Comments for Bad Arithmetic on the Battle Against Poverty at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.cepr.net Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:36:36 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19552 This argument also overlooks the fact that the relevant figure is not how many people are in poverty after receiving benefits, but how many people are poor before they receive benefits. See http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/06/06/could-we-abolish-poverty-if-we-didnt-spend-so-much-on-public-servants/ for an Australian discussion. - Peter Whiteford Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:48:17 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19510 Setting aside the corporate welfare programs such as the subsidies for agribusiness, the petroleum and mining industries, and of course the too-big-to-fail insurance for Wall Street banks, America’s biggest welfare program is not administered by the Department of Education, or Housing and Urban Development, or even Health and Human Services. America’s biggest welfare program is administered by the Internal Revenue Service. This welfare program is know as the Earned Income Tax Credit. As the name states this is ONLY for people who have “earned income” i.e. wages, salaries, tips. That is: this program is for people who have JOBS. The people who are entitled to this program are not freeloaders, they are people who have taken responsibility for their lives and taken any job or jobs they could find, even at very low pay rates. And the program is designed to limit its benefits to the working poor and the underemployed. To take advantage of the EITC the tax payer must have a job, most not have much investment income (such as interest, dividends, or capital gains), must not be so young that the parents are probably supporting the tax payer, must not be so old as to qualify for social security, and must not earn a whole lot of salary -- for a single taxpayer with no dependents the EITC phases out at the princely some of $13,600/year. That means that if a single person works full time and earns $7/hour, that tax payer earns TOO MUCH to benefit from this welfare program. To be fair, the program does give more benefits to married couples filing jointly and to taxpayers with children. For example, a couple with 3 or more children could earn up to almost $50,000/year before they could no longer take advantage of EITC. But aren’t those the very people we should be trying to help -- families where the parents are trying to pull them selves up by working at whatever jobs they can find, even low paying jobs? Statistics show that for some reason many people who would be entitled to this program do not take advantage of it. Perhaps this is because society makes people afraid of the federal government or because the media keeps telling people that the IRS only wants to take money out of your pocket, not help put some more money in your pocket. Or maybe the tax returns are just too complicated for people to know they qualify for EITC. In any event, there are no welfare queens on this program; only the working poor and the underemployed. And here is the interesting point -- while subsequent presidents have broadened and deepened this program, it was first instituted by that wild-eyed socialist who wanted to redistribute wealth downward from the rich to the poor, Ronald Reagan. - Ethan Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:07:33 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19509 It is not so much about Government being generous to the poor they are clearly not. It is about bad government senseless wasting money with the excuse that it is needed for the poor. - Floccina Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:42:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19508 Roosevelt justified programs to the Republicans this way. Johnson doubled down after the riots in the 60s. Note that 1968 was peak income equality. Since then, i.e., after the war on poverty....hmmm... It is not the spending, it is the continuing segregation. Building massive freeways and subways so that the rich may live in the burbs and leave the cities and the city schools to the poor...great plan...now with energy prices surging, we get gentrification, i.e., the reverse migration....example is PG county in Maryland...grew with white flight early on, now is absorbing all the inner city folks leaving DC, whose demographics are changing rapidly. - pete Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:41:36 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19507 [quote]While many anti-poverty programs are undoubtedly wasteful and should be reformed or eliminated, the notion that the government spends a massive amount on poverty programs is an invention of the right-wing that has no basis in reality.[/quote] Surely you jest! Let's be clear eyed here. You cannot subsidize everyone and you probably cannot even subsidize the middle class because you have to get the productivity from them, so along with AFDC. food stamps, etc. consider: 1. The reason that Medicaid exists is so that poor people can afford medical care. Medicaid is clearly an anti-poverty program. Not to mention the Government pushes up the cost of medical care as you have well documented, even while subsidizing it 2. The reason Social Security exists is so poor people have some income in old age. SS is clearly an anti-poverty program the rich do not need it and middle class would not need it if it did not exist! 3. The reason Medicare exists is so poor people have some income in old age. In a large big part Medicare is anti-poverty program the rich do not need it and middle class would not need it if it did not exist! 4. The reason government schools exists is so poor people can/will send their children to school. I was middle class and sent my kids to private schools Government schooling is an anti-poverty program. The rich often do not even use them and some middle do not middle class do not use them and so do not need them! They are all anti-poverty programs and add up to a lot of money. A wage subsidy or just writing a check for $150 each week to each adult in the USA could replace many of the above for cheap. - Floccina Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:37:26 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19500 If you're going to count the EITC as "spending", then all the tax breaks which go to corporations and the wealthy should be counted too - whenever a corporation pays less than the nominal maximum rate, that should be counted as payments to executives and shareholders. And shouldn't "temporary" tax cuts, like the cut in capital gains rates, or the giveaway which allows hedge-fund operators to count their income as capital gains, also be counted as payments? Using this type of accounting, the total of "payments" would sum to much more than actual federal revenue. The EITC belongs to the tax-rate structure, not "payments". It does increase the progressivity of these rates, and there is no doubt that federal tax rates are progressive up to somewhat above the median income level. But the progressivity of federal tax rates almost stops there - the very wealthy pay little if any higher rates than someone in the middle of the income distribution. - skeptonomist Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:07:21 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19499 Another major factor is that poverty is measured pre-tax and pre-government transfers. That is, if a family of four makes $20,000, but receives net government transfers of $5,000, they are still listed as "in poverty" even though $25,000 takes them above the poverty line of $23,050 for a family of four. - Nordy Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:38:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bad-arithmetoc-on-the-battle-against-poverty#comment-19498 maybe we should blockgrant dept of defense money to the states as well - jamzo Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:13:10 +0100