5 ms·

It's actually super easy to do. See, you just...make sure that rather than cliffs, you have percentage based reduction of benefits. I.e., you lose $1 of benefit

It's actually super easy to do. See, you just...make sure that rather than cliffs, you have percentage based reduction of benefits. I.e., you lose $1 of benefit for every $2 you make, or whatever. And something similar with assets (though admittedly the details would be trickier to avoid it being gamed). Neither the group that needs help (and their supporters), nor the group that doesn't want to give hands out to people who refuse to work but could, have reason to object to something like that. The actual problem is the red meat that welfare/socialism is to our political bases in the US, and the incentives of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to ensure it persists. If you do the obvious thing to actually address the problem, neither side can use it any longer to stir up the base. So the incentive is to not actually fix it.

paulmd 4y ago
As discussed elsewhere in the comments here, and as discussed in the article, there is indeed a phaseout for income. Every $1 you make above $85 reduces your benefits by $0.50, so they are doing exactly what you suggest. The $2000 number is a cap for wealth, not income. The problem isn’t having a phaseout or not anyway - we could set a wealth cliff of $50k and that would be perfectly fine. It’s the numbers that matter, where the phaseout or cliff is placed and how steep a phaseout. $85 a month is a redonkulous place to put the phaseout even if phaseouts are “better” - that is a worse policy than a 50k a month cliff! And you’re right, the reasons the number hasn’t been adjusted since 1935 (in 1989 the number was inherited from a prior program, it wasn’t adjusted at that time) is because of political will. Social spending on anyone other than the elderly is extremely unpopular in the US.
- jnovek 4y ago
  Not for SSDI. There’s a strict cutoff that’s adjusted every year. This year it’s $1350 — if you make more than $1350 any given month, you do not receive benefits for that month.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I don't know why you'd have any wealth cutoff. This is a replacement for their income because they can't make any income due to disability. What business does anyone have dictating anything else about their life. None. That's very authoritarian.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  From my post - 'And something similar with assets (though admittedly the details would be trickier to avoid it being gamed).' I honestly don't care if $85k is the cutoff. I don't care if there is a cutoff at all (but I recognize some people don't like the idea that if a millionaire becomes disabled he'd be eligible for some amount of money from the government). If someone becomes disabled or whatever, and they have money saved from working, why would they not get benefits? Why do they have to deplete their savings first to get shitty benefits? Social security doesn't have an income or asset cutoff; why does disability? I actually personally agree with the sister post of just...paying people based on their disability, without caring about how much other income they're able to generate, or assets they collect. But I recognize how politically untenable that is.
kbelder 4y ago
One issue if that if you have multiple benefits, and each phases out over a similar range, the combined total loss can be over 100%. Suppose that between $25,000 and $35,000 income, you start paying taxes, you lose food stamps, you have to start paying toward your medical insurance, you lose your daycare assistance, free school lunches, etc., etc... each one of those could be staggered, but the net result is just overwhelming. I'm not a big fan of social programs; but if we're going to do them, they should at least be done sensibly.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Oh, agreed; it's why I don't call out specific benefits (since I know they have different rules and such). My intention there is to generalize to all of them.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> It's actually super easy to do. See, you just...make sure that rather than cliffs, you have percentage based reduction of benefits. It's even simpler: stop means testing individual programs, that's what progressive taxation is for. If you are going to give someone benefits due to a particular level of disability, give them benefits calculated based on that. If they have more outside income than you would expect with that disability, good for them, and they’ll also pay more taxes. Same with other special-circumstance aid qualifications (for general poverty support, this reduced to UBI.)

paulmd 4y ago

As discussed elsewhere in the comments here, and as discussed in the article, there is indeed a phaseout for income. Every $1 you make above $85 reduces your benefits by $0.50, so they are doing exactly what you suggest. The $2000 number is a cap for wealth, not income. The problem isn’t having a phaseout or not anyway - we could set a wealth cliff of $50k and that would be perfectly fine. It’s the numbers that matter, where the phaseout or cliff is placed and how steep a phaseout. $85 a month is a redonkulous place to put the phaseout even if phaseouts are “better” - that is a worse policy than a 50k a month cliff! And you’re right, the reasons the number hasn’t been adjusted since 1935 (in 1989 the number was inherited from a prior program, it wasn’t adjusted at that time) is because of political will. Social spending on anyone other than the elderly is extremely unpopular in the US.

jnovek 4y ago
Not for SSDI. There’s a strict cutoff that’s adjusted every year. This year it’s $1350 — if you make more than $1350 any given month, you do not receive benefits for that month.
guerrilla 4y ago
I don't know why you'd have any wealth cutoff. This is a replacement for their income because they can't make any income due to disability. What business does anyone have dictating anything else about their life. None. That's very authoritarian.
lostcolony 4y ago
From my post - 'And something similar with assets (though admittedly the details would be trickier to avoid it being gamed).' I honestly don't care if $85k is the cutoff. I don't care if there is a cutoff at all (but I recognize some people don't like the idea that if a millionaire becomes disabled he'd be eligible for some amount of money from the government). If someone becomes disabled or whatever, and they have money saved from working, why would they not get benefits? Why do they have to deplete their savings first to get shitty benefits? Social security doesn't have an income or asset cutoff; why does disability? I actually personally agree with the sister post of just...paying people based on their disability, without caring about how much other income they're able to generate, or assets they collect. But I recognize how politically untenable that is.

kbelder 4y ago

One issue if that if you have multiple benefits, and each phases out over a similar range, the combined total loss can be over 100%. Suppose that between $25,000 and $35,000 income, you start paying taxes, you lose food stamps, you have to start paying toward your medical insurance, you lose your daycare assistance, free school lunches, etc., etc... each one of those could be staggered, but the net result is just overwhelming. I'm not a big fan of social programs; but if we're going to do them, they should at least be done sensibly.

lostcolony 4y ago
Oh, agreed; it's why I don't call out specific benefits (since I know they have different rules and such). My intention there is to generalize to all of them.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It's actually super easy to do. See, you just...make sure that rather than cliffs, you have percentage based reduction of benefits. It's even simpler: stop means testing individual programs, that's what progressive taxation is for. If you are going to give someone benefits due to a particular level of disability, give them benefits calculated based on that. If they have more outside income than you would expect with that disability, good for them, and they’ll also pay more taxes. Same with other special-circumstance aid qualifications (for general poverty support, this reduced to UBI.)