posted
I think that's actually the reason for the fines MattP, to recoup the fiscal loss from attempting to gain the information. Maybe you're right, and it's an empty threat. I would have the $5000 on hand to pay though because if they do fine you for failure to respond, you're going to have to pay up to that amount. It's a matter of weighing your options? Answer questions that the government probably already has answers to or be willing to pay up to $5000 in fines if you don't.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the way they're selling the census: "Fill it out, so you get your fair share." Fair share of what? Did we stumble onto a pot of gold, and filling out the census means we get a portion of that gold? Or are we talking about tax dollars--in other words--other people's money?
It just reminds me of the L.A. riots and all the looting that followed. Everyone--even good people--ran into those places to get their "fair share." People tend to lose all sense of right and wrong when there's a potential for "free stuff."
Selling the census like this, banking on our selfishness and ignorance of where all that "free stuff" comes from, irks the hell out of me.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Selling the census like this, banking on our selfishness and ignorance of where all that "free stuff" comes from, irks the hell out of me.
I don't think it's doing any such thing. I don't know anyone who is ignorant of where federal money comes from. The census advertising is just making it explicit about how that money is apportioned. Whether you approve of federal funding or not, if you aren't counted, less of it comes to you.
It also ensures your "fair share" of voting members of the House of Representatives.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair share of representation in the House of Representatives.
The problem with the L.A. riots analogy is that looting wasn't getting their "fair share". When it comes to being counted in order to make up the House, it absolutely is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I got mine in the mail. And it says I'm legally required to fill it out and return it. Which of course is making it hard for me to even open it. Screw them.
I refuse to matter! TAKE THAT, CENSUS
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I assisted in accounting for our household so that our representatives in the government can better serve us, and those studying the social science can profit thereby.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"Usually takes quite a bit of skill to shoot yourself in the foot while its in your mouth".
About the Republican who urged her constituents to not fill out the census..... which would've costed her seat in the elections.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah! Why should a representative form of government do things such as make note of where its people are so it can determine which regions get more representatives, or have some idea what the racial background of people across the country is?!
It's a conspiracy is what it is!
I thought so too until I read some articles talking about how the census data was used to imprison minorities during WWII. It seems a lot less crazy after that.
Being a WASP, I don't think anything bad will happen to me for filling it out, but I might be thinking twice otherwise.
And Lisa, I sympathize with you. I frequently get my passive-aggressive up when people start telling me what I have to do.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avidreader, I certainly agree bad can be done with census information. That's humanity for you. But I don't have much patience or sympathy for the idea that everything is corrupt, it's all bullcrap, and there's no sense participating-it's just a way to let one's self off the hook.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the whole thing a waste of time and money. Everythin I put on that form is also recorded in the taxes I fill out each year. The IRS knows who I am, how many people live in my house, and even how much we make. Why does the census need to gather the same information?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the Census Bureus is legally barred from getting that informatiom from the IRS. It doesn't matter that other government agencies know it - the Census Bureau has no communication, in either direction, with other government agencies, concerning your names and address information.
That's both why you have to fill out the form (or else your family doesn't get counted for representation in the House) and why it is safe to fill out the form (the Census Bureau shares it with no one, not the public, not paying companies, not other government agencies, not even law enforcement or the IRS).
posted
Actually, the IRS gives out its info to NO other government agencies, unless the taxpayer specifically fills out forms requesting such info be shared. For example, illegal immigrants who obtain an ITIN will NOT be reported to DHS (or whatever acronym INS goes by these days ).
Katie is absolutely correct about the Census Bureau's non-sharing of information. The same is true of the IRS, and quite a few other government agencies. Personally, it makes me more comfortable knowing that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having done research using census data when I was in college, I can't tell you how useful it is in helping scientists find all manner of useful information in the data.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I find the whole thing a waste of time and money.
Oh my god no no no no. the census is amazingly valuable, and not just for the purpose of providing count for national representation, something which should be an obligation of citizens anyway. it's got amazing usefulness in incalculable scientific/social/medical/policy management/policy implementation/budgeting analysis/you name it fields.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I filled out my census form today. It made me wonder what is important in our country. I understand the federal governments need to gauge the population. Population is proportional to representatives in congress, etc.
The only characteristic on my census form the federal government seems to be concerned with is age sex and race.
I thought the the federal government was suppose to be color blind. I understand their concern for age, sex, education, even income but what does race have to do with anything. One's race doesn't tell them anything other than the color of the skin. An individual's skin color is meaningless to the health of the nation.
Education, age, sex, income.....good metrics. Skin color means nothing but they don't even ask the truly important questions.
The education level of the population is more important than the skin color of the population.
posted
Maybe the Census just doesn't have Jamaican neighbors to better share your enlightened perspective.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you a legal immigrant? would be a good question to ask the likes of my neighbors. The government might want to know how well immigrants are doing. It makes no difference if the immigrant has white skin or black. Skin color is unimportant. Skin color doesn't tell you one's education, income, religion, etc. The census is about numbers of residents, not the color of the residents. If they are to deviate from the constitutional requirement of counting residents, there are metrics more important than melanin content.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enlightened though you may be, the nation we live in is far from color blind. Problems stemming from race exist, and happen on a daily basis. Race data can be very interesting and useful for a number of reasons.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree. Racial statistics can be enlightening and useful. Be careful not to use the statistics that have negative connotations: crime, STD's, dropout rates, illegitimate birthrates, incarceration rates, pregnancies ending in abortion, etc. Of course income is a particular statistic often used to prove discrimination. Dare to mention the others and you're a racist.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hate the way they're selling the census: "Fill it out, so you get your fair share."
Not only that, but they're disingenuous. One commercial talks about "Imagine if we only had 100 kids, we'd need about five teachers. Then, imagine we had 200 kids and no one filled out the census - we'd still have the same five teachers."
Bull. Teacher allocation is based on - wait for it, this is going to shock you - student enrollment numbers.
If we did allocate teacher units based on the census, that would really suck for communities like mine which has exploded in the last five years, not ten.
Another commercial talks about traffic lights...oh, so traffic engineers just sit around and wait between the decades to see if they need to add more traffic lights?
It's so ridiculous it's laughable. It's also irritating, though - and insulting that they use those types of tactics.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no trouble with the Census counting how many people live in a district for the sake of representation. But that should be it's one and only purpose.
Everything else should be the job of state and local governments. These are the people who drive on the roads that may need fixing, have children in the schools that may need funding, or frequent the government buildings or parks in need of repairs.
The federal government is too far away from the problems to have an effective impact.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Another commercial talks about traffic lights...oh, so traffic engineers just sit around and wait between the decades to see if they need to add more traffic lights?
No. But the budget they have to work with will often have a lot to do with the most recent census' numbers.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If true that is ridiculous. Cities and towns can change dramatically in a five year period, much less ten.
In 1990 we had a K-12 school - one building was big enough for every child. Before my daughter was in elementary school in 1997, they had built a new high school, and a new elementary school to account for the massive influx of new students.
We also, coincidentally, built new access to the interstate, a new shopping center and added, yes traffic lights in the last three years. If we had to rely on the 2000 census numbers I shudder to think where we'd be.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Cities and towns can change dramatically in a five year period, much less ten.
Yup.
And government rarely keeps up. This is hardly news.
To be more detailed, city and county budgets are sometimes more flexible. But the amount of money the state gets from the federal government -- which of course affects what the city and county have given them by the state -- really is not.
posted
I tend to think the census isn't necessary. I file an income tax return every year. The IRS is exceedingly efficient at confirming our deductions, including number of children. In effect, we have a census form every year. When I file my taxes I claim my children and wife. If I lie about a child as an exemption, they will catch me. They already know the numbers.
If you believe that people who don't file taxes every year will fill out a census form, you're crazy. Fortunately, there's no "minority tax credit" listed below the "child tax credit". The census isn't about population numbers. The government already has that data.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your stipulation is that, the poor don't fill out census forms, and don't file taxes, so under neither system are they counted. And given that, a census is just a waste of time and money?
What's your solution to counting those who don't file income taxes then? I'd note, by the way, that it isn't just the poor who don't file tax returns, it's a huge segment of the elderly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) The IRS is NOT ALLOWED to share your info with any other government agencies. 2) The census is supposed to count everyone, whether they have a SSN or an ITIN or file taxes or not.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The poor have less motivation to fill out a census form than an income tax return. Every year, the poor look forward to tax returns. For every child you get a $1000 return, whether you make an income or not. The census doesn't pay the poor to fill out the form.
My stipulation is that the poor look forward to filling out IRS forms. If you are too lazy to fill out an IRS form, you are also too lazy to fill out a census form. The big screen tv you want to buy doesn't depend on the census form.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The poor have less motivation to fill out a census form than an income tax return. Every year, the poor look forward to tax returns. For every child you get a $1000 return, whether you make an income or not. The census doesn't pay the poor to fill out the form.
My stipulation is that the poor look forward to filling out IRS forms. If you are too lazy to fill out an IRS form, you are also too lazy to fill out a census form. The big screen tv you want to buy doesn't depend on the census form.
Except...many of the poor you're probably thinking of, don't earn enough to have to pay taxes (after all, not all poor people have kids), and so file a W-4 exempt and don't get anything back from the government, because they didn't pay anything in. If they even have an income. But census information can be used to determine how public funds can be used to improve the community. Which could benefit those poor people, provided they fill out the form.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While all the traffic lights and other reasons are real, they don't matter as much as the primary purpose of the Census: To determine representation in the House.
That isn't based on "enrollment numbers." Constitutionally, that changes every ten years only.
The IRS does not share their information. This is to protect privacy - that's a good thing. Same for the Census.
Last decade, one state missed out on getting an extra representative by less than 20,000 people, who SHOULD have been counted but weren't. Quite literally, not filling out the census means that as far as Congress goes, you don't exist.
That has been explained several times in this thread. I am mystified why the anti-Census people haven't addressed that point.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: While all the traffic lights and other reasons are real, they don't matter as much as the primary purpose of the Census: To determine representation in the House.
Good point. I think it may be too far outside some people's day-to-day concerns to act as motivator though. Hence the traffic sign ads.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The IRS does not share their information. This is to protect privacy - that's a good thing. Same for the Census.
posted
Stupid constitutional republic wanting to count every stupid body in order to have a stupid accurate representation according to the stupid Constitution.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding was that there were only 10 questions and that they were all legally mandated.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
All they're entitled to ask is how many people are living here. Questions of race are beyond inappropriate. Questions of profession are none of their damned business.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Questions of race are beyond inappropriate. Questions of profession are none of their damned business.
There's nothing on the census form about profession, though "inappropriate" and "none of their damned business" are different standards than "legal minimum."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: All they're entitled to ask is how many people are living here. Questions of race are beyond inappropriate. Questions of profession are none of their damned business.
Answering all the questions is legally required. If you didn't do that, and didn't provide your phone number, expect a census taker to arrive at your door. And if you dodge them, they will come again and again and again...
(edit:) And the short form had no question about profession at all. See the 10 questions I posted on a previous page. Nothing about profession. Now, if you got the ACS form, there were questions about profession as I understand it. I didn't get one, so I don't have the questions.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: If true that is ridiculous. Cities and towns can change dramatically in a five year period, much less ten.
The ACS is sent out every year to selected families and is used to collect statistical data in the years between the decennial census. This helps with adjusted funding by estimating the number of people, income etc during the intervening years. And yes, part of how funding is sent is through census data and the ACS. Statewide funding for schools etc is based on enrollment numbers. Federal funding is based on how many people with school age children, and how many school age children live in the area. They send money based on the total number of children. If the federal government allocated funds based on the number of children enrolled in public school, the state would get less money from the federal government, because the private school enrollment would not be included in many cases.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, representation in the house has nothing to do with citizenship either. I didn't see a social security number question on my Census form. Why should states with high populations of illegal aliens get increased representation?
The IRS is about to be able to "share your personal data" in a number of ways. They are the new enforcement arm of your healthcare. Do you have insurance? If you don't the IRS needs to know and will verify it. Is your insurance up to federal standards? Of course they will need to make sure. There's nothing wrong with the IRS sharing your data internally to the government. Your data is now a public/private concern.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The IRS is about to be able to "share your personal data" in a number of ways.
False. The information will flow from insurance companies TO the IRS, not the reverse. Much like information currently flows from your bank to the IRS and from your employer to the IRS.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fine's you'll have to pay for not purchasing federally approved healthcare...once Obama signs the bill tomorrow.
Once he signs that bill, it will be illegal not to purchase healthcare. For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Special interests anyone? I wish the government required you to buy my product. As a consolation for forcing a 22 year old to buy healthcare, the insurance companies have to cover preexisting conditions. All part of the back room deals. Preexisting conditions are covered but the 19 year old will be fined and is in violation of federal law for choosing not to purchase insurance.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
dang, guess we should have gone with single payer.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Single payer would be better. Why do you think Kucinich held out so long? He was opposed and wanted single payer. As they all say....this is a starter home. The framework is in place. Rather than go directly to single payer, they'll bankrupt insurance companies in order to justify single payer later. Then there will be no choice. In several states, Walgreen's drugs is no longer selling to Medicaid. The government can pass price control laws, but they can't legislate the laws of physics. The pills cost more than medicaid reimbursment levels. Of course, they'll make it illegal to not sell at a loss. When that doesn't work, pharmacies will be nationalized. When the nationalized pharmacies go broke, they'll raise taxes to pay for it.
The only difference is, the cashier at Walgreens isn't a member of SEIU. The Walgreen's cashier is paid $8 an hour while the DMV cashier gets full benefits, retirement and medical care. Our country will be so much better when we all work for the government.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Car insurance is like that now in many states. Including mine.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
