What's dishonest? I post data indicating average incomes and their associated average spending levels. The averages show that few people will spend below poverty level.But the numbers don't add up and, because the screwy number support your claim, you don't care to know why.
First, the data discount your theory that the rebate is going to be going to people who don't deserve it (and that doesn't happen now, does it?)Do you not agree that anyone spending less than the poverty level would make money with the "prebate"? (Actually, it's a little lower than the poverty level, but that doesn't matter for our discussion.) Would you not also agree that there are people spending below the poverty level?
Second, the data show a valid reason to assert that the nrst does a better job of collecting from the cash economy.You are making the assumption that anyone spending more that they are making in income is in the "cash economy." Wouldn't a person living off of savings spend more than they make in income? Isn't that much more likely than someone in the "cash economy" answering a survey from the government saying I spend $20,000 but only make $5,000 (basically admitting they under-report their income)?
As I've said for months, if you have associated data, post it. To date, you've declined to post any contrary data. Who's dishonest - the one who posts data and uses the data to buttress an assertion or the one who discounts the data because he doesn't like it?Go to the Consumer Expenditure Survey's Standard Error table. Notice how the coefficient of variation (CV(%)) for the "Less than $5,000" column is significantly higher than the other columns. That means the variation in levels of expenditures in this column is very high. This goes back to what I was trying to explain to you earlier about averages and populations. In this column you obviously have a lot of people spending a little and a few people spending a lot and that is skewing the average.
Keep trying.Why don't you start trying. The truth shall set you free.
Strawman.
My claim is only that the data show that irrespective of reported income, people spend to the poverty level. There are a number of reasons for this.
As you posted, a significant number could be living on saved money - in which case they will not profit from the rebate. That a significant number of people are in that category supports the assertion that few will profit from the rebate. The existence of this category makes the group that may profit from tax refunds even smaller. Of course, we know that nobody profits of tax refunds these days LOL.
Do you not agree that anyone spending less than the poverty level would make money with the "prebate"?
Depends on the tme frame. I could profit one month by buyng-up/prepaying necessities the previous month - so that I'd have few necessities in the current month. Of course then I'd profit in the current month but I would have paid tax on the necessities the previous month. So in a one month window, I'd profit. But long term, no gain.
You are making the assumption that anyone spending more that they are making in income is in the "cash economy."
Another strawman. If someone spends more than they make in income in a given time period, they may be in the cash economy. That's all.
Standard errors are not relevant. We both agree that these are averages. The reasons you say the errors are important is to support your claim that one who spends more than they earn does not have to be in the cash economy. Well, me too. That doesn't matter wrt pofiting from rebate. What is germane is that all of the folks spending savings, borrowing to spend, whatever the source.... these folks are excluded from the group that may profit.;0)
Living off savings is obviously one way to have earnings less than savings.... and this group will not profit from the rebate.
Whether or not they are in the cash economy is unknown, but they may be. If even one of the individuals listed is in it, the nrst will collect his taxes more completely and fairly than the income tax. :0) Ya think? lol
Keep trying.
The rebate is for everyone, not a subgroup defined by income.
Strawman.
My claim is only that the data show that irrespective of reported income, people spend to the poverty level. There are a number of reasons for this.
As you posted, a significant number could be living on saved money - in which case they will not profit from the rebate. That a significant number of people are in that category supports the assertion that few will profit from the rebate. The existence of this category makes the group that may profit from tax refunds even smaller. Of course, we know that nobody profits of tax refunds these days LOL.
Do you not agree that anyone spending less than the poverty level would make money with the "prebate"?
Depends on the tme frame. I could profit one month by buyng-up/prepaying necessities the previous month - so that I'd have few necessities in the current month. Of course then I'd profit in the current month but I would have paid tax on the necessities the previous month. So in a one month window, I'd profit. But long term, no gain.
You are making the assumption that anyone spending more that they are making in income is in the "cash economy."
Another strawman. If someone spends more than they make in income in a given time period, they may be in the cash economy. That's all.
Standard errors are not relevant. We both agree that these are averages. The reasons you say the errors are important is to support your claim that one who spends more than they earn does not have to be in the cash economy. Well, me too. That doesn't matter wrt pofiting from rebate. What is germane is that all of the folks spending savings, borrowing to spend, whatever the source.... these folks are excluded from the group that may profit.;0)
Living off savings is obviously one way to have earnings less than savings.... and this group will not profit from the rebate.
Whether or not they are in the cash economy is unknown, but they may be. If even one of the individuals listed is in it, the nrst will collect his taxes more completely and fairly than the income tax. :0) Ya think? lol
Keep trying.
The rebate is for everyone, not a subgroup defined by income.
That's your interpretation Nightie, andwe've seen how accurate your "interpretations" are in the past (409% error remember).
There are certainly other interpretations possible, and the number of pople covered in that coilumn is much smaller that most of the others IAE.
Actually the numbers aren't intended to "add up" so claiming they don't do so is meaningless nonsense ... but you're good at that.
the point is still correct that not many receiving the prebate will be spending at much below the poverty level (if at all). Post #195 is still more rational on the matter that your palaver.