A new study released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, refutes a common belief among conservatives that our government is nothing more than a tool to transfer wealth from the top to the bottom in the form of entitlements and welfare.
They found that most of the benefits now flow to the middle class, most likely because the middle class has been hit so hard over the past 30 years by conservative tax policies, tax breaks and incentives designed to let upper income earners pay a lower percentage in taxes than the middle class must pay!
A CBO study last year concurred. It found that in 1979, the bottom fifth received over half, 54 percent, of all government largesse, but by 2007, the bottom 20 percent were only getting a bit over a third at just 36 percent.
Today, it is our growing elderly population who collect just over half of all government benefits and those with severe disabilities get another 20 percent.
"The safety net became much more work-based," wrote Arloc Sherman and his collaborators at the center. "In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities."
And here's another kicker that might confuse or upset the bigots among us!
It found that blacks who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive just 14 percent of government benefits, very close to their 12 percent population share; while whites, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits.
Rod Livdahl
Mesa
sockratties posted at 3:41 pm on Wed, Feb 22, 2012.
Quoting numbers out of context to make a point is deceptive. Remember Ronald Reagan saying there were more acres of national forest during his term (and that of James Watt) than there were when the country was founded? Well Duh! Maybe the other 37 states had something to do with it.
The tax question can also be skewed. At least three components relate to that equation: Tax revenues received, percentage of GNP paid by sectors of the population and percentage of GNP earned by these sectors. If the numbers aren't tied to a measurable reference they don't mean anything.
You can divide the earning population into 4sectors related to total income of the country (rounded): The top 20%, the next 20%, the middle 20% and the lower 40%. In the top 20% are the top 1% wjp earned 19% of total income and paid 40% of taxes collected.
The top 20% earned 56% of total income and paid 86% of taxes collected (this includes the 1%)
The next 20% earned 19% of total income and paid 13% of taxes collected.
The middle 20% earned 13% of total income and paid only 5% of taxes collected.
The lowest 40% earned only 12% of total income and had a negative tax liability of 3%.
When there is high unemployment the numbers show a shift in wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. This phenomena occurs because middle class wealth is dependent on jobs. When they are not working they are depleting their savings or losing their homes, thus losing what wealth they have. The rich are not dependent on a job but on investments. The institutions they invest in are the recipients of the wealth that is being expended by the middle class. It's a natural function of economics. The poor don't figure into the equation because they have no wealth to loose even when their condition worsens.
chuckles3 posted at 1:49 pm on Wed, Feb 22, 2012.
Funny, he left out some important figures, like the total amount paid out. And, the total tax burden on the middle class over those years. And the fact that middle class is getting more aid and entitlements kind of defeats his argument about wealth transfer since 50% of the country pays no income tax... and..oh, never mind....he is just an idiot.
Rational Human posted at 8:03 am on Wed, Feb 22, 2012.
Rod Livdahl can't count. Is there a need to comment further?
sockratties posted at 9:38 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012.
Real wealth occurs when something new is created, mined or discovered. From around 1950 through perhaps 1975 the U.S. created substantial new wealth. Although industry was creating wealth in the two decades before that, WW2 managed to consume about as much as was created. As the industrial wave moved from the US to Asia, Americans entered into the subsequent information wave and began to reap the harvest of technology.
Unfortunately, in the last 30 years we have cannibalized the wealth we accumulated without creating enough new wealth. Our current financial woes come from our greed and lack of foresight. We don’t have to manufacture cell-phones, computers and appliances, but we do have to produce something new to exchange for what we need.
In the information age new science and technology have real value. The working population creates all real wealth. Just moving money around and borrowing to survive creates a shift of wealth as noted by Rod’s letter. Government and financial institutions, in an ideal world, provide structure in which new wealth can be created. They should be providing infrastructure, security, financing and resources needed for entrepreneurs to succeed.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:19 am on Tue, Feb 21, 2012.
Rich,
And I agree with your closing arguments. "I am relatively certain that anyone who is attached to either extreme right now is most likely wrong." And most of the commentors on this site are extremely right and likely wrong just now.
Rich posted at 6:19 pm on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.
Dale,
What are you seeing, really? The only people who pay anything produce it so they can pay it. Government is a means to regulate that. Government gets too large, the percentages don't tell a story, what they tell you is that it is wobbling and you have too many takers without enough producers. Once you include government workers who are non-productive, even in a war a soldier only destroys, the wobble is evident. Rod wants it to give him an answer, when all it is doing is asking a question. Rod sees it as meaning something more than it does. To show he is right and someone else is wrong, so he sees what he believes. All I see is gaps that cause a wobble, and I really don't know whether the answer is to fill it from the top down, or from the bottom up. But I am relatively certain that anyone who is attached to either extreme right now is most likely wrong.
sockratties posted at 1:36 pm on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.
Rod,
While your numbers may be accurate you include Social Security as government largesse which implies a handout. The aging population is receiving more from the entitlement program because they have paid more dollars for more years. They played by the rules and paid a share that exceeds what they will ever collect. Congress squandered that money and replaced it with non-negotiable notes. The amount the government now owes Social Security exceeds $2.6 Trillion.
Congress would like to finagle their way out of repaying that debt thus reducing the national debt at the expense of older Americans. Social Security is not government largesse. It has always paid it's own way. Congress hovers above the trust fund like vultures waiting for a chance to pick the bones.
I would love to see the government take those thousands of dollars I have paid into Social Security, pay me a modest rate of interest compounded annually, and send me a check. I guarantee I would receive more than I will get before I die.
VofReason posted at 1:02 pm on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.
Oh good. This is why the Middle class is now thriving under Obama. He just makes things so much better. Thank you for clarrifying.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:14 am on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.
Rich,
Numbers are just that, numbers! When stated accurately, they don't lie. Who of the neo-cons who over populate this site would have expected Rod's numbers to be what they are? And just how do you come to conclude that Rod is seeing in these numbers, and particulary in the shifting of these numbers, what he believes not what he sees? It would appear to me that Rod believes what he sees! And just what is that?
I'll take his introduction as what he believes. "A new study released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, refutes a common belief among conservatives that our government is nothing more than a tool to transfer wealth from the top to the bottom in the form of entitlements and welfare." At the worst, Rod's statement of what conservatives believe is an exageration.
Rod believes that a conservative point of view is wrong. Government has shifted the transfer of wealth [i.e. tax income] from primarily the bottom 20% to primarily the bottom 50%, this largely because of our aging population. Is this belief somehow incorrect? No! It's entirely to be expected! So why critique Rod for stating the obvious?
[wink]
Rich posted at 10:32 am on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.
Rod,
When you take numbers out of context, they can prove about anything you want them to. You're seeing what you believe, not believing what you're seeing.