What do you think the effect of raising taxes on the poor would be?

[werepossum]

Oh, and here you go, Desperate Dad Robs GameStop Store In Huntington Beach:



Is that specific enough that you can shut the fuck up and stop trying to wiggle out of your completely assinine comment?

I find it a lot more likely that a man CLAIMED to be stealing money so that his kids could eat than that a man actually committed robbery for that purpose. As Nonlnear posted, there are many ways to get free food legally.

 

[dank69]

I find it a lot more likely that a man CLAIMED to be stealing money so that his kids could eat than that a man actually committed robbery for that purpose. As Nonlnear posted, there are many ways to get free food legally.

Okay armchair psychologist.

 

[Svnla]

Oh, and here you go, Desperate Dad Robs GameStop Store In Huntington Beach:


Is that specific enough that you can shut the fuck up and stop trying to wiggle out of your completely assinine comment?

As possum said, these guys CLAIMED/SAID they had to rob to feed their starving kids. There are plenty of legal means to get foods.

We do not know if they were telling the truth or not as this guy = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyyfhEANQGA More information about him = http://helppayingrent.net/wa-man-robs-store-to-pay-rent-and-feed-kids/

 

[nonlnear]

The claim isn't that crime will never happen if we have safety nets in place. The claim is that crime will increase if safety nets are removed. A distinction not too difficult to see.

His claim, which that post you quoted is refuting, was that people do not rob to feed their children.

The original claim was about motive and specific causality, not gross correlation in societal statistics.

And if you are alleging that economic hard times actually correlate to an increase in violent crime you might want to catch up on your behavioral sociology. The actual statistics are rather counterintuitive.

Ryssdal: All right, but Dubner make the connection for me between a lousy economy and crime. Cause you would think that it would go up.

Dubner: You would think. And even though the evidence argues against it over and over again. Smart people still think that it will. Crime actually fell during the Great Depression when the economy was in the toilet. Now, that was in part because prohibition had ended. Crime spiked during the 1960s when the economy was booming. And this most recently recession, despite a lot of predictions to the contrary, violent crime has continue to fall. Against, really, all the smart money bet against it.

Levitt: If there is one bet you know you will win. It is the bet that the next time that crime falls when the economy is bad, the headline of the New York Times article that talks about crime falling will say: 'In spite of everyone's prediction because of the poor economy that crime would rise, crime has fallen.' You can see the same sentence written 14 times by The New York Times.

 

[dank69]

The original claim was about motive and specific causality, not gross correlation in societal statistics.

And if you are alleging that economic hard times actually correlate to an increase in violent crime you might want to catch up on your behavioral sociology. The actual statistics are rather counterintuitive.

When did I say economic hard times cause more crime? Oh that's right, I didn't. I said taking away social safety nets will cause more crime. Maybe you should catch up on the conversation I am having instead of arguing points that have nothing to do with my claims.

 

[dank69]

As possum said, these guys CLAIMED/SAID they had to rob to feed their starving kids. There are plenty of legal means to get foods.

We do not know if they were telling the truth or not as this guy = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyyfhEANQGA More information about him = http://helppayingrent.net/wa-man-robs-store-to-pay-rent-and-feed-kids/

You've got yourself quite a position there. Make outrageous claim that my statement is false and ask for links backing up my statement. When I provide the links, just say everyone is lying without providing any evidence regarding that specific situation.

How about this, go fuck yourself. You can't think. You can't debate. All you can do is cling to your feelings in the face of hard evidence. Your feelings are wrong. You are wrong. You can't even man up enough to admit you said something stupid. Typical. You are giving southerners a bad name.

 

[Svnla]

You've got yourself quite a position there. Make outrageous claim that my statement is false and ask for links backing up my statement. When I provide the links, just say everyone is lying without providing any evidence regarding that specific situation.

How about this, go fuck yourself. You can't think. You can't debate. All you can do is cling to your feelings in the face of hard evidence. Your feelings are wrong. You are wrong. You can't even man up enough to admit you said something stupid. Typical. You are giving southerners a bad name.

Hahaha. Is this how you debate? Calling names and use profanities? How old are you, really?

See what and how nonlnear and possum said? That's how civilized people debate. Please grow up.

 

[nonlnear]

When did I say economic hard times cause more crime? Oh that's right, I didn't. I said taking away social safety nets will cause more crime. Maybe you should catch up on the conversation I am having instead of arguing points that have nothing to do with my claims.

Sorry, I'm skimming this thread too lightly. I wasn't originally all that interested in it (given the original post, you know) and only dropped in for a few comments. I see now that you were making a different point than my too quick impression.

I am still not convinced that there was no safety net available to her. Some articles indicate that there was an active, stocked food bank in Hickory. I don't know enough to ascribe causality or legitimacy of an allegged motive in this case, and I doubt you do either.

 

[dank69]

Sorry, I'm skimming this thread too lightly. I wasn't originally all that interested in it (given the original post, you know) and only dropped in for a few comments. I see now that you were making a different point than my too quick impression.

I am still not convinced that there was no safety net available to her. Some articles indicate that there was an active, stocked food bank in Hickory. I don't know enough to ascribe causality or legitimacy of an allegged motive in this case, and I doubt you do either.

I'm not convinced of that either. However, I am not making the claim that safety nets prevent all people from committing crimes to feed their kids.

My original claim was simply that removing safety nets like welfare/food stamps will cause more people to rob in order to feed their kids. The murder was put in the original statement because robberies/muggings can often escalate into murder. I think it is valid to assume that if there are more robberies it will lead to more related assaults and even murders, as someone pointed out they might not fit the definition of murder with respect to intent but if someone in the middle of robbing a house is caught and they kill the owner you can bet the prosecutor will try to get a murder conviction.

Svnla attempted to refute my original claim, not by saying safety nets don't lower these incidents, but by saying, and this is the preposterous part, by actually saying that he has never heard of someone robbing in order to feed their kids. This claim is so utterly ridiculous that I actually question how he has managed to survive to whatever age he is. It is one of the most basic, carnal instincts. When people have trouble feeding their kids, they will go to almost any lengths to provide for them. This isn't up for debate. This is well known throughout human history and to claim otherwise is equivalent to claiming that the sun orbits the earth. It's probably actually worse because people have known humans will kill to feed their kids for far longer than they have known the earth orbits the sun.

To get back to your post, I wasn't posting those links to prove that safety nets *always* prevent these types of crimes because they don't, they just minimize them, IMO. I posted those links to refute his specific claim that nobody in the history of mankind had ever committed robbery in order to feed their kids. I posted three links. First, a woman who robbed a store for food to feed her kids. He then claims that that doesn't qualify as robbery even though I posted two links to two dictionaries showing that it does fit the definition, one of which is from the same dictionary site that he used. Still not good enough for him, surprise surprise. So I posted a link to a man committing a robbery for $3000 so he can feed his kids. The article itself states several times that he committed robbery. STILL not good enough. Now the man is lying about his intentions. Of course, no proof is needed to back his (and werepossums) claim that the man was lying. No no. They can just state whatever they want as fact. Retarded. Blatent bullshit. In any formal debate they would be laughed out of the room. Then we get to my third link, one he just ignores. Here we have a woman who is denied food stamps so she kills her kids and herself. Was she lying about her intent? Did these murders have nothing to do with feeding her children? It clearly shows the possible outcome when someone can't feed their kids. It is a clear cut example actually backing my original claim that people might commit murder if you don't provide that safety net for them. What way will Svnla dodge this logic? Or perhaps he thinks it's a good thing when poor people off themselves and their kids. I can't wait to find out.

 

[dmcowen674]

If feeding my kids were really my need, I would go get some free food at the food bank. Also, I would get food stamps.

What if you get turned down?

 

[nonlnear]

What if you get turned down?

What reasons are you postulating for this hypothetical rejection? I am very meticulous with my hypothetical paperwork, and my hypothetical income is below the threshold.

Edit: FTR, I'm not opposed to limited social safety nets for physical needs.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not convinced of that either. However, I am not making the claim that safety nets prevent all people from committing crimes to feed their kids.

My original claim was simply that removing safety nets like welfare/food stamps will cause more people to rob in order to feed their kids. The murder was put in the original statement because robberies/muggings can often escalate into murder. I think it is valid to assume that if there are more robberies it will lead to more related assaults and even murders, as someone pointed out they might not fit the definition of murder with respect to intent but if someone in the middle of robbing a house is caught and they kill the owner you can bet the prosecutor will try to get a murder conviction.

Svnla attempted to refute my original claim, not by saying safety nets don't lower these incidents, but by saying, and this is the preposterous part, by actually saying that he has never heard of someone robbing in order to feed their kids. This claim is so utterly ridiculous that I actually question how he has managed to survive to whatever age he is. It is one of the most basic, carnal instincts. When people have trouble feeding their kids, they will go to almost any lengths to provide for them. This isn't up for debate. This is well known throughout human history and to claim otherwise is equivalent to claiming that the sun orbits the earth. It's probably actually worse because people have known humans will kill to feed their kids for far longer than they have known the earth orbits the sun.

To get back to your post, I wasn't posting those links to prove that safety nets *always* prevent these types of crimes because they don't, they just minimize them, IMO. I posted those links to refute his specific claim that nobody in the history of mankind had ever committed robbery in order to feed their kids. I posted three links. First, a woman who robbed a store for food to feed her kids. He then claims that that doesn't qualify as robbery even though I posted two links to two dictionaries showing that it does fit the definition, one of which is from the same dictionary site that he used. Still not good enough for him, surprise surprise. So I posted a link to a man committing a robbery for $3000 so he can feed his kids. The article itself states several times that he committed robbery. STILL not good enough. Now the man is lying about his intentions. Of course, no proof is needed to back his (and werepossums) claim that the man was lying. No no. They can just state whatever they want as fact. Retarded. Blatent bullshit. In any formal debate they would be laughed out of the room. Then we get to my third link, one he just ignores. Here we have a woman who is denied food stamps so she kills her kids and herself. Was she lying about her intent? Did these murders have nothing to do with feeding her children? It clearly shows the possible outcome when someone can't feed their kids. It is a clear cut example actually backing my original claim that people might commit murder if you don't provide that safety net for them. What way will Svnla dodge this logic? Or perhaps he thinks it's a good thing when poor people off themselves and their kids. I can't wait to find out.

My post wasn't actually claiming that he is lying, only expressing great skepticism. It's possible that this man is abysmally stupid and can't find the free food, or that in his world view robbery is morally superior to charity. Seems to me it's more likely that he wanted to be seen as not a bad guy, to himself as much so as to the people he was robbing. Unless he has an awful lot of awfully fat kids, $3,000 is a hell of a lot of food. However, that he CLAIMS to be robbing to feed his kids is no more supportable than a claim that he is lying; neither has any discernible factual base. In a formal debate, both would stand exactly the same.

On your larger point, I have no problem believing that were the available safety nets (including charity) removed, some if not most people would turn to crime. Very few people would quietly starve to death, and hopefully none would allow their children to starve to death before taking to a life of crime. However, I believe Svnla's point was that many people are using the safety nets as a hammock, so that "feed the needy" is too often "feed the lazy" if not "feed the greedy". From the people I know personally I consider this to be beyond argument. Your point seems to be that removing the safety net from these people automatically means also kicking out the truly needy.

 

[werepossum]

What reasons are you postulating for this hypothetical rejection? I am very meticulous with my hypothetical paperwork, and my hypothetical income is below the threshold.

Edit: FTR, I'm not opposed to limited social safety nets for physical needs.

LOL That made me chuckle, thanks.

 

[dank69]

My post wasn't actually claiming that he is lying, only expressing great skepticism. It's possible that this man is abysmally stupid and can't find the free food, or that in his world view robbery is morally superior to charity. Seems to me it's more likely that he wanted to be seen as not a bad guy, to himself as much so as to the people he was robbing. Unless he has an awful lot of awfully fat kids, $3,000 is a hell of a lot of food. However, that he CLAIMS to be robbing to feed his kids is no more supportable than a claim that he is lying; neither has any discernible factual base. In a formal debate, both would stand exactly the same.

On your larger point, I have no problem believing that were the available safety nets (including charity) removed, some if not most people would turn to crime. Very few people would quietly starve to death, and hopefully none would allow their children to starve to death before taking to a life of crime. However, I believe Svnla's point was that many people are using the safety nets as a hammock, so that "feed the needy" is too often "feed the lazy" if not "feed the greedy". From the people I know personally I consider this to be beyond argument. Your point seems to be that removing the safety net from these people automatically means also kicking out the truly needy.

I have no doubt that is what he thinks. However, this is what he said:

Whahwaa, stop it right there.

Robbing and murdering to feed them kids? LOL. You can't be serious. I never heard or read about a robbery or murder for food to feed them kids. Feel free to provide links or sources.

As a matter of facts, kids in poor families have much greater chance of growing up in single parent household because of absent fathers.

 

[HumblePie]

Have you ever seen the chart for poverty level?

The amount is determined based upon family size.

We currently (for right or wrong) don't want to make those in poverty pay income taxes. Personal exemptions are a 'rule of thumb' way to adjust taxation for that poverty line based upon family size.

Fern

Yes and I do NOT agree with it. I stated that rather pointedly several times and my reasoning for it. Which is that if you are a citizen of a country it should be your duty, like everyone else, to contribute to the society as a whole. A poor citizen then uses programs to reap back more than what they contributed, which I have zero problem with in the right circumstances. That is how I believe our tax system should work. Even if you are only taxed a PENNY, I believe you should still be taxed as long as you have any form of income.

Again, I think taxes should be "simple" for everyone. The more complicated, and thus regulated, parts of government systems dealing with those unable to sustain themselves and their families need more focus then after the simple tax system is setup.

Provide incentives for self sterilizations, or placing children up for adoption over just having more kids to make more money off the system for example. If you are below the poverty line and already have a single child, give a family a HUGE bonus voucher to consider getting sterilization done by both parents. Give bonuses for those looking for work, and incentivize employers hiring people down on their luck. I'm not talking straight affirmative action here, but actual compensation incentives. There are plenty of ways to go about it. The whole point is moving our society upwards as a whole, while not catering to the lowest denomination. Nor should be subsidize everyone either. If a person isn't making income, thus not paying any taxes, and not looking to better their lot in life. They would rather remain a drain on society then CUT THEM OFF. I agree with social programs to a point, but we are not a socialist country. I do feel too much creeping socialism lends to entitlement issues by members of society that aren't cultured "ie brain washed" into being all drones that contribue (such as Japan and Germany). Countries that have the average citizen not minding to be a drone do well as a socialist country. Good for them. That is not us. Americans are not drones, nor should we ever advocate us to be. That is not what we were founded on, and not what our history is. I don't think our future should be that either.

I feel I'm rambling a bit here, but this is why I consider my self a "centrist" in that I see points of views from both sides. I see the need from some social programs, which I feel must always be re-evaluated every year or so based on changing times, but at the same time I do not want our country to turn into Greece either. Too much government pandering and/or control leads to problems. I do not believe a member of ANY society should receive any benefits from that society if they are not contributing in some way if they are able body enough to do so. I think the tax code should be simple and progressive, without putting an undue burden upon any class of citizenry, as to allow every person in our society to contribute to it. Even if that little bit is a token amount.

 

[werepossum]

I have no doubt that is what he thinks. However, this is what he said:

Point. You did give examples.

 

[Svnla]

dank69, I really did not want to waste anymore time with you but since you have a bad habit of putting your own words into other people mouth, I have no choice but to point them out to the readers.

...dictionary.com is acceptable but not websters?...

WRONG!!! I never made such statement, expressed or implied.

...he thinks it's a good thing when poor people off themselves and their kids..

LIAR!!! Again, I never made such statement, expressed or implied.

.....say everyone is lying without providing any evidence regarding that specific situation..

WRONG again!!! I provided NOT one but TWO links to dispute sob stories of "robbery to feed starving kids" in post #128. I did not blow smoke out of my butt. Funny how you "forgot" to mention that in your posts.

There are more of you putting YOUR own words in my mouth or saying I said this and that while I NEVER said such thing but the readers can read for themselves.

Because you were too busy to throw insults around like a 10 years old kid pretending to be a big tough internet guy such as:

..... so stupid ….no floor on human intellect.

Why don't you take your OWN advice and do this (I am quoting your OWN words):

.... shut the fuck up ....go fuck yourself...

As I said before, see how nonlnear, possum, and a few other posters debate? I could be like you but I won't lower myself to that level. Grow up.


Please review the P&N subforum rules and familiarize yourself with the recently implemented rule regarding misquoting.

No intentional misquoting with the intent to alter a member's quote as a means to insult said member.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
Have you ever seen the chart for poverty level?

The amount is determined based upon family size.

We currently (for right or wrong) don't want to make those in poverty pay income taxes. Personal exemptions are a 'rule of thumb' way to adjust taxation for that poverty line based upon family size.

Fern

Yes and I do NOT agree with it. I stated that rather pointedly several times and my reasoning for it.
-snip-

My impression from your remarks was that you believed the intent of personal exemptions was to subsidize life style choices like having children.

I'm suggesting the intent was something else. (Account for poverty level calibrations due to household size, and household size is not limited to children, can be parents etc you support.)

My bad if I misunderstood you.

Fern

 

[dank69]

dank69, I really did not want to waste anymore time with you but since you have a bad habit of putting your own words into other people mouth, I have no choice but to point them out to the readers.


WRONG!!! I never made such statement, expressed or implied.


LIAR!!! Again, I never made such statement, expressed or implied.



WRONG again!!! I provided NOT one but TWO links to dispute sob stories of "robbery to feed starving kids" in post #128. I did not blow smoke out of my butt. Funny how you "forgot" to mention that in your posts.

There are more of you putting YOUR own words in my mouth or saying I said this and that while I NEVER said such thing but the readers can read for themselves.

Because you were too busy to throw insults around like a 10 years old kid pretending to be a big tough internet guy such as:


Why don't you take your OWN advice and do this (I am quoting your OWN words):


As I said before, see how nonlnear, possum, and a few other posters debate? I could be like you but I won't lower myself to that level. Grow up.

You quoted me improperly. You left out all the context that shows I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was merely asking if that's what you were saying or offering what my guess would be as to how you think. The first quote snip still has the question mark showing the comment was in the form of a question.

BTW, you ignored all the substance of my posts, you know the parts that show you how you are wrong, and instead only bother to respond to the insults. The insults are there because your arguments warrant them. Your inability to refute them proves this.

Oh, and the two links to non related incidents prove nothing about the specific situation you were trying to refute.