So how much does the US spend on social welfare? And who exactly SHOULD pay?

[Sunshine]

Let's do some math.

The givens:

1. The US population is 311,830,142.

2. The richest 1%: 3,118,301.

3. The poorest 10%: 31,183,014.

4. The Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2010, assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

The total cost of providing poverty-level income to the poorest 10% of the population: $687,585,458,700 -- almost 700 billion dollars.

Cost to each of the richest 1%: 220,500.

assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

I pay for almost two. All by my lonesome. With my own little lily whites!

Remember the richest 1% holds 95% of the country's wealth.

I doubt the numbers break down exactly as you posted though. I think that 1% actually consists of about 5 or 6 families.

 

[daveman]

Let's do some math.

The givens:

1. The US population is 311,830,142.

2. The richest 1%: 3,118,301.

3. The poorest 10%: 31,183,014.

4. The Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2010, assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

The total cost of providing poverty-level income to the poorest 10% of the population: $687,585,458,700 -- almost 700 billion dollars.

Cost to each of the richest 1%: 220,500.

assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

I pay for almost two. All by my lonesome. With my own little lily whites!

Remember the richest 1% holds 95% of the country's wealth.

I doubt the numbers break down exactly as you posted though. I think that 1% actually consists of about 5 or 6 families.

I was using 1% of the population. Is there another group I should be using?

 

[Sunshine]

Let's do some math.

The givens:

1. The US population is 311,830,142.

2. The richest 1%: 3,118,301.

3. The poorest 10%: 31,183,014.

4. The Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2010, assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

The total cost of providing poverty-level income to the poorest 10% of the population: $687,585,458,700 -- almost 700 billion dollars.

Cost to each of the richest 1%: 220,500.

assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

I pay for almost two. All by my lonesome. With my own little lily whites!

Remember the richest 1% holds 95% of the country's wealth.

I doubt the numbers break down exactly as you posted though. I think that 1% actually consists of about 5 or 6 families.

I was using 1% of the population. Is there another group I should be using?

No, I think that's about right. Either way with population or families. My point is I'm pretty sure it would be easier for them to pay 220,500 each than it is for me to pay my monthly taxes to support two families.

I know you have been places. All we have to do is take a look around at the enormous wealth we see. AND then think that is only 5% of the country's total wealth. Every time I travel, I switch to that perspective.

 

[daveman]

I pay for almost two. All by my lonesome. With my own little lily whites!

Remember the richest 1% holds 95% of the country's wealth.

I doubt the numbers break down exactly as you posted though. I think that 1% actually consists of about 5 or 6 families.

I was using 1% of the population. Is there another group I should be using?

No, I think that's about right. Either way with population or families. My point is I'm pretty sure it would be easier for them to pay 220,500 each than it is for me to pay my monthly taxes to support two families.

I know you have been places. All we have to do is take a look around at the enormous wealth we see. AND then think that is only 5% of the country's total wealth. Every time I travel, I switch to that perspective.

I don't know the answer, except that the transfer of money from one family to another at government gunpoint isn't likely to solve any problems.

 

[Sunshine]

I was using 1% of the population. Is there another group I should be using?

No, I think that's about right. Either way with population or families. My point is I'm pretty sure it would be easier for them to pay 220,500 each than it is for me to pay my monthly taxes to support two families.

I know you have been places. All we have to do is take a look around at the enormous wealth we see. AND then think that is only 5% of the country's total wealth. Every time I travel, I switch to that perspective.

I don't know the answer, except that the transfer of money from one family to another at government gunpoint isn't likely to solve any problems.

Not saying that it will. Just saying that there are people in the US who are FAR more able to contribute to the solution of our current problems than the middle class....the middle class who get hung with every fiasco and debacle the government chooses to engage in.

 

[daveman]

No, I think that's about right. Either way with population or families. My point is I'm pretty sure it would be easier for them to pay 220,500 each than it is for me to pay my monthly taxes to support two families.

I know you have been places. All we have to do is take a look around at the enormous wealth we see. AND then think that is only 5% of the country's total wealth. Every time I travel, I switch to that perspective.

I don't know the answer, except that the transfer of money from one family to another at government gunpoint isn't likely to solve any problems.

Not saying that it will. Just saying that there are people in the US who are FAR more able to contribute to the solution of our current problems than the middle class....the middle class who get hung with every fiasco and debacle the government chooses to engage in.

That much is true, and for the people who think Obama is going to leave them alone, they're dreaming.

The threshold of "rich" will creep down. I don't consider an annual income of $250K to be "rich", but Obama does.

 

[Sunshine]

I don't know the answer, except that the transfer of money from one family to another at government gunpoint isn't likely to solve any problems.

Not saying that it will. Just saying that there are people in the US who are FAR more able to contribute to the solution of our current problems than the middle class....the middle class who get hung with every fiasco and debacle the government chooses to engage in.

That much is true, and for the people who think Obama is going to leave them alone, they're dreaming.

The threshold of "rich" will creep down. I don't consider an annual income of $250K to be "rich", but Obama does.

I don't think someone who makes $250K is 'super rich', but they are rich in comparison to most Americans. That is about what MDs make where I work and it is enough to create a definite class difference. Nurses do really well, but unless a nurse is married to an MD, she is not in their social strata. $250K does provide an ease of living as well that most middle class American don't really enjoy. However, they are still not part of that elite of whom I speak who hold 95% of the country's wealth.

It doesn't really matter how much richer they get, they won't create more jobs in the US. They aren't doing it now and they have almost all the wealth. Perhaps they have split for other shores, and that is proof positive that they have no intention of investing in America. If that is the case, then they need to move every part of their operation to those countries and stop soaking up corporate welfare here.

This is India. This is where you call when you need tech service on your computer: