I don’t think anyone, using any definition, would consider you poor. I think most intelligent people know that wealth is tied to total assets, not just income.
Of course, a person can own a paid-for, crappy house that’s worth $20,000, sitting on land that might be worth twice that much. So on paper, that person would look pretty good. But if they have no income or assets in the back, then I’m having a hard time not thinking of them as poor. So it depends on how you tilt your head when you’re looking at the situation.
Not that I do not recognize that my situation is not unique to me. I’m also across the street from a national historic site, and the tourists do bring in cash as well. The bank and the electric company do demand cash, but these are business expenses, not my income.
I hate a system of forced consumerism, and avoid it all I can, but there are some things I find hard to escape.
The government definition of poverty in terms only of income per year is extremely faulty.
I don’t use government entitlements I would qualify for. I could legally apply for and receive food stamps, disability, and probably health services too. It would just be wrong for a guy who owns so much to be able to get his needs free. I should sell my music gear before I go crying to someone to feed me because I meet the government definition of poverty.
If everyone tried to barter with a paperclip, no one would be bartering for a paperclip.
Services are probably more useful for bartering than possessions. Babysit for an hour and get a haircut. But what would I barter to have someone give me a physical? I have a $800 car, a $300 laptop, a $80 electronic keyboard (complete with about $5 worth of dust), and a $30 mp3 player. I can wash dishes and vacuum the doctor’s living room. And run some statistics for them, if they have some data they need analyzing. That’s about all I can do, I think.
Bartering works in small, self-contained communities where people trust each other and no one is looking to make a profit or pay bills to outside entities. If a doctor gave physicals to everyone on barter, she’d have a whole bunch of pecan pies, free hair/nail appointments, and people washing her car. But she wouldn’t have any money to pay down her student debts, pay rent on her office building, or buy medical supplies.
I know when you apply for public services, you have to claim all your assets. Someone with more experience with this will come in to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the government is writing checks to people living in McMansions and driving Hummers around.
My point wasn’t to propose an economy based on trading paperclips. My point was that for those who want to, it can work.
It seems to me that what it boils down to is that the banks won’t barter. That’s everyone’s bottom line. Keep in mind my argument isn’t “we should create a cashless society.” I recognize the convenience of mailing a check rather than carting a load of potatoes to pay the phone bill.
I am just arguing that because our current system recognizes only dollars per year as wealth in defining poor, we’d be better off reforming our definition of poor. If I didn’t have an independent streak, I could make all the taxpayers pay for my food, healthcare, and send me a check on top of it. I could get an SSDI check every month and still work self-employed, as long as my personal income falls below a certain threshold. I can largely keep the cash business limited to those necessary business expenses, fulfill all my needs with barter, keep my personal income under $500 a month and STILL get you taxpayers to send me another $600-$1000 a month. Next I could spend all that cash, so long as it’s not on a second car or a second piece of real estate, and I still qualify honestly without committing a crime for these entitlements.
We should definitely redefine wealth in America for government purposes, no one should have the opportunity to do what I have the opportunity to do.
Let me do that for five years and I’ll own a million dollars worth of property other than cars and real property, be extremely wealthy, and still be following the rules to collect from the taxpayers.
Yes, when applying for most forms of aid your assets are taken into account. Thus, in the US, people who meet the definition of a poor are allowed to have vehicle and a small amount of other assets, including cash. By “vehicle” this means something on the low end of dollar worth, not some $100,000 luxury thing. A vehicle over a certain value would disqualify a person from aid.
Also, more recently, in the US people meeting certain definitions of “poor” can also get a cell phone from the government. This is often portrayed as some luxurious frivolity but in reality it’s a pay as you go plan with a sharply limited number of minutes per month (you can purchase more). The idea is to give even the poorest a means of staying in touch with people, applying for work (all employers these days want a phone number), and calling for help in emergencies, none of which strike me as being “frivolous”. Although at times I have qualified for that program I elected to keep the cellphone I already have.
Which, really, is an interesting thing - despite the boogey-man of the welfare recipient sucking as much money off the public tit as possible, many poor in the US do NOT make use of all programs they could qualify for. See David42 for another example.
For food stamps, for instance, the forms in my state do not ask about anything other than bank account balance, cash on hand, bonds and other financial instruments, real property, and vehicles.
Keep cash on hand low, bank balances low, don’t own real property other than one modest home and one car, and you can qualify even if you have a million dollars worth of other proeprty. You could have a bunch of gold in the form of jewelery, they don’t ask. You could have a dozen top of the line computers, they don’t ask. You could have fine art worth millions, they don’t ask. You could have thousands in electronics, like I do, they don’t ask.
As I said, we aren’t a bartering society, so it’s not relevant to this discussion.
@monstro - You cannot own a car that is above a certain value, or that’s the way it used to be. I know people who are on public services who drive nice new vehicles so there is some way around this apparently.
Looking at the eligibility chart here, I see no mention of assets.
Au contraire, I have shown you that we are a bartering society, and given some evidence.
What you really mean is YOU aren’t a barterer, and you have a perception that the people in general do not barter.
Go read Craigslist a while and see how many want to trade. They have a specific category for it, but most barter offers are in the for sale sections…“I have a '68 Les Paul that I’ll sell for $3000, or I’ll trade for a 50’s Telecaster.”
I cannot barter for my electricity. I cannot barter for my daily groceries. I cannot barter for my gasoline. I cannot barter for my healthcare. I cannot barter for my internet connection.
Those are the only needs I have, and I cannot barter for any of them.
Please, try to stick to the point of the discussion:
I looked at my trade section. No one is bartering for anything I want. And no one is requesting anything I have either.
When people barter all the things they have that are worth bartering, then they will have to barter out their labor. Will work for food. Or shelter. Or both. This is not a society I would want to live in…where people essentially turn themselves into rental slaves.
So I agree with Bloodless Turnip that bartering is not helpful in this discussion. Material things make living comfortable and can provide a financial fall-back, if they are of value. But when it comes right down to it, you cannot eat $100,000 worth of musical instruments or build a shelter out of $800,000 worth of inflatable sex dolls. And if no one wants these things, you are just as ass-out as someone who owns absolutely nothing.
Cite. I have pointed to evidence that barter is prevalent, you offer your anecdote of lifestyle choices as though you made no choices and rule of law compelled you to make no barter. You make choices, and barter fits in better with some choices than others.
Please cite for your opinion that we are not a bartering society.
Please recognize that I am arguing why we should change some aspects of the government definition of poverty. This is exactly the O.P.
I am not arguing that WE SHOULD BE A BARTER SOCIETY. I am arguing some people do. I am arguing that a loophole is created with the definition of poor currently in use that allows some people to game the system. It should be eliminated.
I bet I can build a house out of (mostly) inflatable sex dolls. Some people are very creative with building materials.
And if there comes a day no-one wants a federal reserve note, you’re equally up a creek. You can’t eat a house. Why do houses count for wealth but $100k of guitars do not?
You’re making a big mistake here with the idea that you can’t eat a guitar.
In my state, they have a line for “list any other significant assets”.
However, you are permitted to retain items necessary to your business if you own one.
The rules applicable to any given situation are, it seems to me, a bit arcane and even open to some interpretation. (Which is a reason to be polite, respectful, and nice to your case manager) However, very few people I’ve seen in the public aid office seem to have significant assets beyond, perhaps, a home or vehicle (and most seem to be renters). I suspect that if it were known someone had significant assets of some sort their case might wind up before a judge of some sort. It certainly is within the rules for you to be required to liquidate assets deemed in excess of the permitted amount prior to obtaining public aid.
I have heard of people “spending down” their way to Medicaid. I didn’t know what that was, exactly, so I just looked it up. People “spend down” when they have too many assets than is allowed to qualify, but without income they cannot afford insurance. So they transfer assets to family members or sell their non-exempt assets and put the profit into exempted ones, like a house or car.
I just found a website that recommended selling your house and using the profits + savings to “upgrade” into a more expensive property. This way, you can make yourself qualify Medicaid while also investing for the future.
But that doesn’t mean that if you post an ad with what you do have and for what you do want, that it couldn’t possibly work.
I do it all the time, and it does happen. Not always, or not always quick.
It all depends on how much effort you put into it and how much skill you have in talking others into trading.
I’m not arguing all people can do as well as some. What I am arguing is those who are good at it and motivated to do it shouldn’t be able to qualify for aid when they are not actually impoverished.