Every time. Any willful underreporting or over-deducting is a felony.
How many people have done it?
We know about 20%of taxable income is not reported and that 42% of tax returns underreport.
Of course, not all of the underreporters have done so willfully. On that subject, there are some surveys out there. This one says “5.5% admitted tax evasion by under-reporting income, and 6.5% admitted tax evasion by over-claiming deductions.”
Unclear whether those numbers are cumulative, but even at 6.5% that bumps our total up ever closer to proving the OP. And I think that number probably significantly understates the number of tax scofflaws, given the huge percentage of returns that underreport.
That’s fair enough. But if I recall previous exchanges between us clearly, the idea is that “felons” are just like me and I was wrong to (basically) shrug my shoulders indifferently if the police shoot someone because they appear to be threatening. The problem is that we were talking about a burglar who was fleeing the scene of the crime, who stopped and turned back with something metallic in his hand.
I think most people, white or black (or Asian or Hispanic or left-handed Rosicrucian Eskimo) would agree that all felonies are not the same. And therefore it doesn’t go very far to say “you downloaded 84 porn movies this year and that’s a felony just like bank robbery and therefore you should be sorry if John Dillinger Jr. gets his head blown off by the po-pos”.
Sure, if black folks are getting busted for pot when white folks are getting a pass because racism, that’s too bad. But that doesn’t mean that, because I smoked a joint in college I should get upset when some crazy-ass bastard gets shot just because he came at the police with a knife. IYSWIM.
And for the record, you still haven’t come up with any felonies that I have committed. My drug use never rose to the felony level, I have never shared my pain medication with anyone, I don’t drive drunk, I don’t violate copyright - and I don’t punch police in the face either.
Of course, the weekend has barely started, but still.
Of course. That’s a good argument against blanket voter disenfranchisement, right?
But you’re right that pointing out that lots of people are felons doesn’t inherently say anything about whether making some inferences about a given felon is justified, or treating a given felon differently is justified. The argument is more about pushing back on the narrative that Jimmy Chitwood described in the post I quote above.
And I do think the part of the reason we regard burglary as somehow morally worse or more threatening to the police than tax evasion–even though both are non-violent theft crimes–is the profile of each criminal, poor vs. middle class. That’s not the whole story, of course. But I do think it is part of the story.
Based on the examples given, I have never comitted a felony, and would expect that trend to continue until death. It’s not that hard.
eta: I do think there are too many felonies, and laws in general though.
Look, I understand your point, but it isn’t going to sail. It is simply not the case that the only reason I don’t have a felony record is that I am white.
Avoiding felony arrest is not this big huge difficult achievement. It’s like graduating from high school and showing up for work on time and paying your bills and not getting anyone pregnant when you aren’t married to them. It’s what adults do.
Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes it isn’t someone’s fault if they don’t do these things. But usually it is.
Getting arrested or getting convicted isn’t like catching a cold. It doesn’t just happen to you.
I find it amusing that people keep saying this, like it’s some kind of triumph. By my own OP, I’m conceding that a little less than half the country is also in your shoes. Indeed, I’m pretty sure I’m felony-free too. Saying this is missing the point by a mile.
I edited the post but you may have missed it - I do think there are far far too many felonies and laws in general. If this was your point, then I agree.
One is that while a majority of the country has committed felonies, a minority of the country is taking the punishment. And not just any minority–a particular one–and overwhelmingly for drug crimes.
Another is that treating felons as an undifferentiated group in some way isn’t very reasonable, not only because you’re talking about half of the country, but also because there are so many different levels of felony. It’s a good reason not to have one-size-fits-all voter disenfranchisement.
Yet another is the recognition that given how many people are “criminals” in this sense, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to use the category “criminal” to try to understand someone who has, say, shoplifted. That someone is a criminal doesn’t tell us that much meaningful about them except that they committed a crime. You can only infer as much as you can about a group that constitutes half the country.
It’s a lot harder for some people than for others, because some people interact with police officers much more frequently. So while I drank underage and smoked pot and engaged in some other youthful hijinks that most certainly could have garnered some attention from the law, most of that went down in a white suburban neighborhood where cops didn’t regularly patrol the streets. The fact that my parents were wealthy enough to live in that neighborhood had a major impact on my lack of a rap sheet as an adult. So yeah, the fact that I made it to adulthood without a criminal record was no big deal for me, I would never say to someone who group in the projects surrounded by criminal activity and negative attention from the police, “So you managed to grow up without a criminal record, big whoop, so did I.” Such a comparison is asinine.
And note that the legacy of quite-recent deliberate housing discrimination is that while a white middle class family is likely to live among middle class people, a black middle class family is still likely to love among poor people (aka “high crime neighborhoods” where your Fourth Amendment rights are more restricted and there are more police).
Well now I’m torn - I agree with this quoted post, but I think post #20 is not agreeable.
Treating all felons the same for all purposes is not a good result, and the proliferation of felony offenses exacerbates this. The nature of the specific crime should factor into the resulting consequences. This is basically how I interpret the quoted post and I agree with it.
Post #20 however, both your part and the part quoted from Jimmy Chitwood are describing something else. You are saying that people’s actions are less of a factor in them comitting and being convicted of felonies than their circumstances. That is just not right. Regardless of any circumstantial realities, a person still needs to commit the action in question. So while I think there are far too many felonies, that the war on drugs is totally shitty, I still think it’s trivially easy to not commit felonies and not do drugs.
Your example of a white guy spoking pot in the basement vs. the black guy smoking pot in the public park is a bad one. What variable are you contrasting? That of being black or white, or being so fucking stupid to smoke pot in a public park? Of course the odds of being charged with a crime are greater if you do it out in the open visible to any who are watching.
Jimmy’s example of bing in a car with alcohol and marijuana more apt, but it’s trivally easy to avoid these circumstances. The same with shoplifting. Yes each could be a wobbler but best not to tempt fate and find out.
I’m not sure what the main thrust of what you’re saying is then. Is it that felonies are so difficult to avoid that we all end up doing it, and the results disporportionaly affect some group of people? You say that a minority of the country is taking the punishment that the majority commits. If that’s it, then I agree - it’s just that group of people consist of the group that is fucking stupid. Those are the people who commit actions that are felonies.
So yes, end the war on drugs, reduce the number of felonies. But until then, it’s pretty condescending and arrogant to imply that some group of people just can’t help themselves and must continue to commit felonies.
I agree with this point. This destroys your argument, IMO, at least based on the facts you’ve introduced thus far. You seem to have redefined “felony” in order to make your argument. I bet I’d be a felon in Iran for all kinds of “offenses.” So what? I’m not a felon where I live, which is what you’re trying to prove most adults are.
And I don’t think you get to hand-wave away the fact that a felon has to have already been caught once regarding Federal law. Whether it’s a wise law, and whether or not it makes your argument impossible, as you said, “by definition we’re talking about people who have not been caught,” which means by definition they’re not felons, not even “uncaught” felons. You asked Bricker for a cite that most of this vast, uncaught and unprosecuted population would not use again if caught the first time. I’d say you’re on the hook to prove that there are people who have been caught once–having triggered the premise for becoming a felon now–who still use. Your request for a cite is asking him to prove your unsupported assertion is incorrect. That’s not how it works.
If you’re arguing that circumstances alone, not actions, separate those who are convicted felons and those who aren’t, you haven’t done so. You have to show that a majority of people commit an act that they could have known (even if they didn’t) was a felony at the moment they committed, and there but for the grace of God, etc. I don’t think you have with your first category.
You made an uncited assertion. I denied it. I don’t have to cite a gratuitous denial of a gratuitous assertion. You have to cite the assertion.
Simple logic. The law exists to warn people. Committing the same crime after have been caught once is a more serious matter than just committing it without ever having been caught.
So you wish to prove that most people are felons by …assuming most people are felons. Yes, I can see how your road to victory is going to look.
