SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

tater · 11-24-10, 12:04 PM

The official number of poor in the US is ~44 million people (2009). That's the number the US gov considers poor so they can give them stuff.

That's not poor households, that's poor people.

Total spending on poverty and other "means tested" programs by the feds is ~900 billion.

That's over $20,000 per capita for the poor. So the single, working mom with 2 kids on a minimum wage job... the government spends 60 grand on her. You'd think that her poverty level job plus 60 grand would make her, you know, not poor. Particularly since the average US income is something like 47k, and the poverty level for that mom with 2 kids is over $18,000.

The US says the poverty level ('08-'09 so maybe a little higher now) is $10,830 for a single person (except AK and HI). So with their per capita share, every person at even ZERO income is twice the poverty level—assuming the government was 100% efficient in delivering aid. As it is we have 44 million, AND spend 20k a head. Based on simple math, there is no way the poverty level should be positive at all. The only way is if the government is vastly—heroically—inefficient. If we assume there are no "working poor" at all, then we still have 44 M at $0 income (including kids), then they all get 20k spending each, and all at 2X the single earner poverty level (kids really count as about half that each). Poverty should have been "solved" long ago.

Why do we not hear the government crowing that there are no poor in the US, because they've all been saved? Instead we hear that they need MORE spending. The average poor family of total aid is 80k (plus whatever their jobs provide since most are in fact "working poor" we've been told). 80k ain't poor. It's also enough to have real health insurance (instead of the medicaid they get).

If the government wrote any of us a check for $900,000,000,000, and told us we had to eliminate poverty (put all over poverty level by some fixed %) and cover insurance for 44 million people, and our pay would be whatever was left over, think we could make a good income?

Right, we could eliminate medicaid, some of medicare and SS, and all other social programs. All. Have a tax credit that is a number times total household members that slides based on annual household income. Heck, we'll set the % at double the poverty level. They could then buy private insurance as good as medicaid, too.

I'll use my pay and buy a few major corporations per year. Maybe some small countries, too.

11-24-10, 12:04 PM	#1
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	War on Poverty and government efficiency The official number of poor in the US is ~44 million people (2009). That's the number the US gov considers poor so they can give them stuff. That's not poor households, that's poor people. Total spending on poverty and other "means tested" programs by the feds is ~900 billion. That's over $20,000 per capita for the poor. So the single, working mom with 2 kids on a minimum wage job... the government spends 60 grand on her. You'd think that her poverty level job plus 60 grand would make her, you know, not poor. Particularly since the average US income is something like 47k, and the poverty level for that mom with 2 kids is over $18,000. The US says the poverty level ('08-'09 so maybe a little higher now) is $10,830 for a single person (except AK and HI). So with their per capita share, every person at even ZERO income is twice the poverty level—assuming the government was 100% efficient in delivering aid. As it is we have 44 million, AND spend 20k a head. Based on simple math, there is no way the poverty level should be positive at all. The only way is if the government is vastly—heroically—inefficient. If we assume there are no "working poor" at all, then we still have 44 M at $0 income (including kids), then they all get 20k spending each, and all at 2X the single earner poverty level (kids really count as about half that each). Poverty should have been "solved" long ago. Why do we not hear the government crowing that there are no poor in the US, because they've all been saved? Instead we hear that they need MORE spending. The average poor family of total aid is 80k (plus whatever their jobs provide since most are in fact "working poor" we've been told). 80k ain't poor. It's also enough to have real health insurance (instead of the medicaid they get). If the government wrote any of us a check for $900,000,000,000, and told us we had to eliminate poverty (put all over poverty level by some fixed %) and cover insurance for 44 million people, and our pay would be whatever was left over, think we could make a good income? Right, we could eliminate medicaid, some of medicare and SS, and all other social programs. All. Have a tax credit that is a number times total household members that slides based on annual household income. Heck, we'll set the % at double the poverty level. They could then buy private insurance as good as medicaid, too. I'll use my pay and buy a few major corporations per year. Maybe some small countries, too.