They arn't. Your initial premise is failed. In absolute terms the amount of benefits going to poor people is essentally steady over recent years - and down from 30 years ago.

I'm not sure that's the right metric, but the number is right there in the original. 30% of benefits go to the poorest 20%. So poor people still get more benefits per capita than middle class people. It's just much less than it used to be. 30 years ago poor people got something like 40% of the benefits.


The point is our "welfare state" is no longer aimed at securing the welfare of poor people. Most of our benefit spending goes to old people and disabled people, not poor people.

If more middle class are getting government benefits then they are sliding into the poor and no longer middle class, but no one benefits from labeling more middle class as poor, especially politicians.


Lets be honest here, the point is to make political hay against the other side.

Again it's just noise to me.

 

-----signature-----

I think the study was pretty clear about its point. The point is that the American "welfare state" is moving away from focusing on helping poor people, not toward focusing on helping poor people. That's just a fact. You can use it to make partisan hay if you want but I don't think reporting a fact is partisan on its own.

You aren't reporting facts. You are hoping no one pays attention to the obvious. Common sense says more middle class are moving towards poor and just aren't being called poor they are still being called middle class because it doesn't help anyone to have a bigger labeled poor class.

There is only one person here making political hay and it isn't me. Just look at your first post to see who is calling who out. No one is trying to help anyone.

 

-----signature-----

I think it's interesting you think this is "common sense" and accepted wisdom. I suspect lots of people would vehemently disagree with you. That seems at least as controversial an assertion as anything the study made.


It's also not really supported by the data. The biggest change in benefits is that we're giving more of the money to old people. Few of the benefits given to old people are means tested - in fact, rich older people get MORE benefits than poor older people.


The big difference is that the welfare state is moving more towards shifting money from young to old than from rich to poor.

Okay

 

-----signature-----

There is an ongoing debate in this country over taxes and government spending. Its been going on for a long time.


That debate is often very heavy on morality and very light on facts/data. Throwing a few facts back into the discussion seems like a good thing.


When facts/data are used, it is often done so without any reference point....a spending program is $275 billion over 10 years....or $20 trillion unfunded liability over the indefinate future....and few add enough info to judge the size of those figures...like revenues, amount of total spending, size of the economy, etc.


The provided numbers dont make a value judgement as to whether or not this is useful spending...but they do counter some of the lazy arguments made by those who want to cut spending.

Why do we care which group gets more?

 

-----signature-----

Who the government spends benefit money on is irrelevant?


I have to admit I wasn't expecting that.