What is my responsibility to the poor?

[Argus]

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.

You saw the quote. It's 6.8%. That's not a lot for 40% of the population to be contributing. I'm speaking only of income taxes, but we can probably exclude much of the GST, at least, since poorer people get GST refund cheques. CPP is not a tax. It's a payment that you make into your own pension. EI shouldn't be a tax, but since the EI fund is used, for political purposes, as an alternative to welfare or as an income boost for seasonal workers, we might as well consider it one. On the other hand, lower income workers make use of it FAR more than higher income workers. That's particularly so of fishermen, and processing industries, where people work just long enough to qualify for pogey, then stop working again.

So what % of that 40% have cell phones, cars, video game consoles, high speed internet, computers, Ipads and Ipods, and more than enough money to get drunk every weekend?

[Michael Hardner]

You saw the quote. It's 6.8%. That's not a lot for 40% of the population to be contributing.

It depends on how many there are in that bracket (lots) and what it costs to keep them in transfer payments, defence spending and so on.

I don't agree with the morality angle, in any case. The government drives wages down, so can they morally also cut services and raise taxes on the same people ?

[eyeball]

The relationship between poverty and crime is well documented and well understood.

Yes, who ever said it wasn't?

[WWWTT]

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.

Thanks for a link to some ones opinion!

Looks like you really had to search hard for that one!

I don't know if I should laugh or be pissed off for wasting my time reading that!

Here, let me show you how it's done!

First, you don't assume anyone is going to believe you.

Then you do some homework, being a little creative doesn't hurt.

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVrzquTxTZnsAdt4XFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMG04Z2o2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1396517483/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedaily.com%2freleases%2f2010%2f08%2f100825174102.htm/RK=0/RS=yYw7X80nqSYOUaSrO1MItCPDcdQ-

Got it buddy!

Good luck!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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

Poor who?

Poor corporation? Poor military? Poor prisons? Poor tax cuts? Or how about poor oil companies?

He doesn't want to provide a link because he's going to get called out, that simple.

This guy is running circles avoiding any stats for a good reason!

Hey if you want to entertain Argus rants about people being a burden on the system then hey don't let me stop you.

Enjoy!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Oh by the way, how do I punctuate "Argus"?

WWWTT

[eyeball]

The econometric analysis is sufficient.

Probably not for white collar crime. The thing I keep finding when I read into it is that very few statistics exist that can be analyzed. The FBI for example is still for the most part using a reporting system for white collar crime that was developed in the 1920's according to it's own Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

The lack of interest many governments appear to have towards expanding and improving their knowledge base stands in mute stark contrast to their zeal for the sort of deregulating that enhances the criminogenic environment in which white collar crime flourishes. A blurry definition of white collar crime also conveniently limits it's analysis. Some criminologists would like to include environmental, health and safety law violations. The disparity in influence that Argus raises comes to mind when thinking about all this. I'd like to include influence peddling in-camera lobbying of politicians and public officials in the definition.

Clearly you do not know what ad populism is...

Nope never heard of ad populism, but ad populum my ass in any case.

You'd need to be deliberately obtuse to write off as mere opinion the enormous amount of discussion there was about the stench of criminal intent surrounding the financial meltdown of 2008. Hundreds of billions of dollars were lost outright, hundreds of billions more followed in taxpayer bailouts. The effects of this left millions of people struggling in a deeply wounded economy and greatly increased the numbers of poor and poverty stricken people. The impact to society that the ordinary sort of street crime that government databases love to track causes, in terms of cost and numbers of victims, doesn't even come close. It's a bloody wonder street justice hasn't replaced what passes for the law in reaction to the what's been perpetrated.

And don't get me started on the damage war criminals cause.

Edited April 3, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Oh by the way, how do I punctuate "Argus"?

WWWTT

Posessive = Argus'

Plural isn't necessary, because there can be only one Argus

[cybercoma]

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.

Correlation specifically means linear relationship between two variables. It does not account for confounding variables nor does it tell us anything about relationships that are non-linear. The definition of crime used in these kinds of analysis is insufficient to capture the nature of blue collar vs white collar crime. A doctor with multiple malpractice suits is not necessarily considered a criminal that maims and injures his victims like someone that gets drunk and crashes into a cafe in the middle of the afternoon. Corporate executives that are intentionally lax when it comes to safety regulations are not considered murderers when an oil rig explodes in the Gulf and workers die, but the guy who gets on a bus and takes hostages is considered a criminal. The results are the same or worse in the case of the white collar criminals, but they're not considered criminals per se. The correlations that you discuss (which aren't actually correlations, but associations) don't take this into account. When the very way crime is perceived by not just the public but the criminal justice system changes with a person's social class, then any analysis that doesn't take this into account is incomplete at best.

[cybercoma]

Posessive = Argus'

Plural isn't necessary, because there can be only one Argus

Incorrect. Possessive is Argus's. The only time a possessive takes the form of "s-apostrophe" with no following "s" is when the noun is plural. Argus is singular, since it's a proper name for the poster.

Edited April 3, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Incorrect. Possessive is Argus's. The only time a possessive takes the form of "s-apostrophe" with no following "s" is when the noun is plural. Argus is singular, since it's a proper name for the poster.

Wow. That doesn't happen very often. I'm embarrassed but hugely grateful for the lesson !

Edited to add:

Discussed here:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=29285

[cybercoma]

I try not to be a grammar critic on the forums.

[Argus]

It depends on how many there are in that bracket (lots) and what it costs to keep them in transfer payments, defence spending and so on.

I don't agree with the morality angle, in any case. The government drives wages down, so can they morally also cut services and raise taxes on the same people ?

We're not talking about government morals. Government, particularly the current one, has no morals. We're talking about whether I, or others in the middle class, have a moral obligation to fork over our money to the government so it can be redistrivuted to the poor -- beyond what we pretty much all agree upon in terms of the basics of life.

We could also talk about the morality of a system which gives the non-contributing members the same rights as me, but no obligations.

[Michael Hardner]

We're not talking about government morals. Government, particularly the current one, has no morals. We're talking about whether I, or others in the middle class, have a moral obligation to fork over our money to the government so it can be redistrivuted to the poor

We're talking about the same thing. Government will execute their policy based on the morals of the electorate. If half are bleeding hearts, and half are libertarians then the political solution will be somewhere in between.

We could also talk about the morality of a system which gives the non-contributing members the same rights as me, but no obligations.

Yes, that is in fact what we're doing. To be clear, the system has no morality in itself. It's a set of business practices and supporting frameworks that are configured to execute a set of rules that are decided by politics, and largely reflective of the morality of the commons IMO.

[cybercoma]

We're talking about the same thing. Government will execute their policy based on the morals of the electorate. If half are bleeding hearts, and half are libertarians then the political solution will be somewhere in between.

More like, if 40% of the electorate doesn't show up to booths and 25% of the electorate chooses libertarians, they'll have a majority and make policies that they want unencumbered by things like debate, good-faith, consultations, and negotiations. It's not the proportion of the electorate that decides the balance, it's the proportion of the representatives, who are not proportionate to the electorate at all.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not the proportion of the electorate that decides the balance, it's the proportion of the representatives, who are not proportionate to the electorate at all.

I dodged that whole ball of spaghetti by saying that politics ends up setting the answer somewhere between the extremes. Beyond that, I'm sticking to my suggestion that decisions are driven by the masses, but should be driven by publics.

[eyeball]

We're not talking about government morals. Government, particularly the current one, has no morals. We're talking about whether I, or others in the middle class, have a moral obligation to fork over our money to the government so it can be redistrivuted to the poor -- beyond what we pretty much all agree upon in terms of the basics of life.

We could also talk about the morality of a system which gives the non-contributing members the same rights as me, but no obligations.

You tried to but then you backed off almost as fast as you raised this very topic. Why you insist on taking out the frustration of your own futile impotence when it comes to having influence on those within your own station instead of joining with them against those who have a monopoly on influence remains a bit of an enduring mystery.

[eyeball]

I dodged that whole ball of spaghetti by saying that politics ends up setting the answer somewhere between the extremes. Beyond that, I'm sticking to my suggestion that decisions are driven by the masses, but should be driven by publics.

Masses can certainly have some influence on decisions but the ones that really seem to count, like who get's to catch most of the fish for example, are largely driven by only one small public and none of us here appear to be apart of it or the governments deliberations on it's behalf (i.e. recall Jimmy). Argus sounds about as close as it gets judging by the pay-scale his tax rate suggests. I pay less than half that income tax rate so I guess I'm probably a pauper that probably doesn't even deserve to vote never mind weigh in on anything.

[Michael Hardner]

Masses can certainly have some influence on decisions but the ones that really seem to count, like who get's to catch most of the fish for example, are largely driven by only one small public and none of us here appear to be apart of it or the governments deliberations on it's behalf (i.e. recall Jimmy).

Masses elect the people who put the publics in place, though. They are huge, dumb and wield power.

[eyeball]

That's why I cleave so hard towards decentralized authority to as local a level as possible. Which in all likelihood will now only occur after the mother of all socio-economic interregnums.

I still maintain near round-the-clock surveillance of the few handfuls of people at the top of our government would be a lot easier, cheaper, cost effective etc etc but...the painful path to enlightenment is, as always, the one we prefer, the more painful the better it seems.

[WWWTT]

Posessive = Argus'

Plural isn't necessary, because there can be only one Argus

Incorrect. Possessive is Argus's. The only time a possessive takes the form of "s-apostrophe" with no following "s" is when the noun is plural. Argus is singular, since it's a proper name for the poster.

Wow. That doesn't happen very often. I'm embarrassed but hugely grateful for the lesson !

Edited to add:

Discussed here:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=29285

I try not to be a grammar critic on the forums.

如果 你们 有 时间，想通 我的 话

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

English translation?

[-1=e^ipi]

The thing I keep finding when I read into it is that very few statistics exist that can be analyzed.

If these statistics do not exist so cannot be analyzed (as you claim), how can you make claims as the the relative damage to society of 'white collar crime' vs other types of crime?

You will never have perfect information to make decisions/beliefs. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't make decisions/beliefs. Base your beliefs on the information you have and if new information comes along and contradicts your belief, then change your belief. To hold a ridiculous belief without sufficient evidence on the basis that 'there isn't perfect information to 100% validate opposing beliefs' makes no sense.

I said that there is a well known relationship between poverty and crime and that greater poverty increases crime. Therefore, some level of income redistributive policies can result in a decrease in crime. What part do you disagree with exactly? What are you arguing?

Nope never heard of ad populism, but ad populum my ass in any case.

You are correct, it is ad populum. Sorry for the typo.

See how easy it is to admit being wrong and move on?

The impact to society that the ordinary sort of street crime that government databases love to track causes, in terms of cost and numbers of victims, doesn't even come close.

You have not provided sufficient evidence to justify this claim. If you want to properly justify it then provide estimates for the amount of damage caused by 'white collar crime' on an annual basis, monetize it, and then compare it to the amount of damage caused by other kinds of crime.

All you have demonstrated is that 'white collar' crime exists... which I agree with. Okay... now what? How is that relevant to the topic under discussion?

Correlation specifically means linear relationship between two variables.

This definition is wrong. Correlation does not mean linear relationship. You can have non-linear correlations.

It does not account for confounding variables nor does it tell us anything about relationships that are non-linear.

... Yes it can. Did you not see how the link I provided takes into account population density, age, unemployment rate, race, geographic region and other variables?

The definition of crime used in these kinds of analysis is insufficient to capture the nature of blue collar vs white collar crime.

You are never going to have perfect information and perfect statistics to base your opinions on, but it is better to base your opinion on what you can observe than on nothing.

The results are the same or worse in the case of the white collar criminals, but they're not considered criminals per se.

Maybe the crab people that control everything might be behind the majority of our crimes and cause the most damage...

Look, if you want to change my opinion then try to estimate this so called 'massively unaccounted for crime', explain your methodology and statistics used to get to your conclusions, monetize the damage, then show me how is is larger than damage caused by so called 'regular crime'.

Don't just go like... 'oh well, you don't have perfect information so therefore you are wrong and my baseless opinion is correct'

The correlations that you discuss (which aren't actually correlations, but associations) don't take this into account.

You do not understand the meaning of correlation.

[WWWTT]

English translation?

If you have time, figure out my words.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

If these statistics do not exist so cannot be analyzed (as you claim), how can you make claims as the the relative damage to society of 'white collar crime' vs other types of crime?

Experience, observation, intuition, deduction. You can't always teach these in school. They don't come with a diploma.

You will never have perfect information to make decisions/beliefs. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't make decisions/beliefs. Base your beliefs on the information you have and if new information comes along and contradicts your belief, then change your belief.

That's right. Did you manage to figure this out all on your own?

To hold a ridiculous belief without sufficient evidence on the basis that 'there isn't perfect information to 100% validate opposing beliefs' makes no sense.

Well for ridiculous beliefs sure, but for reasonable one's, you go as you said with the information you've got. When you finally get past your need to reiterate the point about poverty causing crime please incorporate the apparently new information (to you) that Argus came along with - that a fairly wide disparity exists between white collar influence and blue collar influence. It will become more obvious to you as you grow up that this sort of influence can result in policies, regulations and deregulating that all to often favours one collar over the other. That's a crime by the way.

I said that there is a well known relationship between poverty and crime and that greater poverty increases crime.

Obviously. And I heard you the first time.

Therefore, some level of income redistributive policies can result in a decrease in crime. What part do you disagree with exactly? What are you arguing?

I'm arguing that white collar crime causes greater poverty and that a redistribution of influence can result in a decrease of white collar crime. Why do you disagree?

It stands to reason that redistributing influence will result in a redistribution of income.

Edited April 4, 2014 by eyeball