https://ravallirepublic.com/business/investment/personal-finance/heres-how-american-families-from-the-poorest-to-the-richest-spend-their-money/collection_8facbacb-db2f-536a-80c8-455eb96f3272.html

Fascinating.

Quotesimilar amounts on dining out, regardless of income bracket. It could be because restaurants serve a wide variety of food, from $2 burgers to $50 steaks. Plus, Americans value speed and convenience,

One thing they miss is that people in the bottom income bracket often do not have kitchens, maybe not even a refrigerator. They are living in hotel rooms, their cars, other places.

QuoteAnd even if that's all they spent—no eating out, no movie nights, no educational expenses—they would still be at a loss of about $20,000.

This, I think, is what answers the question I hear a lot: "Why do these people on Medicaid have iPhones?" Answer: if they are super frugal, they run a $20,000 annual deficit. If they give themselves some luxuries, they run a $23,000 deficit.

It is by the exact same logic that the Republican Party stopped being the party of fiscal restraint. The Starve the Beast strategy they attempted did not starve the beast, but it did teach most Republican legislators to be comfortable with deficit spending (at least according to the Cato Institute' William Niskanen, one of the places where the Starve the Beast strategy got traction).

Choice quote from one study:
"The evidence suggests that lower levels of federal revenue may actually lead to greater increases in spending."
https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html?sh=308590ab759d

It makes total sense that individual households should behave the same way. I had never connected those two things until I saw that first chart. It was one of those, "Of course! Now I get it!" moments.