-Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need;
-It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance);
-It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States;
-It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and
-Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children.
There is also the fact that government handouts are tremendously regressive. During a time I had of joblessness and no income, I was on food stamps and other supplemental assistance. When I found a part time job (15 hours/wk), I took it! So.. I made $100 in the first full week. I really got $80, less taxes. And cost me $8 for gas, so my real effective pay was $73. So, SNAP takes out $100 from my food benefit.. ?! I only made $73, so I am in effect being punished $37 for working and trying to better myself.
There are cases much more extreme, where every benefit goes down by X when income goes up by X. Those people end worse off working, unless they can get income that covers all of their losses. Any understanding of basic business 101 says that in their case with the regressive benefits system makes no sense to mildly make oneself better. Unfortunately, the bigger 'make oneself better' just never happens.
The comment wasn't about poverty in general but about whether poor people work and how much. The ill-designed incentive structure and generally disappointing performance of government bureaucracy in helping anyone are worth noting, however, if you don't work, you clearly have the time to go do some grocery shopping.
Which was the gist of that comment as it was a response to
A poor person is probably working some physically taxing job and is just too tired to cook a healthy meal. Or too tired to get to the market selling healthy food
As cited from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm
-Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need;
-It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance);
-It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States;
-It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and
-Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children.
There is also the fact that government handouts are tremendously regressive. During a time I had of joblessness and no income, I was on food stamps and other supplemental assistance. When I found a part time job (15 hours/wk), I took it! So.. I made $100 in the first full week. I really got $80, less taxes. And cost me $8 for gas, so my real effective pay was $73. So, SNAP takes out $100 from my food benefit.. ?! I only made $73, so I am in effect being punished $37 for working and trying to better myself.
There are cases much more extreme, where every benefit goes down by X when income goes up by X. Those people end worse off working, unless they can get income that covers all of their losses. Any understanding of basic business 101 says that in their case with the regressive benefits system makes no sense to mildly make oneself better. Unfortunately, the bigger 'make oneself better' just never happens.