Type to search

Poverty & Equity Thought Leader Uncategorized

One in five children living in poverty

You have likely heard the statistics before.  But they bear repeating; one out of every five children in America lives in poverty. In the largest economic superpower on earth, the percentage of children living in poverty is almost three times higher than Norway.  The United States has more children, by percentage, living in poverty than Russia.  We rank somewhere around 30th in the number of children in poverty (that’s out of 35 industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

John Berry, Chief Executive Officer, St. Vincent de Paul Georgia

John Berry, Chief Executive Officer, St. Vincent de Paul Georgia

Why? How?  We spend an enormous amount of money at the local, state, and federal levels.  We have many charitable organizations that focus on the issue.  Why does this situation exist and how can we address it?

Last week, Eduardo Porter, an economic writer for the New York Times, wrote a story about one idea – actually an old idea that has been around for a while – to help address the poverty faced by families with children.

Porter contends, and the numbers certainly appear to bear him out, that the “most generous federal programs for families with children barely help the nation’s unluckiest children. Rather, they push money to their counterparts higher up the ladder of well-being.”  He cites a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that shows that only one percent of the $40 billion dollars of the federal per child tax deduction goes to the lowest, or poorest, fifth of the families in the country.  The child tax credit, a second opportunity for low-income families to reduce taxes by $1000 per child, does somewhat better; providing ten percent of the benefit to the lower fifth. But that is still too low.   In both cases these deductions and credits help; of that, there is no doubt.  According to the Census Bureau, the child poverty rates have been cut by almost a third as a direct and indirect result of these federal programs.

Unless they are working, families and children do not benefit, and they are left to rely on other programs like SNAP; many of which are being drastically curtailed by states and the federal government.

But, according to the Porter’s column, there is a new/old proposal that might see new interest after the elections.  That proposal would eliminate the child tax credit and the child deduction and replace them with a monthly check of $250 for every child in the country.

Quoting from Porter’s column:

“This is an old idea whose time has come,” said Timothy Smeeding, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who directed the Institute for Research on Poverty there from 2008 to 2014. Daniel P. Moynihan, who advised former President Richard Nixon and was a Democratic senator from New York, actively supported this idea. So did Milton Friedman, the guru of conservative economic thinking from the 1960s through the 1980s.”

This proposal would certainly seem to be in opposition to the trend we see today to eliminate, reduce, or reform entitlement programs and incentivize work as a condition of receiving benefits.  The benefit, as proposed, would apply to all – not unlike Social Security – and wouldn’t just go to low-income families.

Once again quoting from Porter’s column:

“Austria, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden all already have some child allowance. In Germany, the benefit for a family with two children adds up to $5,600 a year. In Canada, it is worth $4,935 per child under 6, and $4,164 for children ages 6 to 17.”

This program could be funded in part by eliminating the current tax exemptions and credit. Proponents estimate that a $250 a month per child benefit would cost somewhere around $190 billion a year. More than half of that cost would come from the elimination of the child tax credit and the tax deduction. The balance of $90 billion, is equal to about 0.5% percent of the United States GDP.

There is no doubt that this is a longshot proposal in a time where additional spending is the great taboo of American politics.  And there is also no doubt that there would have to be refinements and fine-tuning in the idea to make it work. One wonders, no matter the result in November, whether there would be enough courage in the White House or Capitol Hill to propose such a dramatic change in tax and entitlement policy.

But we can at least hope – after two years of campaigning that was more noise and vitriol than it was ideas – that maybe we can start talking about new ways of looking at old problems.

REF: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/economy/giving-every-child-a-monthly-check-for-an-even-start.html?_r=0


  1. Jay October 24, 2016 1:03 pm

    Comparing the U.S. to any Scandinavian country, or Canada, is tiresome and a waste of time. Those countries (Scandinavia especially) have high taxation, and people are universally expected to pay in. Word is most of them reap expected benefits. No so in the U.S. About 87-90% of Scandinavians are native-born. Their immigration polices, as are Canada’s, are restrictive. Not so in the U.S.

    Appalling about any poverty to that extent in the U.S. but especially for children. Haven’t we gone the “give more money” route? I’ve been around awhile, and I recall we’ve repeated this without success. There is a loose connection somewhere. Why not zero in on this – government hierarchy? Red tape at the local level? Corrupt, greedy, inept administrators in local government, including school systems? Broken families?
    The weak link is not with the citizens out here who want better.
    So identify this and get back to us.Report

  2. Nancy Bauer October 25, 2016 1:21 pm

    Women and children suffer the most from poverty and what we have done in the past hasn’t solved the problem. I am all for trying a new way to help lift children out of poverty. While a direct subsidy may sound revolutionary to Americans, we pay for poverty in so many other ways. We pay with an unskilled workforce because children drop out of school. We pay for incarceration, we pay for drug programs, we pay for children in poor health and we pay as a society for our lost opportunity costs. The opportunity for each and every person to reach their highest human potential should be our goal as a society. The word subsidy should not be used it should be our investment in our future account.Report

  3. NOAH, Inc October 5, 2018 9:30 am

    Hmmm we can’t HELP everyone… While I decided to just do something and got a home and moved people in who could demonstrate they were ready to change = successful results. We have programs that just work, from getting proper ID to credits cards. Our program is designed to educate and allow participants to go where they’ve never been before by simply applying proven mentor knowledge with absolute success. Our statement “How can YOU possibly KNOW what YOU don’t KNOW or haven’t been taught. So, we teach our resident’s cutting edge solutions and manage their journey. This is the only way. If we only had 10 more homes (oh yeah we working on them). Well maybe someone is reading this, that has the ability to step up LOCALLY and watch the results will join our team. Come check us out and HELP us grow. WINTER is COMING and we have solutions and will need Atlanta locals to step it up. noahatl.org@gmail.comReport


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.