NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor.
They happen to be the policies conservatism most adamantly objects to.
That was my point.
Your point is at the top of your noggin.
"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."
Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...
The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:
There is no way out of the Poverty Trap- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
b. but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.) The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap
Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."
Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.
Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)
End the following:
1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')
...and whatever I've left out...
All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.
You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?
Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.
It's funny that all of you rightwingers think that everything listed above should not exist, but not one of you can tell us how things would get better if all of that were gone,
and we let the 'free market' rule.
Not one of you. You're all just spewing bullshit you don't even believe yourself.