Economy Sinking Government Knows & Giving Bad Info

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by Jadette

 

Yes, most people can make that much and not pay a dime. If anyone making 30k a year is paying 15% federal, they aren't doing their taxes right. I know of no one who makes that little who is paying anything in federal taxes (state/local is a different matter). I made 25k last year and got everything back from the federal government.

May I ask what sort of write offs you have? Are you working for yourself? It's just that it doesn't seem realistic from what I know of things, and while I'll be the first to admit I'm not a tax expert, if you could give some general examples, it would help me understand why this is a reasonable assumption.

The rich are paying the most taxes. I don't particularly go for the "bash the corporations" line that everyone loves. It is true that some get tax breaks, and so do I. I'm not going to slam a corporation from getting tax breaks when I don't even pay any taxes making about $20k a year as a student. The system is actually set up in favor of the "poor," as anyone who is "rich" gets taxed up to 30%. The money doesn't come out of no where - if the "poor" dont get taxed, and its progressive from there - thats right, those evil rich people are paying.

Well, you may not 'go for it' but I don't particularly 'love it' so be careful of putting words in my mouth. But that aside, I think you'll find that we pay more in corporate welfare than we do for social welfare. About 3 to 1 ratio actually.

Until you can prove that no one pays taxes on up to 30k, I'm not about to believe that you're all getting a free ride and so therefore that corporations should too. Even were it so, and 'right', it's not quite the same thing, not when corporations pay nothing on billions of dollars of profit. Not when corporations actually MAKE MONEY when they file their taxes.

www.eriposte.com...

www.theatlantic.com...

www.ctj.org...

boston.com...

From the above link:

An estimated 94 percent of US corporations reported tax liabilities amounting to less than 5 percent of their total income in 2000. The corporate income tax rate is ostensibly 35 percent, but companies are able to reduce their effective burden by claiming various deductions and credits.

Also, I never said "ALL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS ARE NOT LOANS." I said entitlement programs. They are not the same thing. Entitlements are benefits which - by law - must be given to you without condition. Those benefits include welfare, food stamps, and (for now) state backed disability pay. I don't agree with that, but thats the way it is. If you take out a government backed loan, then of course they have a lien against your house - thats how ALL secure loans are based.

I never said that you did, only clarified that it was true that some welfare must be paid back to maybe explain why the poster's mother had to pay her assistance back. This does INCLUDE entitlement welfare. I'm not talking about a home loan, but welfare as we think of it. I do understand what a government assisted home loan is, and that's not what I am talking about. Read here for an example.

www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/FRONTPAGE/710120341




edit: fixed link



[edit on 19-1-2008 by Jadette]

reply to post by LightinDarkness

which includes the lower middle class (the "poor" do not pay any federal taxes).

We have already established that this point is factually not true.

The low class will go out and splurge, the middle class pay their bills, and the upper class (depending on where you live, making 70k in a rural town would be upper class) will sock it away in a bank account.

I am dumbfounded that you would make such a blatantly ignorant statement. The poor might go out and splurge on some food that will not leave them suffering from malnutrition, or might actually get the heat turned back on.

The only people who are going to splurge are the ones who believe that the government is always right and won't let anything bad happen to them. People who have no fear of being poor, because they don't think it is possible for them to actually be poor.




[edit on 1/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

This whole collapse of banking has been predicted since mortgage companies started failing a year ago.

The federal Reserve is behind it, just as they were behind the crash of 29.

Look at the similarities.

Hello North American Union, Hello Amero

reply to post by Jadette


I have no write offs currently other than about 10% of my income goes to charity. But I also know people who don't give a dime to charity and they end up not owing a dime in federal taxes either. I don't know why anyone at such a low income level would be paying unless they don't claim the head of household exemption. But that usually means someone else is claiming you/supporting you and in that case - yes, you would be paying taxes with only one exemption (assuming no other dependents).

Citing conspiracy websites to somehow "prove" that we pay more in "corporate welfare" over regular entitlements does not constitute proof. It is also a completely deceptive method of trying to compare the value of tax abatements versus the value of government spending with two separate type of institutions with entirely different economies of scale. In any case, none of the peer reviewed literature I've found agrees with anything you've cited:

Hauflerz, A. & G. Schjelderupy. (2000). Corporate tax systems and cross country profit sharing. Oxford Economic Papers, 52: 306-325.

Pampel, F.C. & J.B. Williamson. (1988). Welfare Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies. The American Journal of Sociology, 93(6); 1424-1456.

All of the data indicates corporations pay big, which is in fact why we have outsourcing issues. And the spending on social welfare is increasing way out of proportion with inflation. Frankly, I'm much more likely to agree with peer reviewed data and analysis over conspiracy sites, clearly biased political agendas, and randomly selected case studies in popular media. Of course your links are being deceptive: liabilities do not equate to taxes paid. I'm sure the authors of the quotes know this, of course, but its much better to push lies if they don't explain that.

About entitlement: again, incorrect. That link is talking about town assistance which is _not_ an entitlement benefit. Again, trying to compare things that cannot be compared. I am and have only talked about federal entitlement benefits. The town paying someone's electrical bill is not a federal entitlement benefit. In fact, I would be outraged if a town was paying for someone's electrical bill and didn't ask for the money back. They are paying them with MY PROPERTY TAX MONEY when we have charities and churches who do this WITHOUT using MY MONEY.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Actually, you have not established it all. It is factually true that the "poor" receive all of their federal taxes paid back. I am amazed that this basic fact of reality escapes you. Its called a progressive tax system (and not regressive) for a reason. I just checked, and even wikipedia is has it right on this (which is surprising).

I am dumbfounded that you would make such a blatantly ignorant statement. I am sorry you do not realize that GOVERNMENT REBATES HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE, and when they did DATA WAS COLLECTED ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED. I am sorry you don't like the facts, but the facts stand: those who are in lowest tax brackets spent their rebates on things that THEY classified as non-essential (ie, not food or some other necessity). I am quite sure a few spent it on food, but it wasn't enough to make it statistically significant.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


I understand what a progressive tax system is, but this does not mean that poor people get all of their taxes back.

From Wikipedia:

If taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of income on each dollar that falls within that monetary range. For example, a person who earned $10,000 in taxable income (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) for 2006 would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50.

This clearly shows a tax liability that will not be refunded.

You probably do get all of your taxes back, since your income goes toward education, but obviously this is not the case for everyone.

Furthermore, no one ever gets back money paid in to Social Security, Medicare, etc. Again it makes no sense for someone who is taking money from the government today, to be paying in to the government for anything. But I do realize this is a bit of a seperate argument considering that these payroll deductions are not strictly classified as income tax, even though it's actually what it amounts to. Why should someone be paying for government funded senior-citizen medical insurance, when they can't even afford medical coverage today?

As far as government rebates go, please provide the data which you are speaking of. And please don't give me Hurrican Katrina data because the psychological aspects of a disaster of that magnitude make the data irrelevant to the overall condition of general society.

reply to post by jackinthebox


*Sigh*. Taxable income does not mean you do not receive it back after filing taxes. Everyone pays taxes all year long, and then EVERYONE under a X amount "the poor" who file correctly get it all back. This is simply reality. I wish it wasn't that way. Really I do. I wish that we would all be taxed equally. But we're not. The rich pay, and the poor (like me!) get off easy. And what does my income having to go to education matter? There are no tax write offs for graduate school (the only education write offs I've ever seen is for undergrad). Yet somehow I get all my federal taxes back.

I never said you got money back for SSDI/social security. I said federal taxes. It is true that everyone must pay those. I wish it wasn't. I wish we'd axe social security and let people fend for themselves since the system is bankrupt to begin with. Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen as long as people demand their entitlements.

The Katrina rebates are an excellent example of what happens. You already knew that, of course. The Katrina case - if you were correct - SHOULD be an excellent example. After all, the people given those cards had absolutely nothing, everything they had was destroyed. If ever there were a time to demonstrate the lower class would only spend rebates on the essentials, that would be it. And yet the exact opposite happened. How do you explain that? The same thing has happened with other government rebates:

Matthew, S.D. (2002). Did the 2001 Tax Rebate Stimulate Spending? Evidence from Taxpayer Surveys. Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 9308

The evidence demonstrates that any "direct check" from the government results in frivolous spending from most of the "low class."

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by Jadette

 

I have no write offs currently other than about 10% of my income goes to charity. But I also know people who don't give a dime to charity and they end up not owing a dime in federal taxes either. I don't know why anyone at such a low income level would be paying unless they don't claim the head of household exemption. But that usually means someone else is claiming you/supporting you and in that case - yes, you would be paying taxes with only one exemption (assuming no other dependents).

Citing conspiracy websites to somehow "prove" that we pay more in "corporate welfare" over regular entitlements does not constitute proof. It is also a completely deceptive method of trying to compare the value of tax abatements versus the value of government spending with two separate type of institutions with entirely different economies of scale. In any case, none of the peer reviewed literature I've found agrees with anything you've cited:

Hauflerz, A. & G. Schjelderupy. (2000). Corporate tax systems and cross country profit sharing. Oxford Economic Papers, 52: 306-325.

Pampel, F.C. & J.B. Williamson. (1988). Welfare Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies. The American Journal of Sociology, 93(6); 1424-1456.

While it's true, none of these are peer reviewed papers, neither are any 'conspiracy' sites. And, the numbers are simple to find, it's a little hard to debate something that simple. X dollars spent on welfare is a pretty easy number to find. now it's true, it's harder to find out how much money corporation X made and how much of their profit was written off, but it's not impossible by any means. Yes yes, of course, it's disengenuous to call it Corporate Welfare as if both systems were identical. HOWEVER, it is a monetary support system to enable the entity to survive. And yes yes, encouraging business is good for us all. HOWEVER, there is the line of reasonable concourse and then there is paying ZERO taxes because of these entitlements or even more ridiculous, dipping into negative balances and putting cash into their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer.

Now, peer reviewed or not, neither your first paper, (by Haufler, A. G. [bold]Schjelderup[/bold],) or your second, disprove any point I'm trying to make nor proves any point you're trying to make. One merely tells the system by which they manuever their tax responsiblity and the other talks about the function and theory of welfare systems as it relates to 'modern' democracies.

All of the data indicates corporations pay big, which is in fact why we have outsourcing issues.

Actually, dont' they outsource to SAVE money, not spend it?

And the spending on social welfare is increasing way out of proportion with inflation.

Let's see, inflation for 2007 was 6.3 percent. And the new welfare budget will increase by 10 percent.

But I'm sure you realise most of this is our aging population, not padding the pockets of welfare queens.

Frankly, I'm much more likely to agree with peer reviewed data and analysis over conspiracy sites, clearly biased political agendas, and randomly selected case studies in popular media. Of course your links are being deceptive: liabilities do not equate to taxes paid. I'm sure the authors of the quotes know this, of course, but its much better to push lies if they don't explain that.

Sure, if your peer reviewed papers were actually data that pertained more than peripherally to our conversations. And I strongly disagree with your tactics of dismissal of the links I posted. Data is data, however it's presented. "Liabilities do not equate to taxes paid". Are you kidding? Do you not get the point that the government has created tax 'loop holes' and havens that favor big businesses. That these sorts of 'entitlements' are unfair. That these entities are not pulling their fair share of the tax burden.

About entitlement: again, incorrect. That link is talking about town assistance which is _not_ an entitlement benefit. Again, trying to compare things that cannot be compared. I am and have only talked about federal entitlement benefits. The town paying someone's electrical bill is not a federal entitlement benefit. In fact, I would be outraged if a town was paying for someone's electrical bill and didn't ask for the money back. They are paying them with MY PROPERTY TAX MONEY when we have charities and churches who do this WITHOUT using MY MONEY.

I'm afraid that you're off on some tangent here. Someone posted that his mother had to pay back her welfare. He didnt' know the details. You said that no one ever has to pay anything back. I replied and said that there were some forms of assistance that were paid back, grants sometimes and loans.

Epsom Selectman Bob McKechnie called the letter a courtesy to remind people of what they should already know - that welfare should be repaid

.

Town, city, state, whatever. She was given some form of social assistance and had to pay it back. Ok, don't call it entitlement. But it does explain that many the poster's mother really did have to pay /something/ back, of which none of us know what it is. But maybe she needed help with rent or bills. As I said in my original post, a grant or loan perhaps?, could have been given to her.

There's no argument to be had here. Also, this is getting way off topic, could we get back to the topic please?

Edit: removed a partial sentence

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Jadette]

reply to post by Jadette


Uhh, some of them are conspiracy sites - and the rest of them are popular media. Again, I trust peer reviewed articles over those sources. And the data from the peer reviewed articles is completely opposite of your "sources." The data I see in those articles says that while certainly corporations receives tax write offs - social entitlement spending far surpasses corporate tax rebates and corporate tax rebates play a major decision in keeping a company in the United States. Did you even READ those papers? Obviously not, because they both disprove what you said. You know, sometimes you have to go beyond trying to read abstracts to look at data sets. Maybe you aren't aware of that. Sometimes the data appendix has regression correlations that the author does not touch on in a big way but nonetheless makes important points. If you refuse to actually read them and analyze the data, I don't know what to say. I'll just keep saying the data says your wrong, and I have nothing more to say. I cannot help you on your inability to understand what tax liabilities actually mean when it comes to GAP.

I'm afraid your going off into tangents about welfare doesn't help your argument. You should stop putting words in other peoples mouths. Again - this is federal law - federal entitlements are not loans. Ever. They do not have to be paid back. Ever. That is all I have stated. You tried to argue, and you have been shown to be wrong. That you linked to a story about a non-federal entitlement which has to be paid back does not matter.

Your right - there is no argument to be had here. The data says your simply wrong. You even tried to argue with me and then cited data saying your wrong. For example, see: government social programs growing greater than inflation. Also, your using CPI to measure inflation on government spending. Big mistake. If you actually measured government inflation using a public sector price index that measured GOVERNMENT RELATED cost inflation, it would be much lower. In any case, I'm still correct on that point. The topic is about government disinformation. Would you like to provide an example of that?

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by Jadette

 

Uhh, some of them are conspiracy sites - and the rest of them are popular media. Again, I trust peer reviewed articles over those sources. And the data from the peer reviewed articles is completely opposite of your "sources." The data I see in those articles says that while certainly corporations receives tax write offs - social entitlement spending far surpasses corporate tax rebates and corporate tax rebates play a major decision in keeping a company in the United States. Did you even READ those papers? Obviously not, because they both disprove what you said. You know, sometimes you have to go beyond trying to read abstracts to look at data sets. Maybe you aren't aware of that. Sometimes the data appendix has regression correlations that the author does not touch on in a big way but nonetheless makes important points. If you refuse to actually read them and analyze the data, I don't know what to say. I'll just keep saying the data says your wrong, and I have nothing more to say. I cannot help you on your inability to understand what tax liabilities actually mean when it comes to GAP.

Actually, I'm done talking to you. In the 4 years I've been here, I've never met anyone as rude as you, nor as argumentative. You aren't here to discuss, you're here to insult people and fight.

You clearly didn't even read or understand what I just posted, or as I am beginning to see, are deliberately distorting things in order to simply argue.

Finally, I have nothing more to say except that you are an /excellent/ example of someone twisting facts, babbling rhetoric and spewing disinformation. You don't even make sense from one post to another.

So good luck with that, and welcome to ignore.

reply to post by LightinDarkness

*Sigh*. Taxable income does not mean you do not receive it back after filing taxes. Everyone pays taxes all year long, and then EVERYONE under a X amount "the poor" who file correctly get it all back. This is simply reality.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Taxable income is income which is taxed.

Again from the source you referred me to:

For example, a person who earned $10,000 in taxable income (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) for 2006 would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50.

Liability is not money you will get back.

And the "X" amount you refer to is $10, 488 for absolute poverty, as opposed to more practically defining poverty in relative terms.

I never said you got money back for SSDI/social security.

I never said you did.

The Katrina rebates are an excellent example of what happens.

Those people had just walked out of hell on Earth. If you ask me, they deserved a little celebration. If you think someone is thinking clearly after something like that, you should check your own thinking. My uncle and his family went through more than a year of intensive therapy after they escaped New Orleans. And they actually had a place to go! Maybe you don't consider it essential to have a $200 a night hotel room, but when you have no other place to go, what are your options?

Besides all of that, those benefits were really a practically useless drop in the bucket. A thousand dollars was not going to put them in a new home and feed them until they were able to find a new job and start a whole new life somewhere else.

I will now go check the source you listed as evidence.

reply to post by Jadette


Thanks! You were very rude to me, so I'm glad that your through. I am sorry that you perceive me asking you to read the articles and look at the data as "rude" - but I can't do anything but ask you to read the data, and if you refuse to do so all I can say is the data says your incorrect.

If there is no agreement on the factual data, then I can't do anything except say the facts say X..you say Y...I'm going to agree with X. And your rudeness and putting words in my mouth didn't help.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Taxable income means the amount on which you are taxed, but this amount IS NOT the same as your income! It is gross income minus all your deductions:

Sec. 63. Taxable Income Defined

Sec. 63. Taxable Income defined
(a) In general. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

For the "poor" those deductions means a taxable income of $0 or a refund. I cannot believe we arguing about this. Do you believe the low class actually pay 10% of their income? You do not know that almost all of them (including me, and everyone I know) pay $0 or get a refund because after deductions the taxable income is 0?!

The rationalization of the Katrina debacle is interesting. You claim that the poor are always spending every dime on the essentials. Yet here - again - is a case where the people receiving this card lost EVERYTHING and DIDN'T EVEN HAVE any essentials. And yet instead of buying those essentials - they bought booze and flat screen TVS. How can this be if you are correct?

reply to post by LightinDarkness

Matthew, S.D. (2002). Did the 2001 Tax Rebate Stimulate Spending? Evidence from Taxpayer Surveys. Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 9308

The evidence demonstrates that any "direct check" from the government results in frivolous spending from most of the "low class."

Actually, you must have thought no one would bother to check your "impeccible" credibility. You provide an impressive looking source as supporting your assertions, when in reality your own source said this:

In 2001, many households received rebate checks as advanced payments of the benefit of the new, 10 percent federal income tax bracket. A survey conducted at the time the rebates were mailed finds that few households said that the rebate led them mostly to increase spending. A follow-up survey in 2002, as well as a similar survey conducted after the attacks of 9/11, also indicates low spending rates

This is the exact opposite of what you have claimed. Once again you have deliberately posted misdirecting information. But I suppose this is why you never bother to actually quote or link your sources. Your crediblity now rests thoroughly impeached.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Excellent. You fell right into the trap. You see, I met the authors of this study so I know all about the paper and the resulting publication. I also knew that there was a copy on google as a EARLY DRAFT that you would try to quote out of context and do exactly as you've done. Unfortunately, you failed to read the actual resultant publication or the finer points of methodology, which states:

There is no evidence that the tax rebate spending among low income respondents would stimulate aggregate demand...

This hypothesis is based off the presumption that low income respondents, who are known to spend all of their rebate on luxury goods that stimulate the economy (the profit margin on essential goods is comparable low), somehow impacts aggregate demand. Of course, if you read the whole journal publication you would see that...but you did what I expected

There were a few more passages I'd hope you'd try to quote, the one you picked is pretty bad for your side actually. That one doesn't disagree with me at all.

Once again you have deliberately used a quote out of context and provided false information. But I yet again note this is why you never actually quote any peer reviewed sources. You see, unlike conspiracy websites actually published articles require a subscription. I can't link to them - because while anyone can put a website and make fantastical claims, the standard of evidence for a journal is much higher. Where is YOUR proof? My source supports that low income tax rebates fail because while low income people spend it on luxury goods it isn't enough to cause an aggregate impact. Where is your peer reviewed source to the contrary?

This is the exact opposite of what you have claimed. Once again you have deliberately posted misdirecting information. But I suppose this is why you never bother to actually quote or link your sources. Your crediblity now rests thoroughly impeached.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by LightinDarkness

For the "poor" those deductions means a taxable income of $0 or a refund. I cannot believe we arguing about this. Do you believe the low class actually pay 10% of their income? You do not know that almost all of them (including me, and everyone I know) pay $0 or get a refund because after deductions the taxable income is 0?!

The standard deduction this year is $8,750. The official poverty line is about $10,500. This means that even people below the poverty line will pay $174 in Federal taxes according to the IRS. This will not be refunded to them, unless there is some other deduction they can find to take.

The rationalization of the Katrina debacle is interesting. You claim that the poor are always spending every dime on the essentials. Yet here - again - is a case where the people receiving this card lost EVERYTHING and DIDN'T EVEN HAVE any essentials. And yet instead of buying those essentials - they bought booze and flat screen TVS. How can this be if you are correct?

I never made such a claim. As I stated earlier, I think that anyone who escaped that hell was more than entitled to a drink. As far as things like flat screen TV's, you obviously have no understanding of how the underground economy operates. Say someone's job was dealing drugs. That this is what they did, legal or not, to feed their children. Their "re-up" money was swept away. So, they traded a new TV to keep their illicit business running. Understand? These are the stupid games poor people are forced to play because of people like you who think they are just too dumb to have anything and only starve to death because of poor choices.

reply to post by jackinthebox


There is more than one deduction. At least two, actually (standard + head of household), for everyone - and far more than that for the vast majority. Again, how is it that I don't pay a dime in federal taxes? How? You claim I should be paying 10%..yet all my life the IRS has never come after me and I've never paid a dime of federal taxes anytime I've been in the "poor" class. I get every dime back. I've had my returns reviewed by friends who are accountants, so it can't be that I'm cheating somehow. How is this?

You have claimed that rebates to the "poor" are spent only on the essentials, then denied making that claim. Then you justified the actions of those who did exactly what you claimed they would not do after Katrina. Now instead of just admitting that the people who abused the Katrina cards were just recklessly spending, you tell us they must all be drug dealers and traded in TVs to keep up their illegal business. An illegal business that they had to "keep up" even though all of their clientele would obviously have been relocated to other areas, yet somehow they had to keep it up. The rationalizing is becoming increasingly fantastical, and at this point its so fantastical I think it speaks for itself. Do you have ANY proof for ANY of this?

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by LightinDarkness


So in other words, you have taken the long way around wasting everyone's time here on ATS reading this, to prove that you have nothing valid to say and that your source cannot even decide on their own hypothesis? Way ta go champ.

For everyone else, I suggest you click here for a video example of what just actually happened here.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I advise everyone to view your link. It will give a lot of introspection into how jack tries to reason!

And no jack, I just know how you argue. In other words, instead of actually reading the full paper you cherry picked a quote which - actually doesn't disagree with me at all (I really advise you pick another one, thats a pretty bad one for your side) - and somehow claim it means something completely different than what it actually means. When all the facts show your wrong, you change reality. Unlike your sources, unbiased sources test their hypothesis when they have theories about the world.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by LightinDarkness


I have no idea what your taxes are or how you do them, so don't ask me how you have managed to cheat your way out of paying taxes. As far as "the vast majority" of poor people being able to take "far more" deductions, I suggest you show evidence of your obviously exaggerated claim.

You have claimed that rebates to the "poor" are spent only on the essentials, then denied making that claim.

I never made any such claim. I do not deal in absolutes, I deal in reality. I am not going to say that a poor person might not just be completely fed up and decide to take their check and buy a $500 TV. What I am saying is that poor people are not universally irresponsible, and that even the majority will put that money toward something like better food for a few weeks, or the comfort of heat in the winter time.

And I said this in reply to your inflammatory statement:

The low class will go out and splurge, the middle class pay their bills, and the upper class (depending on where you live, making 70k in a rural town would be upper class) will sock it away in a bank account.

As if being poor somehow equates to stupidity. Futhermore, you were unable to show proof to support your statement.