My public policy economics lecturer put up a slide that showed the lowest income earners pay about 80-90% of their incomes to the government.
There are other ways the government takes away from the poorest people. The best example would be farm subsidies that keep the price of food artificially high. The poor spend an enormous portion of their incomes on food.
The poor have no other choice but to avail of government schools and hospitals.
Combining these facts can we conclude the poor live in a communist microcosm?
That is a good question to start with. In the US many of the poor would only be considered financially poor. In New York City if you are without money you can get subsidised housing, (with money added to the federal program), food stamps, health care, welfare and all kinds of stuff if you are just willing to wait in line. So the poor here have access to housing, food and medical but there condition is set. It is very difficult to break out of welfare when you have to spend so much time maintaining your benifits by going to meetings to prove you are not ripping off the system.
Then go to a third world country and the poor there are genuinely poor…like no money, plumbing , education or anything. People in rich countries will use this example to prove that two systems of capitalism with socialism leeching off of it work to fight poverty.
So with your “communist microcosm” theory, which is a good start, I think it might be good to explore two things:
How the state running the lives of low or non income people keeps them in that position.
How the working poor also are kept static by contributing to the non-working poor.
I’ll try to contribute more later but I just got done with a 12 hour shift so I thought I would take a lazy typist way out and throw out some more ideas instead of writing my own.
Very interesting topic! As a social worker, I work with many individuals who receive a public aid link card. Most of my clients are single adults with no children. The link card (approximately $150 a month that can be used on food items) is all they are generally eligible for in Illinois. A single adult can also sometimes get what is called “interim assistance” ($100 a month) - which is for individuals who are awaiting a decision on their social security disability case.
I believe that you are correct in the sense that the government does not really provide “financial security” to disadvantaged individuals. As a libertarian (Side note: I wonder how many social workers out there consider themselves libertarian?) I can think of any number of ways that the government could do more for the poor: 1. Stop existing completely. 2. (If not number one) End all drug laws.
3. Reduce regulations which hinder the market in so many ways.
4. End taxation - which as mentioned in actuality hurts the poor the most.
5. Let private charities take over social services. Believe me.. The government is horrible when it comes to empowering disadvantaged people.
This is a very interesting post. Twirlcarl and Rationalthinker both have a good point here.
You mention Government meddling with real world economics, keeping the prices of many necessary goods high: foodstuff, fuel (even if you don’t own a car you still have to keep warm during Winter) and medical care. That’s absolutely right.
But I would like to add another point. When I worked at a public library (which was owned and run by the local council) I had the opportunity to witness some otherwise unbelievable events in this area. For example welfare “services” provided to persons who were clearly not needy, but just happened to be in a very “political sensitive” population group, social workers cajoling local businessmen to hire persons nobody wanted to employ (almost invariably with good reasons) or whining and moaning constantly about “not having enough resources” while we squandered thousands of Euros (OK, Euros did not exist back then, but bear with me here) to print books nobody was interested into or in door-to-door polls which pretty clearly annoyed honest people.
Finally I remember a sermon by a pastor (don’t remember his name, maybe you can help me here) in which he clearly warned people that Government “charity” had the only effect to harden people’s hearts. “Why should I bother caring about others? I pay lots of taxes, we have lots of social workers, let them sort out this mess”. My, was he right or not?
I suppose the governments of today endure that the very poor are dependent on the working poor, so neither group will be able to save up enough to get themselves out of their condition. This could be the Western world’s equivalent of the Berlin Wall, perhaps.
Good post.. I think that government run social services can have the effect of hardening the hearts of those paying for them…namely the citizens. Coercion is a horrible way to promote good will! But, as we know, the government’s ambitions have nothing to do with promoting good will.
I read somewhere that a majority of the funds that are sent to Africa (from the U.S.) to improve social welfare come from private donations - not the government. The government is horrible at planning social service programs! Their workers (I am including city and state as well)are (on the whole) at a lower level of clinical expertise (and I have not even mentioned the probation/parole establishment workers - who are particularly incompetent).
I work for a private agency that has really done an excellent job of embracing a harm reduction philosophical approach to substance use issues. I also have found that the libertarian thinkers are the most consistent promoters of this philosphical position - not the democratic party.
(By the way, my opinion on these issues would be considered quite radical to many of my “liberal” colleagues).
I think the point made by the one who started this thread raises some good questions! I think that the government’s drug war policies do an even more effective job - than its public aid cash benefit offerings - of keeping large groups of poor people perpetually in a state of dependence on the system (namely the criminal justice system). I have had countless clients who are essentially handicapped in another way…handicapped by the weight of a felony drug possession conviction on one’s record for life (Expungement for drug possession in our state is impossible).
It is amusing to hear some of my good colleagues say “Hurrah, the democrats are taking over in November.” I am sure that in four years from now we will see (no matter who takes over the presidency): 1. Little change in drug policy.
2. We will still be fighting in Iraq (and who knows where else). War, of course, is another wonderful (being facitious here) way to hurt the market.
Rates of police misconduct will continue to stay at present levels.
All these factors hurt the poor on many levels.
I wonder if inflation doesn’t hit the poor hardest. Broadly speaking, inflation steals from the savers (depositors) and gives to the investors/borrowers - starting with the banks and the financial industry and leaking it’s way down from there (through places like wall street).
Anyone trying to save will constantly have their ability to save erode by inflation. Businesses subtract inflation from earnings to calculate “real profits” and in a similar fashion savers must subtract inflation from the interest they earn on their savings to calculate the real change in their financial position. Presently, real profits for “savers” in most places around the world must vary from around -3% to more or less negative infinity (if you include places like Zimbabwe). On average, most folks with money in the bank (regardless of what country they are living in) are probably loosing something like -5% or -6% (I’m just pulling those out of my hat but with inflation running at 10-20% in Asia these are probably pretty conservative)… which makes it awefully difficult to save anything whatsoever - furthermore there is no incentive to save.
The only way to avoid this constant erosion of wealth is to invest in things that will yeild more than inflation, such as stocks and property (if things are going well). For most poor people, this amounts to playing roulette however - even for most educated people investing in stocks is risky business. And the vast majority of poor people (outside the US in places like Haiiti) quite simply don’t have that possibility open to them.
Inflation is just one way the poor get bent over though. Typically they ARE the biggest gamblers, and smokers, drinkers etc. - all of which are heavily taxed and won’t do anything to improve their financial situation. Their health is the poorest (due to poorer diet, housing conditions, medical care and the fact they they drink/smoke the most), which impacts their ability to work (affecting their wealth indirectly) and also costs alot (affecting their wealth directly).
The list goes on and on. On the flip side, they also receive most of the social welfare benefits, in welfare states such as those in Australasia, Europe and South America… and although they may be paying a big chunk of their incomes to the state, the total amount that they contribute (as an aggregate) is generally negligible. I forget the exact figures but I remember reading something about 60% of taxes in the US being paid by just 10% of the population, and something like 90% of the taxes being paid by 25% of the population (don’t quote me on those - maybe more or maybe less, I can’t quite remember - but you get the general gist). That could, of course, be because the poor are always loosing their money to the banks (via inflation) so the banks, who just stole the cash in the first place anyway, get to pay the taxes and pretend to be the good guys… I’m sure the issue would get quite complicated and it would turn out to be simply impossible to account for all the factors/variables contributing to what’s going on… you could certainly give it a go though!
Fully agree that drug policy compunds the dangers that people face. And taxation on drugs (alcohol, tobacco) hurts the poor the most too. The DEA is a parasite organisation that leeches off productive people, while producing nothing itself. Just one of many leeches, I suppose.
Good point. People on fixed incomes (for instance, public sector workers) and the elderly (who have government social security) are probably hurt the most by inflation. And those close to the bread line, I suppose.