Red pill info graphs

Can we get a thread going for the dissemination and collection of statistics and graphs that destroy shitty narratives? Bonus if they're actually sourced.

Other urls found in this thread:

bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
npr.org/2017/11/14/564006483/researchers-explore-the-effects-of-section-8-grants-in-houston
youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This one is particularly effective when arguing against "muh muslim neighbor" anecdote slingers.

Realizing most of what I have is gun related.

Classic.
Also, specifically hoping someone posts one I've seen on here recently and neglected to save that is several graphs showing different types of crime and the ethnic breakdown of each type.

Saw someone once use this to insinuate that whites commit more crime than anybody else. They weren't literate enough to understand that these are victims of crime...

>323.1 million people in the united states
>12 in 100000 per capita gun violence deaths
>38772 gun deaths
>Approximately 65% of those are suicides
>Of the remaining 35% 75-80% are gang violence
>Of the remaining 7% of all gun related deaths are also included legal self defense, criminals killed in confrontation with police, and negligent discharge
>A generous estimate of 3500 gun related deaths (the figure is closer to 2700)
>0.0000083% to 0.0000108% of people in america die to gun related violence that is tied to homicides outside of gang violence (career criminals that violate the law constantly)
>The study funded by Obama's adminstration found that gun related crime accounted for approximately 300 thousand instances
>The study also found that the number of times guns were used to protect a potential victim or de-escalate the confrontation with a criminal was 500 thousand to 3.5 million cases based on criteria set by the study
>Gun control advocate Senator of California Leland Yee was caught conspiring to sell guns to gang members after attempting more gun laws stripping guns from private citizens.
More people die of diarrhea in the United states on average

With this chart and the average tax reducion we get these changes.
>Earned Income vs Average reduction % of adjusted tax reduction
1,789,000 - 0.1%
323,000 - 0.056%
148,100 - 0.051%
84,800 - 0.058%
50,900 - 0.0505%
31,800 - 0.0306%
15,600 - 0.016%

Looks lopsided right? What does it mean though? Well let's take a look at all the individual filings according to the tax foundation then and see what we get with prior tax data.
Top 1% ($456,626+ AGI) - 1,395,620 - Adjusted gross income = $1,997,819 - % of AGI 20.58%
Top 5% ($188,996+ AGI) - 6,978,102 - Adjusted gross income = $3,490,867 - % of AGI 35.96%
Top 10% ($133,445+ AGI) - 13,956,203 - Adjusted gross income = $4,583,416 - % of AGI 47.21%
Top 25% ($77,714+ AGI) - 34,890,509 - Adjusted gross income = $6,690,287 - % of AGI 68.91%
Top 50% ($38,173+ AGI) - 69,781,017 - Adjusted gross income = $8,614,544 - % of AGI 88.73%
Bottom 50% (0-38,173 AGI) - 69,781,017 - Adjusted gross income = $ 1,094,119 - % of AGI 11.27%

So the top 50% pay 97.3% of total income taxes, and account for 88.73% of AGI in taxes. And the bottom 20% actually have negative tax rates (they get more than they pay in due to refundable tax credits).

Now we do need to look at the individual tax brackets though and other benefits that will come under the new tax revisions.
10%: $0 to $9,525 of taxable income for an individual; $0 to $19,050 for married joint filers
12%: $9,526 to $38,700 individual; $19,051 to $77,400 joint
22.5%: $38,701 to $60,000 individual; $77,401 to $120,000 joint
25%: $60,001 to $170,000 individual; $120,001 to $290,000 joint
32.5%: $170,001 to $200,000 individual; $290,001 to $390,000 joint
35%: $200,001 to $500,000 individual; $390,001 to $1,000,000 joint
38.5%: over $500,000 individual; over $1,000,000 joint

>12.5% tax on patents and intellectual property overseas (this is to stop or at least take away incentives for companies filing patents out of country)
>Increases child care tax credit (up to $1,650 from $1000)
>Medical expense deduction, Adoption deduction, Student loan interest deduction, Casualty deduction, Changes to divorce, Moving expenses: Deductible for military members, Electric car credit
>Still doubles the standard deduction: Would increase the standard deduction to $12,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a married joint filer. slightly higher than the current combined $10,400 deduction, which includes the standard deduction and one personal exemption
>Joint filers would deduct $24,400, up from the current $20,800, which includes the standard deduction and two personal exemptions.

So who is considered middle class? CNBC states these effective rates.
>Household of one: $24,042 to $72,126

>Household of two: $34,000 to $102,001

>Household of three: $41,641 to $124,925

>Household of four: $48,083 to $144,251

>Household of five: $53,759 to $161,277

Where do all of those people seem to fall on average barring single household middle class? Oh yeah the 0.058% reduction. It's almost like if you aren't a poor earner you seem to be getting a pretty progressive tax cut. It's almost like the more you pay the more of a break you'll end up getting. Why is that? Oh I don't know, whenever a system leverages too much work on one group in the system the power lies with the group who are being the most burdened. They have the ability to withdraw from the system because they feel unjustly taken advantage of. So what have they historically done? Oh shit that's right, take their business out of the country.

Pretty much all the gang related crime would disappear with ending the war on drugs or deporting niggers.

For people who claim Obama administration caused a massive down turn in unemployment it can be proven false. The Bureau of Labor Statistics changed the definition of unemployment to make the statistics seem better during his administration.

bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Individuals also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week, whether they were paid or not.

Who is counted as unemployed? People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, HAVE ACTIVELY LOOKED FOR WORK THE PRIOR 4 WEEKS, and are currently available for work.

Some have argued, however, that these unemployment measures are too restricted, and that they do not adequately capture the breadth of labor market problems. For this reason, economists at BLS developed a set of alternative measures of labor underutilization. These measures, expressed as percentages, are published every month in The Employment Situation news release. They range from a very limited measure that includes only those who have been unemployed for 15 weeks or more to a very broad one that includes total unemployed, all people marginally attached to the labor force, and all individuals employed part time for economic reasons.

Picture related is Civilian labor force participation rate. Probably better to take a screen cap.

>Hurr durr I can destroy an idea with just one infographic
This is the most bluepilled behaviour that can exist. Literally feeding yourself information that fits your preconceived notions in order to feel better.

The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder". This means that things like gang killings in which more than four people are killed can be included in the statistics for mass shootings.

Having an image with easily digested information is good but it's better if the rest of the message contains information that can't really be refuted in the context of their argument.

If you think that normies give a fuck about reading and parsing data then you're wrong. There's a reason that shitty infographics get shared around on faceberg so quickly. Being able to share easily digestible information coupled with an argument that data supports is the easiest way of changing someone's mind.

>feeding yourself information that fits your preconceived notions
If data exists that indicates X is larger than Y, but there is a social narrative that Y is in fact larger, which do you think is more reliable?

I still have to do some more research about some things but one of them is that welfare/section 8 isn't really helpful for recidivism rates in the context of criminals with prior history for violent crime offenses. NPR's Shankar Vedantam did a study on section 8 recipients and found that when the previous violent crime offender received section 8 mortgage subsidies and did not change neighborhoods there was a direct increase in crime for the neighborhood. The idea was that "income shock" occurred and instead of changing their ways they used the new income to fund their previous behavior of armed robbery.

npr.org/2017/11/14/564006483/researchers-explore-the-effects-of-section-8-grants-in-houston

There was a similar issue with his "job creation", in that it literally only accounts for positions that were created. The selection didn't concern itself with the hours worked in the jobs, or if the positions were terminated at some point.

Yep, that specifically you could be considered employed so long as you worked 1 billable hour regardless of how much the pay was. Which greatly inflated the employment rate
>People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Individuals also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week, whether they were paid or not.

I should probably use greentext for posting purposes to make the text break up easier and make your more salient points easier to read.

Other than recidivism rates for violent male criminals receiving section 8 I think I'll next be working on "Democratically/Socialism aligned mass shooters" unless something else seems more readily in need of refuting due to this influx of shills.

Another for arguing against the second amendment usually falls under something like "shall not be infringed" to "SHALL" posting or the untenable "well regulated militia". Well regulated during the creation of the second amendment meant a "well supplied" militia. This video is rather succinct and makes it easier for normies to digest since it's at most 90 seconds.
youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

The other part that can be argued is that the Federalist papers were quite clear on why we needed to have arms readily available to the people.
>"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Doubtless just referencing the federalist papers usually ends the argument unless the person is a shill pushing a slide thread.

................

-1

...

...

The truth about 2006-2015. It ends where Obama does Uranium 1. We need to piece the rest of the story together.

Damn it. Now I have to do a whole thing on Asian gambling. This is good stuff though.

The Wild West actually had very strict gun laws.

...

...

...

Partially because housing isn't the only issue they face.

black crime - not the result of socioeconomic stress

...

>muh niggers

You could carry openly but only shoot in self defense much like today. This actually brought forward an interesting problem to which the solution was that you had to be faster than your assailant. The entire idea of quick draw shooting was that you had to be faster than the person drawing his weapon to fire on you to legally shoot back.

The gun control laws however in terms of what you could own were not that bad. It's almost the same as before but the prevalence of guns in public situations acted as a deterrent. Think of the analogue of "all countries have nukes" act as a deterrent for world war.

the USA is a "white supremacist nation" you say? and it's "white supremacy oppresses PoC" and that's why blacks and hispanics fail in our society? oh, well that's interesting cuz guess what? asians are most decidedly PoC and they actually consistently succeed more than any other racial group so i guess that narrative gets totally blown out of the god damn water, huh?

the differences in economic success have much more to do with the racial IQ gaps. economic suggest is totally correlated with IQ when you look at the success of each race and their respective average IQs

and this is not due to "socioeconomic stress" either, see here for a detailed and well sourced explanation of the genetic component of racial intelligence (particularly the middle column is very telling, i think)

Income isn't the only indicator we can measure. Parental employment and presence or absence of a father are probably important to some degree.

...

-

>Parental employment and presence or absence of a father are probably important to some degree.
which are again caused by the inferior black genetics when it comes to mental things

...

It might not be but you can receive welfare and a section 8 housing subsidy so far as I've been able to research. So the problem might be cultural/education based. But the correlative data shows quite clearly that if it is a male who doesn't move and is previously convicted of violent crime there is a doubling of violent crime arrests in ONLY that group. Not for females violent/non-violent and not for non-violent males.

---

-----

That's not a bad one but I personally like this one.

...

This one gets me going.

Has anyone ever sourced those CNN / MSM graphs breaking down their level of Juden control?

This one?

Yeah, "have you actually checked all those yourself" is usually the first response.

I personally haven't but I guess it is something to do with my free time. I was busy trying to categorize mass shooters to their political affiliation first but I guess tracking down the big wigs and sourcing it all would be next. Problem is how to clearly and concisely convey that information without it being word soup that makes people tune out.

This one is retarded. If every member of a population randomly attacked another member of the population, a person in a minority would be more likely to end up attacking someone not in that minority than someone in their minority. It's mathematics. Adjusting upwards to make up for this is nonsense, it should be adjusted downwards.

>black on white 13.7%
>white on black 10.4%

>black on black 62.2%
>white on white 56%

Doesn't seem like that big of a difference to me.

Someone is losing.

Going to double check this one with the ucr.fbi websites excel sheets but I think the issue is less that you should or shouldn't adjust upward/downward but that the raw data itself doesn't look good especially given that blacks only constitute 13-16% of the total population in America. It's good on you though to point out that the adjustment in and of itself is unfair. Give me like 30 minutes or so to read these excel tables.

>data literally a decade old
>not accounting for increased GDP growth under Trump
>not accounting for slower GDP growth in China in the last few years
>not accounting for China's enormous fucking debt problem which gets worse every year
>not accounting for the fact that Trump is already cucking China on trade
>not accounting for the fact that the US trade deficit is already shrinking

shill harder you maple leaf eating faggot

>Implying anyone trusts chinese growth figures

Even Xi says its bullshit. Building empty buildings that fall apart in 2 years is empty gdp.