"Yes, excellent!"
Posted on 06/06/2007 8:15:04 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Does it pay to save? For many households, particularly young and lower-income families, the answer is often no, according to a new study from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). The report found that due to government policies, saving can cost many low-income families thousands of dollars in lost benefits, such as food stamps.
"We're constantly told that we need to save early and often to prepare for retirement," said NCPA Senior Fellow Laurence Kotlikoff, professor at Boston University and author of the study. "Yet government policies tell low-income families: if you save for the future, you won't get our help today."
The study notes that most government aid programs are subject to income and asset requirements. Often saving means a loss of benefits:
A 30-year-old single parent earning $15,000 a year stands to lose $2.60 in higher taxes and lost benefits for every $1 she saves -- an effective marginal tax on saving of 260 percent. By contrast, if the same parent earned $250,000 a year, she only stands to lose 31 cents for every dollar saved -- an effective marginal tax on saving of 31 percent. At age 45, a single parent earning $10,000 a year faces an effective marginal tax on saving of 109 percent, compared to 39 percent if she had earned $250,000 instead. The study also notes that government policies that encourage saving often conflict with programs aimed at providing present day benefits for the same population:
For example, the Saver's Credit provides a federal match of up to 50 cents for each dollar saved by low- to moderate-income families. Yet households that qualify for the Saver's Credit usually also qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). However, since the EITC gives them a zero or negative tax liability, they get no benefit from the Saver's Credit. Source: "Government Penalizes Saving For Those Who Need it the Most," National Center for Policy Analysis, June 6, 2007; based upon: Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David S. Rapson, "Does It Pay to Save?" National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 298, June 2007.
For text:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st298/
For more on Economic Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=17
"Yes, excellent!"
How cute.
Someone on the dole needs to get off. If they can’t, the ‘future’ will be more dole. That’s their ‘retirement.’
Save so you don’t need food stamps, nunuts. This irks me as does the bit about wanting the public to pay nursing home bills so people don’t lose their assets. Give me a break.
More examples of government hypocrisy.
The is not even scratching the surface. People do not get married or get divorced to get on the .gov dole. Young and old play this game. Sick.
No. They get divorced to get on their ex-hubbies dole!
Sounds like the government is doing it’s best to keep people enslaved to their crumbs as much as possible.
Get out of slavery, don’t let the government own you.
True. A friends Dad got "married" to some other 70 year old lady about 4 years after his wife died. They had only a "commitment ceremony" to avoid losing Social Security and other benefits.
Personally I'd like the whole SSI program shut down. Apparently I am in the minority.
That's got my vote.
Many who get SSI then qualify for Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, etc.
They need to move in with family members and get some sort of job.
Why do you think alot of women wait till the baby is born to get married. Some would not qualify for Medicaid if they got married. It is sick.. And yes the ole farts live together or hook up to avoid losing some SS money. Sick. No wonder the kids do the same thing since grannie and gramps are hooking up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.