Angelina Jolie Likes Her Guns  |   Home  |   White House Emails Ruled Off Limits

More Taxes Do Not Reduce Childhood Poverty

The Appletonian takes the Cap Times to school regarding their linking of the tax burden to the childhood poverty rate.

This morning I did a regression analysis comparing the 50 states’ tax rankings with their childhood poverty rankings. The results: there is no relationship between the two.

If the Cap Times was right that more taxes lead to less poverty, there should be a negative correlation between the variables (i.e. the state that is first for taxes should be last for childhood poverty and the state that’s last in taxes should be first for childhood poverty, or a less dramatic relationship along those lines).

That’s not the case at all. A state’s tax ranking has essentially zero predictive value on what its childhood poverty rank is. To see just how little predictive value it has, check out the graph below.

Posted by Owen at 2000 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. I wonder how that graph would look if instead of one axis being simply “taxes,” it was actually dollars per capita spent on social programs.

   Posted by scott on June 17, 2008 at 2042 hrs




2. That’s a scattergram isn’t it.

   Proves nothing. An eight year old will tell you that taxes could be used for all kinds of things.

   Take Wisconsin, your favorite subject. We spend a crap-load on corrections.

   That I believe leads to child poverty.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2008 at 2118 hrs




3. Entitlements lead to poverty - not locking up the people who think it is better to steal than work.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0718 hrs




4. Scott, that would be an interesting graph, something I would really like to see.

   Unfortunately, that is not what the Capital Times was claiming.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0733 hrs




5. Well considering that with the exception of those who have a severe handicap that prevents them from providing for themselves, anyone who is poor is poor by their own choices, why are we suprised that taxes don’t bring people out of poverty?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0942 hrs




6. Only a complete idiot would make a statement like “taxes bring prosperity,” so let’s dispense with the straw man.

   Be that as it may, I was wondering—why is the poverty rate so much lower in so many nations with higher tax rates?

   Posted by scott on June 18, 2008 at 0946 hrs




7. Only a complete idiot would make a statement like “taxes bring prosperity,” so let’s dispense with the straw man.

   Good morning Scott.  Thanks for the intelligent debate so early in the day. 

   let me rephrase for you:

   Considering that with the exception of those who have a severe handicap that prevents them from providing for themselves, anyone who is poor is poor by their own choices, why are we suprised that social spending doesn’t bring people out of poverty?

   Is that better Scott?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1003 hrs




8. We don’t know that social spending doesn’t alleviate poverty.  We don’t know that at all.  This graph doesn’t tell us anything about that.

   Posted by scott on June 18, 2008 at 1006 hrs




9. But we do know that living in poverty is a choice that people make (by and large)

   So why would social spending affect the choices people make?  Do we have any evidence of the governments ability to motivate people?

   Let me ask you this, does giving people money motivate them or enable them to not be motivated?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1030 hrs




10. No, we don’t know that poverty is just a matter of personal choice.  You, in your moralistic, narrow and simplified little world know it.  But not all of us do.

    But that’s not really the primary issue here.  We’re not asking about the cause of poverty.  We’re asking about what might or might not effectively combat it.  “Higher taxes”?  The question doesn’t even make a lot of sense, as tax revenue is spent on a wide variety of things, much of which would not be expected to have any impact on poverty rates.  “Social spending”?  Now maybe we’re narrowing it to a meaningful level.  But unfortunately no one seems to have data on that point.

    Posted by scott on June 18, 2008 at 1039 hrs




11. We’re not asking about the cause of poverty.  We’re asking about what might or might not effectively combat it.

    Isn’t it logical that to find out how to combat poverty one might understand the cause?

    Do you go to the doctor and tell them your arm hurts and then when he asks what happened you tell him “hey doc, i’m not interested in what caused my arm to hurt, I just want it to feel better”

    The cause of a problem is inherent in finding a solution?  Are you suggesting they are mutually exclusive? And you’ve called me a “complete idiot” in this thread?  Oh my!

    No, we don’t know that poverty is just a matter of personal choice.  You, in your moralistic, narrow and simplified little world know it.  But not all of us do.

    Actually I think we did.

    You gave the definition of poverty a while back.  And by the definition it was clear that poverty was a choice.

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/perma link/the_fairness_of_progressive_taxation/

    I asked you to define poor.  So you provided a link to the government definition of poverty.

    By your source.  The poverty level for a single person is 10,400

    Working 40 hours a week, thats 5 bucks an hour.  There is NO way that anyone could be poor in this country if they chose to get a job because miniumum wage is higher than that.

    That seems pretty indicative that ANYONE who is poor is either incapacitated physically from working, OR has chosen not to get a job.

    Moving up the chart cited in the link, as you add people to the family unit, the poverty line moves UP.  So if you have 8 people in the family, THEN you must make 35,600 a year or more or you are considered “poor” admitedly that will be harder to make (income wise) for some people.  Minimum wage for a sole income earner won’t cut it.

    So I guess that means that the best way to avoid being “poor” is to avoid having a bunch of kids if you can’t support them.

    Further proving the point that being “poor” is very much the result of choices you make.

    Or are you now going to make the case that having kids isn’t a choice either?  Those things just pop outta nowhere don’t they!

    Are you going to make the case that social spending will stop people from fucking when they can’t afford the results of fucking?

    Please do tell just how social spending (all these entitlements) solves the cause of poverty?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1141 hrs




12. ANYONE who is poor is either incapacitated physically from working, OR has chosen not to get a job.

    You left out a huge percentage of the people living in poverty… the children that are born into it, don’t recieve an education and perpetuate it. 

    The only solution to poverty is an entitlement… education.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1200 hrs




13. You left out a huge percentage of the people living in poverty… the children that are born into it, don’t recieve an education and perpetuate it. 

    Bull…

    You don’t need an education to earn minimum wage.

    Plenty of manual labor to go around.

    Minimum wage for a single person puts them above the poverty line.

    Children born into poverty (by the choice of their parents) only stay in poverty if they make a choice not to get a job.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1409 hrs




14. It must be very comfortable in your simple, simple world.  People’s circumstances are solely the product of their own choices, with never anyone or anything else to consider.  It even sidesteps the messy question of whether you are in any sense obligated to help people less fortunate than yourself—of course not!  Plus, it has the added bonus of enabling you to feel self-congratulator in the extreme, as your own comfortable circumstances are yours to take sole credit for.  Bravo!

    Posted by scott on June 18, 2008 at 1416 hrs




15. scott, I know when you don’t have a point cause you just resort to these attempts at self-righteous condemnation of me..

    There is a very clear issue and when it becomes so crystal clear that you can’t rebut it, you just piss in the pool with your generalizations and mindless condescention to try to make the issue seem more complicated than it is.

    You provided a definition of what poverty was.

    By your own definition anyone who has the capacity to drag their ass out of bed and work 40 a week will put themselves above the poverty line.

    If they choose to have kids they can’t pay for they are dooming themselves to poverty.

    I offered you the opportunity to make the case that having kids is not a choice.  You don’t respond.

    I offered you the opportunity to explain why getting up and working 40 a week which would put ANYONE over the poverty line is not a choice for able bodied people and you respond with your last post #14.

    And you want me to help people who’ve chosen not to help themselves.  No thanks.

    So you can try to paint me as a simple minded person who doesn’t help other people.  You’re wrong, but you don’t care and I don’t need to prove anything to you.

    If I’m so wrong and so simplistic then surely your coming up with something better than #14 would be easy?  After all, I’m the guy you called a “complete idiot” wasn’t I?

    And #14 is all you can rebut with?

    I rest my case.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1504 hrs




16. My comment above is about as accurate a description as I can make of your philosophy.  As far as debating with you about what constitutes poverty, I generally ignore such invitations, as I have no desire to get bogged down in the weeds with an irrational person.  If you have reached your current age believing that poor people are poor because they choose to be poor, it belies a whole range of understandings that I and a lot of other people share.  To even attempt to bring you up to speed on enough of them to convince you of the wrongness of your position would take a whole lot more time and effort than either of us is willing to commit to.

    if to you that means you “won,” you go ahead and enjoy that.  I’m no interested in the kind of argument that amounts to teaching a remedial course on social science to someone violently against learning anything.

    Posted by scott on June 18, 2008 at 1526 hrs




17. If someone wants to work - they will and they will make money. My dad started out as dirt poor farmer boy and he put himself through college and medical school and did pretty well for himself. If he would have sat around waiting for a handout - I’d probably be milking cows right now.

    99% in poverty made poor choices - I’m more than happy to provide a helping hand (and frequently do) to people who need a hand up - but I refuse to give handouts.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1632 hrs




18. As far as debating with you about what constitutes poverty, I generally ignore such invitations, as I have no desire to get bogged down in the weeds with an irrational person.

    In order for me to have a rational debate with someone you actually have to support your position, not just offer up suggestions that there are reasons without ever actually offering up the reasons.

    I think deep down, you know as well as I do that what it really comes down to is some people just don’t want to work hard.  And they feel entitled to have someone else give them something.  Why should they have to work hard when there are all those rich people out there?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1633 hrs




19. Why would they choose to be poor, when they can simply choose not to be?

    Posted by scott on June 18, 2008 at 1635 hrs




20. Why would they choose to be poor, when they can simply choose not to be?

    Very typical of your mindset.  You think “choosing” means snap your fingers and its done.

    Doesn’t work that way.

    Choosing to not be poor means GETTING OFF THEIR LAZY F’n ASS and getting a job.

    Why work hard and just ‘make it’ when you can not work at all and be provided for.

    No pride, just lazy.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 2226 hrs




21. I really don’t have anything else to say.  Other than the fact that I’m pleased to see your attitudes and beliefs about America’s poor right out there in the open.  Too often you conservatives like to make the helping the poor debate about which helps more: social programs or supply-side tax cutting.  In truth the issue is that it’s about wanting—or not wanting—to help in the first place.  I think it’s clear from what you’re saying that you don’t believe you have any obligation to do so.  Why would you?  Poor Americans are “lazy” people who simply need to get “OFF THEIR LAZY F’n ASS” and get jobs.

    It’s refreshing to see conservative understanding of social problems remains consistent.

    Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 0827 hrs




22. Nice try Scott, you got nothin.

    First, I help people ALL the time.

    And very few conservatives believe that we shouldn’t help people.

    MOST believe that the kind of “help” the government gives really isn’t “help” at all.  History supports this idea.

    Thats what this really comes down to.  You want government to help.  Maybe because you’d rather someone else pay for it than you.  Or maybe because your opinion of other human beings is that they wouldn’t help unless forced to do so.  Probably based on your instinct to think that other people have the same proclivities that you do.

    See thats something I’ve learned about people.  They tend to assume other people would act like they do. I mean its natural to think if you like something others would. If you feel a certain way others wood.

    So if you don’t think other people would help without government, I think that says a lot about you frankly.

    I believe people would and do help other people when there is a good reason to do so.  And when they can make sure that their charity is not being used or taken advantage of. 

    If you want to help someone, go do it.  You can help whomever you want.

    And I can support my charities of choice.

    But we know that government is not very discriminate and just throws a whole lot of money at a problem and gets little to no return on that expense.

    Anyone who is able bodied and lives in poverty has chosen to do so.  In other words, they can’t find it within themselves to get out of bed every morning pull their pants on and go to work 40.  Anyone who does that would not be below the poverty level unless they popped out too many kids. (again, their choice)

    You like government programs because then it becomes an entitlement.  People think its their right to have something provided for them.  They need not thank anyone for helping them, they have this government machine that takes other peoples money and gives it to them.

    You don’t like charity because it can be taken away when the giver doesn’t like whats going on with their money.

    So yes Scott.  I’m a big meanie because I believe that people that won’t get out of bed and get a job to put them above the poverty line are lazy.

    I’m happy to have that belief demonstrated to the internet public.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2008 at 0910 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.