|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 29 2015 03:18 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 03:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2015 03:04 Eskendereya wrote:On September 29 2015 00:48 KwarK wrote:
I cannot see how that would possibly be revenue neutral. The tax reduction for the low income is basically no different from the current situation if people take advantage of the incentives designed to encourage them to save for retirement or invest in their education. If you earn less than 25k and are paying Federal income taxes you're doing something wrong. The tax reduction for high income however is crazy huge. They're the ones who actually pay most of the tax due to the degree of income inequality in the United States. Offering a shiny new 0% tax rate to people who earn nothing and were already at either 0% or very close to 0% is not a good bargain for giving the super rich a 25% rate, down from 40%. They're the ones who actually pay most of the taxes.
There is no way that plan could not fuck working poor and middle class Americans. It's a huge transfer of wealth from the government, which funds essential services they depend upon, to the rich. It's designed to prey on the ignorance of people who don't get how the system works. Inequality in America is such that the rich pay most of the tax, most people are net tax beneficiaries when you take into account the services they receive. Offering people who already pay 0% or close to 0% a 0% tax rate in exchange for slashing the government services is a shitty deal.
Also abolishing the "death tax" is the antithesis of the American Dream. The American Dream is to live in a society where if you're smart and you work hard you can be a success. The death tax is "if your parents try to leave you more than 5 million dollars that you didn't work for and didn't earn and it's not something like farm land then you need to pay some tax on that". The death tax works to break up inter-generational legacies and even the playing field so your success is more down to your own hard work, rather than just receiving a shitton of money you didn't earn. I can see why Trump, a man with no personal successes who owes everything he has to his father would be opposed to that but at least be honest and admit you're trying to get rid of the death tax to finally finish off the American Dream. Also the death tax only applies on legacies over 5 million already. Seriously? He's appealing for us to give increased access to the American Dream for the subset of the American population who are crippled by inheriting more than 5 million and not getting to keep every cent of it?
That tax plan is a fucking nightmare. I know most people aren't as interested in tax planning and how it all works as I am but trust me, it's literal Hitler. It's huge, huge reductions in taxes for the 1% and soundbites for the 99%. I loled. His tax plan gives much needed relief to hard working tax payers and incentivizes corporations to do business at home and to bring their oversea money back home as well. I see this as a big boost to the economy and unemployment. Too much corporate regulation and tax is what is driving the jobs from this country and Trump is addressing that problem. Kwark is the perfect example of someone who puts a negative spin on everything and anything Trump does while at the same time, has probably accomplished 0 in life. His biggest accomplishment is being TL moderator with 30k posts. The internet is full of "I know better" jokers. The fact that every since one of yours posts degrades down to personal attacks tells us all a lot. Also Trump is cutting taxes for the rich more than for the poor. He is also "closing loop holes" to pay for it, which amounts to saying "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA!". Everyone loves the idea of tax cuts, but they need to be paid for or services need to be cut. And when politicians don't provide one of those two options, they are promising something that they can't deliver. Taxing the rich more isn't a Republican principle, so I can see why you are disappointed. You'd prefer a socialist tax plan that punishes you the more productive you are. That line of thinking is what is causing corporations and businesses to leave the US. Trump's tax plan is banking on the idea of fixing corporate inversion thought incentives. Less tax and regulation which is perfectly reasonable. As for Kwark, he actually called Trump's tax plan "literal Hitler." So yeah, the guy is a joke and an idiot.
You do nothing but spout a bunch of sweeping, conservative platitudes.
Are we supposed to be taking you seriously over Kwark?
|
WASHINGTON -- Planned Parenthood and Obamacare are probably the two things the GOP hates most. House Republicans are targeting both this week with an obscure procedural move that could finally advance opposition bills to President Barack Obama's desk.
The procedure is called budget reconciliation, and legislation advanced that way cannot be filibustered in the Senate, is subject only to limited amendments and needs only simple majority votes to pass, according to House and Senate rules.
It would then be up to Obama to veto the measures, which he would be all but certain to do. But the process would move two cherished GOP goals through the Senate, pushing them further than they've ever gotten before.
“Obamacare remains as unpopular as ever, and this package gives us our best shot to put a repeal bill on the president’s desk," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is leading the Obamacare attack and rolled out his plans Monday.
Congress set up the moves last spring when it passed a budget plan that included reconciliation provisions -- essentially instructions for various committees to draw up legislation targeting the Affordable Care Act and other unspecified issues. Senate committees are expected to take similar steps to those in the House.
Ryan's legislation targets the ACA by ordering the repeal of several key parts of the law, including the mandate for people to purchase health care, the cost-controlling Independent Payment Advisory Board, a tax on medical devices, and the so-called "Cadillac plan" tax on high-cost health insurance.
The legislation cannot target all of the Affordable Care Act because reconciliation bills must be focused on taxes, spending or the debt limit, not on policy. But according to the Ways and Means Committee's assessment, "the repeal of these provisions would be a devastating blow to Obamacare."
The Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce are preparing legislation this week to repeal other parts of Obamacare.
It is the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), that is drawing up the bill to defund Planned Parenthood.
Source
|
On September 29 2015 03:18 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 03:09 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2015 03:04 Eskendereya wrote:On September 29 2015 00:48 KwarK wrote:
I cannot see how that would possibly be revenue neutral. The tax reduction for the low income is basically no different from the current situation if people take advantage of the incentives designed to encourage them to save for retirement or invest in their education. If you earn less than 25k and are paying Federal income taxes you're doing something wrong. The tax reduction for high income however is crazy huge. They're the ones who actually pay most of the tax due to the degree of income inequality in the United States. Offering a shiny new 0% tax rate to people who earn nothing and were already at either 0% or very close to 0% is not a good bargain for giving the super rich a 25% rate, down from 40%. They're the ones who actually pay most of the taxes.
There is no way that plan could not fuck working poor and middle class Americans. It's a huge transfer of wealth from the government, which funds essential services they depend upon, to the rich. It's designed to prey on the ignorance of people who don't get how the system works. Inequality in America is such that the rich pay most of the tax, most people are net tax beneficiaries when you take into account the services they receive. Offering people who already pay 0% or close to 0% a 0% tax rate in exchange for slashing the government services is a shitty deal.
Also abolishing the "death tax" is the antithesis of the American Dream. The American Dream is to live in a society where if you're smart and you work hard you can be a success. The death tax is "if your parents try to leave you more than 5 million dollars that you didn't work for and didn't earn and it's not something like farm land then you need to pay some tax on that". The death tax works to break up inter-generational legacies and even the playing field so your success is more down to your own hard work, rather than just receiving a shitton of money you didn't earn. I can see why Trump, a man with no personal successes who owes everything he has to his father would be opposed to that but at least be honest and admit you're trying to get rid of the death tax to finally finish off the American Dream. Also the death tax only applies on legacies over 5 million already. Seriously? He's appealing for us to give increased access to the American Dream for the subset of the American population who are crippled by inheriting more than 5 million and not getting to keep every cent of it?
That tax plan is a fucking nightmare. I know most people aren't as interested in tax planning and how it all works as I am but trust me, it's literal Hitler. It's huge, huge reductions in taxes for the 1% and soundbites for the 99%. I loled. His tax plan gives much needed relief to hard working tax payers and incentivizes corporations to do business at home and to bring their oversea money back home as well. I see this as a big boost to the economy and unemployment. Too much corporate regulation and tax is what is driving the jobs from this country and Trump is addressing that problem. Kwark is the perfect example of someone who puts a negative spin on everything and anything Trump does while at the same time, has probably accomplished 0 in life. His biggest accomplishment is being TL moderator with 30k posts. The internet is full of "I know better" jokers. The fact that every since one of yours posts degrades down to personal attacks tells us all a lot. Also Trump is cutting taxes for the rich more than for the poor. He is also "closing loop holes" to pay for it, which amounts to saying "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA!". Everyone loves the idea of tax cuts, but they need to be paid for or services need to be cut. And when politicians don't provide one of those two options, they are promising something that they can't deliver. Taxing the rich more isn't a Republican principle, so I can see why you are disappointed. You'd prefer a socialist tax plan that punishes you the more productive you are. That line of thinking is what is causing corporations and businesses to leave the US. Trump's tax plan is banking on the idea of fixing corporate inversion thought incentives. Less tax and regulation which is perfectly reasonable. As for Kwark, he actually called Trump's tax plan "literal Hitler." So yeah, the guy is a joke and an idiot.
"taxing the rich isn't what he wants to do. We should make sure companies and rich people pay less taxes to give an incentetive to make them create more jobs"
into "he wants to close tax loopholes to pay for all that"
?
If the loopholes are going to make up for THAT much money from taxreduction on everyone, companies are paying waaaaaay more than they are right now. Your average guy working as shop clerk is not the one abusing the system with loopholes. That's big companies / rich guys who can afford to hire 1051915 tax-lawers who can figure out the best way to save on taxes.
So what trump proposes here is exactly what you don't want?
|
Guys if my boss has more money he's gonna pay me more because that's how he got rich right?
- Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich will improve lives for anyone else.
|
|
|
United States43266 Posts
It just doesn't make sense. Here's a little image to show you how this works.
![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png)
Basically the vast majority of income tax is paid by the "rich", both because they pay a higher percentage rate and because they just have more money being taxed. Which stands to reason. Individuals earning the median income in my state make up collectively 6.2% of the tax taken. What this means is that if you introduce a new 0% rate for the people in the group currently making up 0.2% of the tax taken then you still have 99.8% of the total money. If you reduce the rate by three eighths (from 40% to 25%) on the group currently paying 77.8% of all the total money then you now only have 70.8% of the total money remaining.
0.2% of the tax collected is going to the working poor in the form of tax cuts. 29.2% of the tax collected is going to the super rich in the form of tax cuts. This is his plan. You're then left with just 70% of the money that you started with which is going to leave gaps in public services which the working poor won't be able to make up with their new tax savings because they didn't pay any shit in taxes anyway.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the corporate rate could definitely use a cut
|
Don't worry about the problem of specifying loopholes guys. Just like foreign policy and everything else, Trump will just hire someone else to do it.
He won't say who. But he'll find somebody. Eventually. At some point.
Basically the Romney/Ryan plan for loopholes.
|
On September 29 2015 04:09 KwarK wrote:It just doesn't make sense. Here's a little image to show you how this works. Basically the vast majority of income tax is paid by the "rich", both because they pay a higher percentage rate and because they just have more money being taxed. Which stands to reason. Individuals earning the median income in my state make up collectively 6.2% of the tax taken. What this means is that if you introduce a new 0% rate for the people in the group currently making up 0.2% of the tax taken then you still have 99.8% of the total money. If you reduce the rate by three eighths (from 40% to 25%) on the group currently paying 77.8% of all the total money then you now only have 70.8% of the total money remaining. 0.2% of the tax collected is going to the working poor in the form of tax cuts. 29.2% of the tax collected is going to the super rich in the form of tax cuts. This is his plan. You're then left with just 70% of the money that you started with which is going to leave gaps in public services which the working poor won't be able to make up with their new tax savings because they didn't pay any shit in taxes anyway.
However, if he can (I highly doubt it) close that gap by closing loopholes it's obviously neutral again. It's just that noone knows how he's supposed to get those 30% from taxincrease on people profiting from loopholes and even if he does manage to make WalMart and co pay taxes... that's exactly what Republicans don't want because that's essentially a tax-increase on corporations and super rich who have the money to pull off that stuff.
TL;DR: either he's purposely selling this taxplan as something it's not because he knows the reality of increased taxes on corporations/rich isn't going to sell good with the GOP base as they're sternly against tax increases on corporations because they want to get more jobs by taxing them less.
OR he's talking out of his ass and can't get the 30% at all.
|
United States43266 Posts
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13databk.pdf
Is a pretty cool read by the way. It shows exactly where all the money is coming from with a bunch of statistical breakdowns. /nerd
Business tax was 300b of 2.8t collected. Income tax was 1.95t collected. Trump wants to return 390m to the 25% of the public who filed a tax return for less than $15,000. He also wants to return 569,000m to the 15% of the population who filed a tax return for more than $100,000.
Bottom 25% get 390m back to share among them. Top 15% get 569,000m (that's 569 billion) to share among them. Although of that 569,000m 357,500m of that will go to the top 2.4%. The other 5/6ths of the top 15% of taxpayers get to fight over the rest.
I guess those guys just work a bit harder.
|
I scanned the IRS do really quickly (can't look deeper while at work)- is table 10 what you're looking at KwarK?
I'm more curious in seeing the effective tax rate paid by stratum and what % on income people are actually paying tax on. The poor are paying tax on only a tiny fraction of their income (or not at all), and I suspect the rich are doing something similar.
|
On September 29 2015 03:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Planned Parenthood and Obamacare are probably the two things the GOP hates most. House Republicans are targeting both this week with an obscure procedural move that could finally advance opposition bills to President Barack Obama's desk.
The procedure is called budget reconciliation, and legislation advanced that way cannot be filibustered in the Senate, is subject only to limited amendments and needs only simple majority votes to pass, according to House and Senate rules.
It would then be up to Obama to veto the measures, which he would be all but certain to do. But the process would move two cherished GOP goals through the Senate, pushing them further than they've ever gotten before.
“Obamacare remains as unpopular as ever, and this package gives us our best shot to put a repeal bill on the president’s desk," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is leading the Obamacare attack and rolled out his plans Monday.
Congress set up the moves last spring when it passed a budget plan that included reconciliation provisions -- essentially instructions for various committees to draw up legislation targeting the Affordable Care Act and other unspecified issues. Senate committees are expected to take similar steps to those in the House.
Ryan's legislation targets the ACA by ordering the repeal of several key parts of the law, including the mandate for people to purchase health care, the cost-controlling Independent Payment Advisory Board, a tax on medical devices, and the so-called "Cadillac plan" tax on high-cost health insurance.
The legislation cannot target all of the Affordable Care Act because reconciliation bills must be focused on taxes, spending or the debt limit, not on policy. But according to the Ways and Means Committee's assessment, "the repeal of these provisions would be a devastating blow to Obamacare."
The Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce are preparing legislation this week to repeal other parts of Obamacare.
It is the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), that is drawing up the bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Source ...a procedure so obscure and procedural that it was the exact one used to pass Obamacare in the first place. Stay classy, HuffPo
|
On September 29 2015 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 03:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Planned Parenthood and Obamacare are probably the two things the GOP hates most. House Republicans are targeting both this week with an obscure procedural move that could finally advance opposition bills to President Barack Obama's desk.
The procedure is called budget reconciliation, and legislation advanced that way cannot be filibustered in the Senate, is subject only to limited amendments and needs only simple majority votes to pass, according to House and Senate rules.
It would then be up to Obama to veto the measures, which he would be all but certain to do. But the process would move two cherished GOP goals through the Senate, pushing them further than they've ever gotten before.
“Obamacare remains as unpopular as ever, and this package gives us our best shot to put a repeal bill on the president’s desk," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is leading the Obamacare attack and rolled out his plans Monday.
Congress set up the moves last spring when it passed a budget plan that included reconciliation provisions -- essentially instructions for various committees to draw up legislation targeting the Affordable Care Act and other unspecified issues. Senate committees are expected to take similar steps to those in the House.
Ryan's legislation targets the ACA by ordering the repeal of several key parts of the law, including the mandate for people to purchase health care, the cost-controlling Independent Payment Advisory Board, a tax on medical devices, and the so-called "Cadillac plan" tax on high-cost health insurance.
The legislation cannot target all of the Affordable Care Act because reconciliation bills must be focused on taxes, spending or the debt limit, not on policy. But according to the Ways and Means Committee's assessment, "the repeal of these provisions would be a devastating blow to Obamacare."
The Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce are preparing legislation this week to repeal other parts of Obamacare.
It is the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), that is drawing up the bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Source ...a procedure so obscure and procedural that it was the exact one used to pass Obamacare in the first place. Stay classy, HuffPo
The most important part is that the GOP is moving forward with bills they know Obama will veto so it will hurt him in the next election....wait.
|
Republicans really need to find someone who can present an actual detailed conservative plan. Like if they wanna ditch obamacare they should come up with an actual comprehensive plan to deal with the underlying issues.
It'd be pretty hard to come up with one myself, since I'm not a conservative, and don't have a very good sense of what their objectives and measures for them would be.
|
On September 29 2015 04:09 KwarK wrote:It just doesn't make sense. Here's a little image to show you how this works. Basically the vast majority of income tax is paid by the "rich", both because they pay a higher percentage rate and because they just have more money being taxed. Which stands to reason. Individuals earning the median income in my state make up collectively 6.2% of the tax taken. What this means is that if you introduce a new 0% rate for the people in the group currently making up 0.2% of the tax taken then you still have 99.8% of the total money. If you reduce the rate by three eighths (from 40% to 25%) on the group currently paying 77.8% of all the total money then you now only have 70.8% of the total money remaining. 0.2% of the tax collected is going to the working poor in the form of tax cuts. 29.2% of the tax collected is going to the super rich in the form of tax cuts. This is his plan. You're then left with just 70% of the money that you started with which is going to leave gaps in public services which the working poor won't be able to make up with their new tax savings because they didn't pay any shit in taxes anyway.
As I am a fiscal conservative I feel obligated to give the optics to you through my eyes. I see that the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of tax and it is never enough, somehow the left believe that 3% of the population funding over 50% of the services 100% of the population uses is unfair and that it is "immoral"(such a useless argument) that the 3% aren't paying their fair share. How about a tax plan that collects taxes more broadly and equitably and pairing it with spending cuts that are shifted towards a more progressive nature. How the hell can people like Sanders say the millionaire and billionaire class are robbing the poor taxpayers blind with figures like this?
My tax plan would be framed like this:
0% from 0-10,000
10% from 10,000 to 50,000
15% from 50,000 to 75,000
20% from 75,000 to 200,000
40% 200,000+
Flat 15% corporate, 10% repatriation tax sounds reasonable on Trumps plan
40% estate tax over 5 million seems reasonable
Those more equitable rates would be paired with:
Defense cuts to 2-2.5% of GDP to meet NATO obligations over 4 years
Minimum wage left to states
Medicare/Medicaid phased out for universal 2 tier healthcare over 10 years
Overtime after 32 hours as opposed to 40 hours.
Non-structural investment in infrastructure focusing on highways/broadband.
Republicans really need to find someone who can present an actual detailed conservative plan. Like if they wanna ditch obamacare they should come up with an actual comprehensive plan to deal with the underlying issues.
It'd be pretty hard to come up with one myself, since I'm not a conservative, and don't have a very good sense of what their objectives and measures for them would be.
I know right? Bush's economist vetted plan calls for 1.2 trillion deficit over 10 years(up to 3.5T if economic forecast isn't as rosy) How can anyone call that conservative?
|
On September 29 2015 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:09 KwarK wrote:It just doesn't make sense. Here's a little image to show you how this works. Basically the vast majority of income tax is paid by the "rich", both because they pay a higher percentage rate and because they just have more money being taxed. Which stands to reason. Individuals earning the median income in my state make up collectively 6.2% of the tax taken. What this means is that if you introduce a new 0% rate for the people in the group currently making up 0.2% of the tax taken then you still have 99.8% of the total money. If you reduce the rate by three eighths (from 40% to 25%) on the group currently paying 77.8% of all the total money then you now only have 70.8% of the total money remaining. 0.2% of the tax collected is going to the working poor in the form of tax cuts. 29.2% of the tax collected is going to the super rich in the form of tax cuts. This is his plan. You're then left with just 70% of the money that you started with which is going to leave gaps in public services which the working poor won't be able to make up with their new tax savings because they didn't pay any shit in taxes anyway. As I am a fiscal conservative I feel obligated to give the optics to you through my eyes. I see that the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of tax and it is never enough, somehow the left believe that 3% of the population funding over 50% of the services 100% of the population uses is unfair and that it is "immoral"(such a useless argument) that the 3% aren't paying their fair share. How about a tax plan that collects taxes more broadly and equitably and pairing it with spending cuts that are shifted towards a more progressive nature. How the hell can people like Sanders say the millionaire and billionaire class are robbing the poor taxpayers blind with figures like this? My tax plan would be framed like this: 0% from 0-10,000 10% from 10,000 to 50,000 15% from 50,000 to 75,000 20% from 75,000 to 200,000 40% 200,000+ Flat 15% corporate, 10% repatriation tax sounds reasonable on Trumps plan 40% estate tax over 5 million seems reasonable Those more equitable rates would be paired with: Defense cuts to 2-2.5% of GDP to meet NATO obligations over 4 years Minimum wage left to states Medicare/Medicaid phased out for universal 2 tier healthcare over 10 years Overtime after 32 hours as opposed to 40 hours. Non-structural investment in infrastructure focusing on highways/broadband.
The very simple answer is that those rates and the proportions being paid are historic lows and when you go even higher to super rich levels it has this odd dropoff where the % you pay can go way down due to some really good loopholes.
Basically when you are clearing 2 million a year haggling over the extra 25k just seems downright petty when you are not exactly struggling no matter what but when you are clearing 40k you need to haggle over every cent you can because that could mean everything to you.
|
United States43266 Posts
It's not about fair share, it's about how it has to be. Keeping society operating requires a shitton of money and you can't get a shitton of money from the large proportion of the population who have no money. If you want the rest of society to pay their fair share of taxes you first need to give them their fair share of the profit made from the productivity of society for them to pay it out of. Right now we live in a society which creates huge amounts of value which is concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people.
Equitable rates are only meaningful with an equitable division of wealth. The current rates are a symptom of the fact that if you need money you can only take it from the people who actually have money to take. You're drawing the wrong conclusion from that graph. Mine is that 40% of the income of 2.4% of the people is equal to the combined taxes paid by the other 97.6% of the people, a fair number of who also pay 40% tax.
It's not that the super rich are paying a disproportionately high amount of tax. It's that the super rich have a really, really disproportionately high amount of income to pay tax on.
|
On September 29 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
Republicans really need to find someone who can present an actual detailed conservative plan. Like if they wanna ditch obamacare they should come up with an actual comprehensive plan to deal with the underlying issues.
It'd be pretty hard to come up with one myself, since I'm not a conservative, and don't have a very good sense of what their objectives and measures for them would be.
Good luck, we've asked from here to congress for years, 50+ votes later and I think we've concluded there simply isn't a "Conservative" replacement for the ACA that actually keeps the parts people like and costs less.
|
Looking at that graphical table, I'd like to see a table for the same year which has what % of total income each of those groups has.
|
The FBI will continue to resist pressure from legislators and activists for the creation of a fully comprehensive count of all killings by American police officers, the bureau’s director signalled on Monday.
Writing as the FBI released its annual crime statistics, James Comey said an existing voluntary system, under which police departments around the country choose whether or not to submit data on homicides by their officers, will carry on.
Comey said the FBI would try to collect more information – but gave no specific details about how this would be done.
He said of the current information collected: “As helpful as this information is, however, we need more law enforcement agencies to submit their justifiable homicide data so that we can better understand what is happening across the country.”
The FBI counted 444 “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement officers in 2014, according to statistics released on Monday. That total represented a 5.7% decrease from the 471 counted the year before.
Yet both the accuracy of the figures and any trends emerging from them have been called into question due to the voluntary reporting system.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
