Poverty is not what you think it is

[Vonsalza]

“Limited government” is a meaningless term.

No one believes in having “more government” for the sake of itself. No one. But the increased involvement of government over time is a natural by-product of more and more people living closer and closer together. If you live on a 1000 acre ranch in the Montana badlands, you probably don’t have a whole lot of need for noise ordinances and police to enforce them. In downtown Boston, you do.

And it’s worth noting, everyone agrees that the government “pie” should be reduced in size. Just not the part of the “pie” they, personally, benefit from.

Farmers of America: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so we should end farm subsidies?
Farmers of America: Now hold on a minute!

Car salesmen of America: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so we should shrink the IRS by installing a flatter tax structure that nearly eliminates the refunds most taxpayers get in March and April?
Car salesmen of America: Now hold on a minute!

Grocery retailers: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so no more WIC and foodstamps to be spent in your stores?
Grocery retailers: Now hold on a minute!

The list goes on and on and on…

 

[JimG]

“Limited government” is a meaningless term.

No one believes in having “more government” for the sake of itself. No one. But the increased involvement of government over time is a natural by-product of more and more people living closer and closer together. If you live on a 1000 acre ranch in the Montana badlands, you probably don’t have a whole lot of need for noise ordinances and police to enforce them. In downtown Boston, you do.

And it’s worth noting, everyone agrees that the government “pie” should be reduced in size. Just not the part of the “pie” they, personally, benefit from.

Farmers of America: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so we should end farm subsidies?
Farmers of America: Now hold on a minute!

Car salesmen of America: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so we should shrink the IRS by installing a flatter tax structure that nearly eliminates the refunds most taxpayers get in March and April?
Car salesmen of America: Now hold on a minute!

Grocery retailers: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so no more WIC and foodstamps to be spent in your stores?
Grocery retailers: Now hold on a minute!

The list goes on and on and on…

Indeed the list does go on and on. I don’t know exactly when people began to depend on government instead of themselves and their families. But whenever it began, it seems to have overtaken us entirely.

But then when government fails in its job as ultimate provider, as in Venezuela, chaos ensues.

 

[JonNC]

“Limited government” is a meaningless term.

No one believes in having “more government” for the sake of itself. No one. But the increased involvement of government over time is a natural by-product of more and more people living closer and closer together. If you live on a 1000 acre ranch in the Montana badlands, you probably don’t have a whole lot of need for noise ordinances and police to enforce them. In downtown Boston, you do.

And it’s worth noting, everyone agrees that the government “pie” should be reduced in size. Just not the part of the “pie” they, personally, benefit from.

Farmers of America: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so we should end farm subsidies?
Farmers of America: Now hold on a minute!

Car salesmen of America: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so we should shrink the IRS by installing a flatter tax structure that nearly eliminates the refunds most taxpayers get in March and April?
Car salesmen of America: Now hold on a minute!

Grocery retailers: We need to reduce the size and scope of government!
Government: Cool, so no more WIC and foodstamps to be spent in your stores?
Grocery retailers: Now hold on a minute!

The list goes on and on and on…

**
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”**

• Thomas Jefferson

"We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around.
And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth.
Our government has no power except that granted it by the people.
It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows
signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."

• Ronald Reagan

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government
– lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

• Patrick Henry

** “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize
they can bribe the people with their own money.”**

• Alexis de Tocqueville

Apparently, this is where we are at.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Interesting to note that the figures in the article do not include Medicare and Social Security, which are also transfer payments. I’m in effect receiving Medicare benefits paid for by my young nieces and nephews even though they can barely afford their own inflated health insurance premiums. True, I paid Medicare taxes, but those went for a prior generation of beneficiaries. Same with social security.

The Medicare payroll taxes only cover part A. The subsidies for parts B and D come from general tax revenue, so they are pure redistributional transfers. We will never solve our welfare problems if we don’t start with the biggest ones.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Capitalism is simply making productive use of capital to efficiently provide, goods, services, jobs, and growth. When capital is misallocated by governments, people suffer.

Part of the problem is that voters demand that governments misallocate capital. Take, for example the mortgage interest deduction. It serves no useful purpose and deprives the productive sector of the economy of capital. But no politician will touch it.

 

[DarkLight]

Part of the problem is that voters demand that governments misallocate capital. Take, for example the mortgage interest deduction. It serves no useful purpose and deprives the productive sector of the economy of capital. But no politician will touch it.

An interesting thing is that, for all the talk on welfare, a lot of government payments and subsidies and deductions go either to corporations or to those who are very well off.

 

[JonNC]

An interesting thing is that, for all the talk on welfare, a lot of government payments and subsidies and deductions go either to corporations or to those who are very well off.

Do away with the income tax, and this problem disappears

 

[stinkcat_14]

Do away with the income tax, and this problem disappears

No argument here. A consumption tax and an estate tax would be better substitutes.

 

[Vonsalza]

No argument here. A consumption tax and an estate tax would be better substitutes.

If I were an exceptionally wealthy person that turned loose of much of my money on goods and services that originate outside the borders of the USA (like vacations, yachts, foreign cars, ect.), I would like your proposed tax structure very, very much!

 

[Vonsalza]

An interesting thing is that, for all the talk on welfare, a lot of government payments and subsidies and deductions go either to corporations or to those who are very well off.

The fundamental reason we pay for foodstamps and “Obama-phone” IS NOT because the great unwashed got together and voted it in via democratic action…

Walmart loves that foodstamp money, Verison and T-mobile love that “Obama-phone” money. If you wanted to end those programs, you’d have to contend with the lobbying arms of billion dollar companies that stand to lose very much if you achieve your aims.

Best of luck! You’ll need it.

 

[JimG]

Part of the problem is that voters demand that governments misallocate capital. Take, for example the mortgage interest deduction. It serves no useful purpose and deprives the productive sector of the economy of capital. But no politician will touch it.

I agree. It should be eliminated. Also, like most tax deductions, it’s not of much use to the average taxpayer who takes the standard deduction.

 

[Vonsalza]

I agree. It should be eliminated. Also, like most tax deductions, it’s not of much use to the average taxpayer who takes the standard deduction.

Again, it isn’t the average taxpayer that hires the lobbyist. It’s the very wealthy taxpayer.

On a million-dollar house, that deduction alone beats the standard deduction.

 

[JonNC]

No argument here. A consumption tax and an estate tax would be better substitutes.

Not an estate tax, but the Fair Tax would be perfect

 

[JonNC]

Again, it isn’t the average taxpayer that hires the lobbyist. It’s the very wealthy taxpayer.

On a million-dollar house, that deduction alone beats the standard deduction.

Lobbyists only have influence where there is power. Reimpose the limits under the enumerated powers and the ninth and tenth amendments and their influence dwindles with the power

 

[JonNC]

The fundamental reason we pay for foodstamps and “Obama-phone” IS NOT because the great unwashed got together and voted it in via democratic action…

Walmart loves that foodstamp money, Verison and T-mobile love that “Obama-phone” money. If you wanted to end those programs, you’d have to contend with the lobbying arms of billion dollar companies that stand to lose very much if you achieve your aims.

Best of luck! You’ll need it.

I agree. I’ve come to the odd (for me) conclusion that Charles Murray’s UBI is worth a. Lose look

 

[stinkcat_14]

Not an estate tax, but the Fair Tax would be perfect

Personally, I would prefer any tax I would pay after I am dead. That by definition is a tax that will hurt the least. It is the taxes while I am living that I try to avoid.

 

[DarkLight]

The fundamental reason we pay for foodstamps and “Obama-phone” IS NOT because the great unwashed got together and voted it in via democratic action…

Walmart loves that foodstamp money, Verison and T-mobile love that “Obama-phone” money. If you wanted to end those programs, you’d have to contend with the lobbying arms of billion dollar companies that stand to lose very much if you achieve your aims.

Best of luck! You’ll need it.

Can I just say I find the whole “obamaphone” thing weird? The whole program existed long before Obama, and he didn’t really make any changes to it (it was created by Reagan and cell phone coverage was added by Bush). And as far as welfare programs go that seems one of the more innocuous ones - it doesn’t pay for a huge amount of coverage, and you really do need a phone to get and keep a job nowadays.

I think that’s part of the problem I’m seeing. There’s just so much more you’re expected to have nowadays than when the country was founded. If you don’t either live somewhere with a very good bus system, or own a car, you’re unhireable. If you don’t have a phone to be contacted on, you’re also unhireable. You’re expected to have at least a high school degree to get just about any job, and it’s getting harder and harder to find one that you can support yourself on without education beyond that. So it’s a very real situation where if your income is low enough, it’s almost impossible to dig yourself out without assistance because you don’t have the resources and an employer just doesn’t want to bother with you.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The discussion has been about the more general system of “capitalism”, rather than the more specific subset of “American neo-colonialism”. Accordingly, I stand by my post #25.

Fair enough.

We’ve been working on this for 50 years now… at some point, one has to consider that something is going on…

The feds alone spend over 25% of the budget on fighting poverty, and currently only 16% on our fighting forces.

Do you have a source on that?

If the world would adopt American capitalism, it probably would

Sorry I’m a bit late in responding - but by American capitalism, do you mean exploiting 3rd world countries for cheap labour and resources? Because if the whole world adopts that, there’s nothing to exploit.

the problem is the percentage of those in poverty hasn’t changed

I guess we need to try harder.

There may be other factors, but the timeline of the dramatic rise of black children born out of wedlock is concurrent with the beginning of programs such as AFDC that “encouraged” fathers out of the house.
google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/392842/legacy-liberalism-thomas-sowell

Correlation does not prove correlation. You’d need some studies showing a causative effect.

Actually, not too much. Some of it is indeed other entitlement programs, but outside of that, the percentage of spending compared to the budget and GDP isn’t much different in areas such as defense.

It seems to be mostly military:

nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

It generally isn’t thousands, and there is so much financial aid available

Community college, enrolled as a full-time student, is absolutely several thousands. Plus, not everybody gets financial aid, and federal loans don’t always put people into a better position.

Depends on where you live (part of the reason not to have a federal minimum wage), but the fact is that a married couple both working full time at minimum wage can make it as a start.

A married couple, both working full-time, scrimping on all expenses, living in a terrible part of town, may be able to scrape by, paycheck to paycheck. They’re certainly not going to be able to send any children/themselves off to college.

More consequences of not having two parent homes. But if we teach children this - in school!! - it may help

Two parent homes don’t prevent any of those things. It’s associated with lower rates of those things, yes, because two parent homes are generally more financially well-off than single parent homes.

“Don’t do drugs”, “abstain from sex/use protection”, etc., ARE being taught in schools.

Do not conflate the state with Workers. Most workers are part owners of the means of production if they have a 401k.
They acted just like all socialist states act - the benefit of the ruling class at the expense of the individual. It is a very common example of a socialist regime

So human greed won out over the way the government was supposed to be run - that’s a failure on part of the rulers, not the concept of government.

 

[JonNC]

=Shredderbeam;14883161]

Sorry I’m a bit late in responding - but by American capitalism, do you mean exploiting 3rd world countries for cheap labour and resources? Because if the whole world adopts that, there’s nothing to exploit.

Please give me an example of America exploiting the third world. Keep in mind that the greatest current exploitation in the third word is by their despotic socialist leaders. Cuba and North Korea come to mind, as does Venezuela and some sub-Saharan African states.

I guess we need to try harder.

Let’s start be changing the nature and direction of the so-called welfare state.

Correlation does not prove correlation. You’d need some studies showing a causative effect.

Lacking evidence of any other correlative, much less causative factor, the fact that these two line up so precisely can easily be understood as causative.

It seems to be mostly military:

The percent of GDP and of budget since 1960 has been on a trend down.

Community college, enrolled as a full-time student, is absolutely several thousands. Plus, not everybody gets financial aid, and federal loans don’t always put people into a better position.

True. Let’s develop foundations and trust funds of a voluntary nature to help students. Let’s do more within our states to make CC more affordable.

A married couple, both working full-time, scrimping on all expenses, living in a terrible part of town, may be able to scrape by, paycheck to paycheck. They’re certainly not going to be able to send any children/themselves off to college.

You have a narrow big-city vision here.

Two parent homes don’t prevent any of those things. It’s associated with lower rates of those things, yes, because two parent homes are generally more financially well-off than single parent homes.

Exactly!!! Two parent homes!!

“Don’t do drugs”, “abstain from sex/use protection”, etc., ARE being taught in schools.

Indeed.

So human greed won out over the way the government was supposed to be run - that’s a failure on part of the rulers, not the concept of government.

That has been the result of socialism, every time it has been tried.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know people who are at or below the poverty line and nevertheless live fairly well, if modestly. They drive older cars and have taught themselves how to fix most things that go wrong with them. They live in older housing in parts of town that are no longer popular, and do a lot of the fix up themselves. Some have gardens. Lots of them hunt. Some of them have a friend or uncle or cousin in the country who supplies them with beef at a pretty low cost. Some even have cheap aluminum boats and go to the lakes and bring home enormous amounts of fish. They buy clothing at yard sales and furniture at estate auctions.

On the other hand, I recently met a lady who manages a low-income housing complex of something like 250 units. Most of the people there are able bodied, but few work. Much of her time is taken up by pursuing evictions. The rent is $25.00/month and most evictions are due to nonpayment of rent. I was just stunned.