Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 09/05/2006 View Mon 09/04/2006 View Sun 09/03/2006 View Sat 09/02/2006 View Fri 09/01/2006 View Thu 08/31/2006 View Wed 08/30/2006
1
2006-09-05 Home Front Economy
What's (Not) the Matter With the Middle Class?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2006-09-05 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Shrinkage in the good, wealth-centric way, not the Commie-Secular regressive, alcoholic, all or most adult men dead by age 50, "permanently poor but optimistic" Soviet way. WEALTH + FREEDOMS > Large families become a joy, just another medium for greater econ wealth-benefit, NOT A LT DETRIMENTAL THIRD WORLD-OR-LESS METHOD NECESSARY FOR BASIC SELF- SURVIVAL.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-09-05 01:27||   2006-09-05 01:27|| Front Page Top

#2 Just imagine what would happen with the fair tax? (TM)
Posted by newc">newc  2006-09-05 01:47||   2006-09-05 01:47|| Front Page Top

#3 There is no fair tax.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2006-09-05 05:43||   2006-09-05 05:43|| Front Page Top

#4 If you ask some people, they'll tell you this country needs a "redistribution of wealth".
I can't imagine any way to do that except taking money and land from people who have paid or worked for it and giving it to people who havent. Just like Dr. Zhivago, eh?
Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-09-05 06:51||   2006-09-05 06:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Being mugged is an example of personal redistribution.

Tax is being mugged by the state.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2006-09-05 08:34||   2006-09-05 08:34|| Front Page Top

#6 The similarity between socialist theft and robbery is the reason that socialists love criminals and hate their victims.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2006-09-05 08:35||   2006-09-05 08:35|| Front Page Top

#7 Had a conversation with a dem last week. I told him about a friend of my wife's, who is a single mother. She and her 'partner' stay unmarried on purpose, so she can still qualify for the 'earned' income credit. She has 3 kids, and last year probably only made 20K. She got a tax refund of over $7000, even though she only paid about $700 in taxes.

In comparison, my wife and I had to write a check to the IRS last year for $1400, after we had already paid taxes of over $7000.

I asked this dem, "You don't think there's something wrong with that?" He said no. Why am I not surprised?

Personally, I'd go for a National flat-rate sales tax, and the elimination of all other federal taxes. Tax consumption, not wealth. But that's just me.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-05 09:48||   2006-09-05 09:48|| Front Page Top

#8 Once again into the breech -

The Specter of Poverty in America
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
By Robert Rector

Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.
It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.
Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.
Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers — to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.
To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.
Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Traditional poverty, compared to the above discussed 'statistical' poverty, is predicated upon three major causes, although the poverty advocates are sure to drag out some anecdotal heart throbbing exception. It's always exceptions. However, 1) Substance abuse, 2) Single head of household before establishing meaningful job skills, and 3) blowing off one's education are the main sources of traditional poverty. Each and everyone of these points involves human free will to choose or not to choose the action. No matter what sub-group of color, race, or creed one selects, there are those who choose not to do these things and do succeed. And, in the end, that is why all the socialist crap about redistribution of income has been and will remain a failure. From Poor Richard’s Almanac - You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. You don’t penalize the rest and the bulk of society by robbing them for their productivity and sound choices and reward those who take a more destructive path. Reward success, not failure. You’ll get more success and less failure.
Posted by Elmeretch Spoque3740 2006-09-05 10:20||   2006-09-05 10:20|| Front Page Top

#9 Three observations:

1) Some in the middle class are experiencing upward mobility - true.
2) The fair tax plan that Linder/Boortz are proposing would vastly expand the spending power of all Americans and would greatly help the mid-class.
3) Those in the middle class that are struggling are usually being undercut or hurt by the illegal cheap labor coming in through our porous borders as well as the repressive tax structure our gov't already has in place.
Posted by Broadhead6 2006-09-05 11:09||   2006-09-05 11:09|| Front Page Top

23:54 Flish Uleregum9913
23:41 Frank G
23:41 49 Pan
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 Frank G
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:31 Phineter Thraviger1073
23:30 Phineter Thraviger1073
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:24 49 Pan
23:16 Besoeker
23:13 Zenster
23:11 Besoeker
23:11 Jackal
23:11 RD
23:09 Pappy
23:08 Alaska Paul
23:08 49 Pan
23:06 RD
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:05 RD
23:05 Besoeker
23:02 RD
22:58 Barbara Skolaut









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com