Interesting report on the poor

MrsPete said:
Sure, we all pay sales taxes at the store and the gas pump -- and since we all pay the same amount for those taxes, the poor are stuck paying a higher percentage of their salary towards those unpleasant necessities.
I have a question about this. I would tend to think that the poor consume less stuff. Clothes and food aren't taxed (at least not around here). So middle and upper class folks are spending more money on taxable items which aren't necessities and probably aren't affordable to many poor people. Based on that, wouldn't the poor be spending a smaller portion of income on sales tax?
 
Chicago526 said:
The causes of poverty are so complex and also so individual that there isn't any one-size-fits-all (or even most) answer. And even when the right resources are given to people, you then have that "personal responsibility" factor. Some people are just better able to take advantage of oprotunities than others, and that's true in ALL income brackets, the poor haven't cornered the market in missed oprotunities.


ITA.

Its really easy to generalize, harder to look at individual cases. As in all income groups, there are good and bad apples. Unfortunately, for the poor, the good apples are stuck in the barrel with all the bad apples and there aren't too many people keen on wading into the barrel to help those that are "deserving."

I don't think that anyone or organization or government can really totally allievate poverty. Tough call.

I personally, struggle with how I feel about abuses of many types of public assistance, since I see many such abuses here in the Bronx. However, how do you stop those abuses without severely affecting those that truly need financial assistance? :confused3 The sad thing is that I see some people who really need public assistance somehow just don't qualify for it. :confused3
 
SleepyatDVC said:
how do you stop those abuses without severely affecting those that truly need financial assistance? :confused3 The sad thing is that I see some people who really need public assistance somehow just don't qualify for it. :confused3
I agree. I see this all the time. I have many patients who are uninsured and simply can't afford medical care despite having decent jobs. But because of those jobs, they make a little too much to qualify for assistance. Even if you are $1 over the limit, you lose coverage even though making $1 more doesn't suddenly make you able to afford everything on your own.
 
disneysteve said:
I agree. I see this all the time. I have many patients who are uninsured and simply can't afford medical care despite having decent jobs. But because of those jobs, they make a little too much to qualify for assistance. Even if you are $1 over the limit, you lose coverage even though making $1 more doesn't suddenly make you able to afford everything on your own.


This is so true. Around here, sometimes it is better to have absolutely no money aka savings than to be frugal. And we sometimes wonder why many Americans have no or little savings.

If you have absolutely no savings and live off cash in NYC, you can qualify for free medical insurance especially for the children. While I think this is a wonderful program, there are people who work and save who don't qualify for the subsidized medical coverage but who don't earn enough to pay for even the insurance premiums for coverage comparable to the "free insurance."

It's almost a "catch 22." A person on public assistance that covers housing, utilities, food stamps, can qualify for free medical insurance coverage AND seem to have a more comfortable life than someone who isn't on public assistance. :confused3
 

disneysteve said:
I have a question about this. I would tend to think that the poor consume less stuff. Clothes and food aren't taxed (at least not around here). So middle and upper class folks are spending more money on taxable items which aren't necessities and probably aren't affordable to many poor people. Based on that, wouldn't the poor be spending a smaller portion of income on sales tax?

The poor consume less, but they generally spend the vast majority of what they earn. As you move up the income level, you save more of what you earn (or, at least, its an option - we all know it isn't actually true). Clothes and food are taxable in parts of the country. In Minnesota, clothes aren't taxable and we have people coming in from all over the country to shop and avoid sales taxes on clothes. If you live in a state where clothes are taxable, but can't afford to travel, you are paying sales tax on clothes, if you can afford to travel to a nearby state, you don't. In Minnesota, most food isn't taxable, but a lot of convieniece and ready to eat foods are. Someone educated may be able to avoid the taxes, but the poor are often paying taxes on a lot of their food, because they don't make good decisions on what to eat. (The tax is supposed to be set up to encourage the right behavior - milk and not pop, bread and not potato chips - but its so convoluted and difficult to understand that I don't feel it does the behavior modification it is supposed to do).
 
NotUrsula said:
I can recommend another book, Limbo, by Alfred Lubrano. He is a journalist on staff with the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the book is a memoir of his working-class upbringing and his struggle to feel comfortable in the white-collar middle class. It isn't about dire poverty, but about why "bettering oneself" is a double-edged sword -- many people simply do not have the courage to risk cutting themselves with it. (Just reading the reader reviews on the Amazon site will be illuminating to those who have never climbed upward over class barriers. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471263761/104-1112011-2351101?v=glance&n=283155)

I have skimmed through this thread (very interesting) and also read a few of the book reviews for Limbo. It leaves me wondering if I know what middle class is. I guess I have a concept of "poor" that most would agree with. But what is middle class? I have always considered mainstream America to be middle class. I thought blue collar workers were middle class. The book, Limbo, and some of the comments on this thread suggest otherwise. A lot of tradesman and factory workers make as much or more than college educated people, so I have never considered one's job status such as "workman" or "management" as the element that defines middle vs. upper class. I have always viewed middle class as sort of a typical median income family, regardless of what one does to earn that money. Lower class families fall into a different bracket, as do upper class families, based purely on their income levels. Am I looking at this in an odd way? "Upper Middle Class" is even harder to define. I tend to think of it as above median income but less than some nebulous number that constitutes wealthy.

I believe that blue collar workers are sterotyped to have less sophistication, less interest in the finer things of life, less education etc. but I am not sure how much one can generalize about that, either. So, if all the blue collar workers are "poor" just who IS the middle class? I hope I am not diverting this thread too far off course, but this is all very fascinating.
 
disneysteve said:
I agree. I see this all the time. I have many patients who are uninsured and simply can't afford medical care despite having decent jobs. But because of those jobs, they make a little too much to qualify for assistance. Even if you are $1 over the limit, you lose coverage even though making $1 more doesn't suddenly make you able to afford everything on your own.

This is very true. I was working full time and going to college full time, and made $3 too much to qualify for financial aid one year. $3 lousy dollars. That wasn't $3 an hour, that was an annual income that was $3 over the cut off. It bugged me to no end that I was working my butt off and seeing others collecting welfare and getting free educations, and actually better off than I was.

Anne
 
disneysteve said:
I have a question about this. I would tend to think that the poor consume less stuff. Clothes and food aren't taxed (at least not around here). So middle and upper class folks are spending more money on taxable items which aren't necessities and probably aren't affordable to many poor people. Based on that, wouldn't the poor be spending a smaller portion of income on sales tax?

Here in Tennessee, anything you buy is taxed. That includes groceries and clothing. It's awful. And the tax rate here is 8 or 8 1/2 percent.
 
sanctus said:
Here in Tennessee, anything you buy is taxed. That includes groceries and clothing. It's awful. And the tax rate here is 8 or 8 1/2 percent.
But there is no state income tax in TN.
 
Kay7979 said:
I have skimmed through this thread (very interesting) and also read a few of the book reviews for Limbo. It leaves me wondering if I know what middle class is. I guess I have a concept of "poor" that most would agree with. But what is middle class? I have always considered mainstream America to be middle class. I thought blue collar workers were middle class. The book, Limbo, and some of the comments on this thread suggest otherwise. A lot of tradesman and factory workers make as much or more than college educated people, so I have never considered one's job status such as "workman" or "management" as the element that defines middle vs. upper class. I have always viewed middle class as sort of a typical median income family, regardless of what one does to earn that money. Lower class families fall into a different bracket, as do upper class families, based purely on their income levels. Am I looking at this in an odd way? "Upper Middle Class" is even harder to define. I tend to think of it as above median income but less than some nebulous number that constitutes wealthy.

I believe that blue collar workers are sterotyped to have less sophistication, less interest in the finer things of life, less education etc. but I am not sure how much one can generalize about that, either. So, if all the blue collar workers are "poor" just who IS the middle class? I hope I am not diverting this thread too far off course, but this is all very fascinating.

Well, there are a couple different ways of dividing class - one is strictly along income lines. The other, much more subtle, which is what I think Limbo is addressing, is a social class issue. It doesn't matter if your Susan's dad made six figures a year a plumber and Kyle's dad made $50k as a Classics professor, Kyle comes from a different (and, when trying to fit in with an educated set, better) class. If Susan wants to fit in at her toney Grad School, she doesn't mention Dad is a plumber.

(It works the other way as well, one of my good friends is the son of two millionaire college professors who is trying very hard to be a "working man's advocate." He doesn't mention his silver spoon when trying to make the working poor's life better, he looses credibility with them when he mentions he is vacationing in a private Villa outside Milan this year).
 
This is the greatest nation in the world. The government offers public assistance, low income housing, medical, food, and daycare for most people that are in need. I believe, most poor people live in poverty because it is a choice.

Most foreigners that come to this Nation (Asian, Indian etc.) came here with NOTHING at all, but the shirts on their backs. But guess what most of them get their education here and make something of themselves.

People have got to get an education and stop DEPENDING on the GOVERNMENT for handouts. It just seems that government handouts (that I pay for) are becoming an epidemic. Generation after generation the same people depend on these funds. WHY??? Welfare was only meant for a temporary fix but it has become a burden on today's society.

I'm all for helping people in need, but people that abuse the system really make me cringe. Take for instance the Katrina ordeal. FEMA gave out $2,000.00 visa cards for each individual to help them with necessities. Necessities like food, water, clothing, diapers etc. What a joke, those people spent 2 BILLION dollars on friviolous items such as vacations, fur coats, Louis Vuitton handbags (that cost well above $1500.00), Divorces, and diamond rings. What a crock of crap. I'll also will never forget the looting and the shooting of all Personnel HELP in helicopters. This was a National embarrassment. I understand most people are not like that but it was such a turnoff. And just to think I gave my money to these people in need. UGH. Never again.

My 2 cents.
 
Sounds like some of that "compassionate conservatism" being pawned off on America.

Bravo for your crass generalizations and spewings of disinformation (shots fired at helicopters after Katrina? HA!) I was watching nearly constant coverage (via streaming video from NOLA TV stations) and there were NO, I repeat, NO shots fired at any helicopters. Just another urban legend spread by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.


BTW, I highly recommend you educate yourself on just how exactly welfare/unemployment works in the country today. If you seriously think massive numbers of people are working the system and living a comfortable life on what you call welfare, you are sadly mistaken.

As the saying goes, until you've walked a mile in their shoes....


Oh, and also, I highly recommend you educate yourself on just how easy it is for someone to emigrate to the US. You don't just show up on a boat with no money and fall right into American society.
 
There is NO reason anyone should be in poverty in the United States. NO-ONE!

Compassionate conservatism??? No, I'm very logical. Like I said I will help out people in need, but people that abuse the system I will NOT. Case in point the BILLIONS of dollars that were ABUSED in the KATRINA ordeal. The lootings the shooting of innocent people.

It was a disgrace.
 
Fraud exists in every facet of life. That's a fact and FEMA was ill-equipped to deal with a catastrophe on the scale of Katrina. Why don't you research how many millions were fraudulently paid out by FEMA during the 2004 hurricanes in Florida? Or would that conflict with your agenda?

As for poverty, there are myriad reasons why people live in poverty:

1) Lack of education
2) Joblessness
3) Mental illness
4) Medical disability
5) Loss of wage earner in the family

Shall I continue?

Yes, there was looting going on in NOLA but what was the greater tragedy? A few people carting off floodwater soaked bread and stereos or 30,000 people trapped for almost a week with NO FOOD, NO WATER, NO MEDICINE while the Secretary of Homeland Security twiddled his thumbs in Washington and only found out about those tens of thousands of people trapped while he was being interviewed (on Thur., 4 days after Katrina hit) by Robert Siegel on NPR (I was listening to that at the time he was interviewed) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4828771

But, that's getting off the topic.
 
No you really shouldn't continue, because it's hyperbole.

As far as an agenda, sorry I don't have one. You, have got to stop twisting my words around I really don't appreciate it. And think again lady there WAS SHOOTING in NEW ORLEANS. CNN has a huge story on it.

You are WRONG about FEMA. It is up to the LOCAL and STATE Government to get a strong hold on their own city. After 72 hours that is when FEMA kicks in. But since RAY NAIGAN was inept (remember the 200 plus buses that were NOT USED) we all put the blame on FEMA. Ray Naigen knew about this hurricane a week before it hit and HE DID NOTHING. Rudy Guilliani he isn't.

Looks like YOU have an excuse for everything.
 
You don't have an agenda but yet you real off the talking points like a total Limbaught? Puh-leeze.

Joblessness, medical disabilities, loss of a wage earner in the family, etc. are "hyperbole"? Wow, must be nice to have been born independently wealthy. Care to toss us plebes some crumbs?

Let's address one complete and utter LIE you just posted:
Ray Naigen [sic] knew about this hurricane a week before it hit and HE DID NOTHING
First off, it's Ray Nagin.

Second, no one knew Katrina was headed for New Orleans until late on Fri., 60 hrs before landfall. Just a few hrs shy of 168 (# of hrs in a week). Want some proof? How about the NOAA forecast loop?

First NOAA Forecast graphic showing Katrina directly hitting New Orleans area
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/graphics/AT12/15.AL1205W.GIF
And even that image doesn't have the storm directly hitting NOLA and has the worst part (the NE quadrant) well the east.

On Sat., Nagin issued an evacuation (voluntary). On Sunday morning the FIRST EVER mandatory evacuation was issued for New Orleans. In Nagin's own words, over 80% were evacuated which far exceeded any best estimates the planners had put together.

Third, a storm the size of Katrina quickly overpowers local and state agencies which is why FEMA is needed.


BTW, my pic is posted in my sig but yet you call me "lady"?
 
Just a reminder to keep it civil and stay on topic. The thread is not about Katrina, FEMA or N.O. If you would like to carry on a discussion about the ability or inability of our government to respond to a natural disaster, please feel free to start a new thread about the subject on the CB.
 
Fly me with Balloons said:
One man's judgmental rhetoric is another man's (this one's, for instance) fact. :thumbsup2

Just remember, you will face your maker one day and your life (and attitudes) will have to face how you will spend eternity! FACT! :thumbsup2
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom