Contact
Subscribe


WTF, Vermont?

Jun 18, 2010
By .
Politics & Current Events

Behold the Moocher Index: the percentage of people in each state receiving public assistance, minus the poverty rate of that state.

Here's the thing about government assistance: it's not free. Taxpayers pay for it monetarily, recipients pay for it in increased government control of their lives, and everybody pays for it in increased power of the state.

But seriously, what's the deal with the Northeast?

Hat Tip: Coyote Blog.

Last 5 posts by Ken

6 Comments
Tags

6 Comments

  1. Ancel De Lambert  •  Jun 18, 2010 @10:30 pm

    And I thought California was bad.

  2. Chris Berez  •  Jun 19, 2010 @6:39 pm

    New Hampshire is much lower down than the others at least.

    Of course, it's still far higher up than I'd like in the first place.

  3. Me  •  Jun 20, 2010 @11:59 am

    Last I checked, neither Mississippi nor Alaska were in the Northeast.

  4. jdub  •  Jun 21, 2010 @8:43 am

    AK (and, I believe, MS) have oil subsidies which might be gumming things up. (I think it says something to this effect in de Rugy's article.)

  5. Ken Piper  •  Jun 21, 2010 @1:18 pm

    I think a large part of this may have to do with how 'poverty' is defined. Not allowing for variances in local costs of living when defining poverty could easily lead to this. In 2009, the federal poverty line for a family of 4 is $22,050/year. Does anyone really think that someone making $23k/year and supporting a family of 4 isn't poor if they live in New York City?

  6. jb  •  Jun 22, 2010 @7:30 am

    Also, what about old people? Depending how the index defines "public assistance" (which I have been unable to locate), social security and medicare could qualify.