4 ms·
It's interesting that you mention that particular welfare structure, since that's actually already used in a huge way in the United States, in the form of the "
by lelandbatey 10y ago
It's interesting that you mention that particular welfare structure, since that's actually already used in a huge way in the United States, in the form of the "Earned Income Tax Credit"[0], which while I don't hear it talked about publicly very often, is a huge program that sounds like it does a lot of good.
To quote Wikipedia:
At a cost of $56 billion in 2013, the EITC is the third-largest social welfare
program in the United States after Medicaid ($275 billion federal and $127
billion state expenditures) and food stamps ($78 billion).
And this is an example, also taken from Wikipedia, of the way the EITC might work in the real world:
For example, a married couple with two qualifying children and yearly income
of seven thousand dollars will receive EITC of $2,810 (going up the hill).
At fifteen thousand dollars, this couple will receive EITC of $5,036
(plateau). And at twenty-five and thirty-five thousand dollars, this same
couple with their two children will receive EITC of $4,285 and $2,179,
respectively.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#Households.27_average_taxes_and_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#House...
- krakensden 10y agoYou're right, and most programs try to do some sort of gradation instead of a sharp cutoff. Unfortunately, all the programs are different, with cutoffs at different points, with differing coarseness. A lot of this is related to the problem of making taxes doable by hand, which, several years after the invention of the pocket calculator, could be considered a little outmoded. A lot is also related to the general difficulty of making any changes at all to welfare programs.