19 ms·
As long as a raise of income of $N docks you at most N - (whatever you consider minimum wage) dollars in welfare, you won't be outright disincentivized from wor
by htns 12y ago
As long as a raise of income of $N docks you at most N - (whatever you consider minimum wage) dollars in welfare, you won't be outright disincentivized from working.
- lpsz 12y agoUpon some more research, it looks like Earned Income Tax Credit [1] attempts to provide some minimal incentives along these lines. Simplified analysis, goal is situation C. Let's say my monthly welfare income is $1000. A. I start earning $200. My welfare decreases by $200. Why don't I just stay on welfare? B. I start earning $200. My welfare decreases by $300. I've lost $100, a penalty for working. C. I start earning $200. My welfare decreases by $100. I now have an incentive to work. Over time, this leads to a future situation where I gradually earn much more than I could ever with welfare. Also consider: What if I find $1000 sufficient to live on? What about $1100? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
- fredophile 12y agoIt's actually more likely that your A and B scenarios are the same. I'd consider a more realistic A scenario to be: I start earning $200. My welfare decreases by $200. My expenses increase by $100 (transportation to/from work, childcare while at work, clothes specifically for work, etc). Once you realize that work usually has more costs than just time A and B become the same.
- xrange 12y agoIt is even worse than that. Now you are spending X hours per day being told what to do, instead of spending X hours doing whatever you want.
- Fomite 12y agoThere are some scenarios, usually at income thresholds for various benefits, that the B scenario is manifestly true even without expenses - earn another dollar, and you'll lose money.