# Do we have less compassion for the poor? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 15, 2015, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707 "2015-02-15T06:33:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/221 "2015-02-20T12:02:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s not like you can’t [google](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg) this. > > 16.3% Unemployment Since when is unemployment insurance considered welfare? > [@](#): > > 2.2% Health & Human Services Which also includes things for public health like the CDC - you’re implying that every dime of that goes to the poor? > [@](#): > > And that doesn’t count the money used in other categories such as education for school lunches and other social services. Oh, HORRORS! _Feeding school children!_ Where will it end? Free public education? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/222 "2015-02-20T12:24:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > they don’t. The money comes back in the form of unearned tax credits. Note the term UNEARNED. Given how trimmed down that post was I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. The Earned Income Tax Credit? That’s only eligible to people who are _employed_, and is meant to encourage people to work rather than sit on their ass. You’re saying this is a problem? > [@Magiver](#): > > When you can get China to pick up the slack as World’s policeman that would be swell. Really. I’m totally OK with the US reducing involvement in global affairs and someone else riding to the “rescue”. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > The problem arises when people that have no idea what they are talking about prescribe grand solutions to poverty. That is a fallacy because their isn’t a single cause. Like I already said, some people are temporarily poor because of circumstances (they will generally do just fine over time as long as they keep trying), others are disabled and I do think that society should help them but many others others are simple degenerates who would be back to the same place or in the grave in just a few years if you gave them $1 million tomorrow. > > What do you do about the sizable latter group? You try to minimize the damage they do. If someone is so dysfunctional _for whatever reason_ there is no chance they’ll be a productive member of society then you find a way to enable them to exist while causing minimal social damage. That may, in fact, entail some sort of minimal (but decent) housing, food allowance, and other actual necessities. Prisoners are entitled to basic food, housing, clothing, showers, and medical care, why shouldn’t fucked up homeless and destitute people have at least that much? The trick would be maximizing the benefit to society while minimizing the costs. The current bureaucratic maze with endless means-testing certainly drives up the cost of all this. If we are, as a society, going to provide the poor with various services I’d prefer most of the money go to actually providing those services, not an army of office workers. One of the biggest problems these days is affordable housing. A LOT of low-cost housing has disappeared over the past few decades. But that’s a whole other discussion. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/223 "2015-02-20T12:34:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If it were easy not to be poor, then most people would not be poor. And indeed, in the US, where it is easy not to be poor, most people aren’t poor and most poor people don’t stay poor forever. > Yes, because some people are stupid. > Sure. But if one of the reasons is “I am embarassed to ask the pharmacist for a female condom and my boyfriend won’t wear a regular condom and I don’t know how to go to Wal-Mart and get a prepaid debit card so I can order one off the Internet so I will go ahead and have unprotected sex and so the taxpayer should support me and my children because my boyfriend talks to his child once a week on the telephone” is not one of the reasons that tends to cause the heart to melt with compassion. > > Regards, > Shodan Unless you don’t think there’s _a single person in the US_ who is poor due to reasons beyond his or her control, then the only disagreement between us is how many Americans actually are poor due to reasons beyond their control. I assume you probably think it’s a small or very small portion of the US in poverty, while I think it’s a significant portion of those Americans in poverty. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/224 "2015-02-20T12:48:56Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > The thing that really disgusts me is that white liberals seem to think that poor people are completely stupid and incapable of thinking or taking care of themselves. They are not because most of them are not dumb in their own personal sense. They have skills that you could only wish for because they live in a perverse but precarious and semi-sustainable environment often assisted by other people. > > The problem arises when people that have no idea what they are talking about prescribe grand solutions to poverty. That is a fallacy because their isn’t a single cause. Like I already said, some people are temporarily poor because of circumstances (they will generally do just fine over time as long as they keep trying), others are disabled and I do think that society should help them but many others others are simple degenerates who would be back to the same place or in the grave in just a few years if you gave them $1 million tomorrow. Gawsh, thanks for telling this clueless white liberal what poverty is like. I would have never know- well, except for growing up in a housing project on food stamps. White liberals come from all kinds of backgrounds. You are right that the poor are savvy and have well-honed survival skills, and of course there are different types of poverty. But poverty itself is structural. (Almost) nobody denies that the distribution of wealth between nations is structural. It’s not like the people of Luxembourg just try harder than the people of Zambia. No matter how hard or what a good person your average Zambian farmer is, he’s not going to have much of a shot at living the life of your average lout from Luxembourg. There are structural reasons for poverty within nations as well. Measuring class mobility can actually be done pretty accurately. The U.S. doesn’t measure up great. And low class mobility is a bad thing all around, because it leads to poor allocation of human resources. We want the bright poor to be able to rise up, and the dim rich to work jobs appropriate for the abilities. While people in a given society will always rise up and down, we can (and do) do a lot to keep things mobile. We can ensure the children of the poor have adequate nutrition and health care that their cognitive capacity is not stunted. We have simple, proven ways of ensuring medical care doesn’t bankrupt people. We can make sure that educational opportunities are open to the best and brightest wherever they may be, and that everyone has access to enough education to open up opportunities. My main goal is to make sure childhood poverty doesn’t automatically lead to adult poverty, and that temporary poverty doesn’t become permanent poverty. This is achievable, and it is worth it- not just morally, but economically. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/225 "2015-02-20T14:28:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The Earned Income Tax Credit? That’s only eligible to people who are _employed_, and is meant to encourage people to work rather than sit on their ass. You’re saying this is a problem? It’s a big problem. The EITC and the child tax credit are some of the largest areas where fraud is found. People even try to claim kids that don’t live in this country. And now the IRS Commissioner has testified before Congress that illegal aliens will be able to apply for, and receive refunds under the EITC, thanks to the President’s executive action. Brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Macca26](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/13edae/32.png) [@Macca26](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Macca26)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/226 "2015-02-20T15:11:29Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > BTW, the extended condom argument above was one of the dumbest and most naive arguments that I have ever read. Do you honestly think this is 1950? What teenage doesn’t know how pregancy and condoms work? I didn’t even have sex in high school in the 80’s and I was still perfectly clear on the concept as was everyone else. You would literally have to be mentally disabled these days if you didn’t understand how pregnancy happens by age 14 at the latest. That is not an excuse for most people and I never bought the argument that sex just breaks out spontaneously and there is nothing you can do about it at that age. They know perfectly well what they are doing. My best friends girlfriend got intentionally pregnant in high school and dropped out. My best friend was a grandfather at 36 which is pretty impressive. The only good thing about it was that they were never poor but it would have worked out horribly for everyone if they didn’t have the cash to support such a low-class lifestyle. [Teenagers are surprisingly ignorant.](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6102a1.htm) > [@](#): > > This report describes estimated rates of self-reported prepregnancy contraceptive use among white, black, and Hispanic teen females aged 15–19 years with unintended pregnancies resulting in live births. Approximately one half (50.1%) of these teens were not using any method of birth control when they got pregnant, and of these, nearly one third (31.4%) believed they could not get pregnant at the time I mean, I too, personally would think everyone knows but apparently some do not. But, we do still have people in the world that think “if I sit directly on a cold stone I will go sterile” so…hey. Too bad this report does not go into the “why” these teens thought they could not get pregnant despite not using any contraceptives. Since this report only covers teens that actually got pregnant, it doesn’t cover any teens who managed to screw around ignorant of the possibilities, but managed to avoid pregnancy anyway through sheer luck. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/227 "2015-02-20T15:19:13Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It’s a big problem. The EITC and the child tax credit are some of the largest areas where fraud is found. People even try to claim kids that don’t live in this country. Uh-huh. So, because _some_ people cheat we should punish all the people on the program? What about the people who _aren’t_ cheating? See, this is the problem minorities face. If a white man commits a crime it doesn’t reflect on other white men, but if a black man commits a crime it “proves” black people are criminals. If a middle-class or wealthy person cheats on his taxes it doesn’t reflect on the others of his class and there isn’t a hue and cry to end programs for those folks as a whole, but if a poor person cheats on taxes then OMG ALL POOR PEOPLE ARE TAX CHEATS END ALL ASSISTANCE IMMEDIATELY! Go after the criminals. Leave the honest people alone. Better yet, go after the big fish tax cheats with the same rabid fervor you heap on the poor small fry. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/228 "2015-02-20T15:32:06Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Uh-huh. > > So, because _some_ people cheat we should punish all the people on the program? . It’s more than just some. According to the IRS, 21-26% of all EITC claims are fraudulent. [http://www.eitc.irs.gov/Tax-Preparer-Toolkit/faqs/fraud](http://www.eitc.irs.gov/Tax-Preparer-Toolkit/faqs/fraud) And they’re trying to increase the pool of people eligible, which can only increase the number of fraudulent claims. This is not a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/229 "2015-02-20T15:46:09Z")
Your cite also seems to indicate the IRS already has a mechanism in place to confirm all EITC claims and withholds payment in cases where there is any hint of hanky-panky. So… of that approximately 1/4 of bad claims how many result in payments? Or do they catch most of these cases before the money goes out? Because if it’s the latter case then the error-checking mechanism is actually working. ALL welfare benefits are subject to audit. I was audited both when I was on unemployment in 2007 and once while on food stamps. I have no idea if it was because someone was suspicious of me or if it was a random check. It was annoying, but no big deal because 1) I’m not a cheat and 2) I’ve got my paperwork and evidence in order. I fully approve of auditing, of investigating fraud, and the like. But turn it around - 3/4 of EITCs filed are for _people who legitimately qualify for the benefit_. The vast majority of people involved with this program are honest people, people who get up and go to work (you can’t get this unless you’re gainfully employed), and who are just trying to get by in this world. What about them? Are they worthy of compassion in your eyes or just scum? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/230 "2015-02-20T15:53:54Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Your cite also seems to indicate the IRS already has a mechanism in place to confirm all EITC claims and withholds payment in cases where there is any hint of hanky-panky. So… of that approximately 1/4 of bad claims how many result in payments? Or do they catch most of these cases before the money goes out? According to the Inspector General, $62 billion went out in 2012. [http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201340084fr.pdf](http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201340084fr.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/231 "2015-02-20T16:07:45Z")
Then the system needs to be improved - but not demolished. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/232 "2015-02-20T16:13:19Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > No, but you did explain why you are without compassion - so, since you don’t give a damn about my feelings why should I care about yours? > On the contrary. > > When I was solidly middle class I actively support soup kitchens, shelters, and social welfare. I worked at an inner city clinic for four years. I didn’t just contribute money to panties, shelters, and the Chicago Food Network I gave my labor as well. Being financially well off and comfortable did not make me less empathic and I did not begrudge that portion of my taxes that went to social welfare. > > The truth is a very small fraction of the tax dollars you pay go to support the poor. The poor are not what is driving up taxes. If you want to be angry about your tax money direct your ire to legislative salaries, the military, and the bullshit pork approved every day in DC. > > People frackin’ worship the military, but bitch about how much money the poor cost them when in reality the military eats far more of their taxes than the poor ever will. How does that make sense? Applaud weapons that kill people, but begrudge the hungry their dinner. I think it’s worth reminding people at this point that plenty of the enlisted military are also the poor. Plenty of enlisted families qualify and use food stamps to survive. So conservatives remember when you complain about food stamps, you 're not supporting our troops. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/233 "2015-02-20T16:24:12Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Then the system needs to be improved - but not demolished. The President issued an executive order to do just that back in '09. In 2013, TIGTA issued its required report, saying that it wasn’t happening. Of course, a year later, the President issued another executive order expanding the pool of applicants by some 5 million. Good job! ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/234 "2015-02-20T17:39:28Z")
The problem isn’t the size of the pool of applicants, it’s the fraud occurring. I’m taking a guess and assuming the most common fraud is probably claiming kids you don’t have or aren’t yours. (Not an issue in my house, as we do not have children to claim). That’s not restricted to just EITC, it’s a type of fraud that can occur at any socio-economic level, the claiming of dependents that aren’t really dependents. In any case - I _fully_ support policing the system. I mean, there was that huge dust-up this year with people using TurboTax to file bogus returns and steal other peoples’ tax returns. the problem isn’t TurboTax, it’s people using TurboTax to commit a crime. I still think we can solve the fraud issue without eliminating a program that actually does do some good. ---
**Author:** ![Syne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Syne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syne)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/235 "2015-02-20T18:03:44Z")
Just as an observer following this, the below argument pretty much trumps all conservative talking points. Wealth is structural and it inhibits class mobility. Until we can fix the simple reality that the playing field is NOT level for all, it seems ridiculous to me to campaign for austerity, which always disproportionately affects the have nots. > [@even\_sven](#): > > Gawsh, thanks for telling this clueless white liberal what poverty is like. I would have never know- well, except for growing up in a housing project on food stamps. White liberals come from all kinds of backgrounds. > > You are right that the poor are savvy and have well-honed survival skills, and of course there are different types of poverty. > > But poverty itself is structural. (Almost) nobody denies that the distribution of wealth between nations is structural. It’s not like the people of Luxembourg just try harder than the people of Zambia. No matter how hard or what a good person your average Zambian farmer is, he’s not going to have much of a shot at living the life of your average lout from Luxembourg. > > There are structural reasons for poverty within nations as well. Measuring class mobility can actually be done pretty accurately. The U.S. doesn’t measure up great. And low class mobility is a bad thing all around, because it leads to poor allocation of human resources. We want the bright poor to be able to rise up, and the dim rich to work jobs appropriate for the abilities. > > While people in a given society will always rise up and down, we can (and do) do a lot to keep things mobile. We can ensure the children of the poor have adequate nutrition and health care that their cognitive capacity is not stunted. We have simple, proven ways of ensuring medical care doesn’t bankrupt people. We can make sure that educational opportunities are open to the best and brightest wherever they may be, and that everyone has access to enough education to open up opportunities. > > My main goal is to make sure childhood poverty doesn’t automatically lead to adult poverty, and that temporary poverty doesn’t become permanent poverty. This is achievable, and it is worth it- not just morally, but economically. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/236 "2015-02-20T18:58:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The problem isn’t the size of the pool of applicants, it’s the fraud occurring. Increasing the applicant pool can only ADD to the problem. If the average fraud rate is 25%, then adding 5 million more claimants will more likely than not add 1.25 million cases of fraud. Where else in society do we accept a 25% fraud rate? What if 25% of credit card transactions, driver’s licenses, and voter registrations were fraudulent? Or if Walmart defrauded 25% of its customers? > [@](#): > > I’m taking a guess and assuming the most common fraud is probably claiming kids you don’t have or aren’t yours. Yes, that appears to be the case. > [@](#): > > In any case - I _fully_ support policing the system. Right, except it’s not happening. The executive order prohibiting improper payments was issued in 2009. According to the 2013 report, no change has occurred. I doubt the situation has changed in the last 18 months. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/237 "2015-02-20T20:09:24Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Increasing the applicant pool can only ADD to the problem. If the average fraud rate is 25%, then adding 5 million more claimants will more likely than not add 1.25 million cases of fraud. You’re assuming the fraud problem can’t be reduced (you’ll never get it to zero). Why are you making that assumption? If we could drive down the fraud rate to, say, 3% (a number pulled out of my ass) then adding 5 million more claimants will NOT add 1.25 million cases of fraud. Why do you assume problems are insurmountable? > [@](#): > > Where else in society do we accept a 25% fraud rate? What if 25% of credit card transactions, driver’s licenses, and voter registrations were fraudulent? Or if Walmart defrauded 25% of its customers? Or if 25% of companies using computerized transactions had their security breached and information stolen? Oh, wait - that just happened to Anthem Blue Cross’s 80 millions customers. Hmmm… isn’t 80 million people just about 1/4 of the US population…? Add that to all the _other_ security breaches that result in identify theft and financial fraud. We don’t seem to be doing much about that, do we? > [@](#): > > Right, except it’s not happening. The executive order prohibiting improper payments was issued in 2009. According to the 2013 report, no change has occurred. I doubt the situation has changed in the last 18 months. So call/write/e-mail your Congress Critter and say THIS IS IMPORTANT, DAMMIT! because if you don’t let them know what matters to you nothing will ever change. Have you taken even that minor step? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/238 "2015-02-20T20:46:49Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > You’re assuming the fraud problem can’t be reduced (you’ll never get it to zero). Why are you making that assumption? If we could drive down the fraud rate to, say, 3% (a number pulled out of my ass) then adding 5 million more claimants will NOT add 1.25 million cases of fraud. > > Why do you assume problems are insurmountable? Because they simply aren’t being surmounted. The IRS dates to 1862. The EITC was enacted in 1975. The Obama executive order came in 2009. As of the 2013 report, fraud was still at 21-26%. > [@](#): > > So call/write/e-mail your Congress Critter and say THIS IS IMPORTANT, DAMMIT! because if you don’t let them know what matters to you nothing will ever change. Have you taken even that minor step? Why should I write Congress? Do you know who is responsible to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed”? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/239 "2015-02-20T21:54:34Z")
Congress passes the laws. Congress authorizes the funding to enforce the laws. If all else fails, Congress can remove a national CEO, although the one time it looked like that might happen Nixon resigned on his own. Also - has the fraud ALWAYS been at that level, or has the level gone up or down over the years? Seriously, the IRS of 1862 would have been a completely different animal than the IRS of 2015 - for one thing, the US didn’t even have a Federal income tax until WWI. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707/240 "2015-02-20T22:28:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Congress passes the laws. Right. The problem isn’t with law, it’s a matter of enforcement. Which branch of government is supposed to enforce the laws, under the Constitution? > [@](#): > > Congress authorizes the funding to enforce the laws. Unless it’s funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in which case Senate Democrats will filibuster it. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Also - has the fraud ALWAYS been at that level, or has the level gone up or down over the years? I don’t know. Do you? The fact remains that under this Administration, in violation of the President’s own executive order, fraud is around 25% when it comes to the EITC. Are you OK with that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-less-compassion-for-the-poor/712707.md?page=13)