21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In America

[blaxshep]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

It seems to be truly amazing that the poorest 20% is expected to contribute to society.
While it is true that every sector of society can contribute something;
No mention is made of the other end of the scale with the Fed's QE2 $4 trillion dollar give away to Wall Street.
No one ever calls those on Wall Street "takers." Oh yes, they are "job creators" "Investing in our economy"
Amazing.

The 1% are in fact the greatest recipients of welfare.

 

[Henrin]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

AS far as the opinion piece(note, not news), it is deceptive to say the least. For example, with just the first one, it does not mention that the 60 % includes retired people drawing social security and all government workers(including the military). The second one does not mention, again that it includes social security and medicare, something those using have paid for. And so on.

When you get your information from opinion pieces, you will be lied to or deceived.

Meh, social security and medicare are welfare.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

That argument works for the WORKING poor. What benefit does society gain from the non-working poor?

I can think of a few. First, that they forebear raping and pillaging. In a natural state, this is what people would do to one another. By entering into society, we enter an implicit agreement not to do those things in return for reaping the benefits of cooperative resource gathering. But those for whom the benefits do not accrue in the usual way are owed benefits via other channels.

Second, we get an opportunity to exercise our moral muscles, to remind us that not everything is about money and getting ahead. Even if a person is unappreciative or undeserving, it builds character to lend a helping hand. On a national level, it reinforces national identity, which is something we seem to be lacking lately.

Finally, in the vast majority of cases, those people will find work and become productive again. By helping them survive for a relatively short period of time, we reap the effect of their resumed labor on society.

I agree that there's little benefit to helping those whose sole purpose is to milk the system for all its worth while avoiding work. But I don't think there are very many of those people, and furthermore, I think they're fairly easy to identify.

 

[tomkat364]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

So this article The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare | CNS News Again cites census data.
If 39.4% of the population receives means-tested assistance, and only 33% of the population worked full-time, that suggests that a significant portion of those receiving means-tested assistance did NOT work full time. Even if you assume that everyone who worked full time received SOME means-tested assistance (obviously not the case), that leaves 6.4% of our population taking money without contributing. But, since there is 40% of the population paying more in taxes than they receive in assistance, I would bank that most of the full-time workers would be in that category. Not an ideal analysis since they don't give raw numbers, but seems likely that a goodly percentage of those on welfare are not working as much as they should be if they are under the poverty level.

And I may be misreading this, but does your first point suggest that giving welfare to people benefits society by stopping them from committing crimes like rape? So effectively we are paying people NOT to commit crimes?

 

[US Conservative]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Source

I’ve found this article and it seems to me quite reasonable. Some time ago we were promised welfare state, and it looks like that we are close to the destination: “60 percent of all U.S. households get more in transfer payments from the government than they pay in taxes.”
Just wonder, who is going to support the income to the budget? Especially, when we are to have another 5 millions of dependents.

Always remember the left defines success as more and more people dependent on govt. We spend more on entitlements than anything else.
Who benefits in keeping people poor and dependent on a vote for a check in the mail? That would be the democrat party. Theres nothing noble or virtuous about forcibly taking from some to give to others and taking a persons initiative.

 

[Deuce]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

List-based click-bait article :roll:

 

[US Conservative]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

List-based click-bait article :roll:

And yet its the truth.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

That argument works for the WORKING poor. What benefit does society gain from the non-working poor?

Honestly? Welfare programs cause a benefit (in a sense) to society via continued consumption as though they're not quite as poor as they actually are. The non-working poor continue giving billable hours to health care professionals, continue redeeming food stamps for food they otherwise wouldn't or couldn't buy, etc. The retention of those revenue streams for companies that produce those things supports those companies' ongoing operations, jobs for their employees, stock prices to which other ordinary people have investment exposure in their retirement accounts, and so forth.

Not saying I'm a fan of that method of supporting the economy. The action by central government to support its own country's consumption levels creates dependence that bleeds out throughout the rest of society, such that even independently minded people end up not wanting the central government to cease its welfare disbursements. It's a slippery slope, and we've slid right down it.

 

[tomkat364]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Honestly? Welfare programs cause a benefit (in a sense) to society via continued consumption as though they're not quite as poor as they actually are. The non-working poor continue giving billable hours to health care professionals, continue redeeming food stamps for food they otherwise wouldn't or couldn't buy, etc. The retention of those revenue streams for companies that produce those things supports those companies' ongoing operations, jobs for their employees, stock prices to which other ordinary people have investment exposure in their retirement accounts, and so forth.

Not saying I'm a fan of that method of supporting the economy. The action by central government to support its own country's consumption levels creates dependence that bleeds out throughout the rest of society, such that even independently minded people end up not wanting the central government to cease its welfare disbursements. It's a slippery slope, and we've slid right down it.

Yes, people on welfare spend money that comes from tax dollars. So the cycle is that businesses/successful pay the government through taxes, then the government gives those taxes to the poor as welfare, then the poor buy stuff with the welfare money. But along the way you have the IRS which does the taxing and the welfare offices which distribute the money (some federal, some state). Now, since the government is in the middle, with employees who get paid, the welfare distributions take more tax money to create than they put back into the free economy.
And think of the doctors seeing patients with medical assistance... They are essentially paying themselves. Since doctors help make up the top 20% which pay the majority of income taxes, the Medicaid distributions are largely funded by taxing the same money the doctor earns for seeing the patient.
The only way to measure a person's INDIVIDUAL value to society is through income. If that person had something valuable to give, someone would be willing to pay him to do it. The more valuable the skill, the more he would get paid. As a group, the low skilled workers are valuable, which is why unions are so attractive to workers. The nonworking poor either aren't trying to get paid or have little to offer in the way of skills.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

If 39.4% of the population receives means-tested assistance, and only 33% of the population worked full-time, that suggests that a significant portion of those receiving means-tested assistance did NOT work full time.

Sure. If you have a household with a mother and father and two children, the father works full time and the mother part time, and they receive SNAP benefits, that's four people on public assistance, and one full time worker. The mother could work full time, but at the neglect of the children, which will have detrimental effects on society later on. This sort of situation is the most likely explanation of the statistic, since if every household among those the article talks about had one full time and one part time worker, and variable numbers of children, those are the numbers one would expect.

Here's the point: that's all it ought to take to support a reasonably sized family: no more than one parent working full time and one part time. Ideally, it should only take one parent working full time while the other raises the children.

Even if you assume that everyone who worked full time received SOME means-tested assistance (obviously not the case), that leaves 6.4% of our population taking money without contributing.

This is not correct. It would only be correct if full-time and no work at all were the only options, and also if all those receiving benefits never in their lives worked full time. But many who receive assistance work one or more part-time jobs, and most who receive assistance only do so temporarily. They get on due to some bad luck, and get off when they find good full time employment. In that latter sort of case, it's far better to provide benefits than not, even for a few years. The amount a single worker contributes over, say, a 40-year career, broken into two 20-year stints by a 3-year hiatus from work far outweighs the 3 years of benefits that worker receives. I can try to look up the statistics if you want, but I think it's fairly common knowledge that only somewhere around 5% or so of those on public assistance are on it longer than 12-18 months. Most turn to such measures for help when every other option is exhausted, and they continue to look for work, find it, and get off public assistance.

A few do not. A few try to milk the system. I have nothing but contempt for such people, and they are exempt from my remarks. We ought to find them and put them in jail, and make them work until they've learned their lesson.

And I may be misreading this, but does your first point suggest that giving welfare to people benefits society by stopping them from committing crimes like rape? So effectively we are paying people NOT to commit crimes?

Yes, but that only seems odd under the assumption that a society exists which benefits everyone. Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel) tells an interesting story about New Guinea islanders. When two strangers meet each other in the forest, they go through a ritual where they recite their family tree, including all siblings, nephews, nieces, grandparents, cousins, etc. back for ten generations. Those facts are drilled into every boy's head starting when he is very young. The reason is because, if they don't find they have some kin in common, they then try to kill one another.

In the absence of society, we are completely free. We are animals. And like all animals, we are free to kill and eat each other, steal from each other, and so on to ensure survival. If I meet another man in such a situation, and he has something I want, I'm free to kill him if I can, and take it. He is free to try to do the same to me.

One reason we have a society is that this sort of set-up isn't optimal. Basically no one does very well. So we trade some freedom for security. But that's a social contract, and society owes its end of the bargain. My point is that providing benefits to those who don't work but would if they were capable, or will when they find work, is simply fulfilling that end of the bargain.

Once again, I point out that working is part of the agreement. Those who try to take undue advantage don't deserve help.

Also, I realize this was not addressed to me, but it bears on the discussion:

The only way to measure a person's INDIVIDUAL value to society is through income. If that person had something valuable to give, someone would be willing to pay him to do it.

This is also not true. Most companies have some means to measure productivity of a worker, and though those measures are often incomplete, they're more complete than income. If you haven't, you should read Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He explains rather ably why, even if someone has a valuable skill, they tend not to be paid what they're worth.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Yes, people on welfare spend money that comes from tax dollars. So the cycle is that businesses/successful pay the government through taxes, then the government gives those taxes to the poor as welfare, then the poor buy stuff with the welfare money. But along the way you have the IRS which does the taxing and the welfare offices which distribute the money (some federal, some state).

It sort of works that way, but in some respects it doesn't. What you say would be more accurate if the Feds ever had to balance the budget, but they don't. As a result, welfare disbursements are not and have never been limited to the tax revenue, so in a de facto sense, all spending (welfare or otherwise) is money into the economy and taxation is money out, with the excess being the deficit. Our monetary sovereignty and dollar's status as the world reserve currency give the federal government an immense amount of leeway to disburse funds in virtually any manner and amounts it wishes.

In this light, welfare spending is just money's point of entry into the economy, and since welfare never really builds wealth for anyone, just momentarily pacifies them, it acts as little more than a perpetual demand stimulus that, over time, just causes massive debts and a society highly dependent on its central government.

Admittedly, there would be a lot of painful consequences to ceasing what we've been doing. Demand sharply declines, profits decline with it, markets contract, people's investments take a huge hit, large numbers of entitled and dependent people politically mobilize and there is greater social unrest, large businesses avoid investing in the U.S. due its now volatile political/economic climate, and so on and so forth. This is why I would say this federal welfare spending creates dependency that bleeds out into the rest of the society. In their own way, over time, everyone becomes dependent on its uninterrupted continuation.

 

[tomkat364]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

A couple points about your response.

It SHOULD only take one full-time worker per household to support a reasonable sized family. So, take a family of two parents and three children. Poverty threshold for 2013 was $27,801, which equates to about $13/hr based on a 2000 hour year. Yes, that is more than minimum wage, but should we really expect a single person working minimum wage to be able to support an entire family? I worked minimum wage for 8 years at four different jobs. Those jobs are minimum wage for a reason, and no responsible adult would expect to make a career from working a job meant for a teenager. You also cannot support a family working part-time. It should not be expected to be possible.

The fact that people don't take welfare uninterrupted for more than 12-18 months does NOT mean that they are working appropriately. Through my job I have seen a lot of people who did not work but received welfare. One of the common things people do is to work a part-time job for 2-3 months, then stop showing up. They get fired, they start collecting again. They don't INTEND to work for a living. They have to act like they do in order to continue receiving benefits. I read the reasons people wrote as to why they needed assistance, and most were claims of disability, most of which were unfounded. My favorite explanation was "They do background checks." True story.
I had a neighbor who received welfare. He was always "looking" for a job, but in the 6 years we knew him he only had one job, digging graves at a cemetery. He held that job for three weeks or so, then showed up late, then got fired. Back to welfare. And just because someone DID work in the past, doesn't mean they should not be working now. Retirement used to mean that you had enough money to support yourself without working. Now some people retire with no savings, and expect to be supported because they "did their time." It's a terrible sign when we have a system that stops reporting you as "unemployed" when you stop looking for work. And regardless, unemployment, social security, and pensions are not part of the 39.4% of MEANS-TESTED assistance.

And supporting someone who does not work in order to keep them from resorting to crime is just another word for extortion. If the mafia does it, it is a crime. If the government does it, it's welfare. I agree whole-heartedly that society implies a social contract, but I believe that contract is based on reciprocity. It makes no sense to enter into a contract in which you lose something and gain nothing. There has to at least be an appearance of benefit for all involved, or you get class warfare.... which we have.

As far as individual value, you stated that companies have means to measure productivity. That would require the person in question be employed, which was not my point. The state in which I live is a "right to work" state, and as such, if I feel undervalued for the skillset I possess, I need to either accept the pay I have, appeal to my boss for a raise, or find another job. There is a great speech in Atlas Shrugged that deals with this topic. Money is the only way we have to express our value to other people. If I am a valuable worker, I will be paid more by my employer. Accordingly, the value that I accept is a reflection of how much I value myself. If I am satisfied making minimum wage, then I place very little value in myself, so why would anyone else value me more?

 

[Deuce]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

A couple points about your response.

It SHOULD only take one full-time worker per household to support a reasonable sized family. So, take a family of two parents and three children. Poverty threshold for 2013 was $27,801, which equates to about $13/hr based on a 2000 hour year. Yes, that is more than minimum wage, but should we really expect a single person working minimum wage to be able to support an entire family?

Here's the trouble:

A single person working 40 hours a week at minimum wage can't even support a family of one. Let alone try and get themselves into a better situation where they might become self-sufficient.

Atlas Shrugged is a reference that college sophomores make after they read it and decide they really just get it now. They understand the real world, thanks to a work of fiction. Your last paragraph is comical.

 

[tomkat364]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Here's the trouble:

A single person working 40 hours a week at minimum wage can't even support a family of one. Let alone try and get themselves into a better situation where they might become self-sufficient.

Atlas Shrugged is a reference that college sophomores make after they read it and decide they really just get it now. They understand the real world, thanks to a work of fiction. Your last paragraph is comical.

Actually, full time at minimum wage isn't even considered poverty level for a single person household. Threshold for 2013 was $11,000, and $7.25/hr at 2000 hr/yr = $14,500. And again, minimum wage is MINIMUM. You should not expect to be living well when you make the least possible wage that legal citizens can be paid. I worked part-time at McDonald's for three years over summer vacation, and not only did I get a raise, they also offered to send me to Hamburger University for the manager training course (more money). Start at minimum wage, stick it out and perform well, and you'll do better over time. However, if other people chose to apply themselves in high school, invested in college education, and possibly even graduate school, why should they be penalized for other's poor choices?
And I'm sorry that you don't like Atalas Shrugged. I agree it doesn't reflect the real world, but I think it does adequately represent the problem inherent in people growing wealthy and complacent off the success of others.

I have no problem with unemployment. It's an insurance network funded by employers which gives temporary assistance until workers can get another job. I have no problem with assistance for the severely disabled who are wards of the state. Neither of these are "means-tested" assistance. Means-tested assistance rewards poor choices, and I believe that if others bail you out of the consequences for those choices, there is no incentive to try harder.

 

[Deuce]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Actually, full time at minimum wage isn't even considered poverty level for a single person household. Threshold for 2013 was $11,000, and $7.25/hr at 2000 hr/yr = $14,500. And again, minimum wage is MINIMUM. You should not expect to be living well when you make the least possible wage that legal citizens can be paid. I worked part-time at McDonald's for three years over summer vacation, and not only did I get a raise, they also offered to send me to Hamburger University for the manager training course (more money). Start at minimum wage, stick it out and perform well, and you'll do better over time. However, if other people chose to apply themselves in high school, invested in college education, and possibly even graduate school, why should they be penalized for other's poor choices?
And I'm sorry that you don't like Atalas Shrugged. I agree it doesn't reflect the real world, but I think it does adequately represent the problem inherent in people growing wealthy and complacent off the success of others.

I have no problem with unemployment. It's an insurance network funded by employers which gives temporary assistance until workers can get another job. I have no problem with assistance for the severely disabled who are wards of the state. Neither of these are "means-tested" assistance. Means-tested assistance rewards poor choices, and I believe that if others bail you out of the consequences for those choices, there is no incentive to try harder.

It's not considered poverty level, but that doesn't make it livable.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

A couple points about your response.

It SHOULD only take one full-time worker per household to support a reasonable sized family.

Why? Because it would be nice? All throughout history, raising a family and supporting them has typically required a great deal of work on the part of both parents.

The arguments from some that wages must be forced higher through law based on the needs of the worker are fundamentally detached with how trade works. They are incapable of thinking it through.

So, take a family of two parents and three children. Poverty threshold for 2013 was $27,801, which equates to about $13/hr based on a 2000 hour year. Yes, that is more than minimum wage, but should we really expect a single person working minimum wage to be able to support an entire family? I worked minimum wage for 8 years at four different jobs. Those jobs are minimum wage for a reason, and no responsible adult would expect to make a career from working a job meant for a teenager. You also cannot support a family working part-time. It should not be expected to be possible.

The fact that people don't take welfare uninterrupted for more than 12-18 months does NOT mean that they are working appropriately. Through my job I have seen a lot of people who did not work but received welfare. One of the common things people do is to work a part-time job for 2-3 months, then stop showing up. They get fired, they start collecting again. They don't INTEND to work for a living. They have to act like they do in order to continue receiving benefits. I read the reasons people wrote as to why they needed assistance, and most were claims of disability, most of which were unfounded. My favorite explanation was "They do background checks." True story.

I had a neighbor who received welfare. He was always "looking" for a job, but in the 6 years we knew him he only had one job, digging graves at a cemetery. He held that job for three weeks or so, then showed up late, then got fired. Back to welfare. And just because someone DID work in the past, doesn't mean they should not be working now. Retirement used to mean that you had enough money to support yourself without working. Now some people retire with no savings, and expect to be supported because they "did their time." It's a terrible sign when we have a system that stops reporting you as "unemployed" when you stop looking for work. And regardless, unemployment, social security, and pensions are not part of the 39.4% of MEANS-TESTED assistance.

Yep.

And supporting someone who does not work in order to keep them from resorting to crime is just another word for extortion.

Argumentum ad bacalum, I call it.

As far as individual value, you stated that companies have means to measure productivity. That would require the person in question be employed, which was not my point. The state in which I live is a "right to work" state, and as such, if I feel undervalued for the skillset I possess, I need to either accept the pay I have, appeal to my boss for a raise, or find another job. There is a great speech in Atlas Shrugged that deals with this topic. Money is the only way we have to express our value to other people. If I am a valuable worker, I will be paid more by my employer. Accordingly, the value that I accept is a reflection of how much I value myself. If I am satisfied making minimum wage, then I place very little value in myself, so why would anyone else value me more?

Precisely.

 

[tomkat364]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

It's not considered poverty level, but that doesn't make it livable.

It's absolutely liveable. My last apartment was $750 a month, split it with a roommate. That's $4500 a year. A single man can live on $100/wk for groceries easily, which comes to $5200. That's $9700 a year for necessities, leaving an easy $4800 for taxes, clothes, and utilities, which should be more than enough. Might not be able to afford cable or lobster, but can survive.

 

[tomkat364]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Why? Because it would be nice? All throughout history, raising a family and supporting them has typically required a great deal of work on the part of both parents.

No, my point was that a responsible parent who needs to support a family should be motivated enough to do whatever it takes to earn a decent living. I frequently drive past a warehouse with a big banner on it "Driver's Wanted: $75,000/yr, home every night." Well paying jobs exist, people just don't want them. And because of welfare, they don't NEED them. By stating "It SHOULD only take one full-time worker per household to support a reasonable sized family," I meant to place the expectation on the worker, not society.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Always remember the left defines success as more and more people dependent on govt. We spend more on entitlements than anything else.
Who benefits in keeping people poor and dependent on a vote for a check in the mail? That would be the democrat party. Theres nothing noble or virtuous about forcibly taking from some to give to others and taking a persons initiative.

All true, and since it's based on spending other people's money, eventually those other people will either revolt, or just stop working and sit down and demand to collect as well.

Then the music stops. Real quick, and permanently.

I'm mystified that the leftists just don't see that. That they believe that we can continue to add benefactors indefinitely without bankrupting the government. Are they that dense to not understand this or what?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

No, my point was that a responsible parent who needs to support a family should be motivated enough to do whatever it takes to earn a decent living. I frequently drive past a warehouse with a big banner on it "Driver's Wanted: $75,000/yr, home every night." Well paying jobs exist, people just don't want them. And because of welfare, they don't NEED them. By stating "It SHOULD only take one full-time worker per household to support a reasonable sized family," I meant to place the expectation on the worker, not society.

Well I agree with you. Responsibility is on the adult on both ends of starting and raising a family. Don't start a family when you're unprepared financially and otherwise, and if you already started a family, plan financially, and have back-up plans in case the unfortunate befalls you. Don't complain that the world owes you something because you decided to reproduce. There is always a possibility that you will fall on hard times. Plan for the worst as though it is likely, even if it isn't. People don't act prudently, often times. They just feel entitled and blame external circumstances that they don't have more money in the bank.

The left wing will pipe up and bring up or make up a story of a family that WAS doing well and doing everything right but became unlucky or was screwed over somehow. While those exist, I find it much, much more common that people start families before financially and professionally ready, and fail to financially plan. And I see this among college educated and otherwise respectable stand-up people, though it's more common among less educated people. I just don't think making excuses for everyone that isn't wealthier but wishes they were gets us anywhere.

As someone who recently started a family, I fully acknowledge the possibility I could lose my job some day, we could have to significantly tighten the belt, or regroup and re-strategize, and our living standards may decrease. But we were very patient and did a lot to get ready before deciding to take that plunge. We could pull back significantly and sustain our lifestyle almost indefinitely even if I was fired tomorrow.

 

[whysoserious]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Yes, because any website that tries to create pop up advertisements on my coputer is exactly the website I want to base my politics on. :thumbs:

 

[Paschendale]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

I do not understand how a person can claim to love America but then condemn the majority of Americans as "lazy bums". That sounds an awful lot like hating this country and the people in it to me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

Why do you hate Americans so damn hard?

We're good, honest, hard-working people.

Americans rock.

if that were true across the board, people like Obama never would be elected

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

The government has been subsidizing the wages of businesses for decades, since working a 40-hour week is insufficient to keep many above the poverty line. You raise the minimum wage, you promote less government dependence.

so at what point does raising it become inflationary? what promotes government dependence is government handouts

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: 21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In Americ

The 1% are in fact the greatest recipients of welfare.

that's moronic and a stupid stereotype. the top 1% pay over 33% of the income tax and all the death tax. They don't receive 33% of the benefits of the services paid for by the income tax and 100% of the benefits paid for by the death tax