FEDs Payout Over 20% in Improper EITC Payments..............

[Vteckidd]

IRS loses billions to improper EITC payments | Jamie Dupree's Washington Insider | www.ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2013/oct/22/irs-loses-billions-improper-eitc-payments/)

In regards to the govt shutdown to save money, are you telling me that 1$ out of every $5 in EITC we pay out is WRONG????? How is that possible?

Government spending at its finest. Why arent we prosecuting the offenders?

[Browning151]

Yet another reason we need major tax reform and simplification, and by reform and simplification I mean throw out the whole tax code and start over with the fair tax or flat tax or something similar.

[Vteckidd]

I agree. I dont know why we pay people to have kids, or subsidize them for being poor. Its leads to fraud. Id rather just do away with the entire tax code, and let the poor people keep more of their money every paycheck. It would help them more

[Browning151]

The biggest obstacle to something of that nature is politicians, plain and simple. Removing the governments ability to control the population through tax policy removes too much of their power and they don't want that. It's also too easy to demagogue, probably within the first page of this thread it will be called "regressive".

[.blank cd]

I agree. I dont know why we pay people to have kids, or subsidize them for being poor.
Because its a net economic benefit.

http://www.ers.usda.gov%2Fmedia%2F134245%2Ferr103_reports ummary_1_.pdf

[Vteckidd]

Because its a net economic benefit.

http://www.ers.usda.gov%2Fmedia%2F134245%2Ferr103_reports ummary_1_.pdf

Only a liberal would argue that 20%+ in fraud and waste is a "net economic benefit".

However, this rampant abuse went on during GOP administrations as well.

To your point, paying people to be poor, gives them incentive to stay poor. Paying people to have kids, gives you figures like

More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock

While the picture of a single mother struggling to get by is a tough pill to swallow, instead of paying for their poverty, we should be looking at how to get them OUT of poverty. It would be MUCH more effective to let them keep more of what they earn than to subsidize their babymaking.

I suspect the reason why that is not popular, is that people would be required to WORK to keep what they earn, where EIC is freebies given to people who dont have to have employment

[Vteckidd]

I also like how you completely avoided the topic and thread at hand, and cherry picked a line from a post 3 steps down.

So you are ok with 20+% in fraudulent/improper payments?

[.blank cd]

I also like how you said that I'm arguing that fraud is an economic benefit, even though I didn't say that.

Interesting.

I wonder if maybe my device is just messed up and people can't see the things I quote.

[Browning151]

Because its a net economic benefit.

http://www.ers.usda.gov%2Fmedia%2F134245%2Ferr103_reports ummary_1_.pdf


I also like how you said that I'm arguing that fraud is an economic benefit, even though I didn't say that.

Interesting.

I wonder if maybe my device is just messed up and people can't see the things I quote.

And you wonder why threads get so far off topic. You addressed a comment about people being paid to have babies but completely ignored the topic at hand which was massive fraudulent tax payments.

[.blank cd]

And you wonder why threads get so far off topic. You addressed a comment about people being paid to have babies but completely ignored the topic at hand which was massive fraudulent tax payments.

It was a piece of information he was unaware of. I knew the answer so I gave it to him.

How are you supposed to have any idea on how to revamp a system when you don't know how the current one works?

[Vteckidd]

It was a piece of information he was unaware of. I knew the answer so I gave it to him.

How are you supposed to have any idea on how to revamp a system when you don't know how the current one works?

We have been down this road before.

EIC is paying poor people to have babies and be poor. In turn, 20%+ of those payments are going to people who DONT DESERVE or QUALIFY for them. What does that tell you? That people are abusing and gaming the system and the IRS isnt able to police it.

SO, we shouldnt be subsidizing it.

If 20% of your workplace were filling out false claims on their timecard, you think they would stay employed?

Its not a net economic benefit when you tax 1 persons tax dollars, and disburse them to people who dont deserve it. You realize that the EIC doesnt come from thin air like your barricades and police force right?

id rather the EIC people kept more of what they earned WEEKLY, that would cut down on the fraud, but it also means people would have to be working. Like i said , I suspect lots of people use the credits without being employed/

[Vteckidd]

I think the only person that doesnt understand how the system works is you. I mean tjust when i think there is no way you could possibly argue against 20+% waste in a government program, here you are, arguing its a

NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT

LOL

[.blank cd]

I think the only person that doesnt understand how the system works is you. I mean tjust when i think there is no way you could possibly argue against 20+% waste in a government program, here you are, arguing its a

NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT

LOLAnd you did it again. That takes talent. I think I'll start typing out when I quote someone so no one else gets confused.

[Vteckidd]

So, do you think 20-25% in EIC IMPROPER payments is acceptable. Yes or No.

[.blank cd]

The comment was

"I DONT KNOW WHY WE 'PAY PEOPLE TO HAVE BABIES' OR 'SUBSIDIZE THE POOR'"

The answer is

"Because public assistance programs are a net economic benefit"

I don't know how to make that any clearer

Maybe the first time I accidentally typed "fraud is an economic" benefit. I'm not sure.

[Vteckidd]

The comment was

"I DONT KNOW WHY WE 'PAY PEOPLE TO HAVE BABIES' OR 'SUBSIDIZE THE POOR'"

The answer is

"Because public assistance programs are a net economic benefit"

I don't know how to make that any clearer

Maybe the first time I accidentally typed "fraud is an economic" benefit. I'm not sure.

I responded, it was a rhetorical statement, not a question. And I gave you my reasons why its not an economic benefit. When a Public Assistance programs is 1//5 fraud or waste, I cant say its an economic benefit. I also dont agree that handouts help the economy.

Care to discuss poverty rates in the last 50 years? How has public assistance helped those people out?

We can move on from this topic rather quickly if you just answer 1 question:



So, do you think 20-25% in EIC IMPROPER payments is acceptable? Yes or No.

[.blank cd]

So, do you think 20-25% in EIC IMPROPER payments is acceptable. Yes or No.

Yes and no. According to your source, they've established a maximum level of improper payments, which, on such a system, are inevitably bound to happen. The suggestion of gutting the system entirely is effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water, because, as I pointed out, the system, as a whole, is a net economic benefit

[.blank cd]

I responded, it was a rhetorical statement, not a question. And I gave you my reasons why its not an economic benefit. When a Public Assistance programs is 1//5 fraud or waste, I cant say its an economic benefit. I also dont agree that handouts help the economyYou have your beliefs. I have mine. I've presented the data which supports my belief and answers your "rhetorical statement"

[Vteckidd]

FYI your link doesnt work, so I cant even see what you are trying to argue.

But,

According to your source
The AJC, hardly a "conservative newspaper". JD is about as middle as it gets.



they've established a maximum level of improper payments, which, on such a system, are inevitably bound to happen.

Nowhere did i read that they said there would be a maximum level of improper payments. they were required to report their improper payments, and they have made little to non significant impact


The IRS has made little improvement in reducing improper Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments since being required to report estimates of these payments to Congress," read the latest report from the Inspector General for Tax Administration.



The suggestion of gutting the system entirely is effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water, because, as I pointed out, the system, as a whole, is a net economic benefit

If, in 10 years, we cannot get below 22%-25% in fraud, waste and abuse (IMPROPER is a fancy term for fraud) , yes, I think looking at ways to be more effecitve is worth it.

When you have an agency that cannot police the fraudulent claims being made, then you take those claims away. You implement a system that is better. Remove the fraud. Pass a low that says anyone below $20,000 doesnt have to pay income taxes. remove the EIC and let the poor keep more money that they earn.

But, like i already said, that would require poor people to work. the 20-25% of the people ripping the system off, I suspect arent "1%ers".

but you fail to see that.

[.blank cd]

FYI your link doesnt work, so I cant even see what you are trying to argue.

But,

The AJC, hardly a "conservative newspaper". JD is about as middle as it gets.I must have missed the part where I said the AJC was a conservative newspaper. Must be my phone messing up and typing stuff for me.




Nowhere did i read that they said there would be a maximum level of improper payments. they were required to report their improper payments, and they have made little to non significant impactMight be a good idea to read it again then, and pay particular attention to the part that says maximum %





If, in 10 years, we cannot get below 22%-25% in fraud, waste and abuse (IMPROPER is a fancy term for fraud) , yes, I think looking at ways to be more effecitve is worth it.

When you have an agency that cannot police the fraudulent claims being made, then you take those claims away. You implement a system that is better. Remove the fraud. Pass a low that says anyone below $20,000 doesnt have to pay income taxes. remove the EIC and let the poor keep more money that they earn.If 22% of your house leaked water when it rained, would it be a better idea to fix the leaks, or bulldoze the house?


But, like i already said, that would require poor people to work. the 20-25% of the people ripping the system off, I suspect arent "1%ers".I also suspect they aren't lazy poor people sitting around either.

[Vteckidd]

I must have missed the part where I said the AJC was a conservative newspaper. Must be my phone messing up and typing stuff for me.

Oh cmon you like to play this "your source" bullshit because if its not from some left wing blog it isnt factual. If it was FOX NEWS link you would be dismissing it already. Its a way for you to dismiss an argument, rather than argue its merits, you just go "psssshhhh facts? who cares, your source is biased".




Might be a good idea to read it again then, and pay particular attention to the part that says maximum %
:facepalm:

If you had read the article in its entirety, they are stating they cant figure out the percentages to the penny, its a range. AS BAD AS 30% but no worse than 22%. If you interpret it your way, you are saying that youre ok with them accepting 20% or more in fraud per year. name me 1 other company that operates that way. The fact you even advocate thats ok means you have never owned or run a business before. 20% of your money going to waste is failure, that simple





If 22% of your house leaked water when it rained, would it be a better idea to fix the leaks, or bulldoze the house?

after 10 years if it continued to leak, YES I WOULD BULLDOZE THE HOUSE BECAUSE WHAT IM DOING ISNT WORKING


I also suspect they aren't lazy poor people sitting around either.
they they would have no problems with the EIC going away and being replaced with no income tax. They would actually make more money.

Ok, how would you fix it? lets hear some ideas

[.blank cd]

Oh cmon you like to play this "your source" bullshit because if its not from some left wing blog it isnt factual. If it was FOX NEWS link you would be dismissing it already. Its a way for you to dismiss an argument, rather than argue its merits, you just go "psssshhhh facts? who cares, your source is biased".i said your source. Where you got your information from. That's all I said.





If you had read the article in its entirety, they are stating they cant figure out the percentages to the penny, its a range. AS BAD AS 30% but no worse than 22%. If you interpret it your way, you are saying that youre ok with them accepting 20% or more in fraud per year. name me 1 other company that operates that way. The fact you even advocate thats ok means you have never owned or run a business before. 20% of your money going to waste is failure, that simpleAccording to other sources, fraud is only part of the problem. Another thing is, the money isn't neccessarily wasted. Someone's receiving it and that person is most likely spending it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the people who are receiving this money who are otherwise ineligible aren't cashing their checks and lighting the money on fire. And no, I can't think of, off the top of my head, any private sector business that is analogous to public assistance programs, since they are fundamentally different.

[BanginJimmy]

I had a whole long post written and accidentally lost it. The gist of the post was simple. The current welfare system is unfixably broken. Its time to scrap it in favor one one that actually has a chance at doing what it is supposed to do. Be a crutch until people can get back on their feet. Today welfare is a lifestyle choice. It may not be an conscience decision, but it is a choice.

I dont really care about economic multipliers unless you can prove that 100% of that money is going into the general economy, not to buy drugs, gambling, etc. Since no one can prove that, lets look at what we can prove. We can prove that welfare programs do not decrease poverty, in fact, they increase it. We can prove that generational welfare grows with every new welfare program. Its time we scrap the current program of increased benefits for increased dependency and actually push people to become self reliant.

On Jan 1. we can start with baby benefits. Obamacare is mostly in effect for us simpletons so birth control is even easier to come by. Cant afford to take care of your offspring? Here is your Obamacare card that gives you birth control with no out of pocket expense, dont have any more kids. Within a couple years we can get rid of the entire WIC program.

Food stamps? Thats an easy one. Put a photo on the card. If the photo doesnt match person with the card, no sale. Oh, only approved items can be purchased. No more cigs, beer, wine or lifestyle items allowed. These are luxury items and you get that money to feed your kids and yourself, not throw a party. Dont like it? Oh well, no one is forcing you to take the handout.


AS far as taxes go, with a 10% flat tax, I would pay more in taxes than I do with my current 25% rate. I am all for that as it would also have a multiplier effect on the deficit when a huge portion of the IRS personal tax division is no longer needed.

[.blank cd]

I had a whole long post written and accidentally lost it. The gist of the post was simple. The current welfare system is unfixably broken. Its time to scrap it in favor one one that actually has a chance at doing what it is supposed to do. Be a crutch until people can get back on their feet. Today welfare is a lifestyle choice. It may not be an conscience decision, but it is a choice.Thanks for your opinion.


I dont really care about economic multipliers unless you can prove that 100% of that money is going into the general economy, not to buy drugs, gambling, etc. Since no one can prove that, lets look at what we can prove. We can prove that welfare programs do not decrease poverty, in fact, they increase it. We can prove that generational welfare grows with every new welfare program. Its time we scrap the current program of increased benefits for increased dependency and actually push people to become self reliant.Its been proven empirically that the correllation between drug use and being on welfare is flimsy at best. So I'm not sure what you're implying with that. Secondly, I don't think anyone will argue that public assistance is decreasing poverty, since that's not its intention, and that there is also a weak correllation between the increase in poverty and public assistance.

[Sinfix_15]

I must have missed the part where I said the AJC was a conservative newspaper. Must be my phone messing up and typing stuff for me.



Might be a good idea to read it again then, and pay particular attention to the part that says maximum %




If 22% of your house leaked water when it rained, would it be a better idea to fix the leaks, or bulldoze the house?

I also suspect they aren't lazy poor people sitting around either.


If 22% of your house leaked water for 50 years, you'd bulldoze the house. Good analogy Blank, you're unusually spot on tonight.

[Sinfix_15]

Thanks for your opinion.

Its been proven empirically that the correllation between drug use and being on welfare is flimsy at best. So I'm not sure what you're implying with that. Secondly, I don't think anyone will argue that public assistance is decreasing poverty, since that's not its intention, and that there is also a weak correllation between the increase in poverty and public assistance.

Via telephone surveys.

[BanginJimmy]

Its been proven empirically that the correllation between drug use and being on welfare is flimsy at best. So I'm not sure what you're implying with that. Secondly, I don't think anyone will argue that public assistance is decreasing poverty, since that's not its intention, and that there is also a weak correllation between the increase in poverty and public assistance.

You completely missed the point. You brought up economic multipliers. Those multipliers do not exist when the money isnt spent in the general economy.

So what is the point of welfare if it isnt to use as a crutch until you get your life together and become self sufficient?


Until that question is answered I see no reason to debate this with you any more. If you believe people should get money just because they dont want to work or didnt bother to learn any marketable skills then there is no way we will ever find any meaningful common ground. If thats your opinion, that fine, I just dont believe the productive members of society should be forced to take care of people that refuse to take care of themselves.

[Browning151]

So what is the point of welfare if it isnt to use as a crutch until you get your life together and become self sufficient?


Until that question is answered I see no reason to debate this with you any more. If you believe people should get money just because they dont want to work or didnt bother to learn any marketable skills then there is no way we will ever find any meaningful common ground. If thats your opinion, that fine, I just dont believe the productive members of society should be forced to take care of people that refuse to take care of themselves.

I think you may have just hit on a core reason that blank struggles to find any common ground with most on here.

[.blank cd]

You completely missed the point. You brought up economic multipliers. Those multipliers do not exist when the money isnt spent in the general economy.

So what is the point of welfare if it isnt to use as a crutch until you get your life together and become self sufficient?the purpose of public assistance is just assistance. But it seems like you have this deeply held belief that the majority of recipients of public assistance are taking advantage of the system, and it's simply unsupported

[Vteckidd]

But it seems like you have this deeply held belief that the majority of recipients of public assistance are taking advantage of the system, and it's simply unsupported

No we didnt say majority, we said 22%+

do you know what the word IMPROPER means? I think you missed the entire point of this thread. At minimum 22% are gaming the system and receiving money they shouldnt be getting. So yes, they are taking advantage of the system.


Another thing is, the money isn't neccessarily wasted. Someone's receiving it and that person is most likely spending it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the people who are receiving this money who are otherwise ineligible aren't cashing their checks and lighting the money on fire.

So your position is, who cares that people are ripping the govt off because, like, theyre spending the money guys? So, people who deliberately lie and cheat and receive funds that dont belong to them are not "neccessarily wasting" the money? What about the people that are TRULY in need ? They are stealing from the people this program is designed to help. So yes, they are wasting the money because it should go to people who , you know, ACTUALLY FUCKING QUALIFY TO RECEIVE IT.

What a noble idea.

Why stop at 20%? Why not send EVERYONE money. why cap it? I mean if it doesnt matter because its "not being wasted". Only a liberal would argue that stealing money isnt wrong because its helping the economy

The last thing Ill say is that if this is your stance, I dont ever want to see you in another thread where you whine about how the rich dont pay their fair share, while saying poor people who cheat the system are ok because hey they are spending the stolen money anyways so who cares.

Your positions are just laughable, i think you just like trolling.

[.blank cd]

No we didnt say majority, we said 22%+

do you know what the word IMPROPER means? I think you missed the entire point of this thread. At minimum 22% are gaming the system and receiving money they shouldnt be getting. So yes, they are taking advantage of the system.Yeah. No source I've seen on the issue suggests 22% are maliciously gaming the system. In fact, they all list multiple reasons an improper payment would happen. You're suggesting something the article doesn't say. None of these articles suggest "theft" is taking place. Using hyperbole in this instance doesn't help your argument.




So your position is, who cares that people are ripping the govt off because, like, theyre spending the money guys? So, people who deliberately lie and cheat and receive funds that dont belong to them are not "neccessarily wasting" the money? What about the people that are TRULY in need ? They are stealing from the people this program is designed to help. So yes, they are wasting the money because it should go to people who , you know, ACTUALLY FUCKING QUALIFY TO RECEIVE IT.

What a noble idea.

Why stop at 20%? Why not send EVERYONE money. why cap it? I mean if it doesnt matter because its "not being wasted". Only a liberal would argue that stealing money isnt wrong because its helping the economy

The last thing Ill say is that if this is your stance, I dont ever want to see you in another thread where you whine about how the rich dont pay their fair share, while saying poor people who cheat the system are ok because hey they are spending the stolen money anyways so who cares.

Your positions are just laughable, i think you just like trolling.

I think I need a new phone, because I can't seem to find the position you said I'm taking. Maybe you could quote it for me? I don't see anything anywhere about stealing, or me condoning it. I looked on the article you posted and about a dozen others. None of those said anything about stealing or theft

[Vteckidd]

No source I've seen on the issue suggests 22% are maliciously gaming the system.

IMPROPER -not in accordance with accepted rules or standards, esp. of morality or honesty.

People apply for these credits, then the IRS disburses them. They pay out people that dont deserve the funds, hence IMPROPER.

YOu just cant see the forest through the trees, and refuse to think with any sort of rational thought. Now you are trying to debate the word improper, instead of focusing on the fact that 20+ percent of EIC payments are wasted on people that dont qualify to receive them

Who derails threads again?

I cant argue withe people like this, who just dont accept the sky is blue

[Vteckidd]

LOL so you argue a position, then when youre cornered you say youve never taken a position?

[Sinfix_15]

LOL so you argue a position, then when youre cornered you say youve never taken a position?

Blank has a knack for defending the indefensible.

We should judge welfare programs based on how many people leave them. These programs continuing to grow is proof of their failure.

Ppl like blank believe the gov. should have unlimited resources to throw at these programs and the tax payers who fund them should not have an opinion about it.

[.blank cd]

LOL so you argue a position, then when youre cornered you say youve never taken a position?

What position did I take? Obvious since I haven't taken one, you've had the pleasure of manufacturing one for me.

And where in this thread have I been cornered? The entirety of this thread, everyone's been using euphemisms and hyperbole like "theft" and "stealing" that the original article didn't say was happening.

Browning was right. I struggle to find common ground in this subsection. It's difficult when everyone else magically manufactures information and is intellectually dishonest.

The same old pseudo-conservative bullshit. Over and over again.

All poor people do drugs and leach off the system
All poor people are lazy who make a conscious decision to live off the government
True free market capitalism is the only way to fly
Obama is a Kenyan Atheist Muslim brotherhood Marxist Socialist Communist bent on forcing all hard working Americans to suckle on the government teat whilst wearing turbans and praise Allah by the end of his 8 year stay.

Did I get all of them? Forget anything?

It's gonna be interesting and probably downright amusing to see the collective intellectual and ideological collapse in this forum in 3 years.

[.blank cd]

Let me babysit you guys through the logic and critical thinking process.

I like this quote from the FOX NEWS version of the story...

"IRS efforts are hampered by unscrupulous tax preparers as well as honest families that have trouble figuring out how to calculate the complicated credit, the report said."

HONEST Families who have trouble calculating the credit. They must be maliciously stealing from the government. At least, that's what I'd expect Fox News to want me to believe.

IRS paid more than $110 billion in improper tax credits | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/22/irs-paid-more-than-110-billion-in-improper-tax-credits/)

Here's a couple quotes from the hill:

"The 21 percent to 25 percent figure the IRS uses includes payments that should have never been made and both over- and underpayments."

Under payments?????? LMAO.
But VTECKIDD said it was just people stealing from hard working taxpayers. LOL

Or this one:
“The IRS appreciates the Inspector General’s acknowledgment of all our work to implement processes that identify and prevent improper EITC payments,” the agency said in its statement. “The IRS protects nearly $4 billion in improper claims each year and is committed to continuing to work to reduce improper claims.”"

So they've stopped more improper payments and everyone appreciates the effort the IRS has taken to keep the number dropping every year. Different story than you're telling.

Audit: IRS allowing billions in improper tax payments - The Hill's On The Money (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/329879-audit-irs-allowing-billions-in-improper-tax-payments)

I think I've found your analogy to private business....

Do you happen to know what shrink is? Of course you do. You've got a long list of credentials. To everyone else who wears a helmet to school, shrink is basically the amount of stuff you can't sell versus the stuff you bought. There are many causes of shrink. Theft is one. Damaged goods is another, expiration is another. It's the managers job to keep this percentage low as possible. Typically, on a corporate level, you have an acceptable percentage of shrink.

No one on any rung of that corporate ladder would suggest that shrink is solely due to malicious theft.
No one on any rung of that ladder would suggest that a decreasing percentage of shrink every year is a bad thing

Every time you post something, I begin to doubt your business acumen. Maybe it's because you've never managed at a corporate retail level like I have. I don't know. But I dont know anyone with the smallest amount of business sense or the smallest shred of desire for honesty and neutrality so unabashedly misrepresent information like that. It's silly.

Do maybe we should remove ourselves from our ideological pedestal next time we read something. K?

[.blank cd]

Blank has a knack for defending the indefensible.

We should judge welfare programs based on how many people leave them. These programs continuing to grow is proof of their failure.

Ppl like blank believe the gov. should have unlimited resources to throw at these programs and the tax payers who fund them should not have an opinion about it.
Do you have an opinion on how open heart surgery should be performed? What about correct courtroom procedure? Contractual jurisprudence? Langrangian and Newtonian Mechanics?

How do you have an opinion on something you don't understand? You all have this asinine theory that the big bad evil democratic Obamian administration is malevolently stealing money from your paycheck every two weeks and giving it to people who purposefully and consciously sit on their ass all day, when it's infinitely more complex than that. You've effectively marginalized yourselves from factual information, since everything disputing that theory is "liberal propaganda" and "Obamanism". So excuse me if I have some trouble incorporating with the hivemind.

[.blank cd]

I cant argue with people like this, who just dont accept the sky is blue

The sky is clear. It appears blue during the daytime due to a process known as Rayleigh scattering, which also makes the sun look yellow.

Maybe this will help you understand the angle I'm approaching.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you have an opinion on how open heart surgery should be performed? What about correct courtroom procedure? Contractual jurisprudence? Langrangian and Newtonian Mechanics?

How do you have an opinion on something you don't understand? You all have this asinine theory that the big bad evil democratic Obamian administration is malevolently stealing money from your paycheck every two weeks and giving it to people who purposefully and consciously sit on their ass all day, when it's infinitely more complex than that. You've effectively marginalized yourselves from factual information, since everything disputing that theory is "liberal propaganda" and "Obamanism". So excuse me if I have some trouble incorporating with the hivemind.



Biggest issue with you is that you think you know so much more than you do. The foundation of every argument with you is you either discrediting the other person or source followed by you putting your own opinion on a pedestal. You can't argue merits.


What radicals like you fail to realize when you attempt to belittle someone like me's opinion is that I am the endgame here. I am what every welfare recipient should aspire to become. An independent self sustained working class American. You liberals never want to listen to business owners, ceos, or successful people and heed their advice about how they got where they are. For as little as you apparently think of me, I'm obviously more capable and intelligent than those you defend. Poor people have been voting democrat for 50 years. Guess what, they're still poor.

So to answer your question, yes. I have an opinion. I am a certified master at living without welfare. Any questions you need answered???

[Vteckidd]

Did anyone say "all the payments are theft and fraudulent"?

Nope

Nice try and nice tangent. Original statement stands try debating that instead

You can argue what type of waste it is, its still waste.

Unscrupulous tax preparers = theft and cheating. Individual do that as well.

Underpayments? Wonder why (rhetorical)

[Vteckidd]

So first you said that it was acceptable because it's a net economic benefit. Now its acceptablebecasue its not really waste. Or is it not anyone's fault because hr block is shady?

You change so much I can't figure out your positions

[.blank cd]

Did anyone say "all the payments are theft and fraudulent"?lets see...

So you are ok with 20+% in fraudulent/improper payments?



If 20% of your workplace were filling out false claims on their timecard, you think they would stay employed?

(IMPROPER is a fancy term for fraud)

the 20-25% of the people ripping the system off, I suspect arent "1%ers".

but you fail to see that.


do you know what the word IMPROPER means? I think you missed the entire point of this thread. At minimum 22% are gaming the system and receiving money they shouldnt be getting. So yes, they are taking advantage of the system.

[.blank cd]

So first you said that it was acceptable because it's a net economic benefit. Now its acceptablebecasue its not really waste. Or is it not anyone's fault because hr block is shady?

You change so much I can't figure out your positions

Changed my position? No. I will adjust based on factual information, but nothing much has changed. Despite its perceived shortcomings, public assistance is still a net economic benefit, and I think the IRS and inspectors efforts to reduce the amount of improper payments every year for the last 10 years is a good thing.

[Browning151]

I like this quote from the FOX NEWS version of the story...

"IRS efforts are hampered by unscrupulous tax preparers as well as honest families that have trouble figuring out how to calculate the complicated credit, the report said."

HONEST Families who have trouble calculating the credit. They must be maliciously stealing from the government. At least, that's what I'd expect Fox News to want me to believe.

IRS paid more than $110 billion in improper tax credits | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/22/irs-paid-more-than-110-billion-in-improper-tax-credits/)


Or this one:
“The IRS appreciates the Inspector General’s acknowledgment of all our work to implement processes that identify and prevent improper EITC payments,” the agency said in its statement. “The IRS protects nearly $4 billion in improper claims each year and is committed to continuing to work to reduce improper claims.”"

So they've stopped more improper payments and everyone appreciates the effort the IRS has taken to keep the number dropping every year. Different story than you're telling.

Audit: IRS allowing billions in improper tax payments - The Hill's On The Money (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/329879-audit-irs-allowing-billions-in-improper-tax-payments)



Instead of going around in circles about what percentages of tax fraud are malicious and what percentages are simple errors etc. etc. perhaps we should look at ways to simplify our arcane tax code so we can (A) Save money by eliminating fraudulent claims, malicious or not and (B) save money on additional time and employees to correct said fraudulent claims, no?

[.blank cd]

Instead of going around in circles about what percentages of tax fraud are malicious and what percentages are simple errors etc. etc. perhaps we should look at ways to simplify our arcane tax code so we can (A) Save money by eliminating fraudulent claims, malicious or not and (B) save money on additional time and employees to correct said fraudulent claims, no?

Best post in this thread

[Vteckidd]

Best post in this thread

it was my original post, you should read it.

Tlak about hyperbole.

[Vteckidd]

lets see...

sigh, its impossible to argue with someone so dense.

Why do you think there are underpayments? OVerpayments?

Answer me that

[.blank cd]

sigh, its impossible to argue with someone so dense.

Why do you think there are underpayments? OVerpayments?

Answer me that

The articles did a decent job of explaining why

[Vteckidd]

thats what i thought.

*unsubscribed

[Sinfix_15]

Instead of going around in circles about what percentages of tax fraud are malicious and what percentages are simple errors etc. etc. perhaps we should look at ways to simplify our arcane tax code so we can (A) Save money by eliminating fraudulent claims, malicious or not and (B) save money on additional time and employees to correct said fraudulent claims, no?

(C) reducing the number of welfare recipients (D) acknowledging that welfare is not a permanent solution.

[Sinfix_15]

so if welfare actually has a positive effect on the economy, can i help pay down the deficit by quitting my job and getting on welfare?

[.blank cd]

so if welfare actually has a positive effect on the economy, can i help pay down the deficit by quitting my job and getting on welfare?

No

[Sinfix_15]

No

wait what????!?!?!?!?!

i thought welfare was good for the economy??

[Sinfix_15]

If welfare is a net economic benefit, could we all be on welfare? what would be the downside of the entire country being on welfare?

[.blank cd]

Assuming you're a single male living on your own, you probably make more than what you'd get on public assistance anyway

So how do you think spending less money is better for the economy?

[Sinfix_15]

Assuming you're a single male living on your own, you probably make more than what you'd get on public assistance anyway

So how do you think spending less money is better for the economy?

Let me take a stab at this net benefit claim..... in layman's terms.

Myself, the middle class American, have taxes taken away from me that the government deems i can live without, that they then provide to the less fortunate. Under the guise that i have enough money to survive and can afford to give some away, it's reasonable to assume that there's a chance i would have chosen to just save the money and not spend it, or at least not spend it immediately. It would be good for the economy if i spent everything i made. The economy thrives when we buy and sell. So now we take this portion of money that i have earned and we distribute it to "someone in need" who will most likely spend 100% of what they're given from the "excess" that is taken from "people who dont need it". Then, even though this number is not really quantifiable, you imagine an amount of things that the "person in need" would have potentially stolen if not for having money distributed to them and nudge the scale even further towards the "net benefit".

So in short, spending is better than not spending, if you give people money they will spend it, if people dont have money they might steal it.

Am i at least in the ballpark of understanding how this works?

[BanginJimmy]

the purpose of public assistance is just assistance.

So you actually believe anyone and everyone should have the option to simply not work and collect a check they didnt earn?




But it seems like you have this deeply held belief that the majority of recipients of public assistance are taking advantage of the system, and it's simply unsupported

Please point out where I said anything remotely close to this.

[.blank cd]

Let me take a stab at this net benefit claim..... in layman's terms.

Myself, the middle class American, have taxes taken away from me that the government deems i can live without, that they then provide to the less fortunate. Under the guise that i have enough money to survive and can afford to give some away, it's reasonable to assume that there's a chance i would have chosen to just save the money and not spend it, or at least not spend it immediately. It would be good for the economy if i spent everything i made. The economy thrives when we buy and sell. So now we take this portion of money that i have earned and we distribute it to "someone in need" who will most likely spend 100% of what they're given from the "excess" that is taken from "people who dont need it". Then, even though this number is not really quantifiable, you imagine an amount of things that the "person in need" would have potentially stolen if not for having money distributed to them and nudge the scale even further towards the "net benefit".

So in short, spending is better than not spending, if you give people money they will spend it, if people dont have money they might steal it.

Am i at least in the ballpark of understanding how this works?

It's really amazes me that there is a cross section of people in this country that champion and. Fight for American imperialism and exceptionalism, yet hate the cost of it at the same time.

Yes. Sparing the ideological babble, you pay taxes. Some of this goes to roads, some goes to schools, some goes to hospitals, some goes to rich people, and some goes to poor people. All of it, for the most part, turns out to be a net economic benefit. This is the cost of living in America. The good news is, any mouth breather who doesn't understand how the system works, who believes 20 cents on the dollar is simply too much to keep America running the way it is, can cast their vote to do away with all of it. The other option is to move to a country without these taxes.

To answer your question in laymans terms: for every dollar the government distributes to poor people, they tend to get $1.50 back.

[Sinfix_15]

It's really amazes me that there is a cross section of people in this country that champion and. Fight for American imperialism and exceptionalism, yet hate the cost of it at the same time.

Yes. Sparing the ideological babble, you pay taxes. Some of this goes to roads, some goes to schools, some goes to hospitals, some goes to rich people, and some goes to poor people. All of it, for the most part, turns out to be a net economic benefit. This is the cost of living in America. The good news is, any mouth breather who doesn't understand how the system works, who believes 20 cents on the dollar is simply too much to keep America running the way it is, can cast their vote to do away with all of it. The other option is to move to a country without these taxes.

To answer your question in laymans terms: for every dollar the government distributes to poor people, they tend to get $1.50 back.

umm...... who's championing imperialism?? and how does financing ghettos accomplish it anyways?

So, since the government profits off distributing money to poor people, everyone should quit their jobs and join welfare to help stimulate the economy and pay down our debt?

I love how you create a thread to pout about the lack of intellectual conversation in this section and then use sensational terms like "mouth breathers" to describe a voter base.

[David88vert]

Top 1 Percent Of Americans Will Pay 30 Percent Of The Nation's Federal Taxes In 2013

Bottom 20 percent
Average income: $10,552.
Average tax bill: -$284.
Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.
___

Middle 20 percent
Average income: $46,562.
Average tax bill: $6,436.
Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.
___

Top 20 percent
Average income: $204,490.
Average tax bill: $55,533.
Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.
___

Top 1 percent
Average income: $1.4 million.
Average tax bill: $514,144.
Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.
___

Note: The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households pays no federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, giving them a negative tax rate.
___

Source: Tax Policy Center
Article: The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Will Pay 30 Percent Of The Nation's Federal Taxes In 2013: Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/1-percent-taxes-2013_n_2802243.html)

[Sinfix_15]

You see.... the problem with statistics is that they can always be misleading.

My friend blank here says that for every $1 the government gives out, they take in $1.50, but what does that really say? if anything? and how can you call this a "net benefit", and based on the standard given by blank himself, what if they gave out .$50 and took in $2, would that be a net benefit too? what if they gave out nothing and took in $3? also a net benefit. So what is the statistic really saying? Truthfully... absolutely nothing, but at a glance it fits Blank's narrative so he throws it out.


Example of how statistics can be misleading and how "truth" isnt always the whole truth.

Based on % of population, according to the 1860 census report, more black people owned slaves than white.

This is a statistically supported fact, but does it tell the truth? No.

Almost all "black slave owners" were people who gained their freedom and purchased back their wives, sons, daughters, brothers ect.......

So take "statistics" with a grain of salt, only to a liberal does a statistic trump common sense.





giving away money is never a "net benefit". It is a cost. whether or not you think the cost is worth it or not is a different argument, but saying it isnt a cost is beyond foolish.

[.blank cd]

giving away money is never a "net benefit". It is a cost. whether or not you think the cost is worth it or not is a different argument, but saying it isnt a cost is beyond foolish.

Ok. Well everyone who has anything to do with economics or math would thoroughly disagree with everything you just said. All of it.

Math doesn't say what you want to believe it says. It never has and it never will.

As a matter of fact, unless anyone has anymore serious questions about economics, I think I'm done with this thread.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. Well everyone who has anything to do with economics or math would thoroughly disagree with everything you just said. All of it.

Math doesn't say what you want to believe it says. It never has and it never will.

As a matter of fact, unless anyone has anymore serious questions about economics, I think I'm done with this thread.
You're not qualified to answer questions.

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"