Word: noncash
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Practically since Inauguration Day, the Reagan Administration has grumbled that the Government's statistical methods overstate the nation's population of poor people. The reason: the figures take into account only cash income and ignore the value of noncash benefits such as food stamps, free or discounted school lunches, public housing and subsidized medical care. But a new Census Bureau study released last week measured poverty both ways from 1979 to 1982 and found a sharp increase under either method...
...considered poor in 1979 if it had a cash income of $7,386 or less; by 1982 inflation had pushed the poverty line to $9,862. Counting cash income only, there were 26.1 million poor people in 1979 and 34.4 million in 1982, a rise of 31.8%. Adding in noncash benefits reduced those figures to 15.1 million in 1979 and 22.9 million in 1982. Thus, even according to this measure, poverty rose 51.6% during the period...
...poor? Currently, the Government's official definition of poverty is based solely on cash income. A nonfarm family of four, for example, was considered to be poor if its annual income in 1981 was less than $9,290. This standard, however, does not take into account noncash benefits like food stamps, medical care and subsidized housing. Since 1965, the market value of those benefits has grown from $2.2 billion to more than $72 billion, and the programs account for two out of every three dollars of Government aid received by the poor. To determine poverty levels more accurately...
...major Government benefits at their full market value were considered as income, the number of families defined as poor would drop 42%, from 23.6 million to 13.6 million. Bureau experts admit there is a misleading factor in their new calculations: medical services account for 75% of all noncash benefits. While important to the poor, such services do not help lift them above the poverty line; indeed, inclusion of medical benefits in the formula makes it seem that those in the worst health are the wealthiest. Yet even if Medicaid and Medicare were excluded, the number of those defined as poor...
Murray's research draws criticism from such liberal economists as Charles Schultze and Barry Bosworth of the Brookings Institution, who point out that the thesis ignores noncash aid from the Government, including food stamps and Medicaid. If such benefits are counted, they say, fewer Americans are poor than Murray's statistics indicate, and thus Government spending has been more beneficial than he acknowledges...