LogFAQs > #937442442

Godnorgosh posted...

Isn't it simpler and more resource-efficient to opt for universal programs, then tax back any excess later? Or does that count as means testing in your view?

Maybe there is a better way to do means testing, but we tend to focus on income almost to the exclusion of other individual circumstances people might be dealing with. Even people with "high" incomes (>75k) might need that money depending on their unique situations, or if they live in higher-COL areas.

Means tested is fine. The issue is the benefits cliff making it a bad decision to even try to work and get off benefits. To reference the wiki link earlier, one solution is:

An incentive to get out of the welfare trap is that the return to the labour market gives a person chances of moving up the career ladder, improving old and acquiring new job skills, etc., thus eventually improving standard of living.[7] Policies that allow for the continued receipt of benefit payments for a period of time after entering work or up to a specific earnings ceiling may also eliminate the welfare trap. For example, for UK claimants of Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance, "permitted work" arrangements allow for paid work up to either 16 hours or 95 per week without the withdrawal of the disability benefit payments, leading to a net overall increase in income.[8] However, any earnings over 20 may be taxed, and additional earnings may affect receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, which is an example of the welfare trap remaining potentially in effect. To eliminate the welfare trap entirely would require a policy that permanently continues benefit payments regardless of any conditions, with no income from paid work being withdrawn. One example of this would be unconditional basic income.[9]

---

"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz