I highly doubt that. If they really are poor, meaning they only have enough money to provide the basic necessities, I doubt that energy efficient windows and HVAC units and such are higher priority than basic food, clothing, and shelter.

Sure, these things pay for themselves eventually, but the upfront cost is quite a bit of money that can better be used to eat this week.

A used gas guzzler might cost all of $1K, or less.

Not much for a rich person, but unattainable for a poor person.

The main problem here is forgetting why we do taxes the way we do.

Fairness takes a back seat to collection efficiency. If taxes were truly fair, the government would force you to pay on the spot for every tiny use of government services and infrastructure. Do the water pipes to your house go 90 ft. farther than your neighbor's? Then you have to pay for your share of wear on the common pipe, and additionally on the pipe that goes only to your house. Did your precinct need a recount in the last election? You need to come back and pay a little extra tax for that additional processing. Did you call the cops out because your car was broken into? You pay them on the spot for their services.

Similarly, driving distance and weight are fair ways to calculate road infrastructure taxes, but it's a lot easier to have people pay at the pump... which is one reason it's done that way.

This is why I think all this anger from the left about tax deductions is silly. The left pushed through energy efficiency deductions, and then were appalled when the only people who qualified for those deductions were the people rich enough to worry about energy efficiency.

See my response to aepervius below, the chosen baseline year simply appears to be the first year provided in the data set.

Doing 1975 as a comparison, using current dollars for FY2009... 1975 = $1232.7B, 2014 = $3238.9B, the federal government is currently spending 2.63 times as much as in 1975, adjusted for inflation.

Actually I think I found the source of the data tompaulco used: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

Assuming that source is to be trusted*, his numbers are correct as he stated. $9.5 Billion in 1940 is equivalent to $135.8 Billion in FY2009, so the comparison between $135.8B and $3.2T ($3238.9B) is the proper comparison. That comes out to be 23.9 times as much spending in current dollars.

* if you believe the source is incorrect, feel free to find a reputable source that refutes it... as for me, I have to go to work

What does "so that her fruit depart from her" mean if not causing the child to be born prematurely?

Besides, I chose the NIV because it was the default on the website I happened to look up. If you don't like it, then look at some of the others. Young's Literal Translation (1862) for example uses the phrase "her children have come out".

Whose bank accounts and treasury bonds? I assume you are hinting at owners of companies who employ large numbers of minimum-wage workers, but what about the owners of companies who don't employ many minimum-wage workers? Increasing minimum wage doesn't make much of a difference for them, and certainly doesn't cause them to contribute more to the system that got them there.

This is one reason I don't care to jump on this bandwagon of raising the minimum wage. It puts the whole burden on low-skill industries.

Or you're in high school flipping burgers, still living with your parents and without much actual responsibility.

Oh really? Exodus 21 seems to disagree (emphasis mine):

Anyone who asks this question, or understands the answer but is interested in how to make things better, should watch CGP Grey's Politics In The Animal Kingdom series.

Just because something has an accuracy of X doesn't mean that it's a binary measurement. That would be like having a speedometer accurate to 1 MPH, and therefore you could only know whether your speed is below 1 MPH or above 1 MPH.

It probably takes more movement than just 1 cm to trigger an alarm. Or the system might need that precision in order to monitor patterns that often correlate to deficiencies.

"Value" and "cost" are separate things that we try so hard to conflate. They look similar but are quite different.

Say you have 50 wheelbarrows and I have none. If I need a wheelbarrow, and you don't need 50 wheelbarrows, then a wheelbarrow has higher value to me than it does to you. I might trade you $50 cash in exchange for the wheelbarrow. You value the $50 more than each wheelbarrow, while I value the wheelbarrow more than the $50.

This is the problem with placing monetary valuation on any object or service; value is in the eye of the beholder, and that includes the value of money itself.

Skepticism is denying that the subject at hand has been sufficiently verified.

The idea that all "deniers" ignore all evidence is often used to form strawman arguments.

The voting verification doesn't even have to be a computer system. It could be a manual process, where any interested party can verify vote counts as they come in at the precinct, and sign off on the totals when they are delivered to the state.

If they didn't already collect any records on you, you can be assured that they will start now.