Government support for the poor isn't a new concept. In the eighth century, the Abbasid Caliphate collected taxes for the purpose of providing for the poor and the needy. The English Poor Law Act of 1601 formalized practices that in some cases had been operating for hundreds of years. And it was a well-established practice in the British colonies in America by the time those colonies began their fight for independence.
There seems to be a misconception that poverty wasn't a significant problem in colonial America, and that to the extent that there were people living in need, those needs were either met by family or friends, or by churches and other benevolent groups. But while in many cases that was true, there was still a need for public support of the poor, particularly in urban centers such as Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City. And in the half-century before the beginning of the independence movement, the need for public support of the poor was in many cases a growing need.
For example, in Boston the money spent by the Overseers of the Poor in the 1750s was double what they'd spent in the 1720s. And by the 1770s, they were spending double the amount spent in the 1750s.
In New York City, an almshouse built to house one hundred people was crammed with over four hundred. In a city of over 25,000 inhabitants, 425 people on public support might be considered a minor issue, but when it had originally opened in 1736, it had housed less than twenty (and NYC's population at the time was around 10,000). The number of publically-supported poor was growing significantly faster than the general population.
In Philadelphia, expenditures for poor relief rose increased more than eight-fold between 1710 and 1750, prompting civic leaders to take action, including the establishment of the Pennsylvania Hospital for the Sick Poor. None other than Famous Founding Father Benjamin Franklin waged a passionate newspaper campaign, pushing the government to match the funds raised through private donations, which ended up costing the taxpayers of Philadelphia around £2000.
Clearly, these are examples of what is often referred to as the "redistribution of wealth." Money, often in the form of a Poor Tax, was taken from those with means, and used to provide for those without. Those that received public assistance included (but were not limited to) widows, orphans, abandoned infants, immigrants, the unemployed (including many seasonally unemployed seamen, longshoremen, laborers, craftsmen, etc. whose savings didn't last long enough), the sick, the aged, the insane, and disabled veterans from various wars, including the Revolutionary War.
True, taxation levels were a lot lower back in those days (often only 2 or 3%, sometimes rising to double-digits to support the many and various wars and other military campaigns), but I think that simply shows that even when taxation rates are minimal, private charity has historically been insufficient to adequately provide for the needs of the communities' most-vulnerable members. Yet today we hear that if only taxes were lower (or abolished altogether), then people would voluntarily provide enough money to support the poor (or at least those they considered the deserving poor). If it didn't happen back then, why do people think it would happen now?
So if this socialistic "redistribution of wealth "has been going on for hundreds of years -- throughout the entire history of the country, and the histories of the individual colonies before they united to become a nation -- why are there people now ranting about socialism and communism in America, and pining away for "good old days" that never were?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 53
What did people who play Monopoly think this was?
There is a two part answer to this
1. The redistribution of wealth HAD been going from the poor and middle class to the wealthy
2.Communism and Socialism are fearmongering, buzzwords that a lot of people don't REALLY understand.
We do, of course, have to do better than the almshouses of the past. If anyone wonders what a society looks like when unregulated capitalism is combined with little (and mostly condescending) concern for the poor, they just need to read Dickens.
Excellent piece of writing! Facts are facts and history is absolute as we cannot change it after the fact. I see someone is wanting to rewrite it.
What the conservatives and the angry but ignorant who often fall under the spell of their rhetoric overlook, besides for the history you've detailed so well, is that there is not a choice between paying taxes to address poverty or not paying taxes to address poverty. Whatever choices we make, we are going to have to pay taxes to deal with poverty, the question is how we deal with poverty, which comes down to 'what kind of society do we want'.
If we don't deal with poverty by trying to alleviate the worst aspects of it, then we will have to deal with the fallout from having failed to do so, including:
- increased crime and the associated costs of policing, criminal justice and corrections
- increased risk to public health due to diseases thriving amongst the underclass
- increased homelessness and prevalence of 'street people'
- decreased quality of life for all citizens as society becomes uglier, dirtier, meaner, more dangerous
Like it or not, we really are in this together. We can choose to care for one another (which does not mean the communist principle of everyone kept at the same level economically, there is room for competition and success and the accumulation of wealth) or we can choose to live with and pay for the consequences of telling a significant percentage of the population that they don't get to benefit from society and watch as they respond by rejecting societies rules.
It's not rocket science. It's social science.
My friend Jeff also comes from a poor farming family. When he was in high school, he started experimenting with drugs and alcohol and that carried over into his adulthood. So far, he has jumped from job to job and he has been fired several times as a result of his lifestyle choice.
However you guys have won me over. I'm donating half of my salary as well as paying extra taxes in order to help Jeff out since he has done nothing whatsoever for his own well being. After all, he deserves a portion of what I have earned......right?
No one is suggesting that your 'friend Jeff' deserves what you have, nor are they suggesting that you give away so much of your wealth so as to bring yourself down to Jeff's level and him up to yours. That would be communism, and it has clearly been stated that there is a large difference between communism and paying taxes to relieve the extreme circumstances of poverty.
So what we are suggesting is that a portion of your taxes (the portion not being used to pay for your defense -- the military and the criminal justic system -- or for the public roads and highways you drive on, or for the public transit you may take to work, or for the food and water inspectors who make sure you have safe consumables, or for the EPA that tries to prevent Mercury and Lead poisoning from environmental irresponsibility from shortening your life, or for legal system that preserves your rights, or for the schools your children attend, or for numerous other trappings of civilization you benefit from and participate in that you must contribute towards paying for) is used to prevent Jeff and many others from being destitute, on the street, unable to survive at all.
Of course, Jeff is a poor example of the people you may help with that small portion of your tax contribution.
There is also 'Sally' who was born with a congenital birth defect that prevents her from working and requires assistance from society to survive. Then there is 'Bob' who was doing okay until the company he worked for went out of business -- despite his long service and excellent work history -- leaving him unemployed at the age of 55 and not in demand on the job market. Don't forget 'Maria' who was raped and became pregnant while in high school and, not believing in abortion, is trying to raise her child without much education or job relevant skills. While we're at it, let's also remember 'Pete' who, after serving his tour of duty in Iraq where his armoured vehicle would not stop, as they were commanded not to, when the little Iraqi children ran out onto the street in front of them, because another armoured vehicle was attacked and the soldiers killed a week before in similar circumstances, and 'Pete' still feels the bump as the vehicle ran over that little boy, and he can't sleep or function at a job and is homeless right now. Oh, and let'a also remember Ronnie who was hurt on the job but tried to keep working and, as a result, was denied compensation when the pain became too much to work through and now he can't work or collect benefits that he earned and paid for.
And maybe even Jeff, poor drug addicted Jeff, who failed to perform as you have in the workplace. Maybe Jeff, besides for growing up poor as you did, also grew up with an alcoholic father who beat him and a mother who was stoned on valium all day long and ignored him. And maybe Jeff was molested by a teacher when he was nine and when he tried to tell his mom she replied 'that's nice, dear' and continued staring at the floral pattern of the wallpaper. And maybe when he tried to tell his dad he got slapped and told not to tell lies, oh, and get me another beer.
Maybe if you walked a mile in Jeff's shoes you might snort a little coke to forget as well.
Thanks, Darren. I think you're probably right, and that a number of fellow Gatherers who write and comment about taxes, socialism, Obama, how much it sucks to live in America these days, etc. etc. will avoid this article like the plague.
1. The redistribution of wealth HAD been going from the poor and middle class to the wealthy
2.Communism and Socialism are fearmongering, buzzwords that a lot of people don't REALLY understand."
Excellent points, Elizabeth. I guess they realized that using "liberal" as the ultimate insult wasn't working out so great given the recent election results, so they decided to try something else. It doesn't look like that's working for them, either.
We do, of course, have to do better than the almshouses of the past."
Thanks, Aniko.
Good point about the almshouses, although it turns out that initially, poor relief in the American colonies most often took the form of "outdoor relief", which meant that those receiving assistance were able to remain in their homes rather than being forced into poor houses, work houses, etc. That relief often took the form of money, firewood, food, clothing, nursing or medical care, etc. Apparently it wasn't until around the early 1700s that "the punishing of Vagabonds & Idle Persons that are a Nuisance & Common Grievance if the Inhabitants" (Poverty in Early America by Raymond A. Mohl) became a priority in some cities in colonial America.
"If anyone wonders what a society looks like when unregulated capitalism is combined with little (and mostly condescending) concern for the poor, they just need to read Dickens."
Good recommendation, and I'd add Sinclair's The Jungle and Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. And maybe Slavery by Another Name by Douglas A. Blackmon for those who enjoy good non-fiction as well.
Excellent piece of writing! Facts are facts and history is absolute as we cannot change it after the fact. I see someone is wanting to rewrite it."
Thanks, James. You're right; nobody can change the facts of the past, but they can change the way they interpret those facts, and then rewrite history (or just make it up) to better suit their agenda, or their notion of "the good old days."
What the conservatives and the angry but ignorant who often fall under the spell of their rhetoric overlook, besides for the history you've detailed so well, is that there is not a choice between paying taxes to address poverty or not paying taxes to address poverty. Whatever choices we make, we are going to have to pay taxes to deal with poverty, the question is how we deal with poverty, which comes down to 'what kind of society do we want'."
Thanks, Rory.
And you're right about paying one way or the other. One thing that I've noticed is that often, many of the same people who want to stop spending public money to help the poor are in favor of spending more public money to punish them.
By his "lifestyle choice" do you mean his continued experimentation with drugs and alcohol, or was he fired as a result of some other "lifestyle choice."?
"After all, he deserves a portion of what I have earned......right?"
I come from a poor family too, Tim. I went to public schools my whole life. My parents paid taxes, but not as much as a lot of other people. That means that those other people who made more money than my parents and paid more taxes than my parents subsidized my education. Did I deserve that portion of what those people earned? Did you? Do you support public education, or do you think it's a part of some sinister Communist plot?
We have been providing assistance for those in poverty since before the founding of this country and in more recent years particularly since the “War on Poverty” was begun even more resources have been committed to the cause. Since both of you seem to have an understanding of the issue can you help me picture what would success would look like?
I presume that the goal is the elimination of poverty here and around the work, what I am struggling with is how we define poverty, and how will we know when it has been eradicated if we don’t define it?
Is poverty defined by an income level, an education level, a lifestyle, personal health? Is there one definition for the entire world or is relative to the local community?
Are what we doing effective and we need to invest more money or are there programs that are working better than others and we should focus on them and let the others disappear?
I would say that in wealthy countries we should be able to ensure that all our people have a roof over their heads, have good nutritious food to eat daily, have adequate medical care available to them, have access to education that will help them address their own future ability to provide these necessities for themsevles.
Of course, not all people will provide for themselves and there are many reasons why not. Those who oppose an approach of providing minimal social assistance to all will say they are lazy, and for some of them this is true. They may also say they make poor lifestyle choices that lead to negative outcomes, and for many this is also true. But there are also all kinds of limitations and impediments that many poor people struggle with, including (to name but a few): having been victims of physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse in their childhood which has left them damaged and dysfunctional; having a mental or physical impairment that makes competing in the market place very difficult (not all of these are obvious); having been knocked down by life despite their best efforts or having been the victim of economic forces beyond their control; having never had the example in their formative years of self-reliance and industriousness.
Some of these factors can be overcome by some people, and kudos to those who do overcome them. Others will not and should not simply be discarded on society's scrap heap.
How we define poverty is a good question. There is likely not one, simple definition good for all places and all times. If we try to look at it in mere dollar terms then the amount that one can live on in a third world country is less than the amount needed to survive in an industrialized nation. Housing can be simple and modest but adequate in climates that are warm year round. In colder climates survival demands more elaborate, insulated and heated housing. Housing costs alone are so high in the industrialized world that the level of income that provides subsistance in a developing, warm country would not ensure survival here. Times change, the value of money fluctuates, the cost of goods fluctuate. Look at how much fuel prices rose and fell over the past two or three years. How do you think the poor were affected by home heating costs that went up 100% in a year? Now they are lower again.
I think the criteria I've give above (shelter, food, access to health care and education) are a good base line, though they would have to be described more fully and the devil is in the details.
Some of what is done in the industrialized world works and some of it is ineffective. Some of it is wasteful of resources and some of it traps people in a cycle of poverty. To me those programs that teach skills or provide for educational opportunities (why university is not free to anyone who can qualify is beyond me, we are wasting so much intellectual ability) are the best programs. Supports that could help people move from welfare to work without losing needed benefits immediately would also be good. A job has to be better than being on the dole to encourage people to want to work.
In general, however, I think we do need to invest more money. I also think that over time it will pay off big time. If we invest heavily in programs to help poor youth, to keep them off the street, off of drugs and out of crime we will have a more productive adult population in a generation and lower costs for public health and crime prevention/policing/justice/incarceration.
I've never heard of anyone denying there were or always have been poor people. I've also never seen it downplayed in any histories either. What I do know is that the majority of poor relief was done by the churches/private sector and as you point out again, city government aid was much smaller and done locally.
None of this compares to arguments that the extent of government aid today isn't overblown. While few would have argued then that minimal aid was not a worthy local goal, they might be a bit more aghast at what we do today and how much of it disappears into a bureaucracy before it ever reaches those in need. We have institutionalized poverty and removed the stigma in many cases. It might be interesting to see just how many people lived their lives back then on the dole or charity. Percentage wise, it probably was much smaller and far less long lasting.
And with regard to non-violent offenders, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that alternatives to incarceration are just as effective in preventing repeat offenses, and much less costly to the taxpayer.
And yet a lot of the same folks who complain about high taxes also demand more law enforcement, more prisons, and more people behind bars. Go figure.
If there can be an established definition of poverty, I think it could be eliminated or surely made to include less than a couple for percent of the population. I will get back to this later.
I feel that poverty should include food, shelter, clothing, education, and even entertainment. It is how we define these that can determine how effectively we are in addressing them.
As an example we have had food stamps for generations and yet I am not sure that it has been effective at getting people to eat nutritiously each day. I suspect that billions have gone into this program with limited success. I think this is true of many other programs that address poverty. If we included all of the programs I wouldn’t be surprised if we haven’t spent over a trillion tax dollars on poverty.
I feel it was all well meaning, but with all that good intentions none were willing to define success so we never knew what worked and why, and what didn’t work and why.
You mentioned private donation to poverty, in my community religious groups are very active at addressing poverty. Even in these tough times they are still receiving sufficient donation to keep their programs going. One of the reason why is because they have defined what their programs are to do and they report on how effective they are doing that. So people are voluntarily giving money to address poverty while they are resisting tax dollars be spent on poverty programs. As best I can tell the American people donate more money to world poverty programs than any government spends on international programs. This all suggests to me that it isn’t that people feel the poor don’t need or deserve help; rather I think it is that people want to believe that their moneys are being used effectively.
In total dollars or based on per capita giving the American people are the most generous in the world, far more generous than what governments do or peoples of other nations. I for one resist the government running poverty programs simply because they don’t listen to the people whose money it is (the taxpayers) and the people they are there to help (those in poverty that want to work out of it) because they don’t want to be held accountable. They don’t want to risk that their program may not be successful and be shutdown while others will get their moneys.
An example of this is the DC schools; one of the best funded (most dollars per pupil) of public schools, but by all reports an abysmal record for educating students (that is especially apparent when compared to comparable communities around the nation). If we don’t define what success looks like and measure programs by that definition we will simply continue to have no affect on lessening poverty.
Comment on a separate topic: “To me those programs that teach skills or provide for educational opportunities (why university is not free to anyone who can qualify is beyond me, we are wasting so much intellectual ability) are the best programs” What I have found is that what is free is not appreciated, what one sacrifices for is much more likely to be used.
Jeff's lifestyle choices poured over into the workplace....calling in sick...showing up late...and no call no shows as well as poor work performance when he did actually show up for work. But there are many 'Jeffs ' in society. He is nothing unique.
"I come from a poor family too, Tim. I went to public schools my whole life. My parents paid taxes, but not as much as a lot of other people. That means that those other people who made more money than my parents and paid more taxes than my parents subsidized my education."
I know another Jeff who dropped out of school and he has never worked a day in his life. He is now on disability because he is an alcoholic. Like I said, there are many Jeffs.
"That means that those other people who made more money than my parents and paid more taxes than my parents subsidized my education. Did I deserve that portion of what those people earned? Did you? Do you support public education, or do you think it's a part of some sinister Communist plot? "
Of course I support public education.That's been around for eons no matter whether a Republican or Democrat has been in the oval office. However since President Obama has been in office, pro-socialist articles are becoming common place. Next on the agenda of the pro-socialists is free health care. So what's next? Where do these people draw the line?
"or do you think it's a part of some sinister Communist plot? "
If this gets to the point of dividing everything up equally among the American people, then we will be on the brink of Communism.
Maybe if you walked a mile in Jeff's shoes you might snort a little coke to forget as well."
Rory...my mother was addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs. Beatings were commonplace during my upbringing. She beat me with her fists..she kicked me between my legs and she beat my bare bottom with a limb from the nearest tree.
Actually Rory..I have walked in Jeff's shoes.
I don't think there's an easy answer, and possibly no answer at all, for that question, Duane. I think Rory's response was a damned good one, though. It seems there are some people that just can't be helped, but for those than can be helped, I think the provision of adequate food, shelter, education, health care, etc. should be our goal.
As you've pointed out, more public resources have been provided since the mid-60s, and while it's hard to look at the situation today and call those efforts a success, I think it's important to consider that in the late 50s, the poverty rate in the U.S. was 22.4% and in 1973 it was down to 11.1%. Since then it's started going back up, but is still significantly less than before the "War on Poverty" was begun.
"Are what we doing effective and we need to invest more money or are there programs that are working better than others and we should focus on them and let the others disappear?"
I think we may need to invest more money, but there's no doubt that there are some programs out there that are working much better than others, and before we start throwing more money around we need to put more effort into figuring out whats working and what isn't.
You like to deal in generalities and reject individual cases and yet it is in the individual case we can learn how we can succeed. You seem preoccupied with poverty and yet aside from complaining about the lack of money you have no ideas for addressing poverty. I learned a long time ago that it is far better to investigate success and replicate it rather than focus on failure to simply avoid it.
I would like to investigate why Timothy living in the same environment as Jeff got himself out of poverty, because once I have learned that then I can work on teaching other the path out of poverty. I surely want people to avoid Jeff’s live style, but avoiding it won’t teach me how to succeed.
That is why I want to define poverty so I can analyze the programs that work and spread them, rather than simply send money to every program that is suggested.
Socialism and communism are real not simply words used to engender fear. Go to Cuba, go to N. Korea, and maybe soon even Venezuela.
Detroit is a poor example of Dickens type unregulated society. It is a well regulated community just as the towns around it. In fact aside from DC and Flint it probably has the most outside government help of any other city in the US of comparable size. Or at least I would think Michigan Senators Levin and Stabenow have been trying hard to make that happen. If you look at its history you might find that of social economic environment has been declining as the government involvement has increased.
Let me start by saying that unless we define what poverty or poor is we will always have it simply because those that have more than they need will always see people with less than what they have.
This is true of all societies except those that share based on need by taking from those who provided based on ability because in that situation they all will be poor.
The next thing, is that what is so important or valuable about being poor, does it give people an insight in how to be poor or not to be poor? Wouldn’t it be better learned from those who aren’t poor?
With regard to the redistribution of wealth, it is always happening, whether it is the government taking it through taxes and giving it to others or it is others spending money with those who produce the goods and services the rest of us want or it is voluntary giving through charitable organization. The real issue is what is the best way for that circulation of moneys to be maintained? My leaning is the method that has the most accountability.
I believe that poverty is a problem that we as a society and as individuals (keeping ourselves from being poor) should address.
“I think Rory's response was a damned good one, though.” I disagree because it gave us no ideas of how to change what we are all concerned about.
“I think we may need to invest more money, but there's no doubt that there are some programs out there that are working much better than others, and before we start throwing more money around we need to put more effort into figuring out what’s working and what isn't.” I don’t think you believe that or at least aren’t will to make any effort to determine what’s working. You want my money to go to the government to help the poor and yet say nothing more about how to figure the best way to spend it except that we should. I at least offer how the charitable organizations in my town do it, the report what the get and how it is spent. Many in fact take a full page in the local paper to make their annual report for all to see. When was the last time you saw the government report on how our tax dollars were spent?
I asked for definition of poverty or minimums, neither you nor Rory are even willing to offer you opinion. I will offer some of my own. Health care, no person should be turned away who has a life threatening condition. Food, there should be an established description of a nutritious diet and foods that will provide that nutrition (quality and quantity) are made available to those in need. Housing, a minimum of shelter that protects people from health risks associated with the local climate conditions (this maybe dormitory or bay type housing with minimum rules to follow to use the facilities). Education, K-12 will be provided (it is up to the kids and their families to learn not the teachers). Entertainment, in those agency facilities (private or public) shall provide a minimum of entertainment such as books, selected showing of movies or similar entertainment, and limited physical activities. Do you agree or disagree, what would you change?
These are and end point, but they can provide the start of defining what a program is to achieve and a way to measure if they are effective.
Duane B.
I have to disagree with this very fundamentally. Anecdotal evidence is a very poor basis for the formation of public policy. There will always be examples like the "Jeff" referred to above, but if we use those individual examples to justify the formulation of policy we will always err. Those individual cases do not, in most cases, exemplify the reality of the majority of poor people or necessarily represent a significant trend. You can always find a single example to illustrate whatever point you want to make.
"You seem preoccupied with poverty and yet aside from complaining about the lack of money you have no ideas for addressing poverty."
Duane B.
Well, it is an article about poverty and government assistance to relieve it! I thought it might be unwise to respond to it by discussing forest management.
"ensure that all our people have a roof over their heads, have good nutritious food to eat daily, have adequate medical care available to them, have access to education...those programs that teach skills or provide for educational opportunities... are the best... help people move from welfare to work without losing needed benefits immediately... invest heavily in programs to help poor youth, to keep them off the street, off of drugs and out of crime we will have a more productive adult population in a generation and lower costs for public health and crime prevention/policing/justice/incarceration. "
Rory M.
I would say I did present ideas for addressing poverty. That you don't agree with them does not change that fact.
There is a significant trend of people blaming their poverty on their environment...walking around waiting for a check from Uncle Sam because they are too damn lazy to do anything to improve their condition. These are just the kind of folks that the U.S. Government is looking for....folks who depend on the Government. No matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in the Oval Office, they want the American public to depend on them. They want the public to depend on them to save them from those scary terrorists...they want the public to depend on them for welfare checks....the lists goes on and on.
Actually Rory, if you want to promote socialism and Government control up there in Canada, then by all means go for it. However we don't need your brand of Government here in the U.S. and we don't need foreigners promoting Socialism or any kind of Government here for that matter.
There are some people that can not fix or change their situations, and those folks must have help. These folks always have and always will have help...they are not the issue of this post. There are none who begrudge that type of assistance. The issue is: how do you make the separation from these and the majority of those receiving the government welfare who continue to make poor life decisions and believe the world owes them a living. Who decides who is deserving? That is the problem with this broken system, with little transparency or accountability. This is where the focus of this subject has to remain.
Poor people, rather than receiving handouts, need to be taught how to provide for themselves and then must act on those teachings. The methods some are professing here are the worst possible scenario. They are the "poor's" worst enemy choosing to cripple them, and keep them down and dependent by providing for them instead of demanding they become self supporting. The government cannot support these types forever by taxing those who have progressed in life through sacrifice by study and work. There must be an expiration date on the undeserved "freebies."
Most of the wealthy people in the world were poor at some point in their life, but made good decisions and displayed the discipline necessary to put themselves where they are today.
How do you deal with those who choose a fancy car, drugs/alcohol , entertainment and various other avenues for disbursing what cash they have over a means of self support? Responsible Americans have every right to be angry about being FORCED to foot the bill for their irresponsible counterparts.
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DONE THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT OR PROVIDE A REASON TO CONTINUE A BAD PROGRAM. Those who put the programs in action had no way of knowing of groups who would come later to abuse the system. Those who we call the "poor" who found a way to "work" the system, victimize those trying to get ahead, and use them to provide their support. As a result, those who have been victimized then rise up against a system that has been used against them and their hopes and dreams of wealth through study and work. These are the types of people that move this country forward, not those looking for an un-earned and undeserved handout.
We can argue the conditions that contribute to poor life chances. But in the end, we have to decide whether this and other individuals’ problems are rooted in their personal behavior and character deficits and their conscious choice to become involved with alcohol, drugs, etc., or anything which doesn't allow time for "study and work," instead, knowing some government program will take care of them. We have to re-establish the social virtue of self-discipline as the vehicle that forms a productive member of society; akin, perhaps, to training a child.
The focus here seems to be to shift from engaging with the responsible citizen who cared enough about their future to plan for it, to treating them now as though they are responsible for those who chose NOT to have a plan and a map for their life. It is interesting to see how some writers throw in the "guilt" part when one feels resentment towards that. Poor people, rather than receiving handouts, need to make the necessary changes where they can make a living for themselves and then must act on those changes. It's the old addage about "give a man a fish --- or teach him how to fish."
As far as I can tell, data is nothing more than the compilation of a whole lot of anecdotal cases. And the “deep drill” is looking in to the anecdotal cases to understand what the data is representing.
“I have to disagree with this very fundamentally. Anecdotal evidence is a very poor basis for the formation of public policy.” If anecdotal evidence is so poor a basis for public policy then why does the NTSB investigate accidents, don’t you think the compilation of the information of those anecdotal cases have been the foundation of transportation safety? If not, then where does it come from? I keep forgetting good intentions are all we need to answer any problem.
“Well, it is an article about poverty and government assistance to relieve it! I thought it might be unwise to respond to it by discussing forest management.” And what do suggest be don’t to address poverty aside from spending taxpayer moneys. I believe we should measure the effectiveness of the programs and shift moneys away from those that don’t work. I even offer a starting place to develop those metrics for poverty programs.
You are so proud of “, have adequate medical care available to them,” and yet what is adequate care? I offer care that addresses life threatening conditions is a base line for medical care. Which is more definitive? Which is more able to be measured? Which is more likely to offer a means to determining if minimum medical care is being provided?
I will go even further and offer the suggestion of creating a poverty index that weights the food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and entertainment for determining the effectiveness of poverty programs.
To go even a bit further, here is a suggest example of a starting point for creating the metric for health care; 1) (being the lowest rating) would be if people had access to life saving care, 2) families had access to prenatal care, 3) people would receive preventive health coaching, 4) periodic testing for health conditions (such as diabetes, hypertension, glaucoma, etc.), 5) people practice the preventive health expectations (not smoking, not abusing drugs, maintaining a health conditioning). This would be done for each element of the “poverty index”.
This approach would be developed for each specific “poverty” program, with regular reporting, and if a predetermined performance is not achieved then the program would be shutdown and the money shifted to more effective programs or new programs.
“I'm not sure that the elimination of poverty is the goal.” If elimination of poverty isn’t the goal then why should we waste our energy even talking about poverty, unless it is simply a political tool for abusing the opposition and enticing the party faithful? I believe that poverty can be elimination, but I don’t believe that we should try to equalize the economic status of people.
The poor will always be with us since that it is relative what others have, but poverty can be eliminated.
It is each person’s prerogative to pick and choose what they comment on, though I am curious about your reaction to why I don’t believe in free schooling about 12th grade (“What I have found is that what is free is not appreciated, what one sacrifices for is much more likely to be used.”).
I believe the complex problems can be broken down into the individual parts and each part be addressed to solve or mitigate the complex problem. That begins with stopping the search for blame and looking for the facts.
I whole heartily agree it is individual choices. When I was a kid we were taught about the grasshopper and the ant, with the emphasis on the ant’s comfort in harsh times. I don’t think they teach that any more.
As for programs and how the people over time change so how they use them can change, that is why I am a strong believer in developing metrics as part of each program so the performance can be measured and changes will be more easily noticed.
Maybe, but I don't think so, Charles. For one thing, there's evidence that suggests that such aid to the poor wasn't always for basic life support only. In Raymond Mohl's article, "Poverty in Early America, a Reappraisal", he points out that in some cases, poor relief included things like providing money to help people return to Europe, or to move to another colony.
As for it being viewed as a mark on their character, there's certainly evidence to suggest that some people viewed it that way. Apparently at one point in New York City, people who received "poor relief" were required to sew a big blue or red "N:Y" onto their clothing. Reading about it reminded me of Jews in Nazi Germany, but maybe it was meant to be no different than WIC and “Food Stamp” cards are today.
In any case, I think that then, like now, people who received public assistance were often thought of as either being a part of the deserving poor or the undeserving poor. I don’t think that being an orphan, or a widow, or a disabled veteran in need of public assistance was necessarily seen as a mark on that individual’s character. Gary B. Nash, in his article Poverty and Poor Relief in Pre- Revolutionary Philadelphia, says that as long as poverty wasn’t a critical social problem, it wasn’t generally seen “as symptomatic of a basic flaw in the citizen or the society” or as “an indicator of personal or communal failing.”
” You also pointed out such taxation was tiny compared today and it was a mark of standing to be taxed for such an obvious point.”
No, I pointed out that taxation in general was considerably smaller than it is today. In the article, I said taxes often amounted to 2 to 3 percent, and I think that was fairly typical, although Alvin Rabushka, mentions (in “The Colonial Roots of American Taxation, 1607-1700”) that in the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (which would become New York), the main form of taxation was called a “tithe”, and it was essentially a land tax that required payment of 10% of the harvest. From what I can tell, that was pretty steep when compared to other colonies. What I haven’t been able to find out so far is what percentage of overall taxation was spent on “poor relief”. I’m hoping to find out more info in Rabushka's recently-published book called “Taxation in Colonial America”, but it’ll be at least another week before I can get my hands on a copy.
I suppose being taxed could be considered a mark of standing, since wealthier citizens were usually the ones being taxed. For example, according to Rabushka, in 1676 in New York City, out of a population of over 2000 people, only 302 of them were taxed at all. And in Pennsylvania, those with assets under £30 were exempt from the poll tax, and those with assets under £72 paid a reduced rate. There is evidence to suggest, however, that then, like now, people often tried to eliminate or minimize the amount of tax they were expected to pay.
” The money stayed local and worked at an obvious need.”
It definitely stayed local, although apparently there was some disagreement about how obvious the need might or might not have been. Again, that seems to come down to whether people thought the money was going to those who genuinely deserved assistance or to those they believed did not. In any case, from what I’ve read, it seems that the issue wasn’t so much whether the people receiving the aid needed it or not, but whether the community in general had a obvious need for the government to step in and help deal with something that people generally regarded as a manner that should be dealt with by family, neighbours, churches, etc. Which I think gets back to Rory’s point that poverty is a public issue because it impacts on everybody, not just on the poor themselves.
Yeah, I've known some people like that. Some of them are still like that, and others aren't. Some of the ones who aren't got help. Others helped themselves. It's a shame that Jeff can't seem to get the help he needs. Like Rory said, it ends up costing us -- one way or another.
"Of course I support public education.That's been around for eons no matter whether a Republican or Democrat has been in the oval office. However since President Obama has been in office, pro-socialist articles are becoming common place. Next on the agenda of the pro-socialists is free health care."
So what if public education has been around for a long time? If it's OK for the public to fund public schools, why not health care? Other countries seem to manage it. I'm living in one of those countries right now, and I can tell you, while it's not perfect, it's pretty damned good. Of course we don't think of it as "free" health care. We know we pay for it, and we know how much we pay for it. I wasn't too sure about it all when I first moved here, but once I saw it in action, so-to-speak, I've seen for myself that it works.
"If this gets to the point of dividing everything up equally among the American people, then we will be on the brink of Communism."
I don't think it's going to get to that point, Tim. Do you? Honestly?
"Rory...my mother was addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs. Beatings were commonplace during my upbringing. She beat me with her fists..she kicked me between my legs and she beat my bare bottom with a limb from the nearest tree."
So booze, pills and child abuse were your mother's "lifestyle choice"? Sounds like your mom and your family needed help, Tim. I hope she, and the rest of you, got it.
But the thing I'm trying to get at with this article is that there were people like Jeff, and like you, Tim, back in the 1700s, and throughout the history of the U.S. And there has always been some form of government support to help them. Not all of them, clearly, but some of them. This isn't anything new, is it? So why all the fuss now? I mean, I understand what you're saying about not wanting to pay taxes to help people who you think don't deserve any help, and I understand Duane's point about questioning the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs, but why all the talk about socialism and communism? That's the thing I just don't get.
If I felt like our government could manage and afford health care, I'd be all for it. But I don't, so I won't.
"This isn't anything new, is it? So why all the fuss now? I mean, I understand what you're saying about not wanting to pay taxes to help people who you think don't deserve any help, and I understand Duane's point about questioning the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs, but why all the talk about socialism and communism? That's the thing I just don't get. "
I don't know about Duane's concerns, but since President Obama took the oath, several articles promoting socialism have popped up here on Gather and also those articles label certain countries that have free health care as socialist when in fact they aren't. Those are my concerns.
"If this gets to the point of dividing everything up equally among the American people, then we will be on the brink of Communism."
"I don't think it's going to get to that point, Tim. Do you? Honestly? "
I think there is a growing number of people who would love nothing more than to see that actually take place.
Fair enough, although I'm really not sure they could make it any worse than it is now.
"I think there is a growing number of people who would love nothing more than to see that actually take place."
I don't. I think there are, and probably always have been, a small minority of people, like Robert F. Protectionist, who want to stick it to the rich, and take their money away from them to give to the poor. And there will also be a small minority of people, like Steve Bachman, who want to eliminate all taxes, and governments, and let the free market rule. But I think that most people are in the middle, looking for a balance between those two extremes.
I think you are correct. However we are living in a society where small numbers of people seem to be able to influence many aspects of our culture.
By the way, have you heard of the Venus Project? Don't go and Google it. Just tell me if you have heard of it.
Again, what's new? If you think about it, it was a relatively small number of people that pushed the American colonies into rebellion against Great Britain. A relatively small number of people (less than 36,000 out of a population calculated by the next years census to be around 3,000,000) voted for George Washington in the first presidential election. Is it likely that a relatively small number of people are going to somehow push the U.S. to either a Communist or Libertarian extreme? I seriously doubt it.
"By the way, have you heard of the Venus Project? Don't go and Google it. Just tell me if you have heard of it."
No, I don't think I've heard of it. Do you want to give me a hint?
I'm quite surprised that you have never heard of the Venus Project, but here it is. Pretty wild stuff that might actually work in a world where bad people are non-existent.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
" Is it likely that a relatively small number of people are going to somehow push the U.S. to either a Communist or Libertarian extreme? I seriously doubt it. "
I only hope that you are correct.
Tiny vs small? The difference is...?
The small number of people voting for president had more to do with period suffrage law than much else. Race, gender, property requirements, and period of residency made the initial pool of voters a bit small. To infer by recorded votes that Washington may have not been all that popular by the time of the first presidential race leaves out the facts that that most staunch loyalists had left the former colonies and that universal suffrage was a long ways off. Also large numbers of the new republic's population were also at sea or on the frontiers further reducing that pool of voters.
Then for those who needed long-term assistance, I guess it's a good thing there was publicly-funded assistance to help them when the protestant churches refused.
"Giving money for someone to move to another colony may have been a bit more common (removes a local problem) but back to Europe would have been exceptional until the rise of immigrant self help groups in the middle 19th century."
I'm sure it was exceptional, but I think it's important to note the existence of such exceptions to try to get a more accurate picture of what was going on back then, rather than images of Dickensian poor houses that often seem to dominate our understanding.
"The Dutch colony at New York for instance stayed small because of it's long distance corporatist rule, such tithes at 10% if not part of a religious requirement might have had something to do with impeding it's growth."
Possibly. But then again, it appears that growth also meant more people in need of public assistance. As Mohl points out, within 50 years of the British taking over, "poor relief expenses consistently comprised the largest single item in the annual budget of New York City."
" To infer by recorded votes that Washington may have not been all that popular by the time of the first presidential race..."
I didn't say, and certainly didn't mean for anyone to infer from what I did say, that Washington may have not been all that popular. I agree that the low number of votes had to do with suffrage laws, which not only included the things you mentioned, but also religious requirements in some states.
Thanks for the URL, Tim. I watched that Zeitgeist movie a year or so ago, but I wasn't aware that there was any more to it than that. I've never heard of the Zeitgeist Movement or the Venus Project. I'll check them out.
Good article and great comments. I like things that make me think. Thanks for posting this, Wil.
"
"So if this socialistic "redistribution of wealth "has been going on for hundreds of years -- throughout the entire history of the country, and the histories of the individual colonies before they united to become a nation -- why are there people now ranting about socialism and communism in America, and pining away for "good old days" that never were?"
Because they are the GREED FREAKS of America who want as much of America's wealth as they can get their hands on, and have no regard for their fellow Americans. They remind me of high ranking Nazis in World War II Germany (almost that bad).
Now if we can just get people to see past the unrealistic levels of taxation that these same greed freaks have established in the minds of Americans, which leave multimillionaires with still multimillion$, we just might achieve some worthwhile redistribution, eventually.
"Because they are the GREED FREAKS of America who want as much of America's wealth as they can get their hands on, and have no regard for their fellow Americans. They remind me of high ranking Nazis in World War II Germany (almost that bad)."
I thought you were a fan of the Nazis, Robert F. Protectionist.
"Now if we can just get people to see past the unrealistic levels of taxation that these same greed freaks have established in the minds of Americans, which leave multimillionaires with still multimillion$, we just might achieve some worthwhile redistribution, eventually."
Are you still hoping that the U.S. will raise the tax rate on multimillionaires to 98%? I don't see it happening, nor do I think such a restribution of wealth would be worthwhile.
"I thought you were a fan of the Nazis, Robert F. Protectionist"
Never any telling what doosies may come up from the Wobbling, Wilderness of Wil's Wonderland. LOL.
"Are you still hoping that the U.S. will raise the tax rate on multimillionaires to 98%? I don't see it happening, nor do I think such a restribution of wealth would be worthwhile."
No, I would hope that it would be raised to 99.9% on the richest billionaires, and when you consider how much they still be left with, even then, that % might still not even be high enough.
"nor do I think such a restribution of wealth would be worthwhile"
Yeah, because there's no need for money in the US treasury nowadays, huh ? Pretty long list of folks who would dispute that (starting with China).