Paul Ryan loves talking about poverty, but he keeps getting the basic facts wrong
My thought: The green line is the actual poverty rate, otherwise we could eliminate poverty and the causes of it by simply forcefully taking more money from the successful people and giving it to the unsuccessful folks. Which of course is like taking morphine to hide the symptoms of a severe illness. It masks the chronic disease while doing nothing to cure it.
I understand that Liberals like to hide the pain by taking more money from the successful people and giving it to the unsuccessful folks, unfortunately this does nothing to prevent the pain from getting worse as the disease progresses. All it leads to is needing more morphine.
The big question is how do we encourage poor people to strive to be academically successful, make good life choices, marry before having children (and stay married), etc?
Giving them more money when the they make poor choices can not be the answer, since it encourages more poor choices.
G2A Poor Kids: Stupid or Unlucky
G2A Why are Poor People Poor?
G2A Correlation and Causation
G2A Blame vs Contributions
28 comments:
If giving poor people more money isn't the answer, then why do countries with more generous safety nets see higher levels of income mobility?
EPI on Mobility
We will need to look into the details for devils.
Remember how the SPM makes it look like poverty is being reduced, when it really isn't. (ie counts government mandated wealth transfer)
Is the EPI counting the massive government mandated wealth transfer that occurs in some of these countries? Is that a good thing?
"Is that a good thing?"
At the very least, shouldn't it challenge your blanket statement that wealth transfer invariably "encourages more poor choices"?
To be more precise, I wrote:
"The big question is how do we encourage poor people to strive to be academically successful, make good life choices, marry before having children (and stay married), etc?
Giving them more money when the they make poor choices can not be the answer, since it encourages more poor choices."
I think this quite different from "wealth transfer invariably "encourages more poor choices"?""
I am a huge fan of funding training programs, pre-school programs, value add gov't work programs, school effectiveness, etc.
I am not a fan of giving people money because they got pregnant, got divorced, failed in school, don't want to fit into main stream American business culture, don't want to work hard 40 - 50 hrs/wk, they want to pursue their life's passion that does not pay, they are addicted to some vice, etc.
The current and proposed Liberal policies seem to support the folks in the second group bigger checks as they cork screw into the ground.
And when I proposed that people work for their benefits, the MinnPost commenters say that is too demeaning... (thus insulting janitors...)
Keep Poor Neighborhoods Beautiful
When I recommend deporting illegal residents to help our legal poor have higher paying jobs, Liberals say that is cruel.
When I recommend allowing school administrators more freedom to make the best use of our education dollars to help the poor unlucky kids, the Liberals cry what about the old Teachers?
I will never understand the Liberal view.
By the way, if the EPI is low in some countries because the government is redistributing more than it used to. My point is that means nothing other than that arbitrarily redistributing wealth can raise the incomes of poor people.
The question is do the household incomes increase over time without the "government income" included.
Again, I would urge you consider our wealth transfer programs versus those in other countries. We spend far less on such programs than other countries, and we see less mobility. Why do you think that is?
I don't know. Possible reasons may include:
- Difference in cultural norms, beliefs and behaviors
- Difference in % and culture of illegal residents
- Difference in % and cultures of legal immigrants
- Difference in consumer buying patterns
- USA spends too much money buying fish instead of teaching / demanding that people learn to fish
- USA is not raising people in the ranks with the money from other tax payers
- Too much personal freedom
My point is you are trying to draw causation where there is possibly only correlation, more analysis than I have time for would be needed to be completed before causation could be proved.
By the way, we also want to compare GDP growth, median wealth level, etc.
It probably wouldn't be to good to be twice as rich as your Father who is only worth $1,000.
Remember that a rising river raises all boats.
"Remember that a rising river raises all boats."
Has that been true of the American economy the last 40 years or so? I don't think so.
I never said it raises all boats equally. But I will still argue that we have some of the highest income and safest "poor people" in the world.
I'd say the blue line is the actual poverty rate and in recent years the rising river has been raising only the giant yachts
about poverty - if a family has adequate food, housing, healthcare and childcare partially paid for by the government it seems to me they are not in poverty. I think we can reduce dependency on these supports as soon as the economy provides a sufficient number of living wage jobs.
about - the safest "poor people", maybe you missed this story:
In 2 Baltimore neighborhoods, infant mortality is higher than in the West Bank
and as an anecdotal story I will be hosting homeless families overnight in my church again tonight. The other night we had 9 kids there. I bet in other developed countries kids don't sleep in a church basement.
John, here is some more info to consider when you are analyzing character defects and making "blame the poor" arguements.
Why white kids in Baltimore get more second chances than black kids
Do you really want us to protect them from themselves? Did you read the article?
"You might think that lower-income babies have access to worse neonatal care, but we find that the place where there is higher mortality is actually the later part of infancy," Oster says. "When babies get home — when there are accidents and different sleep environments and those types of things — you see differences show up."
Oster's research shows that the most common causes of infant mortality tend to be accidents and sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. These are challenges that are difficult to target with specific policy responses — or least those that easily fit within a city budget."
The second link makes sense. Now what?
Apparently they also have teen sex...
"The number of women who had a birth in the last 12 months is nearly 50% higher in Baltimore than in neighboring Washington D.C. Among females 15 to 19 years old, Baltimore’s rate is almost double that of Washington – 42 births per 1,000 women versus 22 birth per 1,000." Source
I am thinking that doesn't help income levels or infant health either.
I had a thought about the 2nd link. What kinds of arrests prevent one from getting a job?
I don't think juvenille misdemeanors would show up anywhere?
I don't remember my intoxicated minor charge following me into adulthood. Note to minors out there: Do not drink a half a bottle of Windsor the first time you drink... Start with a beer or 2.
"The green line is the actual poverty rate, otherwise we could eliminate poverty and the causes of it by simply forcefully taking more money from the successful people and giving it to the unsuccessful folks."
An interesting issue. Would we all prosper if we took money from the successful and gave it to the unsuccessful. America did prosper when that was our tax policy. And America has struggled since that tax policy was reversed.
--Hiram
Sources please...
Take a look at the post war period when taxes on the wealthy verged on the confiscatory and the economy boomed. Take a look at the high tax Clinton era when the economy thrived. And then take a look at Bush era that followed, when the economy nearly collapsed despite low taxes.
One of the questionable assumptions that we often make is to equate the interests business and the wealthy with the economy as a whole. The fact is, they can be quite different. Minnesota with it's horrendous business climate, does quite well in terms of overall economy. A state like Texas, with it's wonderful business climate, has quite a mediocre economy, one with higher unemployment and lower wages than Minnesota, despite huge natural advantages.
--Hiram
I think you are confusing correlation and causation again.
Perhaps. But the larger point Hiram is making stands -- economic performance and tax policy aren't directly correlated. When we had a booming economy with a 91% top marginal tax rate, it ought to be evident that increasing today's top rate from 35% to 39% isn't going to be some sort of apocalypse. We spend far too much time worrying about tax rates and not enough on everything else -- which is much more consequential.
But the larger point Hiram is making stands -- economic performance and tax policy aren't directly correlated.
What I think is that the relationship is extremely complex. Republicans believe that all tax increases are bad, and this belief drives their policy choices. This of course collides with the fact that they have also promised things to their constituents that cost money, and this conflict puts them in quite the pickle. It's one of the supreme ironies of our political discourse that Republicans who claim the Democratic Party is the party of the free lunch, or themselves so dedicated in so many ways to the proposition that you can get something for nothing. Roads, health care, middle eastern wars, so many things, Republicans faithfully believe can be paid for with accounting tricks, Laffer curves, and the ignoring of economic reality.
--Hiram
Sean,
I think high marginal rates were offset by many different deductions. The reality is that the total government spend as a % of GDP, and therefore taxes, are much higher than back then.
Total Spend Graph
Also, remember that the USA was pretty much dominant from 1950 to 1975. Everyone else was recovering from WWII. Now is a different world.
Hiram,
I think you would need to do some demographic comparisons before making any reasonable comparisons between MN and TX. I think they have some challenges we are just beginning to face in earnest.
"Republicans believe that all tax increases are bad."
Most are... Most tax revenues raise more revenue as sales increase, incomes rise, property values increase, etc. There should be almost no reason to raise tax rates or add new taxes, however Democrats keep finding new things to spend money on... (ie ACA, Light Rail, Welfare Programs, etc)
The only exception I know of is this gas tax issue. And the GOP folks are saying that we have already raised progressive tax rates elsewhere, so let's use those extra funds instead of passing another regressive tax increase.
I think they have some challenges we are just beginning to face in earnest.
I am sure Texans have all sorts of rationalizations for their poor economic performance. I leave it to Texans to offer them. Their business community can afford the PR firms necessary to formulate them.
--Hiram
According to this. It looks like things are pretty good in Tx.
Post a Comment