyzed most poor people you'd find they made some poor decisions in their lives, and are probably still making them.

What if some of the poor decisions are due to mental health issues (something or society tends to overlook)?

[Peter F]

What is my responsibility to the poor?

Nothing whatsoever. Thus taxes.

[eyeball]

...you are trying to demonize income and somehow pretend the link away because the evidence doesn't fit with your predetermined dogmatic view.

I'm not demonizing income, I'm saying that white collar criminals do more damage and cost us more, which fits with the question I asked you "more (crime) in what way?" I also said it stands to reason there are more poor people and the term white collar denotes wealthier people which are fewer in number but I thought we were beyond this point.

Branding someone a truther is more like demonizing by the way.

So that is what you say to people who present you with statistical evidence and an economic explanation for the link between poverty and crime? This sounds a lot like what the 911 truthers say when they are confronted with evidence.

No, just freshly minted academics who get a little full of themselves. Sheldon is funny, you're not.

Oh look, another lawyer paper from before I was born. And again it does little statistical analysis or provide much evidence beyond opinion. But that is to be expected since lawyers are trained to approach things dogmatically. Look, the paper even contains an implicit ad populism fallacy in its abstract:

Given it's perception that no one is interested I wouldn't expect the government's collection of statistics on white collar crime to be anything like the one that poverty stricken criminals generate. Like I said, go figure. I'm betting it has something to do with wealth's influence putting a damper on collecting any.

'the public generally ranks white-collar violations as serious'

And the government doesn't.

'come back'? Did the casual link temporarily disappear or something.

You said white collar crime doesn't make it go away...remember I said it's worth noting that as white collar crime appears to be on the increase street crime is on the decrease? That could reverse if the causative effect that white collar crime has on poverty is severe enough.

We definitely need more studies. I'm not an eager young smarty-pants like you so why don't you take it on and get back to us with a report.

[Moonlight Graham]

For one thing, I believe that a big chunk of those who are poor, are damned bad at managing money and making decisions. That being the case, perhaps they shouldn't be managing money and should have a lot more decisions made for them.

Maybe. But can you back that up with evidence?

A lot of poor people are disabled, mentally or physically, and not able to work full-time or at all. A lot of poor people are also elderly, who also have problems working. A lot of poor people are also children. Obviously they can't work, and obviously they're probably not very good at managing money lol. A lot of the poor come from very difficult circumstances, even the working poor. I've worked with many people in my city who are among the poorest of the poor, and a lot of them come from abusive homes growing up, so we need to understand them on a case-by-case basis instead of being Mike Harris and advocating blanket BS tough-guy policies based on BS anecdotal assumptions.

But what seems to be at the crux of your argument is that you don't feel your tax dollars should be paying for poor people to have unnecessary luxeries (ie: iphones, video games, cable tv etc.). Well I'd agree, I think most people would. The problem is, how do we prevent some of those who are poor (certainly not all exploit the system) from exploiting the system? If you make less than 20k a year that tax bracket that doesn't pay income tax isn't going to automatically adjust for poor people who don't exploit the system vs those that do. Are we going to send in inspectors randomly to the homes of those who receive a lot of government benefits and check if they've spending their money wisely?

You need to focus your frustration at those who exploit the system, and not stereotype "the poor" or "working poor" into one big group of social leechers. If you were indeed such a noble person when you were poor and didn't exploit the system I'm sure there are others like that as well.

[Moonlight Graham]

My responsibility to the poor in Canada, IMO, is to help them to not be poor in a way that is sustainable, fair, and empowering to them.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not demonizing income, I'm saying that white collar criminals do more damage and cost us more

And I can say the moon is made of cheese. Doesn't make it true. Maybe you should back up your empty claims with strong evidence?

I asked you "more (crime) in what way?" I also said it stands to reason there are more poor people and the term white collar denotes wealthier people which are fewer in number but I thought we were beyond this point.

Crime statistics are strongly correlated with poverty. The link I provided you above finds strong correlation between poverty and crime even after controlling for various factors for both total crime per capita and violent crime per capita.

Given it's perception that no one is interested I wouldn't expect the government's collection of statistics on white collar crime to be anything like the one that poverty stricken criminals generate. Like I said, go figure. I'm betting it has something to do with wealth's influence putting a damper on collecting any.

So you are saying that all this evil wealthy white collar crime really does enough damage to overpower the empirically observed strong correlation between poverty and crime? But there is no evidence for it because the wealthy white collar people control anything and manipulate statistics? Do you not understand the principle of occum's razor?

Why don't I just say that the crab people control everything but there is no evidence for it because they control everything?

Yeah, the comparisons with truthers are fair because this is irrational conspiracy thinking.

And the government doesn't.

Clearly you do not know what ad populism is... You could do a poll to ask people if they believe that some magic man died for our sins because some talking snake told a rib-lady to eat a magic fruit and get a majority opinion of yes, but that doesn't make it true.

remember I said it's worth noting that as white collar crime appears to be on the increase street crime is on the decrease?

Remember how I said that that paper was from 1970?

Remember how I said the moon is made of cheese?

I'm not an eager young smarty-pants like you so why don't you take it on and get back to us with a report.

The econometric analysis is sufficient. The relationship between poverty and crime is well documented and well understood. If you refuse to look at the obvious when clear evidence is presented, there is nothing I can do. Some people are just immune to reason. I might have better luck trying to convince a creationist of the theory of evolution.

Edited April 2, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Do you want a citation that water is wet, too? I didn't bother to offer a cite because it's extremely well-known, especially to people with an interest in government and politics.

A point of facilitation, while you are expected to back up your sources when asked - I don't think anybody expects that for obvious facts such as 'taxes go to the poor'.

You may, however, choose to help out by providing a link nonetheless.

Here's your cite btw:

Study confirms water is wet

[Argus]

A point of facilitation, while you are expected to back up your sources when asked - I don't think anybody expects that for obvious facts such as 'taxes go to the poor'.

You may, however, choose to help out by providing a link nonetheless.

I figure the knowledge that a third of Canadians pay no tax is just as obvious, but sure, whatever.

It is often overlooked how much the progressivity of the income tax system has steepened by exempting lower-income earners from paying taxes, or by lowering their rate. The lowest 40 per cent of households pay just 6.8 per cent of all income taxes, almost half their share in 1976, despite a higher absolute level of incomes. More than one-third of tax-filers pay no income tax.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/should-the-rich-pay-more-not-necessarily/article12245332/#dashboard/follows/

So we have a system whereby the lower 40% of the population contributes very little, while the upper portions are, through bribery, manipulating the political system so they and the companies they control pay less and less. So who winds up getting screwed but those in the middle.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

I figure the knowledge that a third of Canadians pay no tax is just as obvious, but sure, whatever.

So we're now saying the bottom 40% pays "very little" and we seem to - for clarity - exclude sales taxes, GST/HST, CPP and EI deductions and similar contributions.