Search

The article focuses on poverty in the U.S. in 2022, comparing the official poverty measure with the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). Topics include the differences between these measures, their impact on poverty statistics, and how they reflect varying definitions of income and need. It mentions the official measure showed no significant change in poverty rates, the SPM revealed a notable increase, highlighting the importance of considering factors like after-tax income.

The article provides information on demographic and social characteristics of the poor in the U.S. in the year 2018. It shows that persons belonging to families whose income is below the federal poverty thresholds represent a diverse subset of the total population of the country. Among the poor persons, at least thirteen percent were of age 65 and more. Women accounted for fifty-six percent of the poor people.

The article discusses the programs towards promoting investments in community development of the low-income groups. It talks about the financing for community development. It discusses the financing for healthy and nutritious food. It focuses on the tax credit approach. It also talks about the eligibility to qualify as a low-income group poverty line, and family income. It discusses the tax incentive aspect as well.

Poverty measures convey the number or percentage of people falling below given income amounts, which are intended to represent a level of economic privation and are computed using some factually based measurement of basic needs. The poverty measures discussed in this report--the official U.S. poverty measure and the research Supplemental Poverty Measure-- focus on financial resources. A family's income is compared against a dollar amount representing some measure of need, called a threshold, which typically varies by family size and composition. Those with family income less than the threshold are considered to be "in poverty," or poor; those with incomes greater than or equal to the threshold are not considered to be in poverty. All members of the same family have the same poverty status. The poverty measures discussed here are financial measures; they do not directly capture the physical, mental, or social effects of being poor. They were developed to accurately measure economic privation rather than to describe the full complement of resources a person or family needs to be self-sufficient. Poverty data are obtained from surveys, and are therefore estimates that have margins of error. Poverty estimates derived from different data sources--even those using the same definition of poverty--will almost always differ. The official poverty thresholds were developed in the early 1960s, and were based on empirical measures of dietary need, on the amount that a family in economic distress might need to spend on food to attempt to meet its dietary needs, and on the spending patterns of families across the income distribution. This information was used to determine what percentage of an average family's budget was spent on food, and in turn, to compute the amounts representing total family income. There has been broad agreement among poverty scholars that the official poverty measure has serious limitations, and decades of research were undertaken to address them. In 2009, an interagency technical working group, convened under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), put forth the Supplemental Poverty Measure to consolidate the research and emphasize not only sound concepts and methodology in the measure's development, but also practicality in the measure's maintenance, computation, and usage. The Supplemental Poverty Measure was not intended to replace the official measure, and it was expected that refinement of the Supplemental Poverty Measure's methodology and data sources would continue. Neither the official poverty measure nor the Supplemental Poverty Measure was established in statute. The Bureau of the Budget and its successor agency, OMB, directed federal agencies to use the official measure for statistical purposes. The directive explicitly stated that the measure was not developed for administrative purposes, and allowed for other measures of poverty to be developed, as long as the data for those measures were distinguished from the official series. For administrative uses, such as determining whether an individual or family is eligible for assistance from a program, a different set of dollar amounts called poverty guidelines is used. Poverty guidelines are different from the official poverty thresholds, are published by the Department of Health and Human Services, and are not used to count the poverty population. However, any program that relies on counts of the poverty population, such as for formula grants, uses the official poverty thresholds and not the guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Employees during the course of their employment incur various expenses, including for upgrading skill for rendering their services as employees, which are much more in the case of employees having higher salary - a higher deduction for such expenses should be allowed. With a view to encourage doing business as corporates - which is more transparent it is suggested that the tax rate on dividends should not exceed the rate of 15%, which will rationalize the effective tax rate on corporate profits and bring it closer to the effective tax rate on LLP profits. [Extracted from the article]

The recession that began in December 2007, and the loss of 3.6 million jobs since, has raised issues about policies to address the threats to the economic security of people and families from an economic downturn. The unemployment rate had already reached 7.6% in January 2009, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasting that it will top out at over 9% in early 2010. Families that were economically disadvantaged before the recession are highly likely to face risks to their well-beingunemployment rates for women maintaining families, minorities, and those with less than a high school education are above the average for all workers. The emphasis of public policy for low-income families with children with able-bodied parents is supporting and requiring work. The system of needs-based benefits underwent major changes over several decades, culminating in policy changes in the mid-1990s that included the major welfare reform law of 1996. This recession will likely be the first real test of how policies put in place in the mid-1990s affect the well-being of families with children during a steep economic downturn and high unemployment. Unemployment insurance (UI) is the major program to replace lost wages for unemployed workers. However, low-wage workers and those with intermittent employment are less likely to receive UI than higher-wage workers with stronger labor force attachment. In the past, the safety net for families with children included cash welfare. The 1996 welfare reform law created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant with fixed funding and altered rules that apply to the cash welfare caseload. TANF is best known as a funding source for cash welfare for needy families with children, but it also funds a wide range of benefits and services that seek to address some of the root causes or ameliorate some of the effects of structural poverty on families with children. The cash welfare caseload declined by two-thirds from 1994 to 2008 and stood at 1.7 million families. The share of poor children receiving TANF plummeted from over 60% before welfare reform to 23% by 2007. TANF poses both risk and opportunities for states to help disadvantaged families as they face a deep economic slump. The opportunities that TANF offers states is rooted in its flexibilitystates can design new and innovative programs, either through cash welfare or outside of their cash welfare program, to meet the needs that arise because of the recession. However, fixed TANF funding combined with potential increases in families eligible for TANF cash welfare pose states the choice of either cutting back TANF funding for the nonwelfare benefits and services or curtailing cash welfare benefits or rolls in the midst of a recession. Additionally, the rules of TANF cash welfarebenefits that pay only a fraction of poverty-level income and a work-first orientation that seeks to move recipients quickly into a jobmay limit its effectiveness to respond to a recession. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) creates a new, temporary TANF fund to help pay for the increased costs of cash welfare, short-term aid, and subsidized employment for FY2009 and FY2010. ARRA temporarily modifies the caseload reduction credit states receive toward their TANF work participation. A states credit will not be reduced for any caseload increases occurring in FY2008 through FY2010. ARRA also extends TANF supplemental grants through the end of FY2010. It further allows states to use their TANF reserves for any TANF benefit or services. Under prior law, reserves could be used only for TANF cash welfare programs. This report will be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares the supplemental poverty measure with its official counterpart in the U.S. in terms of income data, poverty thresholds, and profile of the population in poverty.