America's "Lucky Duckies" -- How Lucky?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal published what became the first of three articles calling attention to the existence of what they called "Lucky Duckies," the percentage of the American population whose incomes were so low they qualified to pay no federal income taxes. The term quickly became a political one, drawing ire from liberals and becoming a periodic talking point of conservatives discussing tax policy.

Recently, Governor Mitt Romney, candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, drew criticism when he said that he "Did not care about the very poor." In context, the statement was meant to draw attention to the struggling American middle class as Governor Romney added that he believed the very poor have a safety net. Republican candidates jumped on the safety net metaphor with former Speaker Gingrich claiming he wanted the poor to have a "trampoline" to bounce out of poverty.



For a moment, I would like to partially see some of what the Wall Street Journal was saying. In the income tax argument, it is important to note that the very rich do pay a large portion of the tax receipts. It is also important to not mistake income tax owed with total tax burden, as anyone with a salary or who buys most anything contributes payroll taxes and sales taxes to our tax receipts.

Governor Romney is not entirely wrong to note that there is a safety net for the poor. And it can be hard to pin down exactly what we mean by poor when the term can apply to a family of four struggling to get by and receiving assistance via the earned income tax credit and to a family completely out of work and homeless.

However, it is absolutely clear to me that there a plenty of Duckies with precious little in the way of luck and very little hope of gaining any in the near future. NPR's The Takeaway aired an extended segment yesterday on the plight of the very poor and some of the people working closely with them and their children.

The segment is over ten minutes long, but some salient points:

* 47 million Americans live below the poverty line today, many of them formerly middle class.

* The impact of this on children can be particularly acute, including health ailments such as ulcers.

At Whitney School in Las Vegas -- half of the children enrolled are homeless.

* The school provides free meals, even on weekends so the students can have anything to eat

* Workers at the school note that they frequently see kids stuffing their pockets full of ketchup packets to make "ketchup soup" when they are away from school.

* The children don't talk about kid activities -- they talk about food, obsessed as primary school students about simply surviving one week to the next.

* The reporter spoke to an 8 year-old openly worried about if his mother would be able to feed their baby and whether or not they would put his sibling up for adoption. A six year-old girl spoke to the reporter in hushed tones about eating rat.

Sherrie Gahn, Principal at Whitney:

"The dream here is that these children will be on the same level playing field as any other child in America. We know that doesn't happen because they are in such survival mode and they can't possibly learn because they are not thinking about learning. They are thinking about their shoes hurting or where they are going to go to sleep at night or if they are going to have a place to sleep at night or their tummies are grumbling."

Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia University:

"America has, by many standards, the lowest social mobility of all of the high income countries. Meaning, a child born into poverty is likely to grow up as a poor adult. And this is stunning for a society that prides itself not only as a middle class society, but as a society where anyone can make it and where social mobility is so high."

Dr. Sachs and Principal Gahn are on to some very important matters here -- Regardless of where you fall in America's liberal versus conservative debate about the role of government, it is a simple fact that America's tax burden as a percentage of GDP is lower than our peers among western democracies, although our overall tax burden for individuals and families is close to some other nations and ahead of Japan and Canada. As a rule, however, we simply redistribute less income than many other countries, and our system is based primarily upon negative rights where the government CANNOT do things to citizens rather than positive rights where the government MUST do things for citizens.

But I would argue that one of the underlying principles of that arrangement is a promise of equality of opportunity. America may not provide cradle to grave support or guarantees that match other nations, but America is supposed to a society where people have an equal opportunity for greater economic success than other nations. If equal opportunity is seriously in question or, worse, irreparably damaged then a fundamental premise of our society is at risk.

I would also argue that the dire situation of children in The Whitney School reveals a serious crack in that premise. The interviews show children speaking of attending school when they are dizzy from hunger, of a child under ten pondering the chance of his baby sibling having to be put up for adoption, of a six year-old girl barely overcoming her shame to describe eating rat. These are not children who can put their mental and emotional energy into learning and meeting their potential opportunity through school -- these are children who are caught up in a daily struggle to merely survive. The existence of the Whitney School is at least a minor miracle for their uprooted lives, but it is not going to be an academic engine for them to achieve purely on "merit".

Here's the thing -- I don't care about political finger pointing between people who think the "other side" is responsible for the situations described above. What I care about is what can be done about it, for THESE children right now and so that there are not even more of them a decade from now. They are children. They have made no economic choices, but they are living in circumstances that make it nearly impossible for them to have an equal opportunity at success. I do not believe that a nation with a 14.58 trillion GDP has to say "Oh well, we lost these ones, but we'll fix it for the next generation."

So regardless of what you believe needs to be done for the long term, what do you think needs to be done to actually preserve one of the bedrock principles of opportunity for children like these?

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, it's not even just about income that determines whether you pay income tax or not. I know someone who was on unemployment for 7 months last year, and has had no other income since. She can only take the standard deduction, since she's not living independently, and she ended up paying tax on a total income of $12K or so. It was only like $300 or so, IIRC, but still - income tax on something that straddles the poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#National_poverty_lines)? These "lucky duckies" aren't created solely by the way we progressively apply income taxes, but by the rampant proliferation of deductions to encourage certain behavior.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I'm in the same boat as your friend for last year. Makes absolutely no sense.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

Deductions aren't magic. Unless you have a huge mortgage (in which case, you had better have a matching income, or you're going to have a whole different set of problems), then you're likely taking standard deductions and personal exemptions for yourself and a spouse/kids if they exist. There are a few credits that help out certain classes too, but for the most part, it isn't much help. A very high percentage of independent people who pay no taxes would not consider themselves lucky in the slightest.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree. I just wanted to point out that one of the issues in the debate is this impression that people who don't pay taxes do so solely because of the income-bracket system. That's just not the case, since full release from tax liability rests primarily on deductions.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So regardless of what you believe needs to be done for the long term, what do you think needs to be done to actually preserve one of the bedrock principles of opportunity for children like these?
Find Jesus?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

He is helping Jorje clear my kudzu.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The American Dream has been a myth for over a hundred years. You have to remember the intensely illegal things (maybe not illegal back then) people did in order to create those rags-to-riches stories, and since then we have reduced the opportunities to stomp all over everyone else to get to the stop (not eradicated, mind you), but most countries in compensation for this have reduced the need to stomp over anyone in the first place by giving the poor less reason to perform illegal activities for money. When you as a society provide help for the ones who have fallen, you're reducing their burdens so they can concentrate on moving up in society.

It's the same as these kids. They can't learn because their priorities are different. Imagine if nobody had to worry about health insurance? About food? They could focus on bettering themselves; they can look beyond the next week. It's a net gain for both society and the government to have a motivated labor force.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I do not believe that a nation with a 14.58 trillion GDP has to say "Oh well, we lost these ones, but we'll fix it for the next generation."

Unfortunately, that may be the only real option available to us as a wide-scale issue. Considering the issues in play, we need a complete restructuring of how we deal with the interaction of people and the government - this is not something that can happen overnight, and, given the complete and total lack of even basic agreement as to how to deal with even basic government priorities (for example - Obama's budget request ups the subsidy for the Chevy Volt while eliminating the DC Opportunity school voucher. Maybe prioritizing kids over cars might be useful?)...

I mean, I can sit here and dictate dozens of ways to possibly figure this out, but they're not things that can be implemented overnight. We can't force people to be more charitable. We can't expect, say, the general culture to want to change overnight, never mind expect it to.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Priorities. Any society has to have them. The day we collectively shrug and say "Let them eat rats!" is the day we've failed as a civilization.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You bring up a valid point, though - we do have the priority as a society to help these folks when they need it. The social safety net is there whether people want it to be or not. At least short term, finding a better way to identify those who need the assistance.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

I approach these issues with a sense of morality. I admit that though I am an atheist, some of my reaction comes from the Christian inculcation that I received as a child and my immediate reaction to hearing of a children going hungry or eating rat is to invoke Matthew 25:40 and demand immediate action that will help those in need. I don't address it in terms of policy because policy demands take years to implement and I want that child eating rat to be okay now. I don't kid myself that my desire to approach these issues with immediacy solves anything but one does not need to have the answers in order to feel anguish at the situation.

I say all of that because I want you to know I don't have all the answers before I lob a hard question your way. Can you divorce yourself from the bloodlessness of policy concerns and Obama and electric cars and tell me what goes through your mind when you read of children eating ketchup soup and rat? What is your immediate response? If that small child eating rat were standing before you right now and you as an individual could do something, what would you do?

I have no desire to engage in another bizarre exchange wherein we challenge each others' documentation and I end up repeating my pat phrase to you. I an genuinely interested in what lies in the soul of Jeff and what he as one man in this ocean of human misery would do if only he had the chance.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I mean, the concept is kind of horrifying and mostly unbelievable, and it makes me kind of sad that I can't do more on a whole. I think it does kind of bring into focus what's at stake here, and the importance of being intelligent about how we approach it.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Why hasn't child protective services been called? Why does the child still have the same guardian?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, that may be the only real option available to us as a wide-scale issue.

I'll be bluntly honest: I reject this. I know you and I will disagree with the long term restructuring solutions, but we both seem in tune with the fact that there is something deeply wrong with children going to an American elementary school eating ketchup soup and rodents.

Even if the budget were to come into balance tomorrow, that's still trillions of dollars to spend. Maybe there are some bases we don't need overseas. Maybe there are farm subsidies that only serve to make our corn competetitive internationally. Maybe there are some space probes that can wait.

I agree implicitly with politakitty's suggestion that we need a creative and new approach and stop fighting over the solutions of almost 5 decades past, but these are children who are being absolutely flattened and denied any hope of an equal opportunity. We can do better.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's largely an issue of scale, however. That's why my amendment to fizzy is important - the short term needs to be directing those groups we have in place to the people in need, as they're clearly missing a subset of people they need to be catching.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Considering the issues in play, we need a complete restructuring of how we deal with the interaction of people and the government - this is not something that can happen overnight,...

I'm not sure what you're contemplating here, because you haven't been explicit about it, but if I had to guess I'd say you've got typical party positions in mind, like, "moving away from an entitlement society" and bolstering "traditional family values" (which, in this formulation, would include traditional communitarian values like active church and charitable involvement). Is that right?

If so, I wonder how you even imagine this "complete restructuring" being possible within a conservative political framework.

One of the more interesting questions posed by political philosophy, to my mind, is the role of political society in forming and educating the individual. This question is squarely implicated by (what I understand to be) your point here, which is that we need American citizens to think about themselves in relation to their government in a different way. But how are we to effect such a radical reshaping of political society without employing political society itself? Isn't that the only way to do that? If so, what kind of political society do we need, in order to get to the political society that would, on the conservative account, essentially "take care of itself"?

I mean, if what you want is people to take it upon themselves to devote more of their resources to helping the needy in their own communities, you have to teach them to value this somehow, since their families, schools, and communities aren't already doing this. But to do this you have to basically take control and educate them, you need a political society with this kind of orientation. But if conservatives at the same time object to any such centralized or top-down imposition of values as contrary in spirit to their desired end-goal, how can they hope to bring such a society about?

[aelf.livejournal.com]

what do you think needs to be done to actually preserve one of the bedrock principles of opportunity for children like these?

That's the problem isn't it? Children aren't just subject to the whims of the government, or the whims of society, but also the whims of their parents. My child gains and loses because of who her parents are and what decisions we make. And so it goes. As long as we strive to maintain families, the ability to provide appropriately for all children will not be 100%.

We can talk about the adults more easily. Maybe they need better access to job training, or more support, or better education, more financial understanding, safe & secure housing, etc. There are things we can provide the adults, and there's even a point, with adults, where you can say "my hand is out, you have to decide to take it."

You cannot save all the children. In part, because some of the values we hold that help children (e.g. keep children with their families) cause a minority of children harm. There are children who will not be saved because the value of keeping children with their family was wrong for them.

The good news is that these stories are a minority. The good news is that as a culture, we continue trying to save these children. All of them. Because culturally, we're very good at jousting at windmills. But as for a "this is a recipe for how to save this varied group of children (and necessarily, their families)?" There isn't one.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

One of the things that compounds these issues is that funding is not at the federal level. I'm not even a hundred percent it should be, given that it's easy forget the kids at a school in Nevada on a national stage.

But that means that the funding sources look very different. Nevada get's half it's sources from business taxes, and the rest are from indirect taxes that are pretty low.

Really, most state taxes need to be very low and flat because citizens don't have a high tolerance for progressive taxation on all levels of government. So practically speaking, our progressive government pays for defense and not a lot else, while requiring regressive taxes pay for all the social safety nets we actually care about.

Further, at the federal level we have a lot of programs that aren't designed well to help the poor. The most expensive tax expenditure is the mortgage interest deduction that helps the middle class the Housing Industry. Medicare and Social Security are mostly handouts to middle-upper class Americans to shore up support for the small amount of good we're able to do with the poor people who actually make it to retirement age. Over the years, our disability benefits have gotten much more generous, but those are still very small compared to the Social Security budget and they're the first on the chopping block.

So sure. There's money and low-hanging fruit out there. And I think we have a lot of good program development. Though with kids it always gets tricky. The point about how to side-step poor parenting is really a huge roadblock that makes us grapple with a lot of important ethical questions. The line between being an unfit mother and being a black mother and being a poor mother are all very difficult to define in a way that guarantees good government.

It's a big issue that deserves a lot of attention. It also deserves both sides to reevaluate a new way out of poverty. I think Democrats have ignored good government for good press on this issue, and that's to our detriment.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

It also deserves both sides to reevaluate a new way out of poverty.

I cannot agree with that more. I get increasingly frustrated by how our political arguments seem frozen from the middle third of the last century when we are more than a decade into this one.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

+1

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

What I would like to know is, what happened in the last 150 years that makes today so much worse than post-Civil War? Makes today more desperate than those times, or the turn of the century, or the immigrants populating the plains for the first time, or surviving the 30's?

I'm not discounting anyone's stories, either personal or via NPR, although when I recount individual information it's tossed aside as anecdata. And I want everyone to have happy, healthy, productive lives.

I'm saying, the ability for an individual to not only survive but to thrive is far greater than it has ever been, be it as a child or an adult. But it is portrayed and pounded into our brains as being the worst its ever been.

So what has changed in 15 decades? Or the last five? Expectations? The basic threshold of what constitutes either "surviving" or "thriving"? Did someone move the goalposts? Or raise the bar? What?

Fair warning, I have no time to discuss this much, so apologies in advance. But these questions keep forming and eventually I have to put them out there, and I'd love to have protracted, intelligent discussions about this. Any links to articles or communities that do so are greatly appreciated.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't argue that this is WORSE than the hardships endured previously.

I would argue that they are hardships people face TODAY and are thus more our problem than those of 150 years ago.

Plus, we are a vastly more wealthy society in the aggregate -- there is more capacity today to alleviate the situations described here. If we can think of the functional ways to do it that match our current problems.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

What can be done right now is cut a lot of crap spending out, get a smaller gov't, and then you'll find that some things you think are necessary might actually be affordable. However, you have to stop assuming that everything you want is necessary.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Is there a middle ground? Can a system be repaired without necessarily destroying it?

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

A cynical Californian friend, who while born in the USA, grew up in Australia returning there in his teens, visited me in bacl in Oz in 1986.

He said that between when his parents left in the late 60s and his return, things had changed, despite posturing and lecture thumping, Americans were rapidly being left with but a single freedom, the freedom to starve.

This post bears out his dire words.