This got me curious. Some quick googling indicates that likely isn’t the case. Apparently the US spends about double on corporate subsidies than the amount it spends on social welfare programs.
The calculations also get tricky because there are lots of state and city level spending that would have to be accounted for, such as things like funding public schools.
I don’t know that I’d count Medicare since it’s not for the poor, it’s for people over 65 regardless of income. Social security also goes to everyone regardless of income. Calling public schools a welfare program disproportionately allocated to the poor seems like a stretch too.
Medicaid makes sense though, which is apparently about 10% of the federal budget.
Medicare requires having paid into it for at least 10 years, and I believe there is some convoluted means testing going on with all the different “Parts” of Medicare and how much one’s premiums and benefits are.
> Calling public schools a welfare program disproportionately allocated to the poor seems like a stretch too.
It's not he's saying. He's saying that public schools should be considered part of the "welfare program". Which they probably should since public schools, like social security, are program that benefit society as a whole, which you can (or cannot) use depending on your personal situation.
Someone else notes that those program tend, on average, to mostly benefit poor people - which they probably should. But it's not systematic.
There are varying degrees of means testing and wealth transfers happening with Social Security, seen when the government changes the age one starts receiving benefits and the amount of the benefit (and which cost of living adjustment to use). It is not a cut and dry case of social welfare, but it is also not a “what you get is what you put in” program either. I think it will only become more and more means tested and more akin to a social welfare program though.
Unfortunately I can't read the article because it requires a subscription.
The conclusion is surprising to me though - poor people generally spend what they get paid on what they need. I would have assumed that this means that if their pay is increasing at the same rate as their costs, inflation isn't hurting them much at all.
If their pay isn't increasing at the same rate as their costs, I'd consider that a phenomenon different to inflation, and blame that.
On the other hand, it seems like inflation would hurt people with large quantities of uninvested cash the most.
Analysis that suggests that actually debt getting inflated away is a major factor and results in people in debt being disproportionately helped by inflation: https://www.lynalden.com/inflation/#benefit
28 comments
[ 278 ms ] story [ 484 ms ] threadI walked out disappointed.
So I went to the hardware store and got a ladder with adjustable rungs. Then I adjusted the lowest rung up to make it a bit higher.
Wouldn't it be better if the ladder didn't have a lowest rung?
were you quoted?
google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+should+have+policies+t...]
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305...
The calculations also get tricky because there are lots of state and city level spending that would have to be accounted for, such as things like funding public schools.
Medicaid makes sense though, which is apparently about 10% of the federal budget.
Social security is similar, see my other comment.
It's not he's saying. He's saying that public schools should be considered part of the "welfare program". Which they probably should since public schools, like social security, are program that benefit society as a whole, which you can (or cannot) use depending on your personal situation.
Someone else notes that those program tend, on average, to mostly benefit poor people - which they probably should. But it's not systematic.
So I don't really see any taxonomy issues here.
The conclusion is surprising to me though - poor people generally spend what they get paid on what they need. I would have assumed that this means that if their pay is increasing at the same rate as their costs, inflation isn't hurting them much at all.
If their pay isn't increasing at the same rate as their costs, I'd consider that a phenomenon different to inflation, and blame that.
On the other hand, it seems like inflation would hurt people with large quantities of uninvested cash the most.