So there I, as well as all the other working students in class, are paying for this little brat's health care.
Next day he comes in with a brand new portable DVD player and "The Family Guy" DVD set.
Another interesting anecdote is about strippers and dental work.
Friend of mine just opened up a dental practice and was amazed how many strippers she has patronizing her practice. She was even more amazed with their spending patterns in that when it comes to "basic" dental work like fillings, braces, etc., the (again) beloved State of Minnesota takes mine and your money to help these...err...um.."disadvantaged women."
But if they want non-basic or "cosmetic" dentistry done (teeth whitening, caps, etc.), which the beloved State of Minnesota does not pay for, they have more than enough cash to afford it.
It is the disparity between the "poor" status these people claim to the state in order to get other people's money and how they actually live that angers me, and no doubt some of you, to no end.
This poses an interesting case then for a different way to measure "poverty."
Officially, government statistics look at an "income based" approached to ascertain whether you are poor and can suck off the money blood of Captain Capitalism and all the other producers of society. However, this is frought with one glaring oversight in that it really isn't "income" that determines your standard of living, but your consumption.
Say you have a suburbanite trophy wife who files seperately in her taxes. She works part time at the local fru-fru shop selling fluff. She only makes say, $10,000 per year to chat and discuss gossip with the other trophy wives. By an income tested means she is "poor."
However, her husband is a VP at the regional investment bank and takes down $250,000 per year, allowing her to spend $249,999 of that money. By a consumption tested means she is rich.
Such an extreme example is not typical for your "poor" or "lower income" folk, but when you consider the bevy of government programs and subsidies that go to "poor" people it shouldn't be a surprise that with free housing, food, day care, child care, and health care, these people have the discretionary income to go and afford themselves DVD players, luxury dental services and so forth.
It may also go a long way in explaining why, when I drive through the public housing projects enroute to the radio show, that the majority of these "poor" people have nicer cars than me.
But fear not ladies and gentlemen, for at the forefront of every battle against socialism are your highly trained, highly intelligence and highly sexy Jedi Knights of the social sciences; economists. They've developed a consumption based measure of the poverty rate that considers what "poor" people consume, rather than earn.
Of course, it would be an easier battle if it seemed all of America wasn't hell-bent on becoming a socialist country in the first place (see post below). Maybe Ireland could use some Jedi Economists.
11 comments:
Of course America's lurching towards socialism; that's what we're being taught in the schools and what the media is telling us is the best path to take. After all, it's "only fair". We shouldn't compete, since that leads to inequality, which is the gravest of all sins in this society nowadays (I'm still taller than you are, though, so don't expect me to report for leg-shortening).
When was the last time you heard a university professor at an elite school preach the merits of free-market capitalism? To steal a phrase from science fiction, Milton Friedman is dead, alas.
Incidentally, having actually grown up in such a fine neighborhood, I can attest to the effects of a cash economy on state benefits. If you're paid in cash, well, how does the state trace it? They expect you to just tell the truth up front on your tax forms? Don't. Make. Me. Laugh. Those women (and that college student) knew exactly how to work the system.
As long as such programs exist and are not truly means-tested, grifters like those examples will fleece the state, and by extension, the taxpayer.
"When was the last time you heard a university professor at an elite school preach the merits of free-market capitalism?"
When was the last time you heard a university professor at an elite school?
I don't know whether or not they preach, but off the top of my head, there's Greg Mankiw at Harvard, Gary Becker at Chicago, Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School if you want to count that, and Michael Munger at Duke.
There's a long (but not comprehensive) list of libertarian professors here:
http://chelm.freeyellow.com/libprof.html
Good point. I have a personal example for you. In 1994, while living on an income well below the Canadian so-called "poverty line", my wife and I, with three small kids, were able to finance a new mini-van with zero down, and qualified for a $100,000 mortgage on a $130,000 home. So, yes, I tend to look at poverty figures with a big lump of salt.
When it comes to living off the system and taking advantage of the more motivated members of society who work to fund it all through ultra high taxation ... and a when it comes to how far down the line toward socialism you country is ... compared to Canada ... you guys are pikers.
The "less motivated will inherit the earth, but they won't keep it long."
There's also the point that many of these "poor" live in a cash-based, tax-free economy, meaning they don't pay their fair share on what they eran. I'm pretty sure the strippers fall into that category.
I saw the same thing when I was a grad student. I lived on $10,000 per year and still had to pay taxes. I shopped at the local wholesaler and scrimped and saved by buying chicken and ground beef in big lots and saving fish and cut beef for special occasions. I'd see people in front of me with shopping carts full of filet mignon and shrimp (literally) who would whip out the food stamps to pay for it. Made me furious.
Hrm, perhaps you should redo the graph, so that it's not one shade of purple with another shade of dark blue on a brownish background. Also, what's the value on the left? Percentage? Yearly income in thousands?
With no personal responsibility requirements in the near future, the creation and management of the professional voter is the next big thing. All people that are firmly attached to the governmental teat will be very reticent to remove their lips from that which provides all.
Oh and strippers... Man are they the worst money managers ever. Friend of a friend was pulling in $2k a week in cash, and was dirt poor. Broken down car, bad health, crappy apartment, because it all went to booze and partying and her "lifestyle". She was putting none of her "undocumented" income into any investments or financial institutions. It was all in a jar in her apartment. Even those who find themselves rich, will still choose to make the same decisions that keep them poor.
The leftist morons have their own view on consumption, via a NYTimes editorial .
Continue the good fight.
Every aspiring junior economist should read Atlas Shrugged. It's eerie how spot on she was in predicting things to come.
I suspect it is sociologists not economists that promote these kinds of programs.
I've had one look me in the eye and lie to me.
...I now want to beat myself senseless for declaring all of the cash tips I've ever received in past occupations that garnered such things. The irony: I did so out of a sense of honesty.
My capital would have gone to investments, but went to Uncle Handout instead, which were subsequently turned over to losers buying crap. I wonder how many of my dollars are spinning around in some ghetto rat's shiny rims?
It's eerie how spot on she was in predicting things to come.
Dental Care in Milton
Post a Comment