On Welfare Traps

A welfare trap is a situation in which the income (wages plus government benefits) of an individual on welfare remains the same or actually decreases if that individual starts to earn higher wages but loses some or all of his government benefits. For example, if a particular government program provides $5k in benefits for individuals earning $30k or less, an individual who earns $29k in wages has a higher income ($34k) than another individual who earns, say, $32k in wages. Obviously, this creates a perverse incentive for individuals on welfare to avoid work or higher-paying work (which, to first order, is more productive and generates more wealth) since they have the same or even higher income by not working and/or being less productive. This perverse incentive exists even for otherwise well-motivated individuals on welfare (i.e. people who are not simply lazy “moochers”). Moreover, for all the talk that the “rich” should “pay their fair share” there is no rational definition of “fair” whereby a person on welfare doing little or no work has more income than a more productive person earning higher wages.

Unfortunately, all the focus on “fairness” in the U.S. tax code has nonetheless ignored the fact that there do exist significant welfare traps in America. Zero Hedge found a presentation by Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare Gary Alexander with some clear (and disturbing) graphics that highlight these welfare traps. One such graphic is:

Click for larger image.

The plot is of income (welfare benefits + wages) as a function of wages. The dark blue bars indicate contribution to the net (after-tax) income of an individual due to earned income alone. The bars of other colors indicate the contribution to a person’s net income of various welfare programs.

There are two ways to look at this plot. The first is to follow the net income (vertical axis) as wages (horizontal axis) increase slightly. For the most part a small increase in wages results in a small increase in net income, but in several places and in a variety of situations net income decreases significantly as wages increase slightly. For example, a person who earns $29k and qualifies for all benefits has net income of about $57.3k, but if that person increases his or her wages to $31k then net income falls below $50k. Consequently, a person who earns $29k and qualifies for all benefits is discouraged from earning higher wages by a loss of over $7k in net income — even if that person is a hard-working and motivated individual trying to earn a better life for his or her children. Every case in the plot in which net income suddenly decreases like this is a welfare trap, and every such welfare trap hurts the economy since it discourages people from being more productive and earning more.

The second way to look at the plot is to compare points where net income is the same for different earned incomes. The one highlighted in the plot shows that a person earning $29k and who qualifies for all benefits has the same net income as someone who qualifies for no benefits but earns $69k. There is also a case where someone earning only $9k and who qualifies for all benefits has the same net income (about $54k) as someone who qualifies for no benefits but earns about $64k, although at least in this case the person earning only $9k has somewhat of an incentive to earn more since he or she only needs to earn $15k to increase his or her net income. This situation is not “fair” under any reasonable definition of “fair”, which reveals that the left’s complaint that the “rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes* is either a red herring (i.e. they aren’t concerned about fairness and just want to soak the “rich”) or (naively?) selective. Leftists would undoubtedly seek to flatten the net income curve by raising the means test thresholds and thereby increase the net income of those earning between $30k and $69k, but if $42k (the minimum net income on the plot) is sufficient for people earning $44k then $42k is sufficient for everyone earning less than $44k and benefits can be reduced. The savings from such a benefit reduction could be used to slightly increase the net income of the poor slobs earning too much to qualify for benefits but not enough that their net income is higher than those who do, or — even better — reduce our deficits and debts (the federal government alone has been running deficits greater than $1 trillion in recent years, and has a total debt greater than $16 trillion and greater than the U.S. GDP).

Welfare traps such as the ones in the above plot help explain why the poor in America are often seen as lazy and/or “moochers” by conservatives: those with low wages earn less, yet through a variety of welfare programs can actually have a higher income than middle wage earners who do not qualify for such welfare programs. While it is justifiable for middle income earners to be angry and frustrated that lower income earners can have a higher total income, the problem is with the government and its policies rather than the low wage earners themselves. To re-iterate the point: welfare traps give low wage earners perverse incentives against seeking an increase in their wages, so even a hard-working and well-motivated individual finds it personally beneficial to avoid higher wages and productivity. There is no need to demonize the poor (or the rich, for that matter). Perhaps if politicians spent less time demonizing people and more time considering the unintended consequences of their actions they could agree to eliminate obvious obstacles to economic growth such as welfare traps.


* This complaint uses the left’s preferred but subjective definition of “fair”, and the left’s incorrect definition of “rich” as high income earners.


9 thoughts on “On Welfare Traps

  1. Welfare traps are a very real thing for people in Pennsylvania. I know because I’m in one. I am a moderately debilitated asthmatic with two wrecked disks in my back. I get excellent health care due to my disability. but here’s the hell of it: If I make a mere $200 a month, it vanishes! My asthma medicine is $400 a month. Less than a month off my meds and I’ll be right back in the emergency room fighting for air. On the meds, I’m fairly well controlled, I could certainly work.

    What the hell am I to do? To make matters worse, PA Republicans have blocked key aspects of the ACA in our state so I can’t even transition to that to live a productive life! I have no desire to be a mooch, but I have no option. Meanwhile I have THREE pairs of jeans. Three. I live and eat by the grace of a family who loves me.

    This is hell and the leaders of Pennsylvania are to blame for their refusal to set aside partisan politics.

    • I’m sorry to hear about your predicament. I hope for the best for you and that your situation will improve.

  2. Welfare is a trap meant to keep the poor in poverty so that social workers and countless other professions can benefit from the illnesses of the poor.
    If there were no poor people on welfare all those professions would suffer.
    Add food banks and soup lines to those that would suffer or vanish entirely.
    Winnipeg Harvest would no longer be needed.
    However,there’s no chance that the poor will EVER live at or above the poverty lines as described by the goverment.
    A single man on welfare only receives in total 10000$ a year and that includes renting subsidized housing.
    If the single man worked for minimum wage he would only be slightly better off.
    The working poor family is even worse off.
    This is the welfare trap as created by the government.
    Its very perverse.

  3. I forgot to mention that if a welfare recipient does get a part time job? ANYTHING he makes over 200$ will be deducted from his welfare cheque.
    The welfare trap is so tight that only a meager 200$ is allowed.
    That 200$ covers bus fare and a lunch at that part time job.
    Nice 😕
    Way to go manitoba government.
    Nice trap. May the same happen to your money. Perhaps another great depression will make everyone equal again so that even government staff understand poverty ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: