How much extra in taxes would you pay to eliminate poverty?

[fskimospy]

Still waiting on literally anyone to offer empirical support for the idea that government can't reduce poverty.

You would think with so many people basically declaring something an axiom that they would have some sort of reason for doing so outside of feeling that it must be true emotionally.

 

[Mursilis]

Still waiting on literally anyone to offer empirical support for the idea that government can't reduce poverty.

You would think with so many people basically declaring something an axiom that they would have some sort of reason for doing so outside of feeling that it must be true emotionally.

Did people say gov't can't reduce poverty (which would be idiotic) or did they say gov't can't eliminate poverty? The difference is huge.

 

[bshole]

Wisconsin is led by an extremely conservative Republican, Scott Walker (financed by the uber-wealthy). His "great" plan for Wisconsin included savaging the benefits of the public employees, drastically cutting taxes on the rich and tiny cuts for everybody else. This is what conservatism is ALL about. He partitioned off a segment of middle class citizens, ostracized them and then financially raped them and redistributed the booty to the rich. He made the middle class a little poorer and the wealthy a little bit more wealthy. What boggles the mind is that these attacks on the middle class are highly popular with the middle class due to the slick and expensive marketing used to sell it.

Now he and his minions are going after public unions (right to work insanity).

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Still waiting on literally anyone to offer empirical support for the idea that government can't reduce poverty.

That depends on how you define reducing poverty.
I would agree that govt assistance is helping more people who are at the poverty level stay at a certain level, or helping to prevent them from sinking lower.
However, it is also true that more people today are on, and remaining on, government assistance than before.

If someone is on welfare, then that would mean that technically they are remaining at poverty level during that time.
So it depends on how you measure it, and how you rate its success.

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/12/safety-net-recession.png

In the chart above, the green line calculates the poverty rate before taxes and transfers. The blue line shows poverty after the effects of various safety-net programs.

There are a couple of ways to read this chart. One, if you don't include safety-net programs, then poverty has actually risen from 26 percent in 1967 to 29 percent in 2012. There are more people dependent on safety-net programs to stay out of poverty than ever before.

Or here's another view: The green line shows that poverty rates would have soared during the most recent recession if there were no safety-net programs in place. But as the blue line shows, the poverty rate actually stayed fairly constant. The expansion of food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit blunted a lot of misery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...net-has-and-hasnt-reduced-poverty-in-the-u-s/

So you tell me: is the purpose of government assistance to help alleviate poverty, or to reduce/prevent it? It appears to me that while people are being assisted, there are also more people dependent on these programs. IOW the programs are successful in helping people at poverty levels. But is poverty actually being reduced? To me, success is rated based on how many people are being risen out of poverty. By these measures, that isn't being accomplished very well. At least not for the amount of money that is being thrown at the problem. In fact, there are a great many statistics that show people are actually becoming more dependent on these programs rather than striving to get out of them.
Also, considering the $16-17 trillion that has been spent on the 80+ welfare programs, are we getting our moneys worth?

 

[fskimospy]

That depends on how you define reducing poverty.
I would agree that govt assistance is helping more people who are at the poverty level stay at a certain level, or helping to prevent them from sinking lower.
However, it is also true that more people today are on, and remaining on, government assistance than before.

Right, but as with anything, we're looking to isolate the effects of policy while controlling for other trends.

If someone is on welfare, then that would mean that technically they are remaining at poverty level during that time.

If you measure poverty levels as pre-benefit, which we most certainly don't have to do.

So it depends on how you measure it, and how you rate its success.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...net-has-and-hasnt-reduced-poverty-in-the-u-s/

So you tell me: is the purpose of government assistance to help alleviate poverty, or to reduce/prevent it? It appears to me that while people are being assisted, there are also more people dependent on these programs. IOW the programs are successful in helping people at poverty levels. But is poverty actually being reduced? To me, success is rated based on how many people are being risen out of poverty. By these measures, that isn't being accomplished very well. At least not for the amount of money that is being thrown at the problem. In fact, there are a great many statistics that show people are actually becoming more dependent on these programs rather than striving to get out of them.
Also, considering the $16-17 trillion that has been spent on the 80+ welfare programs, are we getting our moneys worth?

The purpose of those programs is to mitigate the effects of being impoverished. As I mentioned before, take Medicaid for example: the purpose of Medicaid is to provide medical care to people who cannot afford it. Its purpose is not to make people no longer need Medicaid. If someone has their medical needs met it could lead to that individual being better able to lift themselves out of poverty, but that would be a secondary effect at best. I would say that programs designed to reduce or eliminate poverty by making people not need benefits would be education programs and things like that.

Also income is a stream, it is not a fixed amount. It's not like people suddenly stop being poor after X dollars are spent, so saying we spent $16 trillion over 50 years to keep people out of poverty doesn't mean much. I mean do we say that we privately spend $15 trillion a year to keep everyone in the US out of poverty? If you're going to spend money to keep people out of poverty, you have to accept that we will be spending money until the end of time. (or at least until we develop Star Trek replicators or something) That's just how it is.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Wisconsin is led by an extremely conservative Republican, Scott Walker (financed by the uber-wealthy). His "great" plan for Wisconsin included savaging the benefits of the public employees,

Walker proposed a budget repair bill on February 11, 2011, estimated to save Wisconsin $30 million in the current fiscal year and $300 million over the next two years.[59] The bill requires additional contributions by state and local government workers to their health care plans and pensions, amounting to roughly an 8% decrease in the average government worker's take home pay.[60] The bill eliminated, for most state workers, other than certain public safety workers, many collective bargaining rights aside from seeking pay increases, and then not above the rate of inflation, unless approved by a voter referendum.[61] Under the bill unions have to win yearly votes to continue representing government workers and could no longer have dues automatically deducted from government workers' paychecks.[59][62] Certain law enforcement personnel and firefighters are exempt from the bargaining changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician)#2011_budget_repair_bill_and_protests

Sorry, I'm not seeing the problem here. Optimizing how taxpayer money is spent is typically a good thing. WI voters overwhelmingly agree. This affects only public employees, which are paid with taxpayer money. This does not affect private unions/private businesses.
Remember, it is supposedly the governments job to spend taxpayer money wisely and prudently.

But I understand how bleeding heart liberals would disagree.

drastically cutting taxes on the rich and tiny cuts for everybody else.

Because there is very little to cut on the low end. Most people that are not wealthy are already getting significant tax incentives that cause them to pay very little in state tax. At some point, cutting more merely means that they are getting more back than what they pay.
On the other hand, cutting taxes for the rich and businesses has shown to have significant improvements for Wisconsins economy.

This is what conservatism is ALL about. He partitioned off a segment of middle class citizens, ostracized them and then financially raped them and redistributed the booty to the rich. He made the middle class a little poorer and the wealthy a little bit more wealthy. What boggles the mind is that these attacks on the middle class are highly popular with the middle class due to the slick and expensive marketing used to sell it.

The public unions in WI have been raping the state for decades, and have done little to show in return. Especially with the teachers unions. I grew up in the state, and have relatives in the teachers unions. With all due respect to them, they weren't doing bad then, and aren't doing bad now.
Teachers should be paid based on merit and what results they produce, not based on mob mentality and the ability to hold a state hostage if their obscene demands are not met.
Sorry, but they needed neutering. And the WI voters overwhelmingly agreed.

Now he and his minions are going after public unions (right to work insanity).

Whats wrong with right to work? No one should be forced to join a union or pay dues if they do not wish to.

Thats what I love about progressives: 'We are here to help you, whether you want it or not'.
Thats not fairness. Thats tyranny. But I love your double standards...

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

The purpose of those programs is to mitigate the effects of being impoverished. As I mentioned before, take Medicaid for example: the purpose of Medicaid is to provide medical care to people who cannot afford it. Its purpose is not to make people no longer need Medicaid. If someone has their medical needs met it could lead to that individual being better able to lift themselves out of poverty, but that would be a secondary effect at best.

Then call it what it is: alleviating the effects of poverty. Not reducing poverty itself. That is the subject of this thread.

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964-65. The main goal was the elimination of poverty and racial injustice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

I would contend that it has failed miserably in its mission.

I would say that programs designed to reduce or eliminate poverty by making people not need benefits would be education programs and things like that.

I would agree. But that is not happening in the current environment. I would say it is time to try different tactics. Which is what I have been advocating the whole time...

 

[fskimospy]

Then call it what it is: alleviating the effects of poverty. Not reducing poverty itself. That is the subject of this thread.

If the threshold of being in poverty is say $20,000 and you make $18,000 and get $3,000 in government benefits. To you, that's someone in poverty. To me, that's someone no longer in poverty. I care about the output more than the input and I'm in no way required to adopt your definitions.

So I think that government benefits are extremely relevant to this thread, PARTICULARLY if people are going to talk about the costs associated with these programs. Otherwise you have a situation where dishonest people like Paul Ryan call out the costs of these programs while attempting to ignore the benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

I would contend that it has failed miserably in its mission.

I would contend the opposite. If you control for other trends, dollar for dollar spending on social welfare programs such as these has done a great deal to lower poverty in the US. I linked a study earlier in this thread that shows this to be the case, in a reply to you no less if I'm not mistaken.

I would agree. But that is not happening in the current environment. I would say it is time to try different tactics. Which is what I have been advocating the whole time...

Absolutely not, considering the evidence. Why abandon effective programs?

 

[Zaap]

Still waiting on literally anyone to...

"...ignore the thread subject and argue my attempted derail."

Heh. Desperate spin is desperate.

 

[fskimospy]

"...ignore the thread subject and argue my attempted derail."

Heh. Desperate spin is desperate.

lol.

So its agreed? Giving the members of the Millionaire's Club we call government MORE money than they already piss down a sewer won't actually reduce poverty one iota?

So you said something dumb and demonstrably false and then when you get shown to be wrong yet again start flailing. Pretty standard.

 

[Zaap]

The truly dumb thing is government asskissers like you that actually believe your masters in government are hurting for money.

 

[fskimospy]

The truly dumb thing is government asskissers like you that actually believe your masters in government are hurting for money.

lol.

You can just say "oops, I screwed up", you know.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

If the threshold of being in poverty is say $20,000 and you make $18,000 and get $3,000 in government benefits. To you, that's someone in poverty. To me, that's someone no longer in poverty.

Nope. That simply means that someone is still at the poverty level being artificially propped up with taxpayer money. That is someone who is still in poverty. When that person can live on their own unassisted, then they are no longer in poverty.

I care about the output more than the input and I'm in no way required to adopt your definitions.

These are not my definitions. These are the charter mandates of the Great Society programs. I didn't write the rules.

So I think that government benefits are extremely relevant to this thread, PARTICULARLY if people are going to talk about the costs associated with these programs. Otherwise you have a situation where dishonest people like Paul Ryan call out the costs of these programs while attempting to ignore the benefits.

And I am stating that by your definition above, you are trying to alleviate the symptoms rather than attacking the problems. That is where I believe you and the progressives in general are on the wrong track.

I would contend the opposite. If you control for other trends, dollar for dollar spending on social welfare programs such as these has done a great deal to lower poverty in the US. I linked a study earlier in this thread that shows this to be the case, in a reply to you no less if I'm not mistaken.

And yet you have not really responded to my evidence that instead of reducing poverty, we are artificially making these people dependent on these programs and not solving the problems. You are saying that it is right to continue to keep these people on has burdens to society rather than raising them to the point where they can prosper on their own.

There is much more to reducing poverty that giving people free handouts. Programs based on merely giving people something for nothing and making them semi-permanently dependent on these programs is not reducing poverty. It is alleviating the symptoms of poverty at the cost of the American taxpayers who do take 100% responsibility for their lives.

Absolutely not, considering the evidence. Why abandon effective programs?

Because they are not very effective in their mission. We should not be trying to alleviate the effects of poverty. We should be trying to reduce the number of people in poverty, and steer them towards being productive members of society, not continue to prop them artificially through expensive programs. Thats the point.

Liberals have this mistaken belief that they are actually helping these people by hiding the effects of poverty and making them dependent on social programs. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
You cannot help someone by giving them something for nothing. You help them by showing them how to be 100% responsible for their lives, and showing them how to be productive.

I have no problem in assisting people. I know people make mistakes and suffer the consequences. I know people deserve second chances in life.
However, I refuse to support programs that make people dependent on them, that teach them it is okay to have a victim mentality, and that receiving something for nothing is not only an entitlement, but a right.

That doesn't solve societies problems. I makes them much worse.

 

[glenn1]

So you tell me: is the purpose of government assistance to help alleviate poverty, or to reduce/prevent it?

Why should I want it eliminated? Seeing urban liberals like Eskmospy terrified of their own fellow citizens rioting at any moment is one of the great pleasures in life. Seeing them scheme how much they should be willing to give away in taxes in order to prevent the feared prole looting everything they own is high comedy in its own right, especially when they try to get only the rich to foot the bill and are denied by the voters.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope. That simply means that someone is still at the poverty level being artificially propped up with taxpayer money. That is someone who is still in poverty. When that person can live on their own unassisted, then they are no longer in poverty.

By your definition, not mine. I define poverty as the sum total of someone's income. You define it as the sum total of someone's income minus government transfers. You are free to do that, but attempting to simply declare it so doesn't fly.

These are not my definitions. These are the charter mandates of the Great Society programs. I didn't write the rules.

The charter rules of the Great Society were to eliminate poverty as measured by pre-government transfer income? Can you provide me to a link to this rule set?

And I am stating that by your definition above, you are trying to alleviate the symptoms rather than attacking the problems. That is where I believe you and the progressives in general are on the wrong track.

Actually, progressives attempt to do both.

And yet you have not really responded to my evidence that instead of reducing poverty, we are artificially making these people dependent on these programs and not solving the problems. You are saying that it is right to continue to keep these people on has burdens to society rather than raising them to the point where they can prosper on their own.

You have not provided evidence of this. You have noted that more people are on these programs than in the past, which is a very different thing.

There is much more to reducing poverty that giving people free handouts. Programs based on merely giving people something for nothing and making them semi-permanently dependent on these programs is not reducing poverty. It is alleviating the symptoms of poverty at the cost of the American taxpayers who do take 100% responsibility for their lives.

Of course there is more to it than that, but nobody is arguing that. These programs are not reducing poverty by your definition of poverty as measured by pre-transfer income. (actually that has decreased even by your measure, but probably less than you would like)

I, on the other hand, care about the outcomes.

Because they are not very effective in their mission. We should not be trying to alleviate the effects of poverty. We should be trying to reduce the number of people in poverty, and steer them towards being productive members of society, not continue to prop them artificially through expensive programs. Thats the point.

They are quite effective in their mission, as I've already shown you through empirical evidence. You can keep declaring that they are not, but that doesn't change the evidence.

I think we should both attempt to alleviate the effects of poverty and lift people out of it.

Liberals have this mistaken belief that they are actually helping these people by hiding the effects of poverty and making them dependent on social programs. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
You cannot help someone by giving them something for nothing. You help them by showing them how to be 100% responsible for their lives, and showing them how to be productive.

This is just a declaration of values, it's not actually based in evidence, which is what I keep asking for and nobody seems to be able to provide.

I have no problem in assisting people. I know people make mistakes and suffer the consequences. I know people deserve second chances in life.
However, I refuse to support programs that make people dependent on them, that teach them it is okay to have a victim mentality, and that receiving something for nothing is not only an entitlement, but a right.

That doesn't solve societies problems. I makes them much worse.

You don't have to support them! Considering their demonstrated effectiveness, I do though. If they are ideologically offensive to you so be it, but I care about results.

 

[fskimospy]

Why should I want it eliminated? Seeing urban liberals like Eskmospy terrified of their own fellow citizens rioting at any moment is one of the great pleasures in life. Seeing them scheme how much they should be willing to give away in taxes in order to prevent the feared prole looting everything they own is high comedy in its own right, especially when they try to get only the rich to foot the bill and are denied by the voters.

You seem far more terrified of such people than anyone I know.

Again, I've actually lived and worked in very poor areas for extended periods of time. It bothers me, but that's because I have empathy for people in such a condition, not fear. Glad to see you're still so into your spite-based policy preferences though, haha!

 

[bshole]

Why should I want it eliminated? Seeing urban liberals like Eskmospy terrified of their own fellow citizens rioting at any moment is one of the great pleasures in life. Seeing them scheme how much they should be willing to give away in taxes in order to prevent the feared prole looting everything they own is high comedy in its own right, especially when they try to get only the rich to foot the bill and are denied by the voters.

You do realize that the "prole" is now 97% of the American population don't you? You and I are both prole as is every poster on this forum.

 

[Ronstang]

ZERO....i would gladly donate money to actually eradicate poverty, and I do all the time, but giving tax money to Liberals will only ensure that poverty not only continues but increases. Liberals are enablers and have actually worsened poverty since Johnson's Great Society. They enslave the poor and hold them down with their policies.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

By your definition, not mine. I define poverty as the sum total of someone's income. You define it as the sum total of someone's income minus government transfers. You are free to do that, but attempting to simply declare it so doesn't fly.

Nor does your vainly attempting to validate it.
What your definition infers is that it is okay to be permanently dependent on being given free money for life. I see nothing admirable about this.

The charter rules of the Great Society were to eliminate poverty as measured by pre-government transfer income? Can you provide me to a link to this rule set?

Are you inferring that the purpose of the Great Society was to keep the poor permanently dependent on said programs, and for them to believe that that they can rightfully think of money they did not earn as a part of their income?

If so, then you really are the gift that keeps on giving.

Actually, progressives attempt to do both.

And fail heartily.

You have not provided evidence of this. You have noted that more people are on these programs than in the past, which is a very different thing.

So much for reducing poverty and producing citizens that contribute rather than become a permanent burden. You and i have very different definitions of reducing poverty. I want people to be able to raise themselves out of poverty to be able to live on their own steam. You just want them to live on the government dole permanently and think everything coming up roses.

Thanks for clarifying.

Of course there is more to it than that, but nobody is arguing that. These programs are not reducing poverty by your definition of poverty as measured by pre-transfer income. (actually that has decreased even by your measure, but probably less than you would like)

I, on the other hand, care about the outcomes.

Then you have just proven my point all along. You and other progressives want nothing more that to make keep the poor permanently dependent on social programs paid for by hard working taxpayers.

They are quite effective in their mission, as I've already shown you through empirical evidence. You can keep declaring that they are not, but that doesn't change the evidence.

And I showed evidence to the contrary. More people are in poverty and living on government assistance. Not exactly a win to me. Or most people with common sense.

I think we should both attempt to alleviate the effects of poverty and lift people out of it.

You cannot cure the problem by hiding the symptoms, and permanently having people live off the government tit. Most reasonable people would understand that.

This is just a declaration of values, it's not actually based in evidence, which is what I keep asking for and nobody seems to be able to provide.

All you have shown here is that liberals care nothing of values and standards while admitting that they have no evidence of alternative methods simply because they haven't tried them.

You don't have to support them! Considering their demonstrated effectiveness, I do though. If they are ideologically offensive to you so be it, but I care about results.

Your results, by your admission, is that you consider being given something for nothing a good and righteous thing, and on a permanent basis.
Your results show that it does not matter than people are in poverty, as long as they feel good in the process.

Like I said - the gift that keeps on giving...

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

You do realize that the "prole" is now 97% of the American population don't you? You and I are both prole as is every poster on this forum.

And yet, most of us are able to live on our own steam, not by taking hand outs from taxpayers and being proud of it.

 

[werepossum]

I have given numerous people this opportunity. Some have taken that opportunity and eventually flourished, while a great number of people did not. But I have certainly done my part.
I have hired people (or have arranged for them to work for small companies that I invest in) that were living in their cars, or sometimes worse. They are given a fair chance to earn a way out. Again, some take it, some waste it. Such is the way of things.

I do what I can to give them a proper start (sometimes even a small loan to give them a boost). But they are expected to earn it though hard but fair work, and clean themselves up.

I enjoy doing this for people, even though more often than not my generosity is eventually wasted. It is well worth it for those who do take advantage of the chance to make something of themselves.
Believe it or not, there are people who can pick up their lives if given the opportunity and the motivation. They aren't asking for a handout. Most of the time they just need someone to show them that they can indeed do it. And then get out the way while they do so.

For those that waste the opportunity, I fear nothing can help them. Laziness is sometimes incurable.

This is really all anyone can realistically do, give someone a chance. My ex-father-in-law said something quasi-profound about the old saying, "Give a man a fish and he east for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" is fatally flawed, because if there's anything at all to a man and he's hungry and his family is hungry, he's already going to be fishing as best as he can. The only thing to do is to provide him better tools and/or better knowledge. If a man is hungry and his family is hungry and he's not fishing, then there's nothing to him and nothing you do is going to improve his life beyond the time you're doing it.

Time for this again.

QFT

You do realize that the "prole" is now 97% of the American population don't you? You and I are both prole as is every poster on this forum.

Nope, you're the evil rich.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Some of the lines of thinking and rationalization on here is.....scary. God help this country.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Some of the lines of thinking and rationalization on here is.....scary. God help this country.

How so?

 

[Angry Irishman]

How so?

Basically the takers vs. the makers trend.

 

[glenn1]

You seem far more terrified of such people than anyone I know.

Again, I've actually lived and worked in very poor areas for extended periods of time. It bothers me, but that's because I have empathy for people in such a condition, not fear. Glad to see you're still so into your spite-based policy preferences though, haha!

Oh wow, you've lived in poor areas before, that's great. And empathy too! What a mensch groysemakher, honey he's a catch. Let me guess, you have some black friends too?