I’ve previously shared an amazing chart put together by a Cato colleague showing that massive increases in spending and staff have had no positive impact on educational performance.
Now here’s a chart that is equally remarkable, showing that we spend about $60,000 on various welfare programs for every poor household in America. And what are we getting for that giant expenditure of money? Well, as this other chart shows, our progress in the fight against poverty came to a screeching halt right about the time that the politicians in Washington launched the so-called War on Poverty.
This video contains more analysis, for those who want to learn about the best way of actually reducing poverty. It’s important to remember, after all, that the welfare state has a human cost that is just as important as the fiscal cost.
If you want more powerful pictures and info-graphics, here are some of my favorites.
- Exposing Obama’s miserable jobs performance.
- The importance of saving and investment if we want workers to enjoy higher wages.
- The TSA’s Orwellian (and incompetent) approach to airline security.
- Showing how the burden of government spending has exceeded the growth of the economy’s productive sector.
And I suppose I should share, once again, my favorite poster about government.
[…] The welfare state and the so-called war on poverty has been very bad news for taxpayers. […]
[…] The welfare state and the so-called war on poverty has been very bad news for taxpayers. […]
[…] The welfare state and the so-called war on poverty has been very bad news for taxpayers. […]
[…] The welfare state and the so-called war on poverty has been very bad news for taxpayers. […]
[…] The welfare state and the so-called war on poverty has been very bad news for taxpayers. […]
[…] and skilled people from nations such as Italy, France, and Sweden (though our welfare state is very expensive, so I admit I’m just guessing at nations which would be eligible based on Tyler’s rule about […]
[…] Oh, and let’s not forget that the welfare state also is a big burden on taxpayers. […]
[…] Oh, and let’s not forget that the welfare state also is a big burden on taxpayers. […]
[…] that system has been bad news for both taxpayers and poor people, a swap sounds very […]
[…] we could even create a third system for people (like me) who would like to opt out of existing redistribution and social insurance […]
[…] I will share three graphs with you. They are from an excellent article by Daniel J. Mitchell (with some additions from another of his excellent analyses). Admittedly, […]
[…] bottom line is that our current welfare system is a dysfunctional mess. It’s bad for taxpayers and […]
[…] welfare state is bad news for both taxpayers and […]
[…] The welfare state is bad news for both taxpayers and recipients. […]
[…] welfare state is bad news for both taxpayers and […]
[…] EITC, and housing subsidies. The plethora of such programs in Washington is bad news for both taxpayers and poor […]
[…] EITC, and housing subsidies. The plethora of such programs in Washington is bad news for both taxpayers and poor […]
[…] This is not good. The EITC already is the fastest-growing redistribution program in Washington. Making it even bigger would exacerbate the fiscal burden of the welfare state. […]
[…] This is not good. The EITC already is the fastest-growing redistribution program in Washington. Making it even bigger would exacerbate the fiscal burden of the welfare state. […]
[…] agenda was always a bad idea for both macro and micro reasons, and has become a very bad idea because of demographic […]
[…] agenda was always a bad idea for both macro and micro reasons, and has become a very bad idea because of demographic […]
[…] agenda was always a bad idea for both macro and micro reasons, and has become a very bad idea because of demographic […]
[…] a complicated and costly mess that traps poor people in dependency while ripping off taxpayers and creating very comfortable […]
[…] I also worry about what will happen if we end drug prohibition while maintaining our bloated welfare state. The maze of handouts provided by Uncle Sam – for all intents and purposes – enables […]
[…] other words, I don’t like the welfare state because I care about both the best interests of taxpayers and also about the best interests of poor people. And this is why I repeatedly share data showing […]
[…] Along with ambitious and skilled people from nations such as Italy, France, and Sweden (though our welfare state is very expensive, so I admit I’m just guessing at nations which would be eligible based on Tyler’s rule about […]
[…] Along with ambitious and skilled people from nations such as Italy, France, and Sweden (though our welfare state is very expensive, so I admit I’m just guessing at nations which would be eligible based on Tyler’s rule about […]
[…] Along with ambitious and skilled people from nations such as Italy, France, and Sweden (though our welfare state is very expensive, so I admit I’m just guessing at nations which would be eligible based on Tyler’s rule […]
[…] welfare state is bad news. It’s bad for taxpayers and it’s bad for […]
[…] welfare state is bad news. It’s bad for taxpayers and it’s bad for […]
[…] welfare state is bad news. It’s bad for taxpayers and it’s bad for […]
[…] welfare state is bad news. It’s bad for taxpayers and it’s bad for […]
[…] Taxpayers don’t like coughing up big amounts of money so other people can choose not to work. And they really get upset when welfare payments are so […]
[…] Taxpayers don’t like coughing up big amounts of money so other people can choose not to work. And they really get upset when welfare payments are so […]
[…] don’t like coughing up big amounts of money so other people can choose not to work. And they really get upset when welfare payments are so […]
[…] don’t like coughing up big amounts of money so other people can choose not to […]
[…] don’t like coughing up big amounts of money so other people can choose not to work. And they really get upset when welfare payments are so […]
[…] don’t like coughing up big amounts of money so other people can choose not to […]
[…] years ago, I shared a chart about the fiscal burden of the welfare state, calling it the picture that says a thousand […]
[…] years ago, I shared a chart about the fiscal burden of the welfare state, calling it the picture that says a thousand […]
[…] the current welfare state is bad news for taxpayers, who are financing a $1 trillion income-redistribution system that fails in its most important […]
[…] As I’ve repeatedly explained, redistribution programs are bad news for both poor people and taxpayers. […]
[…] repeatedly try to convince people that the welfare state is bad for both taxpayers and poor […]
[…] repeatedly try to convince people that the welfare state is bad for both taxpayers and poor people. Sometimes I’ll add some more detailed economic analysis and explain that […]
[…] repeatedly try to convince people that the welfare state is bad for both taxpayers and poor […]
[…] the current welfare state is bad news for taxpayers, who are financing a $1 trillion income-redistribution system that fails in its most important […]
[…] system has been bad for taxpayers and bad for poor […]
[…] a safety net. No wonder taxpayers feel like they’re getting ripped off. This system has been bad for taxpayers and bad for poor […]
[…] system has been bad for taxpayers and bad for poor […]
[…] been bad for taxpayers and bad for poor […]
[…] been bad for taxpayers and bad for poor […]
[…] people become eligible for benefits by paying into the system. Welfare programs, by contrast, give money to people simply as a form of income redistribution. Proponents of the status quo are right. Sort […]
[…] programs, by contrast, give money to people simply as a form of income […]
[…] programs, by contrast, give money to people simply as a form of income […]
[…] check: The federal government is spending about $1 trillion this year on means-tested (i.e., anti-poverty) programs, which is about one-fourth of total outlays, so […]
[…] been bad news for taxpayers, of course, but it’s also been bad news for poor people since they get trapped in […]
[…] increase – much less hold steady – the amount that’s being spent on non-health welfare programs and discretionary […]
[…] business of redistributing income. We’ll get much better results, both for poor people and taxpayers, if state and local government compete and innovate to figure out the best ways of ending […]
[…] think this argument is nonsense. We’re spending record amounts of money on means-tested, anti-poverty programs, yet the poverty rate hasn’t come down since […]
[…] of the story? Well, the one obvious lesson is that a welfare state is harmful to human progress. It hurts taxpayers, of course, but it also has a harmful impact on […]
[…] of the story? Well, the one obvious lesson is that a welfare state is harmful to human progress. It hurts taxpayers, of course, but it also has a harmful impact on […]
[…] on income-redistribution programs. Taxpayers at the federal, state, and local level are coughing up more than $1 trillion every year to subsidize poverty. To give an idea of how much inefficiency and waste permeates the system, this is enough to give […]
[…] on income-redistribution programs. Taxpayers at the federal, state, and local level are coughing up more than $1 trillion every year to subsidize poverty. To give an idea of how much inefficiency and waste permeates the system, this is enough to give […]
[…] times about America’s looming fiscal collapse, and I’ve also pontificated about America’s costly and failed welfare […]
[…] America’s looming fiscal collapse, and I’ve also pontificated about America’s costly and failed welfare […]
[…] I had any effect on her outlook, but hopefully viewers began to see that the welfare state has been bad news for taxpayers and bad news for poor […]
[…] I had any effect on her outlook, but hopefully viewers began to see that the welfare state has been bad news for taxpayers and bad news for poor […]
[…] The $7400 figure for per-capita redistribution burden is astounding. Others have calculated that this is akin to $60,000 for every poor household. […]
[…] “government should restore the inequality-reducing power of the transfer system.” Since welfare spending in the United States is at record levels, it’s unclear what the bureaucrats mean by “restore,” but it’s quite clear […]
[…] crippling fiscal cost of the welfare state – but how little of the money trickles down to the […]
[…] crippling fiscal cost of the welfare state – but how little of the money trickles down to the […]
[…] The $7400 figure for per-capita redistribution burden is astounding. Others have calculated that this is akin to $60,000 for every poor household. […]
[…] The $7400 figure for per-capita redistribution burden is astounding. Others have calculated that this is akin to $60,000 for every poor household. […]
Here’s some federal entitlements that produce nothing but a paycheck that’s taxable. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
I wonder how much got gobbled up the the Washington crowd? “Help” does have its cost!
Does this include everything? The number might be even higher.
I think there are something like 60 million social security recipients and only 30 million people in the U.S. over retirement age.
Reblogged this on The Word from the Front.
Indeed, Friedman did bring this up in Free to Choose. The negative income tax has its flaws…but why not just give people a whopping big check to take care of everything. Taxpayer money is still squandered, but the bureaucracy is gone.
Friedman pointed out this issue decades ago! He has an interesting strategy for this problem outlined in Free to Choose. It’s a great book!
So where is all the money!!!!!!!!!