The possibility that the government is giving too much to poor people is low on my list of concerns. I also believe that harm-causing processes should be shut down before support systems
Harm causing is endemic to the government “support” systems for the poor, who face the highest effective marginal tax rates of anyone, often exceeding 100%, and huge penalties for marriage and cohabitation.
Both Milton Friedman and Charles Murray, who are about as canonically libertarian as it gets, favor social welfare policies that are approximately geolibertarian, with unconditional cash transfers to everyone. Your statement accurately reflects their opinions on the priorities of transforming the social welfare system.
That quote from me was intended as a answer to the conservatives who seem to believe that giving government money to poor people is bad for the poor people, even if there isn’t a high marginal tax rate on the poor people earning much of anything for themselves.
Do you have a reference for “often”? I’ve seen hypothetical examples demonstrating that it’s possible for means-tested subsidy loss to push effective marginal tax rates above 100%, but I’ve never seen any estimation of how many people are in such situations (or in nearby situations with sub-100% but still ludicrous marginal rates).
Here’s a CBO report finds that 15% of low to moderate income people are subject to 40-50% marginal rates and maybe another 10% are in excess of 50%. The caption implies that it isn’t considering many benefits, but the rest of the report talks about them.
The Heritage Foundation analyzed the report, making it easier to see the effect for a woman with one child in the +100% marginal tax rate, which by eyeball is about 7k->15k.
I wonder if they factored in the increased costs associated with having a job: commute, lunch, clothing, laundry, etc.I’d guess from 7k->20k, you’re basically working for no financial benefit, and that’s valuing the personal cost of the time you spend working at $0/hr.
I hadn’t realized how appallingly bad it was. Looks like going from 0k->20k produces about 4k in increased disposable income. For a 20k job, it’s an 80% effective tax rate, ignoring the issue of marginal rates.
And I thought the drug war was evil.
We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.
To be fair Obama did a lot on this issue through Obamacare. The state where you got medical coverage when you were unemployed but not if you got a low paying job was just appealing. Sorry, but if you want medical care for your child you can’t take that job.
Harm causing is endemic to the government “support” systems for the poor, who face the highest effective marginal tax rates of anyone, often exceeding 100%, and huge penalties for marriage and cohabitation.
Both Milton Friedman and Charles Murray, who are about as canonically libertarian as it gets, favor social welfare policies that are approximately geolibertarian, with unconditional cash transfers to everyone. Your statement accurately reflects their opinions on the priorities of transforming the social welfare system.
That quote from me was intended as a answer to the conservatives who seem to believe that giving government money to poor people is bad for the poor people, even if there isn’t a high marginal tax rate on the poor people earning much of anything for themselves.
Do you have a reference for “often”? I’ve seen hypothetical examples demonstrating that it’s possible for means-tested subsidy loss to push effective marginal tax rates above 100%, but I’ve never seen any estimation of how many people are in such situations (or in nearby situations with sub-100% but still ludicrous marginal rates).
Here’s a CBO report finds that 15% of low to moderate income people are subject to 40-50% marginal rates and maybe another 10% are in excess of 50%. The caption implies that it isn’t considering many benefits, but the rest of the report talks about them.
The Heritage Foundation analyzed the report, making it easier to see the effect for a woman with one child in the +100% marginal tax rate, which by eyeball is about 7k->15k.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/effective-marginal-tax-rates-for-low-income-workers-are-high
I wonder if they factored in the increased costs associated with having a job: commute, lunch, clothing, laundry, etc.I’d guess from 7k->20k, you’re basically working for no financial benefit, and that’s valuing the personal cost of the time you spend working at $0/hr.
I hadn’t realized how appallingly bad it was. Looks like going from 0k->20k produces about 4k in increased disposable income. For a 20k job, it’s an 80% effective tax rate, ignoring the issue of marginal rates.
And I thought the drug war was evil.
We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.
To be fair Obama did a lot on this issue through Obamacare. The state where you got medical coverage when you were unemployed but not if you got a low paying job was just appealing. Sorry, but if you want medical care for your child you can’t take that job.