We Spend Twice as Much Money as Needed to End Poverty in America

Unleash Prosperity ^ | 03/06/2025 | Stephen Moore

[SeekAndFind]

Another shocking statistic from the budget hawks at EPIC.

Based on the government’s own data, we spend twice as much on welfare as it would take to move every family in America above the poverty line. In other words, if we just gave these families enough cash to increase their income, no one would be in poverty.

Yet we spend twice that much and STILL have 36.8 million people who live in poverty.

One idea is the old Milton Friedman negative income tax. Scrap all the scores of welfare programs and the massive bureaucracy and simply provide a cash subsidy to any family under the poverty level, provided someone in the household is working full time.

That plan has flaws, but it’s hard to imagine anything less cost-effective than what we are doing now. The welfare state makes a lot of people rich – but not those who are poor.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The bureaucrats engaged in “ending poverty” deserve to be well compensated, don’t you know?

[Hattie]

Guess where the rest of the money goes.

[Dilbert San Diego]

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty as declared by president Johnson.

We fought the war on poverty, and poverty won.

[metmom]

Poverty will never be ended.

Jesus said that the poor we’d always have with us.

Even if you gave everyone enough to get started and a home and a car and started them all on equal footing, after a year, some would have made money (but not many I suspect) and most would be flat broke again, because most people are not responsible with handling their money.

The only reason more aren’t poor is that they manage to earn enough to cover the debt they have.

[EC Washington]

Feeding America takes in well over $1 Billion a year - not sure how much actually goes to feeding the poor.

[dfwgator]

Dave Chappelle called it.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8LroCgg3uc

[budj]

[Jonty30]

To end poverty, you need alternate ways to educate people so they don’t have to borrow hundreds of dollars to get and education so they don’t have to work.

I think the solution to this is the guild system, like in Europe. Where you put yourself under somebody to be tutored and work while you learn your trade.

[blackdog]

We are solving “Beltway Poverty”, that being anyone in the body politic, spouses, children, friends, and relatives, earning less than $500K, gets a seat on the board for NGO grants to subsidize their poverty-stricken lives.

[rktman]

‘NEEDED’ to end poverty....... Pretty sure poverty was the normal condition for centuries. So spending twice as much as ‘needed’ for how long? 60 years? Bet that’s a big number!

[PGR88]

We have reached an unknown point in world history - the Western World’s poor are fatter than average people. they suffer because of excess. They also have access to modern conveniences and medicine that would be unknown to a king 150 years ago.

The Western World’s poverty is now purely SPIRITUAL. It is not economic.

[ronnie raygun]

Keeping people in poverty is giving those in government control

[Signalman]

Spending all this money is what keeps poverty going.

[caseinpoint]

America made a huge mistake decades ago when it took poverty programs over from private charities and churches. Those private parties usually imposed conditions on assistance, such as recipients getting counseling, a job or following behavior rules. The government decided it did not have the right to tell poor people their poor life choices were part of the problem so it turned into simple financial maintenance of the poor and a bloated bureaucracy to do the maintenance.

The benefit of the earlier system was it required people to maintain ties with organizations which worked to help them become independent. Now poor people can thumb their noses at “do-gooders” and family and just cash the government checks. They end up stuck in their pathologies and isolated from human (and Godly) saviors. Furthermore, government programs lump these people together so their pathologies are pooled and that much harder to walk away from.

[Strict9]

yes, abolish welfare, churches and families can take care of the poor. We as citizens aren’t obligated to pay for anyone. If in the goodness of your heart, you wish to donate to help- by all means. But forcing people to take from one to give to another is hideous. No stipend, no checks. Nothing. Either work, or not.

[IYAS9YAS]

That’s because there’s good money to be made keeping poor people poor.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

LBJ.... That Great Society was going to what? ....

[DIRTYSECRET]

**Milton Friedman negative income tax. Scrap all the scores of welfare programs and the massive bureaucracy and simply provide a cash subsidy to any family under the poverty level, provided someone in the household is working full time.**

Sounds perfect. Like ‘skin in the game’.
I’d make it 50 hours per week-verifiable. That way they’ll be too tired to fool around on the side. A 1% income tax rate would make one’s yearly income verifiable. Tariffs and sin taxes would cover the rest after DOGE is done with its work.

Get this I’d make the immigrants eligible. They work harder-don’t doubt me.

[KarlInOhio]

One problem is how we calculate poverty. It is strictly based on cash income. So if a family is poor, meaning they make less than $X depending on family size, they get free food, free housing, free medical care, etc. etc. etc. Now no matter how much free stuff you give them, it doesn't relieve poverty by its official definition. In fact, people will reduce their official income to get on welfare and come out ahead. If they do work, it will be off the books with cash to avoid messing up their welfare. On the flip side, if they do work to improve their situation, they will have an over hundred percent marginal "tax" rate as their benefits are cut more than their increase in income. It will take extraordinary willpower to push through that to an income providing self-sufficiency.

The first step is to count all non-cash benefits by their cash equivalents when figuring the poverty rate rather than just cash.