Separate thought: with so much focus on the oppressed and downtrodden in our politics these days, how is it that obvious problems like the parent commenter mentions are not being fixed?
Why aren't reasonable people of both parties trying to create the right incentive structures for the poor at least in areas where they both agree?
That's because these programs start with idea of having societal benefits but eventually persist to serve themselves (and the people they employ). Elevating people out of your program makes the peogram less necessary (along with the voters it employs).
The Government Program Industrial Complex, if you will.
The compromise between those two ideas is what we have today.
His thinking was that he didn't have a birth certificate, had no idea where it was, and he was WORRIED that if he brought this to the government's attention he could be declared a "non-citizen" and might be...well..he didn't really know. He was very fearful of this.
Eventually he found a girlfriend who was a friend of mine and we convinced him to sort out the situation and everything worked out just fine (he was obviously NOT the first person in Canada with this situation). But imagine he had gone for all these years avoiding the government just because of this line of thinking. So there is something to your point here about the fear of bureaucracy and scrutinization.
Because if the problem goes away those people won't have reasons to vote for you next time around. LBJ has some choice quotes about this concept, it's not a new thing.
Mush berries, add a tsp of caffeine powder, Red Bull addicts.
Work is everywhere, jobs are mired in stupid busy work to insulate the elites from challenges to their status.
Before you suggest boycotting the rest of the world, protectionism rarely works over the long term because it tends to stifle innovation and provoke trade wars. The US is already courting this with its recent green energy legislation which aims to promote domestic industries in a way that inconveniences Western Europe, for example.
That’s why I’m in favor of a straight cash subsidy through the negative income tax.
If you’re receiving $1234/month (typical disability payment from a few years ago), that works out to $14808 annually. Under your scheme, you’d have to find (and work) a job paying $14809/year just to see an increase of $1 in your real income. In effect, you’d be working for a full year and being paid a net of $1.
It is more about ensuring that a person receiving assistance can work as much as they are able without any concerns. Anything less than a totally smooth off-ramp to financial assistance is bound to create scenarios where the optimal strategy for a worker is limit their maximum compensation below the arbitrary financial cliff.
[1]: https://thefinancebuff.com/stay-under-obamacare-premium-subs...
That created an obvious incentive for male behavior in poor families. Once the unattached male hits bottom, there’s three options: mooch off of parents/baby mama and get in your feet, mooch and do nothing, get on disability, or go to jail.
This is a reminder that the United States has several Welfare Cliffs - places where, if you make $X more than a certain amount, an entire benefit disappears completely; and, was previously a considerable benefit.
For all the people that talk about educational ignorance when it comes to "I make more money, so now I make less because I'm in a new tax bracket", in the US, we actually do have one of those cliffs with regards to Medicaid, etc, at around $40k / year.
And don't get me started on the "disabled people can't actually get a job because they'll lose their disability check" situation.
As a whole, this country's policies really need to update when it comes to facilitating people to get out of traps they find themselves in - because the trap is actually safer than outside the trap - they literally make more money and have a higher standard of living. A poor person making money legally should never be a punishment.