The incentives of the Welfare State

[Avery]

in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."



More chart porn from the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/114628958/welfare-failure

Similar finding made by weekly newspaper:

Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year


If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.
This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were weilling to cheat. Even if you dodn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job

[I invented that]

so what's wrong with that. people gotta live.

[HeinousMark]

Into zee ovens with them!!!!!!!!!! Zeese Velfare entitlement lazy Democrat-woting parasites are draining zis country dry. ZEY ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!

[Avery]

I say we give these benefits to people making 60k so they can live like somebody making 100k.

Then we'll all be rich.

[Avery]

Into zee ovens with them!!!!!!!!!! Zeese Velfare entitlement lazy Democrat-woting parasites are draining zis country dry. ZEY ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed.

[RiotGrip]

in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."



More chart porn from the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/114628958/welfare-failure

Similar finding made by weekly newspaper:

Interesting way to look at it, however the people at the top of the cliff are only getting free healthcare for their children not themselves. If you factor the cost of them buying personal insurance, which they may have to under Obamacare it is not quite as rosy.

Also, this graph doesn't account for employer based benefits like health insurance and 401k matching that could fare better for many people making over 35k a year

Edit: on closer read this graph does include benefits for employees it just doesn't specify what they are.

[I invented that]

Interesting way to look at it, however the people at the top of the cliff are only getting free healthcare for their children not themselves. If you factor the cost of them buying personal insurance, which they may have to under Obamacare it is not quite as rosy.

Also, this graph doesn't account for employer based benefits like health insurance and 401k matching that could fare better for many people making over 35k a year

you forget everybody works at walmart, they don't give insurance. what's 401k matching

[racerx]

I say we give these benefits to people making 60k so they can live like somebody making 100k.

Then we'll all be rich.

screw the benefits. bush increased minimum wage 50% to $7 an hr.
that was the right idea, but was weak, it should be raised to $70, then we'll all be rich.
bam didn't increase it 1 penny. why does he hates poor people? we need a rep pres

[Brokenbad]

"More buzzards"

[SiriusDawg]

Doesn't Penn have one of the lowest Welfare Fraud rates?

[MatthewT]

the most shocking thing about the chart is the illusion that this situation can be stabilized and endure