How America treats the poor

Great Debates
121

Congratulations, you found that I didn’t have the worst possible situation to be in while broke. In general, I find that we should be making policy for the medians, not the exception. Being poor is harder for diabetics, but that’s because anything is harder when you’re a diabetic.

If you read the whole exchange, you’ll find that it includes pastas and sandwiches. Forgive me if I can’t produce a weekly menu from nearly a decade ago to tell you everything I ate. And just because meat is being marked down doesn’t mean it’s bad. The idea that if you must buy everything as fresh as possible (and therefore as expensive as possible) is rather silly when you’re talking about eating as a poor person.

But while we’re at it, I don’t think anyone is expecting this to be a long-term solution. They expect people to work their way out of poverty, so these diets and measures are supposed to be temporary. I have a feeling that position will be dismissed as well, though.

Since you keep ignoring the part where I advocate for easier and less restrictive aid to the poor, you’ll forgive me if I have little faith that this will be read, but in general the elderly either need to get a low stress job or use their retirement funds; the disabled have their own programs, but the idea that a disabled person cannot support themselves through work would be offensive to most disabled people I know, and while poor kids may be heartbreaking, chanting “but it’s for the children!” is not an argument I find effective.

And remind me again why I should care what any religion has to say on the matter?

122

Because if you ignore religion, you are ignoring the most significant contributor to many people’s moral and ethical systems, and the basis for their determinations about what they are obligated to do for other people?

123

Argumentum ad Populum. Just because a lot of people believe it does not make it right or true.

124

Who said it did? I’m saying you can’t talk about what is really happening without any grasp of why people believe what they believe. And religion is a big part of that.

125

Why shouldn’t there be a cut off? I’m not advocating for a change in the policies regarding length and all of that (I advocate for a reduction in the bureaucracy) but a change in the benefit provided. Just because life sucks for a person doesn’t mean they should buckle down and all-but starve. Raising the dollar benefit for foodstamps (which is only food) would go a long way to helping them out. As it’s been pointed out, food helps thinking, ability to work, and other things. Starving them out only helps to keep them in the hole they are in.

Because God loves you.
I’m really, really sorry. I just couldn’t resist. :slight_smile:

126

I think any meaningful debate will have to start with flat-out disregarding the Cato report you linked in your OP.

My job deals with folk applying for social security disability benefits. Many of these folk are very persistent in seeking any available aid from any source. I currenty have experience only with folk from three states, but I assure you, the idea that a poor person in Indiana is getting anywhere near $26k is flat out laughable.

The only way I could imagine those numbers coming anywhere close to resembling reality is if they included a grossly inflated value of medicaid services available. Yes, medical care can be very important and very expensive, but I don’t think it can be equated with income. And the considerable hurdles involved in receiving Medicare make it highly suspect to include that in the basket of available benefits.

I imagine unemployment might be another sizeable source. Of course, you need to have been employed and to have lost your work for certain reasons, and they do eventually run out.

Many, many folk receive nothing other than food stamps of a few hundred a month - as low as $200 for an individual. Many also get township assistance for their utilities. Section 8 housing assistance would be the largest chunk of “income” - but would be nowhere near a grand a month. I would be very surprised if an individual’s housing, utilities, and food stamps exceeded $12k/year - but I have never tried to calculate it. And sure, a lot of folk supplement their “income” through scrapping, barter, trade of services, illegal means, etc.

The folk I see who are bringing in the most in terms of benefits are veterans. They - and folk drawing private retirement or disability pensions, are the only ones bringing in anywhere near subsistence funds. If you do not directly work with such people, it might be easy to not realize how poorly how many folk are living.

It would be interesting to see a study showing how much - and from what sources - the typical impoverished/unemployed person actually receives - as opposed to a hypothetical discussion of what they theoretically might be elegible for.

127

And I’m saying that is totally unconvincing to me, so spouting “The bible says we should” is not useful argument.

It’s ok, I laughed :smiley:

128

Personally I think the reason we have such bad outcomes here in the United States (and by no means is any country perfect, but I think we do poorly compared to other OECD countries) when it comes to welfare programs are two competing interests.

On the one hand, there are those on the right who want to limit welfare as much as possible, basically “cut to the bone, then cut some more.” They would probably be happy to eliminate it entirely aside from a small minority of benefits (VA benefits for disabled veterans as an example.)

This is their “extreme” position, and because of the nature of our political system will never be reality. However, because they hold that position it does influence things, it influences budget cuts, it influences how much budgets can get expanded etc.

It also creates an environment where no one (even those on the mainstream left in America) wants to create “poor person entitlements.” Instead every program must be clothed to some degree in a complex formula or list of qualifications that says “if x, and x and x is true and y and z and b have happened to you, then the government will assist you for a certain period of time in X way.”

An alternative, that probably would not appeal to many of my fellow Republicans (but some) and probably very few if any Democrats, would be to do away with many of these programs. Instead, define a realistic, cost of living adjusted (regionally) standard level of income that a human being can actually survive on. Include sliding amounts based on family size and etc.

I’ve done no math on this, but let’s say the national average number is say $24k a year for a single person. An individual earns $16k a year, so that person receives a cash benefit of $8k a year. It can be distributed in 12 monthly payments based on projected income, and at tax filing time if say, that person got a windfall or extra income such that their total income for the year was say, 20% over the minimum, then they have to pay some portion of it back. [And there are ways to structure that so someone doesn’t end up with a huge tax bill all at once.]

This allows someone to rent whatever apartment they want, buy the food they want, and basically do whatever they need to do to get by with their money. If I was running the program, the “minimum income” number would be calculated by region using the following formula:

[Average Monthly Rent for a 1 Bedroom Apartment] + [Average Monthly Consumer Non-Discretionary Spending] + [Average Monthly Utility Cost] + [Average Monthly Transportation Cost] + [Average Monthly Clothing Cost] = [Average Monthly Living Expenses] (AMLE)

Take the AMLE * 12 and that is your “minimum annual income.” I think that’s a reasonable metric, it covers: housing, clothing, consumer non-discretionary (a category that includes all your food, plus incidentals like household cleaning supplies, toothpaste, laundry detergent etc), transportation and clothing.

I don’t think this would be a glamorous life, note it doesn’t factor in things like vacation money, entertainment and other such purposes. But it would cover the necessities of life, the actual necessities.

129

Please explain what the incentive is for that person to work.

130

To have more than the barest necessities of life. If you had to choose between working 40-50 hours a week to have the ability to live basically where you want, drive what you want, eat what you want, and vacation where you want or working temporary/part time hours and getting the rest of your barest needs covered by the government which would you choose? Hell, what do you choose now? If you fell on hard times today, at this moment, you could go through all the paperwork and get at least some of your financial needs covered by the government. What makes you get up and go to work every day when you could be sitting at home, raking in those sweet, sweet food stamps and housing subsidies?

131

See what I was responding to.

Under that scheme, if the person works earning $16K a year, his income is $24K a year. If he works earning $5K a year, his income is $24K a year. If he works earning $1K a year, his income is $24K a year. If he doesn’t work, his income is $24K a year.

So - what is his incentive to work?

132

That’s a fair point, and one of the major problems with a negative income tax (fraud being the other big one).

I think it could be ameliorated by setting the baseline (the “no income at all” case) and then phasing out the benefit. So a worker that makes $16k (to use your number) would still get to keep a portion of that $24k benefit - perhaps bringing his total income up to $30k (or whatever). Basically use income or a payroll tax to “claw back” some of the default benefit.

133

My head hurts just thinking about the forms and the bureaucracy required to implement this and the enormous possibilities of fraud.

That is why I kinda like the scheme that the guy upthread proposed (and which I tried to evaluate in A proposed "welfare" scheme (from another thread) - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board). Give $10K to everyone 18 and above, $5K to below 18s. Unfortunately, as you can see from that thread, taxes would have to increase hugely to accommodate it.

134

To eventually make more than 24k a year so he can afford health insurance and a car that isn’t 10 years old? You pretty much have to start at the bottom and work your way up in any field, and if your field’s bottom is less than 24k a year it would be nice if you knew that the time you were putting into your job so you could eventually be promoted to manager or whatever wasn’t time where you had to sort through the change jar on your desk to buy toilet paper this week. Or better yet, that you could have 24k a year while you went to school so you could get a job where the bottom of your field pays 32k a year!

Again, it is the same as your incentive to work. To have more, to do better, to be more comfortable in this life than the basics allow. And if, god forbid, someone finds themselves being comfortable at 24k a year and doesn’t feel like they should put in the time to work they are probably the same people who don’t feel like they should put in that time now when they aren’t being subsidized (or are being subsidized by food stamps and section 8 or whatever.) I assure you, Bill Gates would still have invented Microsoft and become a billionaire even if he had the option of living on the dole and your local lazy asshole isn’t motivated to work now even without being given a check every month. In what world do you live where everyone just stops doing anything if they can buy generic mac and cheese and put half a tank of gas in their car every week?

135

Cool. Now - let’s say there is a job that pays $20K/year today. You implement that scheme. What is the incentive for the employer to pay $20K/year for that job when he can pay $5K/year and let the government pay the rest to make up the $24K?

136

I think all the existing incentives to work mostly exist within individuals. If someone is willing to live a very meager existence, basically in squalor because they simply do not want to work at all I think by and large you can in fact do that in the United States. The people that aren’t happy about being poor are the ones who don’t want to live like that, and those people are still going to want to work, because my scheme would give them basically enough to get by, but most people want to do more than just get by.

I don’t think the issue of people abusing the system would end up being as big as many would fear, but let’s say that it ends up being a big deal. It’s fairly easy to structure it to disincentive that.

So let’s take the number of work hours in a year (I’m picking 2080) and multiply it by Federal minimum wage. That gives you a total of $15,080 in gross income. When you file taxes, let’s say your gross income is reported as $6,000. Anyone with less than 50% of the gross income you could earn working a full year of minimum wage is subject to an audit. If you’re audited, you will be required to explain why you’ve not been working. Note that this income scheme of mine replaces most existing Federal benefits, including Social Security disability and retirement insurance.

Wait, what? Well, if the purpose of say, disability is to provide a living to someone who can’t work, and the purpose of Social Security is to make sure elderly people do not die in poverty, including them in these scheme just makes sense.

So there would be different classes of participant. If you’re certified as disabled, you’re immune from an audit, it’s understood the reason your income is less than 50% of the minimum is because you’re permanently disabled and do not work. Thus you get an income subsidy of basically a “full” amount. Less, any AD&D and other benefits you’ve earned perhaps as a result of whatever caused you to become disabled. If you’re over a certain age, you have a “right” to basically not work and receive a benefit–that replaces traditional social security, and also means people who are better off no longer receive social security benefits.

So once you get all the exceptions out, there are a number of individuals who are subject to an “income audit” and are required to explain why they aren’t earning a minimal amount of income. If their reason isn’t related to some approved reason they get placed under higher scrutiny and assigned a case worker. They’ll be required to meet with the case worker once per month, and before they receive their monthly benefit they’ll need to show that they have tried to find work and have been unable to do so.

I think this system is superior to one in which you have to file a bunch of elaborate claims paperwork to get benefits in the first place. Instead the simple assumption is if you meet the income limits, you get the cash benefit. I think an audit process, which polices a random selection of the exception cases will keep people honest and be far more cost effective administratively than developing a huge legion of staff to pore over millions of applications and spend months or years getting various levels of approval to start paying out the benefit.

137

Actually my scheme would represent a massive reduction in the Federal bureaucracy required to pay out benefits. There are some 70+ government agencies, bureaus etc that basically do little more than analyze whether someone should receive benefits, manage various aspects of distributing those benefits, investigate cases of fraud and etc.

Instead of all that, you have a system where you basically have a few different ways of getting benefits.

  1. You decide to start claiming benefits. You fill out a form, and provide a proof of your current income.

  2. You’re disabled. The current existing system for assessing whether you’re disabled or not will still exist, once you’re certified as disabled you become entitled to a benefit on a sliding scale based on income (like everyone else–if you’re rich and disabled you get no income subsidy) and an assessment as to whether or not you’re able to do some limited level of work.

  3. You’re over age 65-67 (or whatever the “retirement” age is set at by statute), this is simpler. You go onto a government website or fill out a very simple form basically saying “here’s my social security number and you can link that to my social security birth record and see I’m of retirement age, here is my current income, I want to start receiving my benefit.”

So we’re basically talking one agency, with a sub group that handles disability and another that handles retirement.

Then you have an auditing staff the audits a randomly selected sample of persons who may be simply choosing not to work. There will be other auditors to investigate cases of fraudulent disability claims.

This benefit system will be tied into the IRS system, so anytime someone has filed taxes showing income such that they are no longer eligible, the payments stop and a letter is sent out explaining why. It’ll be up to the beneficiary to explain why he still needs benefits after making $80,000 in the prior calendar year.

138

I have proposed a similar method in the past, but I’ve never been able to float it without an across-the-board tax that is quite painful. Depending on the amount, something like 50-75%. Or by fundamentally altering the way taxes are paid (moving everyone to a Fed, State, and Local Sales Tax and eliminating income taxes, for example.)

But there would be a down side: The higher the percentage of our government income goes to pay us, the more likely we are to crumble when a bad recession hits. Look at Greece that had very large entitlement program that is probably going to end up collapsing.

The naughty truth is, all of that spending on defense and other (Wasteful) things by the government kept our economy moving just enough to keep us afloat. Imagine if we had shutdown the payrolls of the military, for instance. That’s 2.8 million people out of work. Empty the Federal government of employees? That’s ANOTHER 2.8 million out of work. State employees? 5.3 Million. Local employees? 13.9 million.

To pay for an entitlement program that pays everyone, unfortunately, we have to take a hit of about 8% of our population suddenly losing their jobs. While it’s a nice idea (and I like it as an idea), I think it’ll cause some rather…unwanted effects in our society.

Unless we convert to a true socialist/communist state, where everyone gets equal payment and is forced to work in some fashion, we will never really be able to pay everyone a set minimum as a country.

On the other hand, if we make the current system more efficient, use a single “Office o’ Welfare” branch instead of having to go hither and thither to find what you need as a poor person, I think that would help out a lot on it’s own. Throwing more money at it would also be nice.

139

Indeed, this would be a huge improvement over the current system.

140

It’s actually three of us.