|
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox
Not really surprising, but confirmation of what I've suspected. The level of societal wealth in the US is, by any historical standard, astoundingly high.
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox When Americans think of poverty, we tend to picture people who can’t adequately shelter, clothe, and feed themselves or their families. When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor.” Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper. “Most news stories on poverty feature homeless families, people living in crumbling shacks, or lines of the downtrodden eating in soup kitchens,” Rector says. “The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from these images.” Congress is tying itself in knots figuring out how to cut spending and bring down a $14 trillion national debt. Lawmakers might well take a much closer look at the nearly a trillion dollars spent each year on welfare even though many recipients aren’t what the typical American would recognize as poor and in need of government assistance. What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless. Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials: ● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service. ● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove. ● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system. ● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care. http://global.nationalreview.com/des..._poor_list.jpg Rather than report such detailed surveys, Rector and co-author Rachel Sheffield write, the media “amplified” the Census Bureau’s annual misrepresentation of poverty over the past 40 years. News reports routinely suggest that poor Americans typically are homeless and hungry — and U.S. foes and rivals such as Iran, China, and Russia are delighted to report the same. “Regrettably, most discussions of poverty in the U.S. rely on sensationalism, exaggeration, and misinformation,” Rector says. “But an effective anti-poverty policy must be based on an accurate assessment of actual living conditions and the causes of deprivation.” See the full Heritage Foundation paper, including downloadable charts, here: “Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What Is Poverty in the United States Today?” |
"We need more tax revenue!!!"
|
I dont even have a microwave or dishwasher.
|
There was a pretty notable paper written a bit ago about how per capita crime didn't increase during a rather lengthy economic downturn. The most likely attributable cause? You tube and video games. Religion used to be a tool to control the masses now it's halo and terraria. Plus, how many people on food stamps do you see buying retarded shit like soda and frozen food at the grocery store. A good majority are in that position because they made bad decisions. Namely breathing and procreating. |
Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper. If he actually were writing the paper to shine light on an issue he thought could be changed (instead of writing some inflammatory anti-Census bullshit), he would have phrased it like this: The method by which the Census Bureau uses to measure poverty continues to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor. Legitimate question: Reagan raised taxes several times during the mid 80s, during a recession, and with unemployment at nearly 10%. This paper goes into a bit more detail and offers some modern-day dollar comparisons too. If you don't think we should raise taxes today, do you understand why Reagan raised them in the 80s, and can you tell me why today's issue is different? |
Even in places Reagan raised taxes, he netted a reduction of taxes. in 1988, for example, he increased taxes 132.7 billion, but cut taxes 275.3 billion in other places.
Under Reagan, Tax rates dropped while revenues to the treasury doubled, and 20 million jobs were created in 8 years. Increasing taxes won't pay this year's 1.1 trillion deficit budget, let alone any of the over 14 trillion accumulated. The budget can be balanced without increases, you just gotta stop spending. If taxes are going to be raised, it should be on the backs of the 51% of americans that don't pay taxes but reap up benefits of the extravagant services provided to them. Reagan also complained, that with all his tax cuts, Congress refused to stop spending and increase spending. |
I've gotten where i am by being frugal. Wife and I have very little debt (HELOC), no car or mortgage payments, and a small retirement plan. To get here, I had to forego some of the "perks". There are some I just don't want (cell phone), and some I'd like (nicer car) but have chosen not to have to be financially independent.
It's time we make these "poor" people do without or starve. I don't have a second fridge, why should someone on assistance? Sell the stuff before you get any money. If you're truley hurting, we will help, otherwise go get a damn job. |
I don't even have cable. Or a VCR. Or more than 1 fridge.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 750862)
Even in places Reagan raised taxes, he netted a reduction of taxes. in 1988, for example, he increased taxes 132.7 billion, but cut taxes 275.3 billion in other places.
Under Reagan, Tax rates dropped while revenues to the treasury doubled... Adjust to FY2005 dollars, and you get $1,251.4B in '81 and $1,421.1B in '88. That's 13.5%, not "double". :facepalm: source Increasing taxes won't pay this year's 1.1 trillion deficit budget, let alone any of the over 14 trillion accumulated. The budget can be balanced without increases, you just gotta stop spending. If taxes are going to be raised, it should be on the backs of the 51% of americans that don't pay taxes but reap up benefits of the extravagant services provided to them. 85% of Americans pay taxes, whether you like it or not. I'll agree that the top 20% pay more than their fair share, but if you make less than ~$100,000, someone else is paying the rest of your share, too. |
I don't have a dishwasher, cause I have this theory that the nation is fat cause we have it too easy. If you can make a plate messy, then you can clean it without simply loading it in the dishwasher. Things that are created to simplify our lives, tend to only make us lazy.
To stay on topic...I live near a lot of Mennonites. The children have cell phones. Not that the mennonite community is poor, or collecting welfare; I just find it odd that they allow that with their beliefs. |
Sav, you're missing the point -- which is that what we currently call "the poor" in America has zero relation to those who are actually poor, globally or historically.
Yes, there are homeless and starving people in the US. However, the idea that there exists an entire class of people in the US who make so little money that they cannot put food on the table or a roof over their heads is a fiction, and that fiction is perpetuated by misleading statistics that refer to people who (apparently) have enough disposable income to purchase numerous consumer electronics for their leisure and entertainment as "the poor." |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 750879)
I expect more from you, brainey. Those numbers are cumulative over his entire presidency, and all but 11 billion of the cuts came in '81. full chart
That's sensationalist and completely untrue. $599.3B in FY'81, $909.2B in FY'88 is 51.7%, not 100% - and that's if you totally ignore inflation, which I'm not going to let you do. ;) Adjust to FY2005 dollars, and you get $1,251.4B in '81 and $1,421.1B in '88. That's 13.5%, not "double". :facepalm: source More sensationalism and lies, although a bit less blatant this time I guess. 85% of Americans pay taxes, whether you like it or not. I'll agree that the top 20% pay more than their fair share, but if you make less than ~$100,000, someone else is paying the rest of your share, too. This nation needs to cease funding bullshit programs which America doesn't need. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 750885)
Sav, you're missing the point -- which is that what we currently call "the poor" in America has zero relation to those who are actually poor, globally or historically.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty The original report is linked in the article you posted, but there's the link again - it's a lot less talking-points based and it has a lot more data below the chart you posted too. The author did a similar report 4 years ago as well. |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 750879)
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 750879)
I expect more from you, brainey. Those numbers are cumulative over his entire presidency, and all but 11 billion of the cuts came in '81. full chart
That's sensationalist and completely untrue. $599.3B in FY'81, $909.2B in FY'88 is 51.7%, not 100% - and that's if you totally ignore inflation, which I'm not going to let you do. ;) Really the thing to take away from Reagan was that his reforms and cuts, along with deregulation resulted in one of the largest economic booms in Anerican history. Regardless of the semantics. |
First World Problems- Being "poor" in America.
Our government does a terrible job at handing out money to those who don't need it. It would be nice to be able to yank the money rug out from those who are clearly not in need of such funds. Like the chickenheads in the grocery story with a full cart of food paid for in cash and a cart full of beer pair for with food stamps and a Cadillac SUV parked out front. I simple ass beating would be more fun though. |
you said chickenhead. lol.
|
Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 750895)
What percentage of my income went to the government during Regan compared to today?
Let's pick a few years to make it fun: '82, '85, '88, '05, and '10. Assuming you made 80k/yr in 2005 (makes the mathz easy) Adjust for inflation: '82 - $41,088, 26.5% net rate '85 - $46,944, 26.2% net rate '88 - $51,184, 24.3% net rate '05 - $80,000, 21.1% net rate '10 - $90,160, 21.0% net rate |
Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 750898)
Pick a more liberal news source.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wpisrc=nl_wonk
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 750907)
It's when you look at the decade of 1980 to 1990 - federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. inflation adjusted according to that chart is ~47%.
|
taxes be damned, it still doesn't solve the spending problem:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...evenue-850.jpg Source: White House Office of Management and Budget - inflation adjusted. But I know who can pay for it: http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-co...729-chart2.jpg and what they are spending it on: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...ograms-600.jpg |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 750935)
what is the net rate?
I'm looking at the individual federal marginal income tax rate as: '81 - ~$40,000, 49% '82 - $41,088, 44% '85 - $46,944, 42% '88 - $51,184, 33% '05 - $80,000, 28% '10 - $90,160, 28% |
that's what i was looking at, but I did not calculate the net. And please forgive me I'm rusty on my GOP talking points, I went to a liberal Art School full of hippies and took an urban planning class to learn my politics.
Still doesn't solve the issue: Washington has a spending problem. Tax cuts don't increase deficits anymore than tax increases decrease deficits. Deficits are only decreased by spending less. Increasing taxes to solve our "unstainable" -BB deficit issue is like going to balance your checkbook, finding you are overspending each month, and then going to your boss for a raise and issuing a new credit card as the only solution. And you must remember, no President can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. This means Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, the Republicans did. This means Reagan didn't increase taxes, the Democrats did (who owned the house his entire term). There's more to it. All in all, Reagan worked to lower the tax burden and tried to shrink Gov't. And as a result , there was huge economic growth - that's all you need to take away from him. Right now we are doing the opposite and things aren't getting any better, I'd say things are pretty bleak. To bring it back full circle of the thread. CA makes up 12% of the US population, and 32% of those on welfare - how many of those do you suppose are exaggrating their "needs?" |
Some good dialogue and info in this thread. I am in agreement with Savington about the phrasing of the criticism from the National Review author.
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 750977)
That's the top rate, which tells you almost nothing about the effective tax rates on various income groups. I actually did the math using this page, including the 33% bubble for '88.
Likewise, I think it is important to consider both Federal income and payroll taxation. |
Friedrich Hayek made this argument decades ago - as long as those who are worst off have enough to live decently, society is better off with an income distribution that is wide, because those at the upper end defray the cost of experiments in living which eventually can be made more cheaply as a result, and become affordable to the whole population. |
nah, the shuttle built in 1984 is good enough dawg.
|
lol @ arguing to increase taxes on unchecked representative government.
|
"representative government"? In name only. Have you ever tried to talk to a state office holder? Damn near impossible. Hell, it's hard enough to get a hold of a local gov't official (other than a county clerk or similar) to get a straight answer.
The federal gov't is so out of touch with the way most people live (budgets, anyone?) that I consider them the #1 threat to my freedom and happiness in the world. |
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 753361)
The federal gov't is so out of touch with the way most people live (budgets, anyone?) that I consider them the #1 threat to my freedom and happiness in the world.
|
One of the best investments in real estate to be had is renting to the poor. 90% of the rent guaranteed by the US government and the ability to overinflate rental costs. All the while your tenants are pumping out kids, chomping on cheetos while playing xbox, and making cash under the table to cover the measly 10% they don't even need to pay you. What a beautiful life.
|
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 753361)
The federal gov't is so out of touch with the way most people live (budgets, anyone?) that I consider them the #1 threat to my freedom and happiness in the world.
Most people don't contribute $23,675,562 to the Democrat Party in an 8 year span...the UAW union does/did. they are still at work, making cars no one wants, getting paid. |
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 753361)
"representative government"? In name only. Have you ever tried to talk to a state office holder? Damn near impossible. Hell, it's hard enough to get a hold of a local gov't official (other than a county clerk or similar) to get a straight answer.
The federal gov't is so out of touch with the way most people live (budgets, anyone?) that I consider them the #1 threat to my freedom and happiness in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. It is astounding to me how so many people cling on to "let's change the Federal Gov't", instead of "let's exert our State's 10th Amendment Rights". Especially the liberals. They somehow believe that more centralized power is better to go with their belief in the big-benevolent-government unicorn. Check out http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ |
dont forget it poops gold nuggets.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 750935)
taxes be damned, it still doesn't solve the spending problem:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...evenue-850.jpg Source: White House Office of Management and Budget - inflation adjusted. |
I'd like to see that chart with the deficit added.
|
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 753301)
Hey Sav - I looked through your link but could not find the listing for effective tax rates. I think it is important to consider both the marginal and the effective, rather than one or the other.
Likewise, I think it is important to consider both Federal income and payroll taxation. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 753461)
I'd like to see that chart with the national debt added.
looks like someone divided by zero... https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1311708147 Look at the dent Newt Gingrich made in 2000 :jerkit: is it worth it? are we better off? |
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1311708147
“To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more.” “Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.” “For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in.” “Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars.” “Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.” “The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.” “Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money.” |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:50 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands