We've been told for some time now that unemployment rates are hovering around 10%. Of course, that 10% isn't "households," but rather "10% of adults." A married couple with only one spouse working, for example, would mean that the "non-working" spouse is counted as "unemployed," without respect to whether or not the working spouse makes enough for the entire household to live on. To put it another way, this kind of a "household" isn't unemployed. One spouse has a job, and it may possibly pay well enough that this household won't be in the 47%. Naturally, if one spouse doesn't have a paying job, the odds of being in that 47% are indeed greater. Indeed, it's been the case for decades now that it's getting harder and harder to make ends meet without both parents having incomes in a household with children. Indeed, this phenomenon has had more than a few youth workers concerned that children aren't getting the parental attention they need. Parents have to make a choice between enough food on the table and proper supervision, and there are no easy answers.
I'm not looking to get into the question (raised by the original article) about whether or not the tax system is too "progressive," or if the current situation is "sustainable" or not. We already know that the government will have to start taking in more revenue anyway, even without accounting for whether or not they're getting funds from a broad enough base of the America people. Thankfully, there are signs that the economy is starting to turn around. Although this still hasn't translated into a reduction of the unemployment rate (at best, the rate of growth in the numbers of people who are unemployed may be slowing down, but that's still not an actual reduction), there is perhaps reason to hope that such a reduction will come sooner rather than later. I certainly would argue that it can't come soon enough!
A friend directed me to this link which, although clearly with an agenda of its own, more clearly separates out some of those percentages, and makes even more clear that the "47%" isn't totally tax free.
ReplyDelete