That said, there are also discussions that suggest the poverty trap—i.e. overwhelmingly strong labor disincentives for poor, from outrageously high effective marginal tax rates from benefits fade-out/tax kicking-in—may be partly overrated, so smoothing the earned-to-net income function may not help as much as some may hope.
I just skimmed the linked article, but it seems to me that it makes some “spherical cow” assumptions. For example, if you get a job, even low-paying, you should gain more money on the wage than you lose at social benefits. But you also need to consider additional costs of having job, for example the commute. And that’s often the problem in practice, that “wage > benefits”, but “wage—commute < benefits”. The article seems to ignore such things.
I agree that even with UBI, people with special needs should get extra.
Not exceptionally fond of the concept of ‘poverty trap’ as a talking point that tries to discourage social welfare, but I also have to note the very obvious and apparently intentional traps in the U.S. at least around—specifically—long-term disability once that is necessary for self-sustenance; including attempting substantial gainful activity on disability; marrying someone while on disability; accepting gifts of any sort while on disability; and trying to save money on disability. Some of the specifics have thankfully improved, but there’s just a bizarre number of gotchas that do aggressively penalize in some way most improvements in life situation, apparently as fallout from means testing.
(Oh, and you potentially qualify for sub-minimum wage jobs if you have a disability which impairs your ability to do that specific job, which … well, I’m not sure how this changes the equilibrium; it gives options and also makes you more exploitable if the wage decrease is more than the impairment.)
Never heard this mentioned explicitly, but I assume the idea is that you would lose the money, because your spouse has an income, right?
In my country (not USA) we have the concept of “full disability” and “partial disability”, and I know a guy who technically would be eligible for the partial disability, but he doesn’t bother doing the paperwork, because the money he would get would not be enough to survive… and when he gets any extra income, then he loses the partial disability, because apparently this cheater is capable of work. Which is kinda sorta true, but ignores the fact that out of many possible jobs, he must be looking extra hard to find one that is compatible with his specific health problems (no sitting, but also no hard work, accessible by mass transit because of no sitting in a car, etc.), and while such jobs exist, they are quite rare. (Basically, “partial disability” only makes sense for people who are also supported by their family.)
For this guy, UBI even on the “can’t really survive on it” level would be already a huge improvement.
A reasonable rule would be like “a person with health problem X gets Y money”, full stop. Anything else means regulating how people need to live (usually requiring them to make the worse choice) so that they do not lose the support.
I just skimmed the linked article, but it seems to me that it makes some “spherical cow” assumptions. For example, if you get a job, even low-paying, you should gain more money on the wage than you lose at social benefits. But you also need to consider additional costs of having job, for example the commute. And that’s often the problem in practice, that “wage > benefits”, but “wage—commute < benefits”. The article seems to ignore such things.
I agree that even with UBI, people with special needs should get extra.
Not exceptionally fond of the concept of ‘poverty trap’ as a talking point that tries to discourage social welfare, but I also have to note the very obvious and apparently intentional traps in the U.S. at least around—specifically—long-term disability once that is necessary for self-sustenance; including attempting substantial gainful activity on disability; marrying someone while on disability; accepting gifts of any sort while on disability; and trying to save money on disability. Some of the specifics have thankfully improved, but there’s just a bizarre number of gotchas that do aggressively penalize in some way most improvements in life situation, apparently as fallout from means testing.
(Oh, and you potentially qualify for sub-minimum wage jobs if you have a disability which impairs your ability to do that specific job, which … well, I’m not sure how this changes the equilibrium; it gives options and also makes you more exploitable if the wage decrease is more than the impairment.)
Never heard this mentioned explicitly, but I assume the idea is that you would lose the money, because your spouse has an income, right?
In my country (not USA) we have the concept of “full disability” and “partial disability”, and I know a guy who technically would be eligible for the partial disability, but he doesn’t bother doing the paperwork, because the money he would get would not be enough to survive… and when he gets any extra income, then he loses the partial disability, because apparently this cheater is capable of work. Which is kinda sorta true, but ignores the fact that out of many possible jobs, he must be looking extra hard to find one that is compatible with his specific health problems (no sitting, but also no hard work, accessible by mass transit because of no sitting in a car, etc.), and while such jobs exist, they are quite rare. (Basically, “partial disability” only makes sense for people who are also supported by their family.)
For this guy, UBI even on the “can’t really survive on it” level would be already a huge improvement.
Yeah, or even just not also on disability.
https://cdrnys.org/blog/disability-dialogue/the-disability-dialogue-marriage-equality/ discusses some of the issues around here at the time it was written, if you’re curious.
Yeah, that it as stupid situation as I expected.
A reasonable rule would be like “a person with health problem X gets Y money”, full stop. Anything else means regulating how people need to live (usually requiring them to make the worse choice) so that they do not lose the support.