Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article "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." In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."
Problem is, the chart is full of errors. I traced it back to the man who made it, a newspaper publisher in Mississippi, and found that the math, methodology, and logic he used to generate the chart, as well as an op-ed he wrote to accompany it, are wholly unsound. To make matters worse, despite the chart’s cringe-worthy flaws, very few outlets on the Internet, from small-scope blogs to a handful of forums hosted by major national publications, bothered to fact-check it. The story of the chart is a distressing new Exhibit A for those who argue that, practically speaking, there’s no longer any such thing as objective reality in the digital age.
I sent the chart to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and its researchers replied with a lengthy dossier of the chart’s errors. For starters, Emmerich overestimated the federal tax liability of the $60,000 family by failing to distinguish between gross and taxable income (the $60,000 family only has $40,400 in taxable income, according to the CBPP) and by ignoring the child tax credit, which benefits wealthier families more than poorer ones. The family making $60,000 would actually pay only about $8,043 in payroll and income taxes, not $13,034. As for Medicaid, CBPP pointed out that a family making $14,500 wouldn’t actually be eligible in Mississippi, where the cutoff level of qualifying income for a family of three is a paltry $8,064 per year. Even if that family were eligible, however, Emmerich’s estimate of their benefits is way off. Medicaid is a relative bargain for Mississippi—the state spends, on average, $2,510 a year per adult beneficiary and $1,659 per child beneficiary, according to the most recent numbers.
Perhaps more frustrating than the chart’s numerical errors is the language that accompanies it. In the column he penned for his newspaper, Emmerich’s claimed that the family making $14,500 has more “disposable income” than the family making $60,000, a reference to the “total” numbers at the bottom of the chart. But the chart conflates disposable income with economic benefits. Some items on the chart, like the tax credit, are disposable income, unrestricted money the families can use as they please. But other items, like food stamps, are government benefits that must be used for specific purposes. Adding these two types of items together is like adding apples and oranges.
When I asked Emmerich about his decision to use “disposable income” in his column to describe the totals in his chart, he quickly acknowledged that “‘economic benefit’ … is the more precise term.” But this error had already done its damage: As Emmerich’s chart and column gained momentum around the Internet, people continued to refer to its totals as “disposable income.” Then, like Emmerich, they used this descriptor to take an absurd leap of logic, asserting that, with money in their pockets, poor people have no incentive to hold jobs.
From Mississippi to The Corner: A Tale of Right-Wing Wrongness
Problem is, the chart is full of errors. I traced it back to the man who made it, a newspaper publisher in Mississippi, and found that the math, methodology, and logic he used to generate the chart, as well as an op-ed he wrote to accompany it, are wholly unsound. To make matters worse, despite the charts cringe-worthy flaws, very few outlets on the Internet, from small-scope blogs to a handful of forums hosted by major national publications, bothered to fact-check it. The story of the chart is a distressing new Exhibit A for those who argue that, practically speaking, theres no longer any such thing as objective reality in the digital age.
I sent the chart to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and its researchers replied with a lengthy dossier of the charts errors. For starters, Emmerich overestimated the federal tax liability of the $60,000 family by failing to distinguish between gross and taxable income (the $60,000 family only has $40,400 in taxable income, according to the CBPP) and by ignoring the child tax credit, which benefits wealthier families more than poorer ones. The family making $60,000 would actually pay only about $8,043 in payroll and income taxes, not $13,034. As for Medicaid, CBPP pointed out that a family making $14,500 wouldnt actually be eligible in Mississippi, where the cutoff level of qualifying income for a family of three is a paltry $8,064 per year. Even if that family were eligible, however, Emmerichs estimate of their benefits is way off. Medicaid is a relative bargain for Mississippithe state spends, on average, $2,510 a year per adult beneficiary and $1,659 per child beneficiary, according to the most recent numbers.
Perhaps more frustrating than the charts numerical errors is the language that accompanies it. In the column he penned for his newspaper, Emmerichs claimed that the family making $14,500 has more disposable income than the family making $60,000, a reference to the total numbers at the bottom of the chart. But the chart conflates disposable income with economic benefits. Some items on the chart, like the tax credit, are disposable income, unrestricted money the families can use as they please. But other items, like food stamps, are government benefits that must be used for specific purposes. Adding these two types of items together is like adding apples and oranges.
When I asked Emmerich about his decision to use disposable income in his column to describe the totals in his chart, he quickly acknowledged that economic benefit is the more precise term. But this error had already done its damage: As Emmerichs chart and column gained momentum around the Internet, people continued to refer to its totals as disposable income. Then, like Emmerich, they used this descriptor to take an absurd leap of logic, asserting that, with money in their pockets, poor people have no incentive to hold jobs.
The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.
The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.
The chart isn't correct, idiot.
Oh god I can hear you now...
"THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT!"
Just keep repeating it, my beloved friend.
So people getting gov't assistence are drunks or addicts? Rly?It is not better to be on welfare. Your entire life belongs to the government, you do not earn anywhere near 29,000 and you don't get that many benefits, not at all.
You have to live in squaller and in an even more dangerous neighborhood than anything you all have been exposed to. Your kids are in danger everyday. It isn't a positive experience. Food stamps aren't nearly enough to feed a family. For a kid, your parents are likely users or drunks or simply can't find work that pays enough nor are they insured.
It's something though for whatever reason people find themselves in a situation where they need welfare. If they have it, they are not on the streets anyway.
It is not better to be on welfare. Your entire life belongs to the government, you do not earn anywhere near 29,000 and you don't get that many benefits, not at all.
You have to live in squaller and in an even more dangerous neighborhood than anything you all have been exposed to. Your kids are in danger everyday. It isn't a positive experience. Food stamps aren't nearly enough to feed a family. For a kid, your parents are likely users or drunks or simply can't find work that pays enough nor are they insured.
It's something though for whatever reason people find themselves in a situation where they need welfare. If they have it, they are not on the streets anyway.
![CaptainHyperbole![1].jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bozeman-magpie.com%2Farticle_images%2Fembedded%2Fimages%2FCaptainHyperbole%21%5B1%5D.jpg&hash=3c21af5c162158cf3f28af77838dcb0c)
The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.
The chart isn't correct, idiot.
Oh god I can hear you now...
"THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT!"
Just keep repeating it, my beloved friend.
Thats Sarahs BS.
I know folks on Welfare and they aren't addicts or drunks. The only work they do is under the table. They Don't pay taxes yet get money back for their kids every year. They also don't pay rent or pay for food. They don't pay for medical and dental treatments for their kids. We taxpayers do all that for them.
Who says they are dumb? Not me.
There are instances where the welfare recipient is dis-incentivized to work or working more.
Where I work, some employees will refuse the opportunity to be scheduled more hours because doing so would reduce the amount of their assistance more than the income from the added hours.
The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.
The chart isn't correct, idiot.
Oh god I can hear you now...
"THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT!"
Just keep repeating it, my beloved friend.
The chart is correct in the larger sense of what it is showing: it is very expensive to get off welfare. That's why we have many more people in entitlement programs today than 4 years ago. It's like the roach motel.
