The number of the week: 49.1

[Locutus]

49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.


Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.


The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.


The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.


The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.


more


Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[damngrumpy]

Governments have services for the public that is why one pays taxes so
what is the problem? I would be more surprised if no one received any
government services.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Actually 49.1% is a rather deceiving statistic. Anyone who uses roads, parks, the police, the educational system and so on is reeiving government benefits. So do businesses who receive educated and highly trained workers to help run their businesses. That would bring the number to about 100% I think.

 

[Cliffy]

And what part of the US budget goes to the military/industrial complex? I wager more than 50%. How does that compare to people receiving social services?

In Canada, How does our military spending compare to social services and how many billions are written off on corporate welfare?

 

[captain morgan]

Governments have services for the public that is why one pays taxes so
what is the problem? I would be more surprised if no one received any
government services.

Around 50% of the pop doesn't pay fed income taxes... Who's paying the bills and can they continue to afford it?

You do the math on this one.

 

[Cliffy]

I know! Kill all the elderly, infirm and mental retards. That should save a bundle. Probably give you a woody too!

 

[captain morgan]

I know! Kill all the elderly, infirm and mental retards. That should save a bundle. Probably give you a woody too!

Careful what extreme and egregious solutions that you suggest Cliffy.... It appears that you qualify on both accounts

 

[Bar Sinister]

Around 50% of the pop doesn't pay fed income taxes... Who's paying the bills and can they continue to afford it?

You do the math on this one.

Perhaps if the US had a more equitable distribution of wealth this egregious situation would cease to exist. People working for subsistence wages make minimal fiscal and economic contributions to the economy. It is the spending of the middle class that generates tax revenues and creates jobs; wouldn't it be a good idea to put more people into it?

 

[captain morgan]

Perhaps if the US had a more equitable distribution of wealth this egregious situation would cease to exist. People working for subsistence wages make minimal fiscal and economic contributions to the economy. It is the spending of the middle class that generates tax revenues and creates jobs; wouldn't it be a good idea to put more people into it?

'A more equitable distribution of wealth', what does that really mean in terms of a definition and policy?

In terms of the middle class, they are the group that bears the biggest burden in total dollars contributed (as a group). The highest income earners (top few %) pay fewer dollars (as a group), but pay huge sums as individuals.

As I see it, the biggest problem that the US faces today is that close to 1/2 of the entire population does not pay any federal income taxes at all. Clearly this is a problem as the net taxes from this demographic will be less than the net services that they consume, the larger that this divide becomes, the more it will drive the US economy into ruin and need to accumulate more debt.

The problem is huge in that these folks don't pay taxes due to their income level and/or employment difficulties that are faced. That said, what is really needed is policy or programs that are effective in getting Americans back to work and getting the economy back in high gear. In the meantime, there is a strong probability that the US will have to scale back its spemding in all areas, including the scope of social services that it offers to the public at large.

 

[Cliffy]

Here is a novel concept that might solve the problem.

WE CAN make everything free - YouTube

 

[Omicron]

'A more equitable distribution of wealth', what does that really mean in terms of a definition and policy?

What do you think it means?

It means the wealth is spread out more equally between the members of society.

Native Americans knew that there was a curious compound-feedback effect where just being rich will cause more wealth to flow in without work, such that rich will get richer for no reason other than because they are rich, such that they'd do things like potlaches and powows, where the rich would give their surplus away, or sometimes even destroy it, in order to restore equanimity. I've been to powows where the well-off natives would walk around handing out money, or giving away horses etc. to those who'd had a bad year.

In terms of the middle class, they are the group that bears the biggest burden in total dollars contributed (as a group).

Are you thinking in terms of the 60's and 70's, when there was a middle class?

The highest income earners (top few %) pay fewer dollars (as a group), but pay huge sums as individuals.

That's not what Warren Buffet says.

As I see it, the biggest problem that the US faces today is that close to 1/2 of the entire population does not pay any federal income taxes at all.

Which half are you thinking of?

Clearly this is a problem as the net taxes from this demographic will be less than the net services that they consume, the larger that this divide becomes, the more it will drive the US economy into ruin and need to accumulate more debt.

So, you're saying it is the poor who cannot afford to pay taxes who are also the ones to consume the most social services?

They might get welfare, but if they can't afford a car, then they're not consuming anything like the social-service it costs to build a road and maintain traffic-control.

The problem is huge in that these folks don't pay taxes due to their income level and/or employment difficulties that are faced. That said, what is really needed is policy or programs that are effective in getting Americans back to work and getting the economy back in high gear.

How about making business-tax simple... let employers deduct 100% of the cost of hiring a local taxpayer, but not deduct wages paid to over-seas employees, who cannot be taxed.

That would make it more expensive to hire foriegners, regardless of how cheep those foriegners work, and the money would simply be going into the taxable-pockets of people using social services like roads and National Parks.

In the meantime, there is a strong probability that the US will have to scale back its spemding in all areas, including the scope of social services that it offers to the public at large.

It's a strong possibility only when government is a puppet of those most able to afford taxes.

And actually, come to think of it...

Did you know that in the 80's, 25% of Manitoba's provincial budget was going to one giant hospital in Winnipeg?

Do you think it was only poor using that hospital?

 

[Bar Sinister]

As I see it, the biggest problem that the US faces today is that close to 1/2 of the entire population does not pay any federal income taxes at all. Clearly this is a problem as the net taxes from this demographic will be less than the net services that they consume, the larger that this divide becomes, the more it will drive the US economy into ruin and need to accumulate more debt.

Nice to see that you figured out the problem after I told you what it was. What you haven't figured out that this is due to the fact that for the majority of its population the US is a low wage economy. People close to or below the poverty line will remain tax exempt until some effort is made to give them a larger share of the American pie; a pie that the top one percent is gorging themselves on to a greater and greater extent.

 

[captain morgan]

Nice to see that you figured out the problem after I told you what it was. What you haven't figured out that this is due to the fact that for the majority of its population the US is a low wage economy. People close to or below the poverty line will remain tax exempt until some effort is made to give them a larger share of the American pie; a pie that the top one percent is gorging themselves on to a greater and greater extent.

So, the solution is to tax the middle and high income earners to support the social services net... Excellent, that'll get the 50% of the population working immediately and paying into the system.... On that note, I suppose that this logic suggests that the decision to mandate higher taxes on the middle and top tiers - you know, the ones that risk their time and money to start business' that employ people - these folks will rush to expand their businesses and/or start up new ones.

Sounds real fool proof, you'd almost wonder why no one has tried it before, especially Obama who has been threatening to do exactly what you suggest.... Kinda makes you wonder why he hasn't pulled the trigger on that yet, considering it was a campaign promise he made.

Anywho, good luck as Engineer on this train wreck.

 

[Cliffy]

The rich are hording and consolidating their riches so there is less and less for others. It's the middle class and the poor that suffered through the financial collapse engineered by the rich who ended up getting paid billions for screwing people out of their hard earned money.

 

[petros]

How did they get rich and how do others get left behind so to speak?

 

[Cliffy]

How did they get rich and how do others get left behind so to speak?

The ruling class has been controlling the world economy for hundreds, if not thousands of years and we are just cattle to them.

you are a slave to the Government - YouTube

The Story of Your Enslavement - YouTube

 

[petros]

Nobody else can get rich?

 

[Cliffy]

Nobody else can get rich?

Can you buy your way into the inner sanctum? There is a limit on how far you can go. You can count the numbers of exceptions to that rule on one hand. But I can bet that any one who does get there who does not belong there is indoctrinated into the club to keep them quiet, to keep them from spilling the beans. The story of your enslavement is bang on.

 

[petros]

The CFR made a video called :The Ruling Elite" it explains how to work your way up.

 

[Cliffy]

A friend of mine was hired in his youth by a Hutterite community in Alberia to breed some of the girls to inject some new blood into their gene pool. He said he was paid handsomely for his service. I think it is for the same reason that the ruling class allows a few that are not members of their club to reach the level because their gene pool gets stagnant once in a while.

The CFR made a video called :The Ruling Elite" it explains how to work your way up.

Who or what is the CFR?

Peter O'Toole stared in a movie called the Ruling Class back in the seventies. It was quite hysterical. His character was quite mad and had a Jesus complex.