War on Poverty and government efficiency

[tater]

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Welcome to the system. Of those 44 million considered at poverty level how many pay taxes on what they do earn?

[tater]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Welcome to the system. Of those 44 million considered at poverty level how many pay taxes on what they do earn?

To be at the poverty level, the single income is $10,830 or less. Add about 4-5k per household member. None pay any taxes at all (income). All pay FICA on their pittance.Note that FICA comes off the AGI, so they pay under the $828.50 that is FICA times 10,830)

Bottom line is that we could spend less than 50% of what we do now, and also entirely eliminate medicaid, AND have ZERO poor in the US (poor as defined by the government).

Right now every poor person (even though they never actually see it) has 20k spent on them. Each kid only takes ~5k to be above the poverty level, so kids get 4X their poverty level in fed gov subsidy. Adults all get 2X that level of spending. Many of the poor are kids, too, so the inefficiency is even worse than I paint it.

Also, that is just FEDERAL spending. States spend quite a lot per capita on poverty/means tested programs as well.

It boggles the mind.

[Armistead]

You're forgetting the bigger problem tater, the bailouts for the poor don't come close to the bailouts for the rich.... We've spent an average of $40 to $1 bailing out the rich and corporations....did it create jobs, not really, but it did create a lot of wealth for the chosen few.
This is what is creating a two class society in America.

[AVGWarhawk]

Bottom line is that we could spend less than 50% of what we do now, and also entirely eliminate medicaid, AND have ZERO poor in the US (poor as defined by the government).

This is why I said welcome to the system. There are a few I know who work the 'system' for monetary gain. The government definition of poor is well, poor. The checks and balances concerning welfare are poor. The entire system needs a complete and utter overhaul. For many, working the system has become a career in itself.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Armistead

You're forgetting the bigger problem tater, the bailouts for the poor don't come close to the bailouts for the rich.... We've spent an average of $40 to $1 bailing out the rich and corporations....did it create jobs, not really, but it did create a lot of wealth for the chosen few.
This is what is creating a two class society in America.

Sorry, that's not the bigger problem. TARP was a limited thing ( I was against that, too, I wanted the market to sort out the bad companies and have them fail).. We spend more than TARP every single year on the poor and still have poor, which is mathematically impossible, even at 50% efficiency.

If you think TARP mitigated the recession, then you need to give that whatever value to access it. Still, in a 10 year period, it's chump change compared to poverty programs that have been on ineffective autopilot since the 1960s.

Also, the rich guys at the large companies actually pay taxes. To properly weigh the bailouts on those guys, you need to first characterize their tax contributions. The poor are grossly net "takers" from the system (heck, the bottom 40-50% of taxpayers are).

Not saying the bailed out aren't net takers, they likely are. But no "per person" cost of a bailout is meaningful since 50% of tax payers don't remotely pay a share of taxes, so it in effect costs them nothing at all. The "rich" (top 20%) alone pay for ALL bailouts. So TARP and poverty programs both "soak the rich" virtually alone.

[Armistead]

We allow illegals in mass.
Trade policy totally corrupt
Tax policy totally corrupt. "You think the rich really pay most the taxes."
Corrupt regulations.....Dems want too much, GOP don't won't any.
Mass jobs shipped overseas.


Most of these were done by the GOP to support corporations.

Ever get time read the book by Donald Trump "Why we want you to be rich." He cleary explains why and how America will be a two class system in 20 years or less due to corporate control of congress. IOW, use these tactics to be one of the 5% of the wealthy, instead of one of the 95% poor.

Hope Donald really doe's run this time.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

Sorry, that's not the bigger problem. TARP was a limited thing ( I was against that, too, I wanted the market to sort out the bad companies and have them fail).. We spend more than TARP every single year on the poor and still have poor, which is mathematically impossible, even at 50% efficiency.

If you think TARP mitigated the recession, then you need to give that whatever value to access it. Still, in a 10 year period, it's chump change compared to poverty programs that have been on ineffective autopilot since the 1960s.

Also, the rich guys at the large companies actually pay taxes. To properly weigh the bailouts on those guys, you need to first characterize their tax contributions. The poor are grossly net "takers" from the system (heck, the bottom 40-50% of taxpayers are).

Not saying the bailed out aren't net takers, they likely are. But no "per person" cost of a bailout is meaningful since 50% of tax payers don't remotely pay a share of taxes, so it in effect costs them nothing at all. The "rich" (top 20%) alone pay for ALL bailouts. So TARP and poverty programs both "soak the rich" virtually alone.

Hmm, you haven't added your taxes lately. The rich will gladly pay a higher tax, doesn't bother them as long as they can write regulation.

I make a lot less now, but still pay an average of 40% tax when I add all government taxes, property, sales, gas....any bill you got has a tax. Even a person making 50K that owns a home pays in around 35% in totat taxes.

The rich pay lots of taxes, but then should we go over the tax shelters they're given, but it's not about taxes, it's regulation.

In 20 years or less they say about 9% will hold over 80% of total wealth. Polls very, but it's always near there. Eventually you'll figure it out why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I assume you believe in trickle down economics in a global economy?

[tater]

The rich do pay most all the taxes collected. The data is there in black and white. Total federal taxes COLLECTED. The bottom 40% pay an average 5.1% of the federal tax bill (they pay negative income tax, but positive FICA).

The top 20% pay almost 70% of all federal personal taxes collected. It's only that low because of the SS cap. They pay over 85% of all personal income taxes COLLECTED. They pay almost 90% of corporate income taxes.

For the income tax, the top 10% pay over 72% of the taxes collected. The top 1% pays nearly 40% of all income taxes collected.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mass jobs shipped overseas.

Manufacturing job for certain. Strangely overseas companies shipped their manufacturing over here! Honda, Toyota, VW!

[Sailor Steve]

A large part of the money spent goes to pay the people required to run the system, which is why, though it is spent "on the poor", the poor never actually see it.

It's the same with schools. Public-school proponents here love to point out that Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending of any state in the US. Yet if we were to give a teacher thirty students and hand her $146,700 ($4890 per pupil) and say "Teach these kids", think of what she could accomplish!

It's the administration of the programs that sucks up all the money spent, and the people who actually need it get what's left over. But how can it be done differently?

[tater]

The jobs thing is frankly dubious. After the war rthe US was over 50% of world manufacturing. We're in the high 20% range now (still the largest manufacturing nation on earth, BTW). The US had no place to go but down on that scale in a relatively peaceful world. There is no reasonable scenario oif keeping US mfg at that post war level indefinitely. It was a bubble. So if you want to whine about mass mfg jobs going overseas, then at least come up with what % of world mfg is sustainable for the US. We're at maybe 28% now, what is your magic number? 30%? 35%? Why?

You might be right, but it's not simple in the least.

On topic, however, government spending is demonstrably inefficient. We spend enough that the poor should be "average" in the US instead of poor. heck, at the amount we spend a working poor family with 4 members would actually be in the 4th quintile of taxpayers if they got their 80 grand we spend.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

The rich do pay most all the taxes collected. The data is there in black and white. Total federal taxes COLLECTED. The bottom 40% pay an average 5.1% of the federal tax bill (they pay negative income tax, but positive FICA).

The top 20% pay almost 70% of all federal personal taxes collected. It's only that low because of the SS cap. They pay over 85% of all personal income taxes COLLECTED. They pay almost 90% of corporate income taxes.

For the income tax, the top 10% pay over 72% of the taxes collected. The top 1% pays nearly 40% of all income taxes collected.

All that proves is that the rich make ungodly gobs of money compared to the rest of everyone else. And if you think that tranfer of wealth to the rich stopped at the bailouts, you'd be wrong.

[tater]

SS, I agree that overhead eats it, but the overhead here is entirely labor, and even at 50% overhead, every single poor person should be lifted out of poverty. That's ~10k a head, and the single person poverty level is ~10k. So our mom with 2 kids at even 50% overhead should have a 30k expenditure AFTER overhead on her family. For her to remain in poverty, the overhead must be over 60%.

Mind blowing considering the IRS already exists, and the check-printers already churn checks out to these people. Dump all those government stooges, print a bigger check, and still save money.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Manufacturing job for certain. Strangely overseas companies shipped their manufacturing over here! Honda, Toyota, VW!

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.


Tater, the FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously benefited investors and large depositors. A neat example, a corporate operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it, made mass profits and still hasn't paid the government a dime back...this is happening all over except for auto paying back.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year, compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? "There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages."

The problem is we are a nation of entitlement from the poor to the rich, but the rich are getting the better end of the deal.

As the poor get poorer, they will want more entitlements. As the rich get richer they can buy off congress for more entitlements. In the end the poor will lose. They're millions of now white americans being forced into poverty and rest assured if you see your kids starving you'll go stand in line for foodstamps and welfare.

It's just gonna get worse in the jobless recovery as more CEO's make billions off taxpayers.

Wonder what will happen with the next coming meltdown. Most agree it will be much worse.