X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:47:52 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

>>Perhaps andy can tell me how many people receiving welfare, food stamps
>>and/or housing subsidies own homes and have income from stocks
>>or other significant investments. If they do, it is fraudulent income,
>>since in order to receive most government subsidies like welfare
>>one may not own property of any significant value or have income
>>from investments.

>We've seen the numbers about home and property ownership and O'Andy
>didn't like them, but it's nice to see him try to deflect things with
>the "stock ownership" red-herring.

No we haven't seen numbers on home and property ownership of those
receiving government income maintenance assistance. What we have
seen is a chart that shows income and outlays by quintile.

Note that I did not *bring up* the "red herring," of stock ownership,
it was part of Brett''s original claim that I was refuting.

Interestingly enough, if I read the somewhat confusing table in the
Statistical Abstract correctly 1/10th of 1% of the population would
be considered below the poverty line without their capital gains income.

>It isn't fraudulent for them to own homes because that isn't a factor
>in the "need" equation.  If O'Andy wants to disagree, that's his choice.

The forms of government aid (particularly those aimed at the poor
welfare, food stamps, medical assistance, housing subsidies) that
you seem to be talking about are means-tested. In general on cannot
own a home or have income from investments and receive them. I
beleive that the general rule of thumb is that one may not have
property (totally) valued at over $2,000 ( $3,000 for those over
65) and receive these benefits legally.

There are of course forms of government assistance that are not
means tested (Unemployment ins., SS, etc), however when you consider
that only 0.1% of the population has capital gains income that
puts them over the poverty level on top of whatever other income
and entitlements that they receive, the numbers you are talking
about are not all that significant.

>>> O'Andy assumes that the official defn of "poor" is pretty
>>>good, that people who qualify don't have stuff, but the stats show
>>>that they do.

>>I don't assume that; in fact I am not happy with the definition
>>of poverty at all. No one has shown any stats thus far which show
>>significant property holdings

>Home ownership isn't significant?  We've seen the stats.  O'Andy was
>either "busy" then or decided to lie low.

Like I said before, we have seen stats for income and outlays and
total wealth shares by quintile; but we have not seen stats regarding
the property holdings and investment value of those receiving
government income assistance. If I am incorrect in this (and
you or Brett' have posted these figures) I of course apologize
an humbly request that you repost them, thanks.

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU