Yes. What the article and the GP miss is the importance of design. Tailing off benefits gradually makes the most sense from the perspective of providing an ince

Yes. What the article and the GP miss is the importance of design. Tailing off benefits gradually makes the most sense from the perspective of providing an incentive to work and earn more, but (a) government seldom looks at how the incentives actually work across the whole set of support programs (tuition assistance, CHIP, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc.) and (b) when you tail things off gradually, you will have people doing fairly well on their own still getting some subsidies, albeit small ones, and that's politically challenging to explain.