4 ms·
US poverty is vastly overstated. The most common measures of poverty are based on census data, but the census excludes the vast majority of redistributions from
by marcusverus 1y ago
US poverty is vastly overstated. The most common measures of poverty are based on census data, but the census excludes the vast majority of redistributions from its calculation of income. It even excludes cash programs like "refundable tax credits".
We spend $1.3 trillion dollars per year on medicaid, HUD, Food Stamps, and refundable "tax credits" like the earned income credit and child tax credit. That's $32,500 of spending for each of the 40 million Americans who live "in poverty" (before including state-run programs and private charities like churches and food banks), meaning our welfare spending per "poor indvidual is higher than the median income for an EU household.
America's poor are doing just fine.
- bobxmax 1y agoComparing spend is an odd way to look at poverty - why wouldn't you look at outcomes? I'm not sure how many pockets of, say, the Netherlands, look like Gary, Indiana.
- nicoburns 1y ago> That's $32,500 of spending for each of the 40 million Americans who live "in poverty" My understanding is that the amount of money spent on people in poverty isn't the problem. The problem is that it's spent so inefficiently due to an insistence from certain parts of the electorate on not making things "too easy" for such people. It would probably actually be cheaper to have european-style welfare state, provide housing for the homeless, etc. See also: the US spending many times what other countries spend on healthcare without actually getting better care.