>and it supports the opposite conclusion The opposite conclusion in a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways to give money. The way the US does it in some

>and it supports the opposite conclusion The opposite conclusion in a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways to give money. The way the US does it in some cases, where earning 5K more in a given year can cost 10K in benefits, does creates a perverse incentive. The way this charity does it, you get 1K and that's it; it does not create perverse incentives. Consider the following example. In one example, a person receives X a week to help, but the aid rolls back when they get a job, M dollars less of aid for each dollar earned. So a job comes along where they can earn Y dollars for 40 hours of work. We could call M the means testing coefficient or something fancy like that. Say that M is 1, and Y < X. In this case, they will now spend 40 hours of their week for no immediate benefit. Having a job may lead to possible longer term benefits (say beginning a career where eventually Y > X), but the cost of 40 hours of their life a week for such little possible benefit would make not working the better choice. If X > Y, but only by a small amount, and M is 1, then they will see some small benefit, but spread over 40 hours it may still not make the job worth it. And if M > 1 and Y < X, it would actually be harmful to get a job. On the other hand, say that M was .25. In this case, taking the job would almost always be beneficial, despite the relationship between X and Y. As for this charity in question, M is 0 (but the aid lasts only for a year). It is the least likely to cause any such harm to getting a job (except for when M is negative, which is to say the more you earn, the more aid you get, which oddly enough happens in some cases of corporate welfare).