Of the net-negative, I do not now. Of the individual programs, that data is usually public. For example with SNAP (food stamps) it is (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2013.pdf):
* 37.8% White
* 25.8% Black, non-Hispanic
* 16.1% Hispanic
* 2.4% Asian, non-Hispanic
* 1.4% Native American
* 16.5% not reported or mixed.
For the Earned Income Tax Credit (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...ncome-tax-credit-and-the-white-working-class/)
* 49% White
* 19% Black
* 24% Hispanic
* 4% Asian
* 2% Other or unknown
Hey, if we are going to generate an unrealistic stereotype (to later turn into slurs, hate, violence, etc) it might as well be based somewhat in reality!disgusting white people sucking on the teet.
So you admit that OP is stupid, but then you go to parrot the same sources as he does. Real genius at work here.
disgusting white people sucking on the teet.
Ask any statistician and they will say that NO statistical model is correct. But some are useful.Thank god you retards aren't statisticians.
Except, you know, that it doesn't tie to the overall populations in anyway.
If things were to be equal, we would have 77% of whites on those welfare programs. I know you're too stupid to understand population proportions and would rather just say "OOOOOHHHHH Shiny big number! That's the biggest number and it's white people!". Meanwhile, blacks make up approx. 13% of the population but take 26% from the programs
Thank god you retards aren't statisticians.
Yes, Medicare, I know the difference and just mixed the two.
you didn't experiment that dropping the 47% to 0% would have negligible effects - because you forgot to factor in the concept that the majority of the 47% are net negatives. In order to pay $1 in taxes, you must first give up the amount that you benefited from our tax system. Nice try though.
Social security and medicare go to defined pools. They don't affect the deficit in any way, shape, or form. So no, you can't factor those in just like you can't factor in State income taxes or state sales tax.
"The 47%"....
is down to 44%....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-19/4-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-tax
Years of negative wage growth with any gains flowing to the top and the government cutting taxes (and giving credit) to the bottom half, in hopes to prop them up from the stagnant/falling wages will give you this. The top threw in loans and lots of credit to the bottom half to double dip.
If wages grew, this wouldn't happen, IMO. (I am open to change that though if shown evidence against it).
Except, you know, that it doesn't tie to the overall populations in anyway.
If things were to be equal, we would have 77% of whites on those welfare programs. I know you're too stupid to understand population proportions and would rather just say "OOOOOHHHHH Shiny big number! That's the biggest number and it's white people!". Meanwhile, blacks make up approx. 13% of the population but take 26% from the programs
Thank god you retards aren't statisticians.
That's actually wildly disproportionate versus average household wealth in favor of whites, in case you were actually wondering. Funnily enough, household wealth in black families is vastly lower than that of white families with similar incomes. Boy I wonder why.
OP was stupid because he had 2 posts and randomly deiced to post this thread in OT. Obviously it has since been moved to this bastion of deplorables.
OP was stupid because he had 2 posts and randomly deiced to post this thread in OT. Obviously it has since been moved to this bastion of deplorables.
You can't get blood from a turnip. There is no point trying to get a few bucks out of people who can't afford it. Currently 75% of americans live paycheck to paycheck and cannot come up with $500 dollars to address an emergency. Any discussion of trying to tax these people more, particularly disproportionately to the rich is ridiculous.
On that now, I personally would like to see all the homeowner tax credits and deductions go away. Not really sure why either side (GOP or democratic) would want to actively subsidize home ownership in this country other than the proverbial death-grip on politician's figurative testicles that the real-estate lobby has in DC.