So - you made the claim. Can you link to a benefit for 1st generation immigrants that is not available for native born? Or just random thoughts without any proof or evidence whatsover other than the recollection of some random Anonymous Coward?
I looked at the spreadsheet. 34 events under President Obama. 15 under President Bush. 17 under President Clinton. 8 under President Bush, and 6 under President Reagan. If anything it looks like mass shootings escalate under Democrat Administrations! Three per term for Reagan. Eight per term for both the Bushes and Clinton. Seventeen per term (so far) for Obama. Maybe it wasn't all Democrats, just ones who love to racially agitate and divide the nation.
Oh, and about Heller? June 2008 is when it happened, that's a little past President Reagan... Kind of blows your whole "blame Reagan and Heller for the murders" line apart, ya think?
What's funny is that you go all ape over the SIG "assault weapon", but there is such a thing as the KelTec SU-16CA which uses the same magazines, the same rounds, the same barrel length, the same semi-auto operation, the same lethality - and it's 100% compliant with any "assault weapons ban" ever passed in the US. It's a "safe" firearm according the nannies, but in reality it is the exact same thing - just in a "non threatening" package. It's all about looks, isn't it?
From your data, I see deaths up a factor of 2.33, woundings up a factor of 3.1, and shootings up a factor of 2.26. From what to what, you say? From President Bush to President Obama. Perhaps President Obama's deliberate use of "divide and conquer" to politics and the "us vs. them" rhetoric he spews is the reason that mass shootings have greatly accelerated during his Administration?
Now explain how those "assault rifles" are evil, but the KelTec SU-16CA is not. The SU-16CA is 100% compliant with those "assault weapons" lists, but it:
- Uses the same magazines (STANAG)
- Uses the same caliber and rounds
- Same reload operation/time
- Same operation (semi-automatic)
- Same barrel length (16")
- Same terminal velocity and accuracy
The AR-15 is banned by most "assault weapons" lists, but the SU-16CA passes with flying colors. The reality is that the list is simply made up from what some people consider "scary". It's cosmetic fluff worse than the TSA kabuki theater of security.
Wealth redistribution forced by Government is not inherent. Distribution via barter for goods and services - yes. At the point of a gun with threat of jail - no.
So then your contention is we are not giving enough support to the poor. If that's your point - then push it. If you want to give more handouts, then state as such. It's not to do with equal treatment by Government however, as Government services overwhelmingly benefit the poor rather than the rich. You believe we should give even more, correct? In other words we're addressing what needs to be addressed, just not to the level you believe we should.
Did you not read what I wrote? We must tax at different rates, because capitalism's natural state makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - inequality of opportunity is inherently part of it.
Yes, I read what you wrote and I fundamentally disagree. We should not tax at different rates to try to equalize outcomes. Be honest - you want wealth redistribution. If taxes really were to just pay for services, then use taxes (based upon consumption like land value or water consumed) would be fine. We'd have flat rates for nearly everything else - police, fire, military, EPA, etc.
But they are not. Why? Because they're being used to redistribute wealth. So be honest about it, first - do you want to redistribute wealth, or do you want to fund Government?
Take the bottom 50% (which inevitably includes those above the poverty line, who are earning income). In 2014, they earned about $1 trillion dollars. Total EITC payments were around $65.6 billion. Which more than offsets the 6.2% paid by FICA. And we're not even talking about other benefits - this is direct tax compensation given on the 1040 (which also lists your FICA you're responsible for). So no, the poor generally do NOT pay FICA taxes.
EBT purchases are tax exempt. Yes, they pay property tax, like we all do. But we also gave $50 billion in 2014 to the poor, about $725 per taxpayer in the bottom 50%. I assume that offsets most of the aggregate property taxes paid..
Overwhelmingly, the aggregate tax load (taxes paid minus direct compensation given) for the poor is negative. EITC offsets FICA, Section 8 offsets property taxes, EBT is tax free, etc. Some do fall into corner cases - but many do not.
Now consider that everyone in the top 10% is also paying $8000 in FICA annually (a capped, defined benefit plan that is not available to all the rich - it phases out, even if they paid in). They overwhelmingly pay all of the capital gains taxes, the luxury taxes, and corporate profits (which are given to the rich as bonuses). The top 1% probably fund - directly - 50% of the Federal Government. And they are apparently NOT paying their fair share?
Yes it can. The Government gives every person the same opportunities - you aren't going to be held back because of your color, religion, name, or gender. A Government institution cannot ban you because they don't like your political position (although that seems to be failing rapidly for those on the right). But because we have that right to free assembly, to freedom of association, you're going to find that some people and families naturally succeed whilst others fail.
It's hard to imagine a group more oppressed in the early going than native Africans. Yet overwhelmingly, when they arrive in the US, they outperform African Americans. Why is that? Perhaps it's because they had family who instilled values, and because they have a social net that values education and success. Rather than mocks it and denigrates it. You want to remove that as well to make things "equal"? Then go ahead and eliminate all of society.
As far as the Bushes and Kennedys go, it seems the later generations are failing - miserably so! Heck, Jeb just blew through $100 million in a failed attempt to become President. He's not going to succeed where his father or brother did. The family name and backing and influence didn't help him - a perfect example to counter your position. Likewise the latest generation of Kennedys; they have little influence and are quickly being relegated to the back-row of politics (and soon to be out altogether).
Perhaps the reason the earlier generations succeeded was they heeded the political advice (good or bad) of the man who created their "dynasty", and listened to his counsel. Later generations took it for granted they'd have power and money and success - and they're slowly losing them all.
Government is government. Private is private. Government's not supposed to treat us differently - equality for all, right? Then why the differences in tax/income distribution?
If you want a 100% estate tax, then so be it - but it's across EVERYONE, zero exemptions or deductions, no limits. You will still have some people who succeed wildly beyond others - because we don't all have the same potential! Yes, that's not very PC - but that's the truth.
Please understand the difference in equality - we're talking about Government and it's role, and as long as Government is to treat you equally, without regard to race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, then we're on the right path. It's not to put up roadblocks to any group or show preference over another. If you want to succeed, Government is to make sure there are no roadblocks to you that do not exist for others.
And for many immigrants, that is the case. Overwhelmingly immigrants tend to outpace native minority groups! Perhaps it's Government trying to game the system for the outcomes rather than the starting line that society as a whole gets that is the problem.
If your parents worked hard and suceeded, yes you will benefit from that more than a person who's parents did not. But as long as you both have access to equal services from the Government, then it's working as it should. In life, no one is guaranteed to win and no one is promised not to lose. And you do not have to stay where you are - you can move up OR down.
Check out the economic success of 1st generation African immigrants relative to native African Americans. Likewise for 1st generation immigrants from Asia. You'll see that coming from absolute poverty - MUCH worse than what we have in the US, with a background of war, rape, and in many cases one or both parents killed - and you'll see immigrants greatly outpace our native poor. Why? Perhaps because once you've experience REAL poverty and oppression, that which the SJWs in the US scream about is nothing.
First world problem: they're going to drug-test welfare recipients!
3rd world problem: the local gang is back to take all the crops I just harvested from my garden and to gang-rape my wife and daughter again. Hide the books, if they find we were reading they'll gouge my eyes out and set me on fire.
Ahh, so it's a USE tax you want! So instead of taking a drug test for the pleasure of using welfare, you'd be OK with paying, say, $50 to access welfare - up-front of course?
Then I trust the IRS will no prosecute someone for claiming deductions on their tax return that they are later determined not to have qualified for? I mean - I am signing under penalty of perjury that what I put on my tax return is true to the best of my knowledge. If I know I do drugs, do I NOT take those standard deductions (and thus have the FedGov investigate me as a potential drug user since I didn't take automatic deductions) or do I take them and if I fail by drug test get charged with tax evasion for knowingly filing a false tax return?
And thus people who pay EVEN LESS deserve even less respect. So drug testing them is absolutely a non-issue, right? I mean, if you're applying value to people based upon what they paid in taxes, the richest 1% should get 40% of your respect, and the bottom 50% should get under 3%...
I earn my money. I guess I'm the 1 out of 10. I did meaningful labor for one of many private companies/individuals, and I was paid according to our agreement - and always after I did my labor (as is everyone who earns a salary or wage - paid retroactively). And yes, labor was more than "I don't have income please give me something".
So with your EBT card you have to buy fast food and not good, nutritious staples at the grocery store? You don't get subsidized or free healthcare? There are not scholarships exclusively for low income families that will pay towards top-notch schools? Social environment is the issue and would address influence and connections - but that's not really bettered by giving people money and encouraging them to continue reliance on others, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Timecop wouldn't let them reach that level...
So - you made the claim. Can you link to a benefit for 1st generation immigrants that is not available for native born? Or just random thoughts without any proof or evidence whatsover other than the recollection of some random Anonymous Coward?
I looked at the spreadsheet. 34 events under President Obama. 15 under President Bush. 17 under President Clinton. 8 under President Bush, and 6 under President Reagan. If anything it looks like mass shootings escalate under Democrat Administrations! Three per term for Reagan. Eight per term for both the Bushes and Clinton. Seventeen per term (so far) for Obama. Maybe it wasn't all Democrats, just ones who love to racially agitate and divide the nation.
Oh, and about Heller? June 2008 is when it happened, that's a little past President Reagan... Kind of blows your whole "blame Reagan and Heller for the murders" line apart, ya think?
Except it's not an assault rifle. Where would you draw the line? detachable magazine? Semi automatic operation?
What's funny is that you go all ape over the SIG "assault weapon", but there is such a thing as the KelTec SU-16CA which uses the same magazines, the same rounds, the same barrel length, the same semi-auto operation, the same lethality - and it's 100% compliant with any "assault weapons ban" ever passed in the US. It's a "safe" firearm according the nannies, but in reality it is the exact same thing - just in a "non threatening" package. It's all about looks, isn't it?
From your data, I see deaths up a factor of 2.33, woundings up a factor of 3.1, and shootings up a factor of 2.26. From what to what, you say? From President Bush to President Obama. Perhaps President Obama's deliberate use of "divide and conquer" to politics and the "us vs. them" rhetoric he spews is the reason that mass shootings have greatly accelerated during his Administration?
Now explain how those "assault rifles" are evil, but the KelTec SU-16CA is not. The SU-16CA is 100% compliant with those "assault weapons" lists, but it:
- Uses the same magazines (STANAG)
- Uses the same caliber and rounds
- Same reload operation/time
- Same operation (semi-automatic)
- Same barrel length (16")
- Same terminal velocity and accuracy
The AR-15 is banned by most "assault weapons" lists, but the SU-16CA passes with flying colors. The reality is that the list is simply made up from what some people consider "scary". It's cosmetic fluff worse than the TSA kabuki theater of security.
Wealth redistribution forced by Government is not inherent. Distribution via barter for goods and services - yes. At the point of a gun with threat of jail - no.
So then it's about income redistribution, not the tired meme of "use tax!" Correct?
So then your contention is we are not giving enough support to the poor. If that's your point - then push it. If you want to give more handouts, then state as such. It's not to do with equal treatment by Government however, as Government services overwhelmingly benefit the poor rather than the rich. You believe we should give even more, correct? In other words we're addressing what needs to be addressed, just not to the level you believe we should.
Per filing. So it could be individuals or households. It's quite telling to review the actual data!
Did you not read what I wrote? We must tax at different rates, because capitalism's natural state makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - inequality of opportunity is inherently part of it.
Yes, I read what you wrote and I fundamentally disagree. We should not tax at different rates to try to equalize outcomes. Be honest - you want wealth redistribution. If taxes really were to just pay for services, then use taxes (based upon consumption like land value or water consumed) would be fine. We'd have flat rates for nearly everything else - police, fire, military, EPA, etc.
But they are not. Why? Because they're being used to redistribute wealth. So be honest about it, first - do you want to redistribute wealth, or do you want to fund Government?
Take the bottom 50% (which inevitably includes those above the poverty line, who are earning income). In 2014, they earned about $1 trillion dollars. Total EITC payments were around $65.6 billion. Which more than offsets the 6.2% paid by FICA. And we're not even talking about other benefits - this is direct tax compensation given on the 1040 (which also lists your FICA you're responsible for). So no, the poor generally do NOT pay FICA taxes.
EBT purchases are tax exempt. Yes, they pay property tax, like we all do. But we also gave $50 billion in 2014 to the poor, about $725 per taxpayer in the bottom 50%. I assume that offsets most of the aggregate property taxes paid..
Overwhelmingly, the aggregate tax load (taxes paid minus direct compensation given) for the poor is negative. EITC offsets FICA, Section 8 offsets property taxes, EBT is tax free, etc. Some do fall into corner cases - but many do not.
Now consider that everyone in the top 10% is also paying $8000 in FICA annually (a capped, defined benefit plan that is not available to all the rich - it phases out, even if they paid in). They overwhelmingly pay all of the capital gains taxes, the luxury taxes, and corporate profits (which are given to the rich as bonuses). The top 1% probably fund - directly - 50% of the Federal Government. And they are apparently NOT paying their fair share?
It's hard to imagine a group more oppressed in the early going than native Africans. Yet overwhelmingly, when they arrive in the US, they outperform African Americans. Why is that? Perhaps it's because they had family who instilled values, and because they have a social net that values education and success. Rather than mocks it and denigrates it. You want to remove that as well to make things "equal"? Then go ahead and eliminate all of society.
As far as the Bushes and Kennedys go, it seems the later generations are failing - miserably so! Heck, Jeb just blew through $100 million in a failed attempt to become President. He's not going to succeed where his father or brother did. The family name and backing and influence didn't help him - a perfect example to counter your position. Likewise the latest generation of Kennedys; they have little influence and are quickly being relegated to the back-row of politics (and soon to be out altogether).
Perhaps the reason the earlier generations succeeded was they heeded the political advice (good or bad) of the man who created their "dynasty", and listened to his counsel. Later generations took it for granted they'd have power and money and success - and they're slowly losing them all.
If you want a 100% estate tax, then so be it - but it's across EVERYONE, zero exemptions or deductions, no limits. You will still have some people who succeed wildly beyond others - because we don't all have the same potential! Yes, that's not very PC - but that's the truth.
Please understand the difference in equality - we're talking about Government and it's role, and as long as Government is to treat you equally, without regard to race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, then we're on the right path. It's not to put up roadblocks to any group or show preference over another. If you want to succeed, Government is to make sure there are no roadblocks to you that do not exist for others.
And for many immigrants, that is the case. Overwhelmingly immigrants tend to outpace native minority groups! Perhaps it's Government trying to game the system for the outcomes rather than the starting line that society as a whole gets that is the problem.
If your parents worked hard and suceeded, yes you will benefit from that more than a person who's parents did not. But as long as you both have access to equal services from the Government, then it's working as it should. In life, no one is guaranteed to win and no one is promised not to lose. And you do not have to stay where you are - you can move up OR down.
Check out the economic success of 1st generation African immigrants relative to native African Americans. Likewise for 1st generation immigrants from Asia. You'll see that coming from absolute poverty - MUCH worse than what we have in the US, with a background of war, rape, and in many cases one or both parents killed - and you'll see immigrants greatly outpace our native poor. Why? Perhaps because once you've experience REAL poverty and oppression, that which the SJWs in the US scream about is nothing.
First world problem: they're going to drug-test welfare recipients!
3rd world problem: the local gang is back to take all the crops I just harvested from my garden and to gang-rape my wife and daughter again. Hide the books, if they find we were reading they'll gouge my eyes out and set me on fire.
Ahh, so it's a USE tax you want! So instead of taking a drug test for the pleasure of using welfare, you'd be OK with paying, say, $50 to access welfare - up-front of course?
Then I trust the IRS will no prosecute someone for claiming deductions on their tax return that they are later determined not to have qualified for? I mean - I am signing under penalty of perjury that what I put on my tax return is true to the best of my knowledge. If I know I do drugs, do I NOT take those standard deductions (and thus have the FedGov investigate me as a potential drug user since I didn't take automatic deductions) or do I take them and if I fail by drug test get charged with tax evasion for knowingly filing a false tax return?
Well, 51 is "about" 50, and 51 years is closer to a century than zero, so... Both?
And thus people who pay EVEN LESS deserve even less respect. So drug testing them is absolutely a non-issue, right? I mean, if you're applying value to people based upon what they paid in taxes, the richest 1% should get 40% of your respect, and the bottom 50% should get under 3%...
To be in the top 1%, you have to earn over $428,000 per year. I'd venture that most of /. wouldn't even crack the top 10% (about $128K annually).
I earn my money. I guess I'm the 1 out of 10. I did meaningful labor for one of many private companies/individuals, and I was paid according to our agreement - and always after I did my labor (as is everyone who earns a salary or wage - paid retroactively). And yes, labor was more than "I don't have income please give me something".
Don't ascribe to drugs that which is really incompetence. Occam's razor and all! They weren't made dumb by drugs - just born that way...
So with your EBT card you have to buy fast food and not good, nutritious staples at the grocery store? You don't get subsidized or free healthcare? There are not scholarships exclusively for low income families that will pay towards top-notch schools? Social environment is the issue and would address influence and connections - but that's not really bettered by giving people money and encouraging them to continue reliance on others, is it?