Your Tax Dollars at Work

[AisA]

I posted this in the Capitalism forum and some people found it useful, so I offer it here.

I thought you might like to see where some of your tax dollars are going. The Heritage Foundation recently released a study of those living blow the official poverty line in America. Here is what they found:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given how well-off the “poor” are, I guess we should not be surprised at the other major finding of the study:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“ In good economic times or bad , the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year. (emphasis added) That amounts to 16 hours of work per week.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, whether jobs are plentiful or scarce , on average the poor choose to work only two days a week.

Source: Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Understanding Poverty in America”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

[MinorityOfOne]

If that's how the poor live... damn, I wish I were poor.

[always_learning]

I knew it was like this, but when you see in numbers, ... WOW!

[softwareNerd]

I chanced upon an article that had the same stats as this thread. It also hinted at some causes of "poverty", such as it is. First, think of all the stuff the typical poor family has (car, a/c, 2 color TVs etc.). Then, read this stat: "... the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. ..."

It's really pretty cool, I think. What a great economy this is: one can work 16 hours a week, probably at some menial job and have more material wealth than many millions around the world who put in far, far more effort than that! What clearer demonstration of who benefits off whom.

[Dismuke]

I recently stumbled across a quote in this article this article about a German discount chain which I found absolutely breathtaking:

"Germany may be the land of the $100,000 Mercedes-Benz land yacht, but it's also a land of ebbing wealth, where less than a fifth of the population has discretionary income of more than $375 a month, where even haut bourgeois families will lay out for a fancy car but stint on the staples."

That is pretty amazing. Apparently, as a result, 90 percent of the German population shops at Aldi, a chain of bare bones no-frills limited assortment supermarkets the likes of which, in this countr, are primarily found in rural and low income urban areas. I suspect that, in terms of actual living standards, many of the "poor" in this country would be considered solidly middle class in Germany.

Some while ago, I read that, when compared to the United States, the much praised standard of living in socialist Sweden works out to about the same as that in the state of Mississippi, which has to be, second only to Louisiana, the most backward state in the USA.

Undoubtedly middle class Europeans. with incomes and standards of living similar to "the poor" in the USA. are going to generally be more educated, cultured and.....well, let's just say "refined"....than the various types of stereotypical "poor" people here in the USA. But that just shows how good we all have it over here by comparison. Yikes!

[Regis]

As a Louisiana citizen I wish I could realisticly say I was insulted that you called Louisiana the most backward state in the Union. But I'm not an evader. Louisiana is backward by the standards of the rest of the country. Most people here accept it. Now if we could only get good politicians in office instead of the Good Ole Boy/Welfare politics that runs the state. The rational people in the state (few that they are) are hoping the Katrina/Rita crisis can shake things up and cause changes for the better in the coming years. For now though, its only hope.

As to the main topic of the thread...I wonder if people here realize how good off they really are relative to the rest of the world. If you can get me the URL of where you read that Dismuke I'd be very greatful.

[Felix]

I recently stumbled across a quote in this article this article about a German discount chain which I found absolutely breathtaking:

"Germany may be the land of the $100,000 Mercedes-Benz land yacht, but it's also a land of ebbing wealth, where less than a fifth of the population has discretionary income of more than $375 a month, where even haut bourgeois families will lay out for a fancy car but stint on the staples."

I hate to break it to you, but this article is complete crap. It may well be that we like to shop cheaply in regard to food and overdo it on other things, but that less that a fifth has more than $375 a month to spend is nonsense. I am a student and work part-time (if it can even be counted as that) and I have more than that. Aldi expanded their market share by concentration of forces. They don't sell everything, but what they sell is good and cheap. That's good.

Just forget that stupid number. People on welfare here get more money than $375 a month plus appartement with cable TV and washing machine.

To say something about the 'poor people on welfare':

I am pretty content with the money I have and I live below welfare levels.

[Dismuke]

I hate to break it to you, but this article is complete crap. It may well be that we like to shop cheaply in regard to food and overdo it on other things, but that less that a fifth has more than $375 a month to spend is nonsense.

Felix - you certainly are in a better position to know the way things are there than I am. However, the article did not claim that less than a fifth of Germans have less than $375 per month to spend. It said that less than a fifth have discretionary income of less than $375 per month. Discretionary income is the money that one has left over after one has paid for necessities such as food, shelter, transportation, clothing, etc. Of course, one way to get more discretionary income is by cutting one's costs on things such as food.

Also, I am in no way looking down upon the practice of Germans shopping at Aldi - indeed I consider it to be quite sensible. We have Aldi in the USA - though there are none in the area where I live. But we do have an Aldi competitor called Save-A-Lot. I have a very large pantry so I will go to Save-A-Lot every two or three months and stock up on all of the non-perishables that they carry which I use. It not only saves me about 40% over the prices of regular supermarkets, I don't have to make as many trips to the grocery store. At the same time, however, less than a mile from my house is a really cool upscale supermarket called Central Market which stocks nothing but gourmet, imported and specialty items and I am in there A LOT. I tend to shop both of the extreme ends of the spectrum and pretty much have little to do with the major mid-priced conventional supermarket unless I happen to need something suddenly and one happens to be close by. The only reason if I am going to pay extra for something is if I am going to get either convenience or quality for doing so. There is nothing more convenient than already having everything one needs in one's own pantry - and the traditional supermarket chains cannot offer the same quality and interesting variety as Central Market. So, in that respect, my personal habits in that regard are very consistent with the Germans - and I salute them for that. I just hope that they manage to purge themselves of the socialism that is destroying Europe and end up having LOTS of disposable income for all sorts of neat things that Aldi cannot and will not carry.

- - - - - - - - - - -

(I intended for the following to be a separate posting - but the crazy software keeps combining the two postings into one)

If you can get me the URL of where you read that [comparison of Swedish vs American standards of living]

Dismuke I'd be very greatful.

It has been a while since I read that so I was not able to remember. But good thing there is Google because it was able to dig it out for me. See: http://instapundit.com/archives/000536.php The link to the Swedish study, unfortunately, is no longer active - but perhaps if one searches around enough one might be able to find it. As one can imagine, when this came out, the Left went into conniption fits and began to try and explain it away and smear Glenn Reynolds.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Dismuke

[Felix]

Felix - you certainly are in a better position to know the way things are there than I am. However, the article did not claim that less than a fifth of Germans have less than $375 per month to spend. It said that less than a fifth have discretionary income of less than $375 per month. Discretionary income is the money that one has left over after one has paid for necessities such as food, shelter, transportation, clothing, etc. Of course, one way to get more discretionary income is by cutting one's costs on things such as food.

I checked what discretionary meant before I wrote my answer, but thanks for helping me. Advice is always welcome.

I honestly doubt that number. The only reason I have less than $375 disposable income a month is because I only work so little. I need time for my studies. And I hardly spend a lot of money on food, so most of what I earn is disposable income.

I get eight bucks an hour as a research assistant, which is not very much, but I do it mostly because I get paid for learning, so this compensates it. I also once worked at a paint-spray-line between school and college and got about the same money. I doubt that it gets much lower than that. It's hard to find a job here where you get less than 7€ an hour, even without education. Most of my co-workers at the paint-spray-line didn't even speak German. If you work full-time you are bound to have more than 375€ in disposable income. If you don't, you just value your free time more than the money, which is similar to my preferring study time to finish college and then actually get real money for my time.

This is also what makes unemployment money so attractive. If all you want is sustenance and lots of free time, welfare is the perfect way to go. No work. All the time for yourself. Free TV and food. Surely sounds like utopia to some.

I doubt that the European socialism will find a peaceful end. Most (if not all) states are practically bankrupt. Time is running out.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Felix

[softwareNerd]

With the caveat that GDP figures are approximations at best, the numbers for per capital real GDP (expressed in US$ purchasing parity terms) is:

• Germany: $28,000
  
• USA: $40,000
  

So, Germany's number is about 73% of the US number. Looking back to the 1960s and later, the relative per capita real GDP of Germany compared to USA has not changed much. Germany's number has been around 75% of the US number for decades.

I'd be curious to know the relative per capita GDP components from former East Germany and former West Germany: is the average lower in the former East? If so, by what percent? By world standards, Germany is a rich nation. Absolute position doesn't appear to be the problem: it is the slow growth/stagnation that's the bigger issue.

Edited November 6, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Felix]

I don't know the numbers but I'd bet that it's lower in the East. Since the beginning of the unification of East and West Germany, the East was heavily subsidized, which has rightfully created anger in the west.

The West was better off before and the East is better off now. I'll have to search for the numbers, though, just to be sure.

------Update: Some numbers I have found------

The GDP in the East is 67% of the GDP in the West now.

The average income in Germany (per month) today (after taxes) is: 1.470€ ($1735)

Before taxes it's: 2.230 Euros ($2633)

That easily leaves the average German with more than $345 to spend freely.

(Mod: Removed huge quote of preceding post)

Edited November 10, 2005 by softwareNerd

[mweiss]

If I chose not to pay my property taxes, $7,000 annual income would be plenty for me. But with the taxes, I require at least $19,000 to manage subsistence living.

Not all who are in poverty today were in poverty all their lives. Some folks had good jobs at one time and accumulated some assets. Now they are facing hard times and the assets might make them look hypocritical.

I have developed a hypothesis that the difference between rich and poor has as much to do with their energy levels and health and with their philosophical ideas. Successful people have a lot of 'nervous energy' and they never seem to get tired, or show it. Remaining focused for long periods of time is a necessity of success. Those who's eyes droop closed after five minutes at a task are doomed before they start.

I contend that there are no lazy people--only people who suffer from fatigue that compells them to sit down, rather than make busy at some important task.

I watched the demise of my own parents, both Objectivists late in life (too late, evidently) who were too ill to do much about their predicament. They died with tax liens and seizure notices tacked to their coffins.

To be a success, you're whole body's constitution has to be robust, relentlessly-available on-demand, and you have to love being awake, and hate every moment of having to sleep. There are few people who are in that fortunate position. The rest of us struggle hard to overcome, with great effort, the particular natures of our individual physical limitations.

[~Sophia~]

I was surprised today to hear that supposedly the top half of the richest counties in the United States are in D.C. suburbs. I always thought of New York or San Francisco as biggest centers of wealth but I guess I was wrong. The residents of the richest counties are government officials or in businesses tied to the government.

Edited December 4, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[LiberTodd]

16 hours a week? I used to work 16 hours a DAY last summer! I still work more than that each week and I am also a

full-time music student in college!

When will people accept that the real root cause of poverty is laziness and ignorance?

[D'kian]

16 hours a week? I used to work 16 hours a DAY last summer! I still work more than that each week and I am also a

full-time music student in college!

Tell me about it. This week I worked non-stop 36 hours twice, with only a couple of hours sleep in between "days."

When will people accept that the real root cause of poverty is laziness and ignorance?

Some of it, I dare say even most of it. But government meddling in the market does cause some poverty. Some employers are forced by law to pay expensive benefits to full time employees, but not to part-time ones. So one solution is to hire people to work 39 hours per week rather than 40. One hour's pay doesn't make much difference, but it comes without health insurance, retirement co-payments, etc. asbent such mandates, an employer could hire people full time for better pay.