Posted on 08/16/2012 7:49:47 AM PDT by Perseverando
The U.S. welfare system sure creates some crazy disincentives to working your way up the ladder. Benefits stacked upon benefits can mean it is financially better, at least in the short term, to stay at a lower-paying jobs rather than taking a higher paying job and losing those benefits. This is called the “welfare cliff.”
Let’s take the example of a single mom with two kids, 1 and 4. She has a $29,000 a year job, putting the kids in daycare during the day while she works.
As the above chart – via Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania’s secretary of Public Welfare — shows, the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045.
It would sure be tempting for that mom to keep the status quo rather than take the new job, even though the new position might lead to further career advancement and a higher standard of living. I guess this is something the Obama White House forgot to mention in its “Life of Julia” cartoons extolling government assistance.
***She won’t get a real job for fear she will lose the gravy train of free money and gov aid.***
Sounds like my worthless brother-in-law(If you know him he probably owes you money). He has not held a job since 1981, preferring to live on the gov’t dole.
Not just adult children, anyone living in your home or who you are willing to lie and claim lives in your home. My sister works for a manufacturer (yeah there are still a few in this country) and was told, flat out, that anyone they wanted to put on their insurance was fine by them.
Never was a mystery, really.
There are several evil influences on both sides of this that encourage the replacement of the husband/father with the government. Women are told to be “independent” [of men], but are still wired for seeking a provider and protector. Politicians under the influence of the prince of this world use this desire to further their own power.
I looked up “perverse incentive” on wikipedia.
“A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers. Perverse incentives are a type of unintended consequences.”
I don’t agree with this definition. The negative societal consequences and results of most leftist policies are neither unintended nor undesirable to the incentive makers.
Now, the sheeperals’ intent is to feel good about themselves for “caring” and supporting these destructive programs, and they’ll cover their ears and yell if you try to explain how these policies are DESTRUCTIVE to the people they think they are helping.
you’re cool...different source, different chart...
She tends bar off the books or on the books?
>> 3 kids
Hopefully she’ll raise 3 contributing taxpayers.
>> The negative societal consequences and results of most leftist policies are neither unintended nor undesirable to the incentive makers.
The alarming element is the accommodating male that has betrayed our mutual requirement of Liberty.
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.