It is interesting to note that on another political forum where I spend most of my time these days a "Tea Party" Republican was complaining about the expenditures related to the SNAP program but when the criteria for obtaining SNAP benefits was addressed there were no objections to any of them. If the criteria for a person to qualify for the benefits is not objected to then there isn't a valid argument of the expenditures required for those that qualify.
I don't know that this argument ever existed in reality because most investments have never been related to funding enterprise at least since 1921 when the first "capital gains" tax laws were passed. Even in 1921 virtually all of the stock investments on the stock exchanges were "secondary" investments that did not fund the enterprise. Of note abolishing the "capital gains" tax loophole results in the end of off-shore tax havens as they're dependent upon income being classified as a capital gain. I don't have an exact number on how much income would be taxed that is currently hidden in off-shore accounts but would estimate it to be in the trillions of dollars annually because far more money is hidden in these off-shore tax haven accounts than anyone is willing to admit. I could be over-estimating but I don't believe that I am.
What is particularly important here is to recognize it is our social program system which tends to lift people out of abject poverty into a status in which they are only poor based on their having less than the next higher level. We not only need to keep using those social programs to maintain a minimum standard of living but we have to find a way to take care of those who slip through the net through no fault of their own,
I can't use my opinion to define poverty. I would necessarily make ad hoc decisions and make claims inconsistent with individual attitudes. Poverty must be seen as a subjective term. However, once we focus on the subjective methodology we typically just replicate the simple relative poverty methodologies. In summary, people just don't agree with your opinion!
I question even the people who consider themselves poor. Maybe that is because we don't do a reasonable comparison to real poverty. I have been chastised for compared our poverty to that of the third world, but many because I have experienced it from both ends. But even so, I can accept that relative poverty can still be a drag.
Can we refer to poverty paradox where there is inconsistency between objective and subjective poverty methodologies? Certainly. However, this is about the result from large datasets. That eliminates the impact of outliers and confirms what we've known since the days of Adam Smith: needs aren't fixed and therefore, in terms of absolute poverty, a consensus measure is required.
As a "mathematician" I would argue that "poverty" is more dependent upon calculation as opposed to opinion. The actual "costs of living" where basic shelter, food, energy, clothing, and other necessities that can be calculated to define where "necessity" ends and "luxury" begins. Obviously there is a transitional area between necessity and luxury but a person living in luxury is not living in poverty. A person can drink water and doesn't need champagne to live and could be used as an example of segregating necessity from luxury.
Several luxuries that most of our relatively poor have: Color TV Boat New car Computer None of those are necessary but many living below the poverty line have them and other things as well.
I'd see poverty as a part of social exclusion analysis. Necessities therefore aren't constant. We couldn't refer to the importance of communications, for example, back in the days of great great great grandfather (He just relied on the lighting of the beacons). However, it continues to be the case that our opinions do not matter. Poverty perception, in terms of a modern absolute poverty approach, continues to show that our bias is irrelevant as the definition is determined by consensus (and not ad hoc decisions by us)
Maths only comes into it in terms of the various means to either index (to describe poverty intensity) or to control for different aspects of deprivation (e.g. the fuzzy poverty methodology). The notion of 'necessity', however, isn't our decision. To suggest otherwise would be on a par with nanny government where we decide what we think people need
There is another consensus which needs to be considered; that being the consensus of the tax payer who pays the money which is redistributed to those in need. This is a point at which one consensus is glaringly out of congruence with the consensus on the other side of the equation.
Color TV? Probably but this is a small cost item or that they got for free or next to nothing used. Boat? Not very likely unless they're living on the bayou and it's a small skiff that might be worth a whole $100 that they use for fishing to feed their family. New car? Not a chance in hell. This is simply delusional. They couldn't afford to pay cash for it and would never qualify for a loan to purchase a new car or be able to afford to make the payments. Computer? Possibly but many do not especially those mired deep in poverty. Of course in today's world a computer is virtually a necessity as opposed to a luxury. We can also note that many in poverty today are a result of the recent recession as real wages have plummeted since 2008 by as much as 25% or more for many families. Some families have experience a real wage decline by more than 50% and some have joined the long-term unemployed that don't even receive unemployment insurance anymore. I don't even have a clue on how many of these families are getting by because even those that had retirement savings have lost everything from their home to every dollar they ever managed to save. They've sold virtually everything that they ever purchased that's worth anything. It is a very sad story indeed and the number of these families are in the millions. Remember that virtually all of the GDP growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1% of income earners (95%) with the bottom 50% literally losing real income across the board over the last 5 years.
Who needs a new car? Plenty of broke people with a boat, how do you think they became broke in the first place? Do you even know what boat stands for? Bring On Another Thousand.
I'm certainly no fan of "nanny government" and typically object to "politicians" using arbitrary criteria but I do believe there is a basis for rational review from an economic standpoint. For example if determining the "cost of shelter" a review of the lowest rents in an area and not the median rents for apartments would be a "rational" foundation for making a determination on how much it cost to rent an apartment. Once again though all of this needs to be focused on "taxation" as opposed to details of poverty. From a taxation perspective it would be my opinion that the tax burden to support government should be imposed on those that can afford the financial burden. This isn't the poor or even those near poverty and I personally believe that the tax burden should logically be carried by those above the 50% income level. It makes no sense to actually tax those below this level if we ever hope for them to become "middle class" Americans. We want upward economic mobility for the bottom 50% and taxing them works against this economic philosophy. Upward economic mobility based upon the labor of the individual in America has been lost as real wages have been declining over the last ten years for over 90% of Americans and dramatically for those in the bottom 50% of all income earners. For me that is a serious concern that must be addressed. We need to change our tax policies at both the federal level and even more so at the state level because the lower the income level in America the greater that tax burden is relative to income and that makes no sense at all.
Like it or not, a color tv does not help feed the family or pay rent. It is a luxury item. A boat is not uncommon for many people getting public assistance such as food stamps or public housing. I would challenge you to drive around the public housing in Ozark, AL and count the boats in the driveways. While you are driving around those same housing units, count the late model automobiles in the drive ways as well. Almost every auto dealer in the area has a plan for those with poor credit to buy a car. The interest is high and the payments detract from the family groceries, but some people on the dole buy them anyway. When I was a rehabilitation services counselor I met many families who chose to eat a lot of beans and rice so they could buy a car. And no Shiva, a computer in the home of a person receiving public aid is not a necessity, nor is an X-Box or other gaming device. It really doesn't matter when or how the person who gets financial or in kind aid from the government, there is no excuse for that aid to subsidize any kind of luxury, none, nada, zilch. It has been my experience that there are many who believe as you do relative to what is or is not a need or a luxury; or what those on welfare buy. I attribute that to their lack of experience in the "ghetto." From the time I was married and worked as an Industrial Insurance debit area, to the last 25 years in and around public housing I can assure you the situation is more likely than not. you don't want to believe it; you want to presume that every dollar of aid given to the "poor" is actually helping those "poor" families survive.
Different issue! Rather than referring to the measurement of poverty (which is used as part of understanding a nation's well-being levels, plus helping to understand knock-on issues such as the use of home ownership to reduce the risks of poverty), that refers to aspects such as the government's social welfare function.
Classical liberalism had poverty as a relative concept. In terms of economics, your viewpoint struggles! But, for poverty, we'd have numerous housing characteristics and determine housing deprivation. That would include aspects such as shelter problems (damp etc), but would also include characteristics alien to your view over necessities.
I had to look because I thought the "Projects" (public housing) had long since disappeared in America and, based upon my research, there are no "public housing" projects in Ozark AL. They subsidize rents and provide information on low rent apartments and even how to purchase a low cost home but there is no "public housing" in Ozark AL where a person could drive around and determine if a person was receiving government assistance or not. http://www.publichousing.com/city/al-ozark Ah, the statement was a person in poverty owning a NEW car and not a used car. Many people on welfare assistance require an automobile to go to and from their jobs and the vast majority of those receiving welfare assistance do have jobs. Not only do they require the car they also require the income to pay to operate the car including insurance and that is a necessary expenditure for them. Would it be better for them to not have the car, pay the costs of owning the car, and not have a job so we need to spend even more money to ensure that they have the necessities of life? That doesn't make sense at all. Welfare assistance is based upon financial need and not based upon spending by the individual. If a person decides to eat beans so they can afford a car to go to work (which could very well be a necessity as noted above) then they're merely prioritizing their very limited income in an effort to get ahead. If a person decides that they will live in a rundown apartment house as opposed to slightly better one so they can afford an Xbox to provide entertainment for the family it doesn't change the fact that they own that Xbox based upon their priority related to spending an inadequate income. BTW while I mentioned that a computer can be a necessity I was reminded of a friend that is a waitress raising two children alone. She unquestionably qualifies for at least SNAP assistance although I haven't heard her say she collects it. She doesn't own a computer but instead owns a smart phone with a low cost plan. She obviously needs to cell phone because she might need to be notified in case of an emergency with her children and she doesn't have a computer or a TV or an Xbox. Her smart phone doubles as her computer and she doesn't have a "landline" phone. She does own a car (with insurance) because she lives about 30 miles from work with no public transportation and her car is unquestionably a necessity. I would be careful to judge the poor in America because I know many poor people. The belief they are living a life of luxury is completely false as is the belief that most aren't working their butts off because the vast majority are the working poor in America.
One of the problems is that there are those that falsely believe that Classical Liberalism lacks morality and compassion which are necessary for any society. That is a huge problem for the "social-conservatives" in America today because their policies and agenda, especially related to taxation and spending, lacks morality or compassion when it comes to addressing poverty. As a libertarian with classical liberalism as the foundation for my political ideology I'm far more concerned with the effects of poverty, the reasons behind poverty, and reducing poverty than either Republicans or Democrats in America. In fact I find that even most libertarians also seem to lack morality and compassion in much of what they advocate although many do. I find it morally reprehensible for a person to not have enough food, adequate shelter, or that they would lack medical services because they can't afford them. My position is to reduce poverty which reduces the need for assistance to mitigate the effects of the poverty.
Your research did not bear fruit. We have in Ozark 5 or 6 separate areas of Public Housing in Ozark, in addition to the subsidized rentals you referred to http://www.aahra.org/Directory/Ozark.htm. There are Total # of Housing Units: 840 Public Housing: 406, Section 8: 434. Your internet search obviously did not pan out as you wished. New car purchases are made as well. Yes, most of our assisted poor do have jobs, but there is not a single job in Ozark not reasonably gotten to by foot or by bicycle. We are a small town. What doesn't make sense Shiva, are the assumptions about what actually exists. Nothing you have said suggests you understand the real issues, those issues I worked with in helping many of the poor find housing, find jobs, assist them in job training etc. Good for her. I don't judge. I am speaking from experience of working with disabled and poor people. I did my Ed.S internship as a counselor. Part of our course was understanding what kind of assistance is available and how to help get people the help they need. I have never suggested that the vast majority of the poor are not working their "butts" off. But when it comes to working with people eligible for public assistance to receive that assistance I speak from experience, whilst you are parroting the left wing talking points about public aid. You would have no way of knowing the facts which you so obviously do not know. In 1966 I was drafted into the military with 4 children (I had not yet registered # 4 with the board, and as a Private E1 through Sp E4 I was eligible for aid. I was required to live on post in what was called substandard housing (far inferior to the public housing in Ozark) and to afford to buy meat for the family we shopped for meat in Mexico, just across the border in a little town called Saragossa. There were so many young soldiers needing help the Army had our VET services inspect it weekly, or they would have put it off limits. So not only do I have experience in working with the poor, I have had experience in being poor, relatively poor, because I still lived many times better than some of the Mexican citizens living within 10 miles of me across the border.
Classical liberalism is dead. The interesting aspect though is that, even then, they knew that poverty was relative. But you're not going to do well without a good definition. By focusing on 'your' opinion of what poverty entails, you've gone against the classical liberal outlook.
I would also like to address the issue of real poverty. As a teenager I lived in India as my father worked for the USAid agriculture program helping to create a cadre of agriculture agents to assist in raising food mostly as a result of the Partition of 1947. I saw real poverty in India, not what we call poverty in the US. (I do recognize there are some real poor people in the US as well, those who have slipped through the cracks of our safety net systems; but even they are not living in the abject poverty that occurs in the 3rd world. I do not subscribe to allowing that to occur in the US, but say it such that you know from where I am coming. For the better part of 6 months I spent most of my time in a resettlement program Colonization project which were created to be farms for the influx of refugees. Vast areas of jungle in various parts of the country were cleared and prepared for agriculture and row housing was built to house the refugees. The closest I can describe them would be for you to imagine motel type structures made from concrete/cinder blocks. They consisted of 1 large room, with one corner walled off for a bathroom and a corner in which a brick or clay or concrete block (depending on where they were) with small holes on top and a space underneath in which charcoal/or wood fires could be contained with an iron door to access the fire area and a vent to the outside to get rid of the smoke and carbon monoxide. Beds were charpois, wooden frames with rope woven to support the bedding and entire families lived in one room. As things progressed and electricity was added there was a pair of wires suspended from the ceiling with a bulb socket. At about that time they installed electric pumps to the community well with a cistern to both catch rain water or to store well water. The people who were settled in those projects probably had the best housing of their lives. I helped the people clearing the land and burning the brush and dead trees and spent a lot of time meat hunting to feed the workers and send meat home to Lucknow to my family. Most villagers had mud huts with thatched roofing. (Click the photo to enlarge.) View attachment 23601 I have witnessed first hand, both in the third world (also in Africa) and in the US what poverty is. As a result, I will buy a hungry person a meal, I tend not to give them money as money management tends to be lacking in a % of the poor. I support 5 kids in an orphanage/school but the money goes to the Church running it, not to the kids.
That may be, but I have read in several places that classic liberalism contains more of the traits of today's conservatism than it does left wing liberalism or libertarianism in that it supports private enterprise rather than top down monarchies. I think what is most important to our poverty situations is recognizing the need that some people have for help to live a decent dignified life. Once that is determined, we can discuss possibilities of better ways to assist and how much to assist the needy.
Libertarianism is nothing more than a perversion of Classical Liberalism. The 2 are on opposite ends of the spectrum in their beliefs.
