# Libertarian solutions to poverty: do they make sense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546 "2017-12-29T23:17:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/161 "2018-01-03T16:44:32Z")
And those income quintiles typically don’t look at income after taxes and transfers. Not sure if we’d prefer it or not. But yes, lots of mixed fruit here. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/162 "2018-01-04T03:13:48Z")
Sorry this one is just going to be a drive-by. This way you all will have plenty of time to coordinate the plea coppage. Yes, more Sowell: “At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. Among the top one-hundredth of one percent, three-quarters of them were no longer there at the end of the decade.” [https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/11/27/that-top-one-percent-n868872%3Famp=true](https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/11/27/that-top-one-percent-n868872%3famp=true) ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/163 "2018-01-04T03:23:41Z")
If any of this is to be believed, Libertarian Land would be an awful place for a lot of people: > **[What America Would Look Like If Libertarians Got Their Way](https://www.alternet.org/2013/12/what-america-would-look-if-libertarians-got-their-way)** > > What if you cut all benefits? What if all of public life were a giant competition? What libertarianism would look like in real life. No thanks. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/164 "2018-01-04T03:49:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Sorry this one is just going to be a drive-by. This way you all will have plenty of time to coordinate the plea coppage. > > Yes, more Sowell: > “At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. > > Among the top one-hundredth of one percent, three-quarters of them were no longer there at the end of the decade.” > > [https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/11/27/that-top-one-percent-n868872%3Famp=true](https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/11/27/that-top-one-percent-n868872%3famp=true) You actually had to go back that far? How about something more recent? The article itself is dated Posted: Nov 27, 2007. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/165 "2018-01-04T04:06:54Z")
It’s also from [Townhall.com](http://Townhall.com), or as many of us call it, ClownHall. Not even remotely a reliable source of information. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/166 "2018-01-04T04:49:05Z")
Sowell is intellectually bankrupt. He spouts a lot of fluffy blather but rarely alludes to sources. In one rant, he [urges](https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell) the readers to look stuff up for themselves and touts the tax-cut-driven prosperity the country experienced during the Coolidge and G. W. Bush eras. Yeah, those turned out well. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/167 "2018-01-04T04:52:49Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Sorry this one is just going to be a drive-by. This way you all will have plenty of time to coordinate the plea coppage. > > Yes, more Sowell: > “At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. > > Among the top one-hundredth of one percent, three-quarters of them were no longer there at the end of the decade.” > > [https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/11/27/that-top-one-percent-n868872%3Famp=true](https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/11/27/that-top-one-percent-n868872%3famp=true) Here is a gem from Mr. Stupid Sowell > [@](#): > > The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person’s income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house. First, what does it take to get into the 1%. From googling top 1% wealth > [@](#): > > But for net worth, the 1 percent threshold for net worth in the Fed data was nearly $8.4 million, or 69 times the median household’s net holdings of $121,000. Some readers wondered if the 1 percent by wealth weren’t an entirely different group of people from the 1 percent by income Living in the Bay Area, I can tell you that the average house even in San Francisco does not cost $8 million. And that assumes that the seller has 100% equity in it. Not likely. It also assumes that the seller is moving to a poor area and does not have to put money into another house. The number is much lower if you are talking income, and if I sell my house I’d get into the 1% in income. But if you are talking about the rich becoming poor, you need to consider wealth, not income. I’m retired now, not getting Social Security or a pension, and I have a reasonable amount of money in post-tax investments, some in cash. If I wanted to, I could adjust my income to be officially poor. But I’m actually doing quite well. Notice that Sowell does not mention where the people falling out of the top 1% or 0.1% wind up. 1.1% 0.2%? Boo hoo. He hardly shows that these people become poor or even middle class. Are your ideological blinders on so tight that you don’t see what a liar this asshole is? A drop of $1 million in your investment portfolio is usually disastrous - unless you have $100 million or more, in which case it is in the noise. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/168 "2018-01-04T05:49:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Living in the Bay Area, I can tell you that the average house even in San Francisco does not cost $8 million. And that assumes that the seller has 100% equity in it. Not likely. It also assumes that the seller is moving to a poor area and does not have to put money into another house. Sowell also apparently assumes a significant portion of Americans own a home in San Francisco. Which is obviously not the case. And being as it’s not the case, Sowell’s statement essentially doesn’t say anything. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/169 "2018-01-04T14:05:18Z")
Yes the pleas copped were mighty strong. Not a single person addressed the quotes I posted. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Sowell also apparently assumes a significant portion of Americans own a home in San Francisco. Which is obviously not the case. And being as it’s not the case, Sowell’s statement essentially doesn’t say anything. You missed the point unsurprisingly. The point was to give an example of when the statistics do not actually say what the secondhand pundits are saying they say. There are many such examples, Sowell names a few. He does not suggest that this particular example accounts for a large amount of the error. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/170 "2018-01-04T14:14:58Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes the pleas copped were mighty strong. Not a single person addressed the quotes I posted. > > You missed the point unsurprisingly. The point was to give an example of when the statistics do not actually say what the secondhand pundits are saying they say. There are many such examples, Sowell names a few. He does not suggest that this particular example accounts for a large amount of the error. So how much of the statistics are accounted for by that rather extreme hypothetical? How many areas in the country have such an extreme cost of housing combined with people with a low enough income and own a house that selling the house makes that much of an addition to their “income”? And again, why did you have to go so far back to bolster your claim? Nothing more recent? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/171 "2018-01-04T14:15:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here is a gem from Mr. Stupid Sowell > First, what does it take to get into the 1%. From googling top 1% wealth > Living in the Bay Area, I can tell you that the average house even in San Francisco does not cost $8 million. And that assumes that the seller has 100% equity in it. Not likely. It also assumes that the seller is moving to a poor area and does not have to put money into another house. > > The number is much lower if you are talking income, and if I sell my house I’d get into the 1% in income. But if you are talking about the rich becoming poor, you need to consider wealth, not income. I’m retired now, not getting Social Security or a pension, and I have a reasonable amount of money in post-tax investments, some in cash. If I wanted to, I could adjust my income to be officially poor. But I’m actually doing quite well. > Notice that Sowell does not mention where the people falling out of the top 1% or 0.1% wind up. 1.1% 0.2%? Boo hoo. He hardly shows that these people become poor or even middle class. > > Are your ideological blinders on so tight that you don’t see what a liar this asshole is? > A drop of $1 million in your investment portfolio is usually disastrous - unless you have $100 million or more, in which case it is in the noise. Yes you googled “1% wealth” because you first googled “1% income” and your jaw dropped at how low it was, so you proceeded to construct a different argument than the one we were having. So in other words Sowell’s point about 1% income was entirely correct but you would prefer another statistic that he didn’t address. If someone sold his house and ended up as an evil 1%er for one year, the person would most likely not return to that level the next year, and could conceivable drop several quintiles. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/172 "2018-01-04T14:19:37Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > So how much of the statistics are accounted for by that rather extreme hypothetical? > > How many areas in the country have such an extreme cost of housing combined with people with a low enough income and own a house that selling the house makes that much of an addition to their “income”? > > And again, why did you have to go so far back to bolster your claim? Nothing more recent? Idk but since handwaves and Voyager’s thrilling retirement stories is the only thing I’m getting as an argument, I think I’ll let my claims rest as is. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/173 "2018-01-04T14:28:36Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > **Idk** but since handwaves and Voyager’s thrilling retirement stories is the only thing I’m getting as an argument, I think I’ll let my claims rest as is. Wasn’t handwaving. Just would like something that pertains to the past couple of years rather than 22 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/174 "2018-01-04T14:49:51Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > How many areas in the country have such an extreme cost of housing combined with people with a low enough income and own a house that selling the house makes that much of an addition to their “income”? The median sale price is around a quarter million. But much of that goes to paying off mortgages. How much, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/175 "2018-01-04T16:24:38Z")
Up to now, I’d assumed the libertarian policy regarding poor people was “hurry up and die, already.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/176 "2018-01-04T16:47:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes the pleas copped were mighty strong. Not a single person addressed the quotes I posted. Then let me make this very clear. This is directly related to the quotes you posted. Mr Sowell’s views on economics are only factual to the extent that he is able to back them up with evidence. When he can’t back them up with evidence, they’re just beliefs. People can believe in anything they want to; the free market will solve all problems, the state will wither away under communism, kings rule by divine right, Donald Trump will make America great again, Jesus was born from a virgin, etc. But these things are just beliefs not facts. An anecdote is not significant evidence. Home ownership in San Francisco is so rare that it qualifies as an anecdote. For every person who owns a home in San Francisco, you could literally find a thousand Americans who do not own a home in San Francisco. So offering home ownership in San Francisco as “evidence” in support of an economic theory is actually an admission that you have no real evidence to support the theory. If you want people to take Sowell’s economic theories seriously, you better post some evidence to support them. If you want people to take your economic theories seriously, you better post a better source than Sowell to back them up. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/177 "2018-01-04T16:53:10Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The median sale price is around a quarter million. But much of that goes to paying off mortgages. How much, I don’t know. And only the appreciation would be “income.” Plus, the first $500,000 of gains from your primary home are excluded from income anyway. Did this subthread really start because **WillFarnaby** disputes the statistic that most European societies have much more economic mobility than the U.S.? So he introduced occasional home sales to justify his stance? Low income people can suddenly prosper in the U.S. by selling their homes?? Please PM me if **Farnaby** answers #158. Even the Flat-Earthers and Truthers each have their coherent manifesto; but I’m still trying to find one for Hyperlibertarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/178 "2018-01-04T17:07:19Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Plus, the first $500,000 of gains from your primary home are excluded from income anyway. For tax purposes. It’s still income if we’re just tallying. But you’re right, gains only. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/179 "2018-01-04T19:59:50Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes you googled “1% wealth” because you first googled “1% income” and your jaw dropped at how low it was, so you proceeded to construct a different argument than the one we were having. > > So in other words Sowell’s point about 1% income was entirely correct but you would prefer another statistic that he didn’t address. > > If someone sold his house and ended up as an evil 1%er for one year, the person would most likely not return to that level the next year, and could conceivable drop several quintiles. Wrong. I googled wealth first since your contention is that lots of rich people fall out of being rich, and that is a function of wealth, not income. And nothing that Sowell writes supports your contention. Now, if someone sells a $1 million dollar house that he paid $750K for, he would not be in the 1% since that amount of increase is not taxable. When you can make a boodle some might be. Which is one of the reasons the inventory in the Bay Area is so low - sell and get slammed by taxes. Nonetheless, as I said, selling the house may or may not add to your net worth depending on what you buy to replace it. The vast accumulation of wealth by the top 0.1% and 1%, which Sowell doesn’t even mention, conveniently for him, is the real problem. That does not come from one time events like house sales. Why don’t you try addressing that and not link to strawman columns by conservative cretins. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546/180 "2018-01-04T20:06:23Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > For tax purposes. It’s still income if we’re just tallying. But you’re right, gains only. And the problem is that if you sell a house that has appreciated by more than $500K (and many homes in my neighborhood are in this situation) and buy an equivalently priced house, your wealth decreases because of the tax burden. Your income does spike, but it does not make you an richer. Sowell ignores wealth which is stable in favor of income which is more erratic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-solutions-to-poverty-do-they-make-sense/805546.md?page=10)