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.
the answer is most folks who earn 15k a year with all the gimmees, tax credits and programs they can get they are NOT earning 15k a year. in fact they actually have have beaten most earning 30-40k in after tax dollars and in some cases approached 60k after all is gotten.
while not all benefits are available in all states and some states require you to have children for certain benefits the bottom line is for most 15k is not 15k.
I'll have to double check, but those income tax numbers don't look quite right, especially since this example is at a minimum head of household filing.
In addition, I have real issues with quantifying Medicaid and CHIP at 16.5K. I can only assume this is based on a total cost for the benefit if one had to pay for the entire amount out of pocket. However, a great number of people earning over 60K (for example) have their health coverage paid at least in part by their employer. Heck, I know my out-of-pocket cost for health coverage for my entire family is under $5K. If you're going to value Medicaid & CHIP at 16.5K, then you've got to also increase the pay of everyone with employer-subsidized health coverage as well to make it apples to apples.
that chart is only to point out that almost no one who earns so little really lives on just that amount.
the numbers have not been updated from what they were when the chart was made but the premise stays the same.
the example of someone earning 15k was not 100% accurate since those folks usually qualify for perks.
How do you know that?
You are assuming that an individual making $15,000 can not only qualify for Section 8 housing but can also find it. Guess again. In many markets, the demand for Section 8 housing far outstrips supply.
As someone else noted, your assumption of $16,000+ for medicaid/CHIPs is pretty arbitrary.
You are also assuming that an individual making $15,000 has 1 or more children. Without children, you wipe out most of your "benefits":
A single individual without a child can have an AGI of only $ 13,980 for 2012, so no EITC.
A single individual without a child is certainly not going to qualify for more than $500/month in food stamps nor for more than $4000 in Section 8 subsidies even if housing is available.
A single individual without a child wouldn't have Medicaid benefits equal to $16,500 since that is "family" coverage.
Your use of the word "perks" is very pejorative. If you truly think aid to poor people is a series of "perks", you could try living on them for a while, especially with children. I'm sure it would be an eye-opener to just how hard it is to live on < $15,000 a year, even with all the lavish "perks" showered on the poor.
Usually, you are more sensible and fair than this.
You are assuming that an individual making $15,000 can not only qualify for Section 8 housing but can also find it. Guess again. In many markets, the demand for Section 8 housing far outstrips supply.
As someone else noted, your assumption of $16,000+ for medicaid/CHIPs is pretty arbitrary.
You are also assuming that an individual making $15,000 has 1 or more children. Without children, you wipe out most of your "benefits":
A single individual without a child can have an AGI of only $ 13,980 for 2012, so no EITC.
A single individual without a child is certainly not going to qualify for more than $500/month in food stamps nor for more than $4000 in Section 8 subsidies even if housing is available.
A single individual without a child wouldn't have Medicaid benefits equal to $16,500 since that is "family" coverage.
Your use of the word "perks" is very pejorative. If you truly think aid to poor people is a series of "perks", you could try living on them for a while, especially with children. I'm sure it would be an eye-opener to just how hard it is to live on < $15,000 a year, even with all the lavish "perks" showered on the poor.
Usually, you are more sensible and fair than this.
Read what I wrote. I am not assuming anything. I specifically said it depends on the state and what you qualify for. second I didn't make the spread sheet so any objections contact the source who did.
Read what I wrote. I am not assuming anything. I specifically said it depends on the state and what you qualify for. second I didn't make the spread sheet so any objections contact the source who did.
Says a person making 29K is better off with all the benefits than someone making 69K
I've seen that chart before, and it sure makes some very questionable assumptions. The glaringly obvious one is childcare. Apparently there is a ~$17,000 childcare subsidy, and it's essentially a "cliff" benefit that never diminishes but rather goes away entirely at ~45,000 income.
I tried looking quickly for where this amount is coming from (I mean, really? $8,500 or so in childcare per kid for free? Where and how?) and if someone can guide me to where that comes from, I'd be thrilled to see it. Take that away and the entire graph changes dramatically.
There are plenty of other issues with that graph. It includes amounts for CHIP and/or Medicaid, but the hypothetical $69,000 job apparently has pays NO medical insurance whatsoever. I don't know about you, but in my existence, jobs that pay 69K or a lot less have the employer picking up a substantial part of the medical insurance costs. You wanna go apples to apples, then that should be factored in.
Obviously, the chart has an axe to grind. Every single "welfare" type benefit is added in (and I haven't broken down all the numnbers but I'm guessing the creator was looking for one of the best scenarios from a welfare standpoint) but the hypothetical pays a salary and apparently has absolutely zero additional benefits provided by the employer. No 401K match (heck, one can argue that simply offering a 401K with no match at all is still a benefit to the employee), no employer contributions toward medical or dental, nothing at all. That it, to put it simply, a bit unrealistic.
I'll also add that in my experience (and pretty much the experience of everyone I know), people earning limited amounts of money receiving government assistance are not living the lives of Riley. Certainly there are some people who try to milk the system for everything they can, but even then it ain't welfare moms driving cadillacs or whatever the meme is.
Last, if the idea is "people don't save because of all the "welfare" benefits that make people lazy and live off the gummint", well, again, prior to social security, about half of all the elderly lived in poverty. Now, if Social security were to vanish...about half of all the elderly would be living in poverty. There are people who save and people who don't, regardless of income level or political leanings. It's certainly a bit easier to save as your income goes up, but I've known people who earn well into the six figures who can spend as quickly as they can earn, and people who earn $12/hr who manage to save decent sums all the time.
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.
