The "system" that is making the poor, poorer in America
This is important, because much of our welfare efforts go toward bolstering consumption, not incomes. Adjusting official income levels for what people consume, rather than what they earn, yields a very different poverty rate: 2.8%, according to the AEI report. Almost nonexistent.
How can that be? An officially poor family of four has income of about $25,000 or less. That's not much. But that measure fails to take into account taxes. The poor mostly don't pay taxes. In fact, many get money back through the Earned Income Tax Credit and other income-support programs. Food stamps, housing support and other aid likewise enable officially poor households to boost their incomes, in most cases significantly.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
How Much Do Poor Consume?
Heritage Foundation poverty analysts Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in a 2016 data report noted that "poor" in America doesn't mean what it means elsewhere. Based on a 2009 government survey of spending, the average poor person in the U.S., for instance, lives in a bigger house than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany or England. Moreover, nearly 85% of poor homes in the U.S. have air conditioning, and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half own computers, and 43% have internet access. More than half own a video game system.
The "system" appears to be making them better off than they'd be without the "system."
Comments
-
-
-
Isn't that the point of having a "system"? You wanted them to be worse off?SFGbob said:Poverty: The Welfare Effect
This is important, because much of our welfare efforts go toward bolstering consumption, not incomes. Adjusting official income levels for what people consume, rather than what they earn, yields a very different poverty rate: 2.8%, according to the AEI report. Almost nonexistent.
How can that be? An officially poor family of four has income of about $25,000 or less. That's not much. But that measure fails to take into account taxes. The poor mostly don't pay taxes. In fact, many get money back through the Earned Income Tax Credit and other income-support programs. Food stamps, housing support and other aid likewise enable officially poor households to boost their incomes, in most cases significantly.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
How Much Do Poor Consume?
Heritage Foundation poverty analysts Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in a 2016 data report noted that "poor" in America doesn't mean what it means elsewhere. Based on a 2009 government survey of spending, the average poor person in the U.S., for instance, lives in a bigger house than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany or England. Moreover, nearly 85% of poor homes in the U.S. have air conditioning, and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half own computers, and 43% have internet access. More than half own a video game system.
The "system" appears to be making them better off than they'd be without the "system."
-
I just got a chance to read this. First. Got a link for context?SFGbob said:Poverty: The Welfare Effect
This is important, because much of our welfare efforts go toward bolstering consumption, not incomes. Adjusting official income levels for what people consume, rather than what they earn, yields a very different poverty rate: 2.8%, according to the AEI report. Almost nonexistent.
How can that be? An officially poor family of four has income of about $25,000 or less. That's not much. But that measure fails to take into account taxes. The poor mostly don't pay taxes. In fact, many get money back through the Earned Income Tax Credit and other income-support programs. Food stamps, housing support and other aid likewise enable officially poor households to boost their incomes, in most cases significantly.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
How Much Do Poor Consume?
Heritage Foundation poverty analysts Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in a 2016 data report noted that "poor" in America doesn't mean what it means elsewhere. Based on a 2009 government survey of spending, the average poor person in the U.S., for instance, lives in a bigger house than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany or England. Moreover, nearly 85% of poor homes in the U.S. have air conditioning, and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half own computers, and 43% have internet access. More than half own a video game system.
The "system" appears to be making them better off than they'd be without the "system."
Second, you are now comparing to Europe. Why don't you do the same with health Care?
That being said, there's no way a family making $25k a year is spending $60k a year.
And I never said anything about the poor people in America compared to poor people in other countries. The poor here are better off and I said as much. That doesn't mean the system isn't setup to keep them down. The earned income credit is another vehicle for that. -
Okay Hondo, how does the EITC keep people down? Cue the Kunt act.
-
I did? Was that in the thread where you said you enjoyed Hondo's ass tonguings?HillsboroDuck said:
Isn't that the point of having a "system"? You wanted them to be worse off?SFGbob said:Poverty: The Welfare Effect
This is important, because much of our welfare efforts go toward bolstering consumption, not incomes. Adjusting official income levels for what people consume, rather than what they earn, yields a very different poverty rate: 2.8%, according to the AEI report. Almost nonexistent.
How can that be? An officially poor family of four has income of about $25,000 or less. That's not much. But that measure fails to take into account taxes. The poor mostly don't pay taxes. In fact, many get money back through the Earned Income Tax Credit and other income-support programs. Food stamps, housing support and other aid likewise enable officially poor households to boost their incomes, in most cases significantly.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
How Much Do Poor Consume?
Heritage Foundation poverty analysts Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in a 2016 data report noted that "poor" in America doesn't mean what it means elsewhere. Based on a 2009 government survey of spending, the average poor person in the U.S., for instance, lives in a bigger house than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany or England. Moreover, nearly 85% of poor homes in the U.S. have air conditioning, and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half own computers, and 43% have internet access. More than half own a video game system.
The "system" appears to be making them better off than they'd be without the "system." -
Provide a link shit dick.SFGbob said:Okay Hondo, how does the EITC keep people down? Cue the Kunt act.
Well the EIC ends in the $30k income range and the peak amount is in the $15k range. I know many people who are dead set to earn income at that level to maximize their EIC. I tell them it's a fucktarded mindset but they listen about as well as you do.
-
So the earned income tax credit gives people who already pay no income tax more money then they would of had and that keeps them down. Got it. Another good reveal is that Hondo knows a lot of lazy poor people.
-
Why are you scared to provide a link to your source material?
-
Not afraid at all, are you challenging the accuracy of what was stated?
-
Yes. I did challenge accuracy. Now post the link.SFGbob said:Not afraid at all, are you challenging the accuracy of what was stated?
-
How’s is reading comprehension?2001400ex said:
-
Your reading comprehension sucksSFGbob said:
I did? Was that in the thread where you said you enjoyed Hondo's ass tonguings?HillsboroDuck said:
Isn't that the point of having a "system"? You wanted them to be worse off?SFGbob said:Poverty: The Welfare Effect
This is important, because much of our welfare efforts go toward bolstering consumption, not incomes. Adjusting official income levels for what people consume, rather than what they earn, yields a very different poverty rate: 2.8%, according to the AEI report. Almost nonexistent.
How can that be? An officially poor family of four has income of about $25,000 or less. That's not much. But that measure fails to take into account taxes. The poor mostly don't pay taxes. In fact, many get money back through the Earned Income Tax Credit and other income-support programs. Food stamps, housing support and other aid likewise enable officially poor households to boost their incomes, in most cases significantly.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
How Much Do Poor Consume?
Heritage Foundation poverty analysts Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in a 2016 data report noted that "poor" in America doesn't mean what it means elsewhere. Based on a 2009 government survey of spending, the average poor person in the U.S., for instance, lives in a bigger house than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany or England. Moreover, nearly 85% of poor homes in the U.S. have air conditioning, and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half own computers, and 43% have internet access. More than half own a video game system.
The "system" appears to be making them better off than they'd be without the "system."
-
Maybe you could quote for me where I said I want poor people to be worse off.
-
Maybe you could understand that's not what my point was, if you had reading comprehension.SFGbob said:Maybe you could quote for me where I said I want poor people to be worse off.
The "system" appears to be making them better off than they'd be without the "system."
Of course the welfare system is making people better off than they'd be without the welfare system. That's the point. What point are you possibly making by pointing out the obvious? -
That Hondo is full of shit when he claims the "system" makes poor people poorer. Was it really that tough to follow along in this thread?
Gosh it was only the title of the thread. -
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k. -
That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality.
And this is the very same worthless piece of shit who's favorite dodge is to accuse the other person of having poor reading comprehension. -
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.
https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/ -
And of course Hondo's claim that the "system" makes poor people poorer continues to be unsupported by anything other than his worthless opinion and he provides no links in support of that bullshit while he demands links that he doesn't even read.
-
I don’t provide the links for him. He’s a zealot/shill, and won’t move off his position, facts be damned. The links are just to show that.
-
That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.
https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/ -
Hondo "knows" that the numbers aren't accurate without ever looking them but he'll look at them later tonight and get back to us.2001400ex said:
That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.
If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.
https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
Is there a bigger worthless Kunt here on this board?
-
It is useless to try and explain basic economics to Hondo guys. You are just going to spin in circles and wear yourselves out. He is too fucking retarded to understand.
-
He isn't even here for a conversation. He is a retarded troll.CuntWaffle said:It is useless to try and explain basic economics to Hondo guys. You are just going to spin in circles and wear yourselves out. He is too fucking retarded to understand.
-
Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.
Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it. -
He’s just another try hard “useful idiot”. Responding to him other than to tell him to fuck off, or self immolate is a complete waste of time.SFGbob said:
He isn't even here for a conversation. He is a retarded troll.CuntWaffle said:It is useless to try and explain basic economics to Hondo guys. You are just going to spin in circles and wear yourselves out. He is too fucking retarded to understand.
-
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold said:Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.
Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.
Kind of sucks now -
Needs to be more efficient and limited to a stop gap measure that doesn’t perpetuate dependence.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold said:Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.
Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.
Kind of sucks now
