Subsidies - What Do You Think?

[Alan]

In addition, since in many cases the non-working spouse will outlive the working spouse, I see it as one way can help keep (not guarantee) the non-working spouse from abject poverty. I am curious as to what happens in countries that do not provide such benefits to older, non-working spouses when the working spouse dies.

In the UK there is no spouse SS based on the working record of the other. However while there is a child under 5 in the house and someone is staying at home to look after them they get a full year credit for each year. For example my wife stayed at home while our 2 children were small and on her SS record there are 7 full years of contributions during that period.

Also in the UK if you are not working and paying into SS through payroll taxes then then you can make voluntary contributions of ~$1,000/year to maintain or top up your record - you can also pay for up to 6 missing years. (So in the case of a couple the working spouse can maintain the record of the other at a cost of ~$1,000/year, or as you close in on your FRA you may find you are short of the 35 years needed to get the full SS)

Not saying this is the best way, just one country's method of handling it.

 

[gayl]

3. What I’d change: Spousal SS benefits for non-working spouses (50% of PIA) are overly generous & should be reduced;

no wages, only widows benefit

divorcee SS benefits should be limited to one ex-spouse;

Agreed but how do you choose which Xspouse? [emoji48]

 

[JoeWras]

Wow, getting ready to go to church this morning. Looks like I'll need to say a few prayers! There's a war-a-brewin'

Believe it or not, I'm with you on removing the exemption, as long as you remove the exemption on ALL 501(c)3 corps.

OR, I think churches should be held to the same standard of transparency of a 501(c)3 when it comes to tax reporting. Churches do not have to file the same publicly available 990 as other 501(c)3. Additionally, the tax exemptions for clergy needs to be cleaned up. Abuse of the system occurs because of this, in my opinion.

Too many mega-churches and TV churches seem to serve as conduits to purchase private jets for their so-called pastors. Others, big and small, are nothing but social clubs.

However, the majority of churches do not operate like these highly visible entities. They are rooted in their community, providing basic support and even employment to local citizens. For example our church, along with many local ones, participates in support of multiple 501(c)3 groups that deal with the problem of homelessness. These programs are a huge adjunct to the government programs and help keep the social services expenses down. Churches should also be safe places for children, providing supplemental enrichment beyond the school system.

The problem is some of them have abused this privilege (you've seen it in the news) and have silently paid off accusers, etc. That's why I think they need transparency with regard to their finances with the 990. We know how much the president of the Red Cross and their top officers make. We know where the Red Cross's money goes (in general). The same should apply to churches. Good churches would gladly embrace this transparency.

 

[ivinsfan]

I thought it would be good to list & quantify some of the major subsidies discussed. Feel free to ‘copy & paste’ (or edit) additional info onto this list.

List & cost of Subsidies: Note that I’ve provided a link for each figure (hopefully somewhat accurate), and have tried to quantify ‘direct’ subsidies because, doing otherwise makes it less meaningful and less accurate IMO.

1. Agriculture: $20B/yr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
2. Corporate: $110B/yr https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/
3. Religious: $80B/yr. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-82-5-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.8cdaa03e9d19
4. Energy: $20B/yr. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies
5. Transportation: I have no idea & it seems very difficult to quantify.
6. Housing: ~$240B/yr. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015...es-than-it-does-on-affordable-housing/390666/

Education...

Arts and Culture

Health and Health Insurance

any and every special interest group that has a lobbyist in DC..

I'm sure I've forgotten a few....

and when you link to the Washington Post you lose your creditability to me anyway...

 

[pb4uski]

For some reason that I can't explain, the only one that really bothers me is Medicaid planning where people structure their finances so that taxpayers pay for their long-term care while subsantial assets get transferred to their children rather than having those assets used to pay for their long term care.

 

[flintnational]

Food subsidies good - current system bad

The subsidy thorn in my side is SNAP. I am strongly in favor of food subsidies for the poor and would even support an expansion if constructed properly. But politics and lobbyists have corrupted the program.

A program meant to help the poor has morphed into a program to sell more processed junk to some of our most vulnerable citizens. SNAP only excludes the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, and hot prepared foods.

Therefore SNAP recipients often spend their limited resources on snack foods, soda, and candy. How hard would it be to limit SNAP to fresh and frozen veggies and fruit, potatoes, rice, beans, meat, fish, and fresh dairy. Eliminate the junk food that is the bane of many low income folks. No, we have chosen to subsidize this misery.

See, it really is a thorn in my side. Rant over.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

I thought it would be good to list & quantify some of the major subsidies discussed. Feel free to ‘copy & paste’ (or edit) additional info onto this list.

List & cost of Subsidies: Note that I’ve provided a link for each figure (hopefully somewhat accurate), and have tried to quantify ‘direct’ subsidies because, doing otherwise makes it less meaningful and less accurate IMO.

1. Agriculture: $20B/yr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
2. Corporate: $110B/yr https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/
3. Religious: $80B/yr. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-82-5-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.8cdaa03e9d19
4. Energy: $20B/yr. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies
5. Transportation: I have no idea & it seems very difficult to quantify.
6. Housing: ~$240B/yr. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015...es-than-it-does-on-affordable-housing/390666/

Read that Wiki agriculture link again. It says ag subsidies, including price supports, were $172 billion in 2010.

 

[candrew]

The subsidy thorn in my side is SNAP. I am strongly in favor of food subsidies for the poor and would even support an expansion if constructed properly. But politics and lobbyists have corrupted the program.

A program meant to help the poor has morphed into a program to sell more processed junk to some of our most vulnerable citizens. SNAP only excludes the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, and hot prepared foods.

Therefore SNAP recipients often spend their limited resources on snack foods, soda, and candy. How hard would it be to limit SNAP to fresh and frozen veggies and fruit, potatoes, rice, beans, meat, fish, and fresh dairy. Eliminate the junk food that is the bane of many low income folks. No, we have chosen to subsidize this misery.

See, it really is a thorn in my side. Rant over.

Apart from any corruption of the program on the part of lobbyists and/or the political class, what should be of equal concern are the existence of "food deserts" in both poor urban and rural communities.

Excerpt from a 2018 report by Urban Science on Barriers to Food Security:

"In a number of recent studies, researchers document that food insecurity and hunger are a substantial and persistent problem in the United States. In 2010, 14.5% of American households were food insecure at some point during the year, and 5.4% had very low food security—meaning that the “food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food."

Researchers who examined how the lack of grocery stores (often referred to as food deserts) affect residents found that urban residents typically pay more for groceries, spend more time traveling to distant supermarkets, and incur other costs related to poor food habits. According to the “Food Access Research Atlas” constructed by the USDA, low access to healthy food is defined as being far from a large grocery store or supermarket."

So, long story short, too many SNAP recipients do not have ready access to more nutrient dense foods. How hard would it be to limit SNAP to fresh and frozen veggies and fruit, potatoes, rice, beans, meat, fish, and fresh dairy, you ask? In a "food desert" where the only ready access to food are convenience stores - that would be a hardship. To make matters worse, some SNAP recipients who use their benefits to purchase food at farmers markets will lose that ability as well due to a https://www.bustle.com/p/snap-benefits-may-not-work-at-farmers-markets-starting-july-31-after-a-change-in-a-government-contract-9748751 change in the program.

 

[pb4uski]

The subsidy thorn in my side is SNAP. I am strongly in favor of food subsidies for the poor and would even support an expansion if constructed properly. But politics and lobbyists have corrupted the program.

A program meant to help the poor has morphed into a program to sell more processed junk to some of our most vulnerable citizens. SNAP only excludes the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, and hot prepared foods.

Therefore SNAP recipients often spend their limited resources on snack foods, soda, and candy. How hard would it be to limit SNAP to fresh and frozen veggies and fruit, potatoes, rice, beans, meat, fish, and fresh dairy. Eliminate the junk food that is the bane of many low income folks. No, we have chosen to subsidize this misery.

See, it really is a thorn in my side. Rant over.

While I agree with what you say, it doesn't bother me to the extent of being a thorn in my side. The problem is that many SNAP recipients would have no earthly idea how to cook fresh and frozen veggies and fruit, potatoes, rice, beans, meat and fish.... DW used to be a WIC nutritionist and experienced this first hand... so if we were to limit SNAP to healther choices we would need to accompany it with coaching on how to cook.

 

[Rianne]

Just to bring this discussion to a local level, my property taxes subsidize public schools for kids. We do not have kids so 40% of our property taxes go to something we've never used. Do I complain? Absolutely not. Schools are important. I do not feel guilty for our health subsidies on the ACA as we've paid for public schools for 34 years and never used them.

 

[Huston55]

Read that Wiki agriculture link again. It says ag subsidies, including price supports, were $172 billion in 2010.

I looked at it again, and I think the $172B (from a French study that I can’t read) is incorrect; I think perhaps they’ve mistakenly listed the total for the 5-yr Ag bill or included non-Ag subsidies. Every other reference quantifies US annual Ag subsidies as ~$20B/yr, which is why I listed $20B. See the new link below with a good chart. Pls feel free to double check this so we get an accurate representation of what our Govt spends each year on Ag subsidies.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/updated-history-farm-bill-spending

 

[Huston55]

Just to bring this discussion to a local level, my property taxes subsidize public schools for kids. We do not have kids so 40% of our property taxes go to something we've never used. Do I complain? Absolutely not. Schools are important. I do not feel guilty for our health subsidies on the ACA as we've paid for public schools for 34 years and never used them.

+1

See the first subsidy listed in the OP.

 

[Youngster]

Just to bring this discussion to a local level, my property taxes subsidize public schools for kids. We do not have kids so 40% of our property taxes go to something we've never used. Do I complain? Absolutely not. Schools are important. I do not feel guilty for our health subsidies on the ACA as we've paid for public schools for 34 years and never used them.

Agreed! I used to feel guilty about my subsidized ACA premium.

 

[NW-Bound]

I want the other people's kids to grow up to be good citizens and workers to pay into the SS fund for me to enjoy my retirement.

I do not want them running around vandalizing my property and my cars.

So, I will pay to educate them, as long as the money is reasonable and well-spent.

 

[scrabbler1]

Just to bring this discussion to a local level, my property taxes subsidize public schools for kids. We do not have kids so 40% of our property taxes go to something we've never used. Do I complain? Absolutely not. Schools are important. I do not feel guilty for our health subsidies on the ACA as we've paid for public schools for 34 years and never used them.

What I would like to see, as I have written to my state legislators many times about this, is to make one change to the current eligibility requirements to receive an enhanced STAR rebate. [STAR is the state-run school tax rebate program here in New York.] The current eligibility for an added STAR rebate is based on age (over 60) and meeting an income requirement which phases out as income rises. It protects elderly people, who tend to be property-rich and income-poor (and who VOTE), from being taxed out of their homes. I have asked to have anyone under age 60 who meets the income requirement but who also has no kids to become eligible for enhanced STAR. This would at least acknowledge that we are no burden on the local schools and should pay less (not zero, just less, like those already receiving enhanced STAR) in school taxes.

My state assemblyman told me "it's too expensive," yet the state has found the money for the current enhanced STAR. No other state-level elected official has ever replied.

I surely won't feel guilty about getting the rather small ACA subsidy I get even with a NW north of $1M.

 

[Chuckanut]

Check out the subsidies to agriculture. They are massive.

Agreed, and well targeted.

My guess is that organic broccoli farmers get little subsidy, while corn, soy and wheat farmers get a bundle. Don't even get started on the price supports that sugar farmers get. It's outrageous.

 

[Huston55]

Education...

Arts and Culture

Health and Health Insurance

any and every special interest group that has a lobbyist in DC..

I'm sure I've forgotten a few....

and when you link to the Washington Post you lose your creditability to me anyway...

I know what you mean; WAPO has only 65 Pulitzer Prizes.

But, the NYT has 125 Pulitzer Prizes so, here’s a link from them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html

Seriously though, it would be informative if you quantified & provided backup links for the “Arts & Culture” and “Health & Health Insurance” subsidies you listed.

 

[NW-Bound]

Raisin producers got a price support, in the form of product confiscation if they produced too much.

Hard to believe, but it was only in 2015 that this policy was stopped when a raisin farmer couldn't hack it no more and took it to the Supreme Court.

Crazy stuff that's hard to believe.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the government can't force raisin farmers to give up part of their annual crop for less than it's worth, a victory for conservative groups that hailed the decision as a win for private property rights.

The justices ruled 8-1 that a 1940s-era program born out of the Great Depression is unconstitutional because it allows federal officials to seize personal property from farmers without fully compensating them, even though the goal is to benefit farmers by stabilizing market prices.

See: Supreme Court: Government seizure of raisins is unconstitutional - Chicago Tribune.

 

[flintnational]

Apart from any corruption of the program on the part of lobbyists and/or the political class, what should be of equal concern are the existence of "food deserts" in both poor urban and rural communities.

I agree with what you say about food deserts. I think it is a chicken and egg problem. The deserts often have bodegas that sell the poor quality food desired in the area and currently reimbursed by SNAP. In other words, if people were buying broccoli instead of chips, the stores would stock broccoli. IMO, a properly designed SNAP program, would encourage local vendors to stock the healthier reimbursed items (or they would lose subsidized sales). There would be less money to stock shelves with the unhealthier items. An unintended consequence of the current SNAP program may in fact be the creation and subsidization of food deserts. Money floods in with no requirement to stock or purchase healthy food.

Great discussion. It is a problem that should be within our reach to solve with current spending.

 

[flintnational]

While I agree with what you say, it doesn't bother me to the extent of being a thorn in my side. The problem is that many SNAP recipients would have no earthly idea how to cook fresh and frozen veggies and fruit, potatoes, rice, beans, meat and fish.... DW used to be a WIC nutritionist and experienced this first hand... so if we were to limit SNAP to healther choices we would need to accompany it with coaching on how to cook.

Agreed. My DM did similar work for a couple of summers (off from teaching). She ran into the same problems, inability to fix healthy meals and create a food budget. I remember her saying "her clients would eat better than we did the first two weeks of the month and then have no food money for the rest of the month". Yes, coaching/life skills needs to be a part of the program (It may still be IDK).

 

[rodi]

I agree with the comment previously that the tax exempt status of churches should be matched with transparency similar to 501(c)3s.... Form 990. I've been treasurer for two small 501(c)3's and the tax forms aren't hard to fill out. (In one case it was a postcard because we were under $30k/year). I've been skeptical about the tax exempt status of churches since the 90's when I lived across the street from the place that Terry Cole Whitaker broadcast her sermons from. Their motto was "prosperity is your divine right". Needless to say it was run as a for profit endeavor playing on people's greed. Yet they were tax exempt. Scientology had a many year battle with the IRS over their tax exempt status because of their model of charging followers for services in a for profit style. If a church is given tax exemption they should be required to report how much they brought in, how much the officers paid, etc.

I claim child tax credits, but it was my choice to have children. I claim ACA premium tax credits. I wish the ACA could be redone to address the ridiculous price increases year after year. The PTCs barely make my High Deductible w HSA plan affordable - especially when compared to my silver equivalent COBRA (so full rate) employer plan. I have less insurance (high deductible) with premium tax credits, but pay as much as I did when I first retired and was paying COBRA.

Real estate mortgage interest deductions is a subsidy that should be phased out in my opinion. I read somewhere that we are the only western nation that does this. It encourages people to take on debt and maintain debt because of the tax deductions on the interest. Remove that subsidy and let the market and math decide to whether to take on real estate debt.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I think people who give away their money and use Medicaid are terrible also. It is a safety net for people in need. That is why Medicaid looks back now and I think it is 5 years. When I was a guardian for a good friend we ended up needing it when her level of care doubled the price and her money was gone. They did allow me to prepay her cremation, etc which was nice.

 

[ERD50]

...

Excerpt from a 2018 report by Urban Science on Barriers to Food Security:

"In a number of recent studies, researchers document that food insecurity and hunger are a substantial and persistent problem in the United States. In 2010, 14.5% of American households were food insecure at some point during the year, and 5.4% had very low food security—meaning that the “food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food." ....

I have a real problem with any statistic that uses "food insecurity" as any sort of measure - there appears to be so much wiggle room in that description, it seems almost meaningless to me. From the USDA:

Food Insecurity

Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

So is our household labeled "food insecure" if we choose the T-Bone steak that was on sale for $8.99/#, instead of the $18.99/# prime rib-eye I was salivating over? And DW made that same choice two weeks ago, so I guess we can report a "reduction in the quality, variety, and desirability of diet."

And any member of the household "some time during the year"? I'm sorry, but that seems to trivialize what might be a real problem for some people. Which makes it counter-productive, like the boy who cried "wolf".

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

I agree with the comment previously that the tax exempt status of churches should be matched with transparency similar to 501(c)3s.... Form 990. I've been treasurer for two small 501(c)3's and the tax forms aren't hard to fill out. (In one case it was a postcard because we were under $30k/year). I've been skeptical about the tax exempt status of churches since the 90's when I lived across the street from the place that Terry Cole Whitaker broadcast her sermons from. Their motto was "prosperity is your divine right". Needless to say it was run as a for profit endeavor playing on people's greed. Yet they were tax exempt. Scientology had a many year battle with the IRS over their tax exempt status because of their model of charging followers for services in a for profit style. If a church is given tax exemption they should be required to report how much they brought in, how much the officers paid, etc.

Right on, rodi.

I was treasurer for a faith based organization that was NOT a church. So, we had to file 990. Not only that, our finances were under 50k, so we could have filed with a postcard. (It has been bumped to 50k in recent years.) That said, our board decided to fill out the 990-EZ which details much more information. We have nothing to hide, and they wanted the world to know that, especially our donors.

These sketchy "churches" give all the others a bad name and it is causing a lot of problems.

 

[RobbieB]

There is a lot of food insecurity in the central valley. That's why I support the Second Harvest Food Bank.