3 ms·
If you consider government benefits too, there are "cliffs"[1] at low incomes where an increase in income can result in less take home. But probably not at the
by grandmczeb 6y ago
If you consider government benefits too, there are "cliffs"[1] at low incomes where an increase in income can result in less take home. But probably not at the salaries a typical developer would get.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/kM6yxab.png http://i.imgur.com/kM6yxab.png
- jiofih 6y agoPoster said NL. Not US.
- smnrchrds 6y agoThat's a fascinating chart. I would like to reference it in the future, but I cannot find a source for the data. Did you compile it yourself? Have you written your data and methodology somewhere?
- grandmczeb 6y agoIt's from this presentation[1], but you can find similar analysis for lots of different places if you Google around (e.g. this one[2] for Illinois or this one[3] for Georgia). [1] https://www.slideshare.net/kevinkmac/welfare-failure https://www.slideshare.net/kevinkmac/welfare-failure [2] http://nebula.wsimg.com/92d8ac7d5aaf3b2df9d4dfaaddcde435?AccessKeyId=EEB98E648E3097DCA50D&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 http://nebula.wsimg.com/92d8ac7d5aaf3b2df9d4dfaaddcde435?Acc... [3] https://georgiaopportunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GCO1611_White_Paper_Online.pdf https://georgiaopportunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GC...
- smnrchrds 6y agoThank you.
- the_gipsy 6y agoThe problem seems to be the cliff of those welfare programs, no? I'm sure they don't make much sense.
- grandmczeb 6y agoPolicy makers are smart enough to not intentionally design welfare cliffs (usually). Most of the time it’s the result of complicated eligibility criteria, multiple benefits stacking together, and the program designers not anticipating large increases in the value of the benefit (e.g. housing subsidies).