Half of US lives in Homes Receiving Govt Benefits

[Michael Hardner]

WSJ

Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.

Is anyone else as shocked by this as I am ?

The pre-recession numbers are also quite high.

[Guest Derek L]

That’s interesting…In a scary kinda way….I wonder what our ratio is at? And what both will look like in another 10-20 years as our generation starts to retire……..When will the tipping point be? 55%? 65%?

[wyly]

WSJ

Is anyone else as shocked by this as I am ?

The pre-recession numbers are also quite high.

like greece with 20% of the population on the government payroll...

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not shocking at all...the US government has huge entitlement programs that have to go to somebody. I'm surprised it's that low given Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance (you guys call it Employment Insurance just to be different), federal worker pensions, military pensions, disability payments, food stamps, WIC, survivors benefits, military dependent aid, etc.

That's why the US is going broke in the long term.

[Guest Derek L]

It's not shocking at all...the US government has huge entitlement programs that have to go to somebody. I'm surprised it's that low given Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance (you guys call it Employment Insurance just to be different), federal worker pensions, military pensions, disability payments, food stamps, WIC, survivors benefits, military dependent aid, etc.

That's why the US is going broke in the long term.

I don’t think the US alone……I think all western democracies, unless drastic changes come into affect, will eventually reach that point………Some might take longer than others………And/or push back the day of reckoning with an increase of immigration, but I feel it’s inevitable that we’ll all reach that point one day.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Derek L

[Bonam]

I don't find that surprising at all. The number of elderly are large and growing and most receive some government benefits. For other households, what exactly does the statistic mean? Is someone who receives a government student loan considered to be receiving a government benefit, for example?

As for comparing to Canada... considering that this US survey included state funded healthcare as a benefit, 100% of Canadians receive a government benefit.

What I find somewhat more disconcerting is that about half of households don't pay tax.

[msj]

As for comparing to Canada... considering that this US survey included state funded healthcare as a benefit, 100% of Canadians receive a government benefit.

I haven't seen a doctor or been to a hospital in years so speak for yourself.

[Guest Derek L]

I haven't seen a doctor or been to a hospital in years so speak for yourself.

But if your run of good health ended, would that change?

[msj]

But if your run of good health ended, would that change?

Of course it would.

The point of the OP is that in 2010 X% received government benefits.

Many people go for years receiving/not receiving them.

BFD.

[Bonam]

I haven't seen a doctor or been to a hospital in years so speak for yourself.

I haven't either. But all Canadians are covered by the state. If you weren't covered by the state, you would very likely be paying money for health insurance in some other way.

[Guest Derek L]

Of course it would.

The point of the OP is that in 2010 X% received government benefits.

Many people go for years receiving/not receiving them.

BFD.

^

|

|

See Bonam's responce

[bush_cheney2004]

I haven't either. But all Canadians are covered by the state. If you weren't covered by the state, you would very likely be paying money for health insurance in some other way.

Right...the benefit is having coverage, not necessarily using it for a procedure.

[msj]

I haven't either. But all Canadians are covered by the state. If you weren't covered by the state, you would very likely be paying money for health insurance in some other way.

Well, I am paying for health insurance.

Through my taxes.

Oh, and I pay my and my staff's medical premiums too.

So, wrong again.

[Bonam]

Well, I am paying for health insurance.

Through my taxes.

Oh, and I pay my and my staff's medical premiums too.

So, wrong again.

Of course you do. All Canadians that pay taxes do. Paying taxes for something doesn't mean you don't also benefit from it. I pay taxes for roads and benefit from using them. As an employer, if the government wasn't collecting taxes to provide health insurance for people in the way that they do, you would likely be paying for all your employees health coverage directly, roughly to the tune of 500 per person per month if we can extrapolate from America.

I certainly am not making the argument that you don't pay for health insurance. Canadians certainly pay for it. Through our taxes. But we also all receive the benefit of being provided healthcare by the state. A benefit we pay for, of course. Just like Social Security in the US is a benefit people pay for, and then receive.

Not really sure what you think I'm "wrong" about.

[msj]

Of course you do. All Canadians that pay taxes do. Paying taxes for something doesn't mean you don't also benefit from it. I pay taxes for roads and benefit from using them. As an employer, if the government wasn't collecting taxes to provide health insurance for people in the way that they do, you would likely be paying for all your employees health coverage directly, roughly to the tune of 500 per person per month if we can extrapolate from America.

I certainly am not making the argument that you don't pay for health insurance. Canadians certainly pay for it. Through our taxes. But we also all receive the benefit of being provided healthcare by the state. A benefit we pay for, of course. Just like Social Security in the US is a benefit people pay for, and then receive.

Not really sure what you think I'm "wrong" about.

Your assumptions were wrong.

And, no kidding, sherlock, of course we all "benefit" from government expenditures in one form or another. Maybe you should consider the link in the OP to see the types of benefits that we're talking about before going on about roads etc....

Although I'm confident that I'm paying in way more than I'm using at this point in my life.

Edited October 6, 2011 by msj

[Bonam]

Your assumptions were wrong.

And, no kidding, sherlock, of course we all "benefit" from government expenditures in one form or another. Maybe you should consider the link in the OP to see the types of expenditures that we're talking about before going on about roads etc....

Although I'm confident that I'm paying in way more than I'm using at this point in my life.

None of my assumptions were wrong, and my statements were entirely accurate. I did read the link and know that it was not talking about roads. I used roads as an example to illustrate a simple point, which was clear from my post. I also pay more than I use now, and will likely never use more than a small fraction of what I will pay in over my life. I really don't disagree with anything you've said, but you seem in the mood to pick a fight so whatever, enjoy.

The fact remains that by the definitions of the survey, if applied to Canada, 100% of Canadians would be considered as receiving a government benefit. That benefit being state funded health coverage.

[msj]

None of my assumptions were wrong, and my statements were entirely accurate. I did read the link and know that it was not talking about roads. I used roads as an example to illustrate a simple point, which was clear from my post. I also pay more than I use now, and will likely never use more than a small fraction of what I will pay in over my life. I really don't disagree with anything you've said, but you seem in the mood to pick a fight so whatever, enjoy.

The fact remains that by the definitions of the survey, if applied to Canada, 100% of Canadians would be considered as receiving a government benefit. That benefit being state funded health coverage.

Sure, sure....

The fact that I pay in way more than I get out of the tax system is proof that I am not getting a government benefit.

The fact that I pay progressive taxes at rates up to 44% is proof that I am not getting a government benefit. Then I pay MSP premiums for myself and staff at thousands of dollars per month, plus HST, plus property taxes, plus alcohol taxes, plus gas taxes (which are way more in Canada than the US) etc...

We can spend all night coming up with asinine assumptions....

Edited October 6, 2011 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

...The fact remains that by the definitions of the survey, if applied to Canada, 100% of Canadians would be considered as receiving a government benefit. That benefit being state funded health coverage.

I sure hope so...I paid over $50,000 in taxes last year..and would hope that I am getting something in the way of a tangible benefit from government.

[Oleg Bach]

When unbridled capitalism peeks - poverty appears....and socialism must be used to sustain many people - if they are not sustained to some degree then the whole system goes into a state of chaos and absloute ruin...capitalism ceases to exist - and it's spawn socialism disappears - leaving barbarism to thrive. No system is sustainable for ever - be it leftist or rightist...They BOTH have to compromise.

[BubberMiley]

The point of the OP is that in 2010 X% received government benefits.

Many people go for years receiving/not receiving them.

Some people purposely avoid walking on the socialist, communal sidewalks to be truly free of government benefits.

[msj]

Some people purposely avoid walking on the socialist, communal sidewalks to be truly free of government benefits.

Good point BM.

I think what is meant is that in the OP certain government benefits are looked at as being direct benefits.

The point I'm making is just how asinine the whole process is in that we should be looking at the big picture:

If my wife and I are paying, say, $65,000 in taxes per year to various levels of government, and, say, I had a child under 6 so we received the $1,200 per year Universal Child Care Benefit, then, yes, I would make the Canadian list of receiving a direct government benefit (or, as we call it, a "transfer" payment).

The problem is as Bonam has alluded to - what government benefits are being counted - and to what I'm complaining about - how we include the payment of taxes into all of this.

Afterall, we have a lot of "government benefits" that flow through a tax return - spouse doesn't work so you can get a tax credit worth about $1,600, disabled? then another tax credit worth about $1,700 etc....

So, it all comes down to what one is counting or not counting.

[Shady]

This doesn't really suprise me at all. Obama's been referred to as the food stamps President for a reason. But I'm suprised that the left isn't happy about this scenario. Their wish has come true. More and more people having to rely on the federal government. It's the socialist utopia that they've always wanted.

[Scotty]

WSJ

Is anyone else as shocked by this as I am ?

The pre-recession numbers are also quite high.

Certainly higher here. Especially if you include everyone getting a pension, a GST rebate, or a child benefit.

There was a guy talking about why McGuinty wasn't hurt more by his raising taxes on the TV the other day pointing out that 43% of the population of Ontario pays no income tax anyway, so why would they be annoyed with him?

[jacee]

WSJ

Is anyone else as shocked by this as I am?

The pre-recession numbers are also quite high.

It sounds shocking, and the right wing freaks out about such stuff, but I doubt it really is.

Some 46.4% of households will pay no federal income tax this year, according to th nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That’s up from 39.9% in 2007, the year the recession began.

Most of those households will stil be hit by payroll taxes. Just 18.1% of households pay neither payroll nor federal income taxes and they are predominantly the nation’s elderly and poorest families.

I don't know what "payroll taxes" are but it soungs like those people are working.

"benefits" like food stamps and rent subsidy may be relatively small, not like full welfare support here, and maybe extended to working poor as well (who get no benefits here).

There are a lot of college graduates who can't find jobs' who may live with their parents when they're not protesting on Wall Street.

In Canada those in the labour force, employed or looking for a job, are 67% of those over 15.

6. So 33% not seeking/working and they would be

Seniors, people on disability pensions and some on welfare (not all, as some are "seeking").

A lot of the 15-24's would be in school some on welfare (who've left impossible family/foster situations) maybe others not on welfare (eg, summer unemployed). Some would desrease the 33% stat in Canada.

We don't have partial benefits like in the US, and the

standalone partial benefits would inflate the numbers higher than ours. However since ours are either full or nothing, perhaps they are a better indicator of those receiving something resembling full support.

For the US data, the 18% paying no payroll or income taxes are a better indicator of those totally dependent on government 'benefits, seniors and the very poor, as they say.

Not such a scary number.

[bush_cheney2004]

This doesn't really suprise me at all. Obama's been referred to as the food stamps President for a reason. But I'm suprised that the left isn't happy about this scenario. Their wish has come true. More and more people having to rely on the federal government. It's the socialist utopia that they've always wanted.

Yes, the transformation is nearly complete. Not so long ago the very idea of receiving and worse yet, using USDA "food stamps" was repugnant to most Americans, so great was the social stigma of being on "the dole". So the socialists changed the name to "food support" and issued credit cards instead, so as not to embarrass people in check-out lines, fumbling with welfare monopoly money.

Some Americans have gotten so soft they don't know how to be poor anymore.