Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you like to refute anything I said beside using a smiley?
I didn't say everyone on welfare does this but there are definitely people out there taking advantage of the system.
Although I can't speak for anyone else, I don't think anyone found your accusation of people abusing the wlfare system ridiculous. But it's ridiculous to think that it would come close to evening out this income disparity.
I pulled some data from factfinder on a metro by metro basis. Rather than looking at average, the latest census figures has the median income of a person who has worked full time for the prior year. Not the same thing, but close enough.
Chicago ranks #36 out of the 50 largest metros. An AA working full time for the prior 12 mos earns roughly 68% of what non-Hispanic whites do. A lot of this 2nd worst stuff depends upon the use of avg/median, full time vs. full time and part time, metro vs. city, etc. Interestingly, the worst is the Twin Cities, but they do have a huge Somali population.
It depends on what job the black person is doing and if it's owned by a public or private entity when compared to a white person who's working the same job ie cashier vs cashier. There's a lot of factors that come into play when it comes to an hourly wage so I'm not sure how this is a "something's wrong here guys."
I pulled some data from factfinder on a metro by metro basis. Rather than looking at average, the latest census figures has the median income of a person who has worked full time for the prior year. Not the same thing, but close enough.
Chicago ranks #36 out of the 50 largest metros. An AA working full time for the prior 12 mos earns roughly 68% of what non-Hispanic whites do. A lot of this 2nd worst stuff depends upon the use of avg/median, full time vs. full time and part time, metro vs. city, etc. Interestingly, the worst is the Twin Cities, but they do have a huge Somali population.
Very interesting. It seems like this thread got a little bit off topic, as the OP was most likely concerned most with why Chicago ranked so low compared to other METRO areas, when it was one of 3 or 4 top destinations in the Great Migration. It's interesting you bring up the Twin Cities Somali population, and a couple of the earlier posters brought up the loss of Middle to Upper Class blacks to either the South Suburbs or back to cities in the South like Atlanta and Houston.
Out of curiosity, which cities came out in the top 5?
Questions about the study:
1) Do they control for education?
2) Do they control for quality of education?
3) Do they control for age?
4) Do they control for arrest records?
Questions about the topic in general:
1) Was there any attempt to quantify the black market incomes (i.e. unreported income - not necessarily just from illegal businesses, but including unreported cash income) for each demographic? For example someone who works in trades will often take side jobs for unreported cash income. And, yes, I was also hinting at things like drugs-related income.
Some people on welfare have been able to game the system.
They get subsidized housing, free food with their link card, free health care and free mobile phones. Then they work a cash job and live a pretty decent life for being "poor".
Social and racial propaganda aside, it appears that the not-so-honest among us have opportunities to 'game the system' if you will.
Not that I share all the views, but I find the chart with actual numbers to make comparisons interesting -- far more compelling than speculative comments made on a messageboard.
In other words, feel free to rip the following article to bits, but make it interesting by providing sources, excel worksheets showing the contrast.
Quote:
In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/22/2010 00:18 -0400
China Federal Tax
Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.
From Emmerich:
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.
Stunning? Just do it yourself.
Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.
And if that wasn't enough, here is one that will blow your mind:
If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America's once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.
First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.
Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That's a huge hit.
There is a reason why a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the "right thing."
The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than woring one week a month at minimu wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.
It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.
If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.
This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were weilling to cheat. Even if you dodn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job.
Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.
SSI pays $8,088 per year for each "disabled" family member. A person can be deemed "disabled" if thy are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.
If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.
Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day to make some sense out of this Mephistophelian tragicomedy known as living in the USA:
Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.
Alas, on America's way to to communist welfare, it has long since surpassed such bastions of capitalism as China:
The welfare system in communist China is far stringier. Those people have to work to eat.
We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.
Very interesting. It seems like this thread got a little bit off topic, as the OP was most likely concerned most with why Chicago ranked so low compared to other METRO areas, when it was one of 3 or 4 top destinations in the Great Migration. It's interesting you bring up the Twin Cities Somali population, and a couple of the earlier posters brought up the loss of Middle to Upper Class blacks to either the South Suburbs or back to cities in the South like Atlanta and Houston.
Out of curiosity, which cities came out in the top 5?
Top 10 with median full time salary and % compared to white:
Keep in mind this is rank by relative comparison to whites, not absolute standard of living, so an earner in Detroit (relatively more expensive than a lot of the midwest) in a down economy earning 25K is nothing to brag about. It's more a case of the white population not having good jobs either than some more preferrable form of equity. Philly might be 10% more expensive, but the avg wage is more than 10% better, but whites tend to earn even more. Another thing to keep in mind is that this is only a list for those who have held full time employment the prior 12 months. Atlanta has a higher rate of college grads, and higher AA employment, so if you were to look at everyone (employed and unemployed) they would fare even better than they currently do compared to Chicago.
Social and racial propaganda aside, it appears that the not-so-honest among us have opportunities to 'game the system' if you will.
Not that I share all the views, but I find the chart with actual numbers to make comparisons interesting -- far more compelling than speculative comments made on a messageboard.
In other words, feel free to rip the following article to bits, but make it interesting by providing sources, excel worksheets showing the contrast.
What's obviously wrong with it (assuming the family making 60K is one bread winner, two kids, just like the welfare case):
1-No FSA deducted as an income tax shield to Fed.
2-Assumes no home ownership and income tax shield on interest.
3-Forgets to take standard deductions on MS state tax, instead taxing 5% on gross pay.
4-Equates 16,500 of Medicaid/CHIP to disposable income. It's not disposable. Families don't get paid that. It's an estimate of the cash value of medical insurance of equal coverage, and it is wrong. A family of three getting equivalent coverage won't pay 16,500 per year. Which leads me to...
5-Is the single bread winner making 60K a year getting company-sponsored medical insurance? 9 times out of 10 someone making that much money is when they are non-self employed...and looking at the tax calc (which is wrong btw), it appears the assumption is non-self employed. An averagish sponsored medical plan for a family of 3 might cost the employee 8K per year for care equivalent to CHIP/Medicaid (I'm being generous w. the word equivalent here), so just cut the welfare case insurance benefit in half and call it even.
6-NSLP and the childcare benefit for the welfare case? Only if the two kids happen to be twins and in kindergarten. Seems unlikely to me.
Back of the envelope, the welfare case should be roughly 21,500 (assuming the max economic benefit rec'd--childcare over lunch program). The 60K case should be closer to 37K if no home ownership is involved. If they own rather than rent, then higher.
Bigger picture: you've got to step back and ask yourself, would you trade that 60K scenario for living at home on welfare for supposedly equivalent benefits? No way. You get to choose your housing, location, and quality. You have discretion to save or to spend. You have discretion to purchase a home or invest. In the welfare scenario, you have none of that. The 60K household also has earnings history used to calculate future benefits via SS that the welfare case does not. SS will still be around in 40 years, but the benefits will be greatly reduced. Still considerably more than the welfare case will receive though.
Social and racial propaganda aside, it appears that the not-so-honest among us have opportunities to 'game the system' if you will.
Not that I share all the views, but I find the chart with actual numbers to make comparisons interesting -- far more compelling than speculative comments made on a messageboard.
In other words, feel free to rip the following article to bits, but make it interesting by providing sources, excel worksheets showing the contrast.
The federal tax line for the $60,000 column can't possibly be correct. Even after the FICA taxes, it would mean a 14% effective Federal rate. Even if they had ZERO deductions and exemptions, their effective rate would only be 13.5%. With exemptions for one earner and three dependants (wife, 2 kids), filing jointly, itemizing the State income tax, their likely actual rate would be about 8.5% which would put them back equal to the welfare family. They also probably own their home, so can deduct mortgage interest - probably around $8,000/year, which puts them up by another $1,000 in tax savings. Now, if the family of four was a single-earner family then that $9,600 in child care costs also evaporates, which instantly puts them WAY above the $14k family.
So, yeah, I think that family of four on $60,000/year would be WAY better off than the family of three with $14k in income. Should they be doing even better? Perhaps, but then again the whole idea of the welfare system is to make sure that those on it don't fall further and further behind some minimum standard of care. I'd be more concerned about the $30,000 family than the $60,000 one. Can you twist numbers to make them look funny? Sure. But no one named "Tyler Durden" is trying to make a serious point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
