As the article states, there are phaseouts in many of the programs involved. SSI does have an income-based phaseout, not a complete threshold - the $2k thresho

As the article states, there are phaseouts in many of the programs involved. SSI does have an income-based phaseout, not a complete threshold - the $2k threshold is a wealth cap, there is a phaseout-based income cap as well. > But SSI does this in an egregiously inefficient way. The loss of SSI is a fairly hefty penalty, and the loss of Medicaid is potentially much larger. Both can be triggered, all at once, by going a dollar above the $2,000 limit. This is an inefficient design , what welfare scholars call a “cliff.” > SSI also has an income-based phaseout. Effectively, for every dollar you earn above a threshold, you lose 50 cents in benefits. > But shockingly, that threshold is just $85 per month. So it’s like a 50 percent “tax” rate with a $85 per month standard deduction. The problem is that congress thinks $85/mo is a good place to begin a steep phaseout of benefits. You can have a phaseout and still have the program be completely useless because of the phaseout threshold and steepness. This isn't about phaseouts or not, it's about political unwillingness to do social spending (for anyone who’s not a senior citizen). The numbers were last adjusted in 1935, everyone knows they’re astoundingly low, but Americans don’t like social spending and actually mostly would prefer to reduce (or even eliminate) these programs.