4 ms·

The whole "disincentive to work" idea is preposterous. If you get $2000 a month for free, do you still want more money or not? It goes without saying that you d

by hashmap 13y ago

The whole "disincentive to work" idea is preposterous. If you get $2000 a month for free, do you still want more money or not? It goes without saying that you do. People will always want more money. If this "disincentive" actually existed, businesses would simply fold up upon receiving tax breaks. What it certainly would do is free people from wage prison - people who would rather not participate in the work force but are forced to for reasons like obtaining employer's healthcare. Obamacare will free many people from this trap in exactly this way - and one of the most pronounced effects these types of things have is allowing older workers to retire who were forced to stay employed, making room for the younger generation. And people leaving jobs who don't want them but are forced to take them is a good thing. Right now we have 3 people looking for work for every 1 job opening, which drastically skews labor markets in favor of employers. It would be good for everyone if this balance shifted in favor of workers. The people who want to work will still want to work even if you hand them cash for free. The people who don't want to work shouldn't have to in order to avoid calamity.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The whole "disincentive to work" idea is preposterous. If you get $2000 a month for free, do you still want more money or not? Its even more preposterous when compared to the status quo. Consider the following alternatives: 1. You get some amount regardless of whether you get additional money from work. 2. You get some amount (which may vary from reason to reason) if you don't get any income from work and manage to convince one of several bureaucracies (all paid out of tax funds on top of the cost of actually providing the benefits) that you meet some qualifications, but in almost all cases this amount is also reduced if you actually make any money from work (sometimes, proportionately, sometimes, if you make any money, you lose the whole benefit.) Clearly, the latter provides the greater disincentive to work (and, at the same time, the greatest incentive to fraud and corruption, and the greatest public expense compared to the benefits delivered.)
jiggy2011 13y ago
It depends on what you have to trade for that extra money. If you have to give up 40 hours a week of doing what you like in exchange for 40 hours of performing tedious work for an extra $1k a month then that's probably a deal most people wouldn't take.

by hashmap 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The whole "disincentive to work" idea is preposterous. If you get $2000 a month for free, do you still want more money or not? Its even more preposterous when compared to the status quo. Consider the following alternatives: 1. You get some amount regardless of whether you get additional money from work. 2. You get some amount (which may vary from reason to reason) if you don't get any income from work and manage to convince one of several bureaucracies (all paid out of tax funds on top of the cost of actually providing the benefits) that you meet some qualifications, but in almost all cases this amount is also reduced if you actually make any money from work (sometimes, proportionately, sometimes, if you make any money, you lose the whole benefit.) Clearly, the latter provides the greater disincentive to work (and, at the same time, the greatest incentive to fraud and corruption, and the greatest public expense compared to the benefits delivered.)

jiggy2011 13y ago

It depends on what you have to trade for that extra money. If you have to give up 40 hours a week of doing what you like in exchange for 40 hours of performing tedious work for an extra $1k a month then that's probably a deal most people wouldn't take.