Wage subsidy plan+ EITC upgrade!

Vox always has good policy articles and they had two good ones this week. The first, on Medicaid buy-in, I started another thread for. This one is even more interesting, wage subsidies:

The first plan the article goes into is an economist’s plan to have the government match the first $14K of a worker’s income. This would apply to all workers regardless of income level, and be paid for with a 15% VAT. While I’ve always been warm to the idea of wage subsidies as the least bad solution to address income inequality, I have a problem with this one. Mainly, that for most workers it takes their money, gives some back to them(or more back to them depending on how much they make), then takes some of THAT back again, since the wage subsidy would be taxable. Argh!!!

HOw about this idea instead? Remember that idea to apply the FICA tax to all earnings instead of just the first $150K or so? Instead of using it to shore up Social Security, how about we impose a surtax of about that level on untaxed FICA income, extend it to annual capital gains of $1 million or more(to take in workers like hedge fund managers), and distribute the proceeds to the poorest third of Americans through wage subsidies, based on how much money is collected rather than a fixed benefit? The benefit would be non-taxable since it goes to poorer workers. That way, instead of everyone paying and everyone getting something back just to pay some of it back again, the wealthy pay and the poor receive and the middle class are unaffected, at least not directly.

What makes more sense to me is parts of his idea, like expanding the EITC and paying it out in people’s paychecks rather than as a tax refund. The child credit could similarly go into people’s paychecks. Given the fact that the vast majority of payroll is automated these days this is not much of a technical challenge. How to pay for it? Well, since it would cost less we could do a basket of tax increases on the wealthy plus spending cuts. Presumably we’d also see a reduction in income-based social spending due to higher wages, so we’d spend a little less on food stamps, ACA subsidies, and Medicaid.

Normally I HATE tax increases on just the wealthy, but if you’re doing income redistribution that’s the whole point. But that’s a well that we should not go to for purposes that benefit everyone directly, like free college, health care, infrastructure, etc. Programs like that should be funded by broad based taxes.

I’d also like to add how discouraging it is that you can’t go to conservative websites for decent policy ideas. Even the think tanks like Heritage and AEI are lacking these days.

That’s mostly to hide the extent of the transfer. If everybody gets the subsidy, but the net change is higher taxation for higher earners, that feels like less of a transfer than only taxing higher earners and only subsidizing lower earners. Even when the dollar amounts are identical.

How are you going to shore up Social Security, then?

In general I think expansion of the EITC and implementing it as a per-paycheck subsidy (rather than a once-per-year windfall) is a good idea. Far better than increasing the minimum wage in almost every respect.

But they face a major political uphill battle, mostly because most people have no idea what the EITC is. Everyone knows what the minimum wage is.

I get the politics of the idea, I just wish economists wouldn’t put out policy papers that take politics into account. The politicians don’t need help with that. What they do need help with is at least knowing what the most economically efficient policy is before they decide exactly how to mess it up.

Benefit cuts for wealthier seniors+ raise the retirement age.

I like to ask:

[ol]
[li]What is the problem you are trying to solve?[/li][li]By what mechansism?[/li][li]What are the details (e.g. income threshholds, etc.)[/li][li]How do we pay for it?[/li][/ol]
Your (2) is clear, and as another poster noted, a regular benefit seems better than an annual windfall.

As for (1), if the target is poverty, you’re missing the target. Not as widely as MW, but it’s hard to pull people out of poverty with a wage program when most either don’t work or do not work full time.

If you’re target is the bottom 1/3rd of households, I’m not sure that’s the right problem to solve. I’m not sure where that income is, probably around $35k/year before taxes and transfers. I did not not need that help when I was earning $25k/year, or when I was earning $34k/year. I certainly *wanted *more money, but I got that by delaying gratification and gaining skills and experience.

Now a couple with three kids earning a combined $34k/year is in a very different boat and probably has trouble getting by where I did not. So maybe the problem is people having trouble getting by. But this couple already qualifies for EITC.

If the problem is that the work/stay-at-home trade-off keeps people with kids out of the workplace, then some strengthened EITC or like program would probably help. Or you might consider some childcare subsidy.

If the problem is simply that some people have more money than others, so you’re going to take it from the former and give to the latter, then we disagree on what constitutes a problem that needs fixing.

Re: (3), I already linked to the maximum incomes. Those and the scaling can be adjusted. One of the IMO attractive features of the EITC is that it avoids a benefits cliff, and I think it’s important to preserve that. Too steep a ramp does run the risk of making additional work less worth it, even if >100% effective marginal taxes are avoided. I’m not sure where that sets in. I could be earning more money right now by working more, but when I’m keeping 59 cents for ever dollar I earn…meh, I’ll take the free time.

Paying for it (4) depends on the overall cost. My preference is to preserve the fiction of SS as a retirement program that I pay into to pay myself later and to increase my other taxes. But we don’t have any firm numbers.

I disagree with that.

We are forced into paying for social security and were basically promised a specific benefit. I don’t the think the US government should be in the business of changing the terms of what is basically a contract.

I would have gladly not paid the SS tax our family pays and would have invested it instead and received a much bigger ROI. I don’t think it’s politically possible to change the benefits for those who paid into the system under current rules.

I think you can do the first to some extent, but if Social Security ends up being a program that primarily benefits poor people, it risks getting cut a lot more. It’s a risky plan.

As long as SS is primarily a transfer from young people to old, it’s on very solid political ground. Old people vote. Once it becomes a transfer from young people to poor old people, it’s a lot shakier. Poor people don’t vote. Generalizing here, obviously, but the gist is true. Where the tipping point is is not obvious.

I think there’s not that much room to raise the retirement age. It’s already 67. Maybe you get another year or three, but you’re running into real physical limits. There are a lot of jobs you really can’t do in your late 60 and early 70s.

I think it’s easier to make changes to my (in 30s) future SS than to current or soon-to-be seniors.

But that’s where it’s headed regardless. All of the plans for fixing SS involve taxing the rich more or cutting their benefits. If you want SS to maintain its current political structure, then the fix is simple: cut all benefits or raise all taxes or a combination. But that doesn’t seem to be on the table for anyone in either party.

The idea is to target poverty among workers, which has two benefits:

  1. It ends poverty for people who work full time
  2. It incentivizes work and fights the cycle of poverty.

With the exception of the aged and disabled, I’m not particularly concerned about the economic prospects of the idle class. If an able-bodied adult won’t work, then he can live hand to mouth on whatever the beneficience of society will grant him, which won’t be much.

Gotcha. Then a good starting point is the Census Poverty Thresholds. Note that’s plural thresholds because they scale with household size from around $12k/year to over $50k. Poverty Thresholds
Note those are income before taxes and transfers.

Are we targeting all workers or just full-time? I’m not sure where you “idle class” ends.
If we look at the Census thresholds and assume 40 h/w, 52 w/yr, federal MW gets you $15,080/yr, already over the threshold for a single adult. But below for an adult living with a child. Plugging a $15,080 AGI into this calculator:

estimates EITC of $3373, which pushes the household over the threshold.

Let’s say you have two kids and a non-working spouse (or is that “idle class”?). The extra adult doesn’t increase EITC, just the kid. That’s $5291 EITC, which leaves the household well short of the two-adult two-child threshold of over $24,339. But kick the spouse out and the threshold drops to $19,337.

Adding a third kid only adds $600 in benefit. So it looks like the credit doesn’t scale the same as the poverty threshold. Your options are to increase the credit per child, add credit for a non-working spouse, or increase MW and ignore anyone who loses their job and is now “idle class”.

For my own opinion, what I was thinking was that we’d just do a general wage subsidy for low wages workers regardless of how many hours they work. So say, if you make $7.25 the subsidy brings you to $10, if you make $9 it would take you to $12, if you make $11 it would take you to $12.50. The subsidy would not take into account how many kids you have or your total income. The exact numbers would vary by year depending on how much money the dedicated funding source for this program was raising. So it would be defined contribution rather than defined benefit, meaning that it’s sustainable. I also think SS should be defined contribution as well.

We’d take care of families with kids with a fully refundable and more generous child tax credit. With the option to add the credit to paychecks being the default rather than a lump sum at tax season.

So you’re not even targeting poverty.

Programs should not be means-tested. Seniors get their social security regardless of income or wealth; everyone gets their basic income stipend; everyone is eligible for childcare assistance, etc. This has several advantages: no paperwork for means-testing, less scope for fraud, no worry about reversed incentives due to thresholds.

However the programs must be designed to help the neediest. Programs to supplement wages are no help for those who cannot find employment. A single parent trying to cope with children has far greater needs than an unmarried person living with his parents. For this reason, we need programs that address needs, not income. Free healthcare, with no means testing, would be a big start. Free secondary education (which we already have), subsidized higher education, subsidized housing, and free or subsidized childcare — these will all be necessary in a future functioning society. Wage controls, etc. are just band-aids that do not address the major economic transformations underway.

Those are good points, but the problem with free, unconditional stuff is that it disincentivizes work. It could well be that in the future we’ll have no use for low or no-skill workers, so then we’ll have a different kind of problem that those types of programs can solve. But for now, at least when the economy is good, any able bodied person who wants work can find work. What we have to do is make that work worthwhile.

I’d note that SS is not means tested, but you do have to pay into it to receive benefits. I’m not really interested in supporting more anti-poverty programs where work is not required. What I want to see is more programs like SS, where what you get out has a lot to do with what you put in. Put in nothing, you get nothing. Of course, in the case of wage subsidies, low wage earners aren’t putting any money in(that’s coming mainly from wealthier taxpayers), but they are putting in their labors. So it’s a similar concept.

For some values of stuff. When the ‘stuff’ is free healthcare, and cheap childcare the opposite is the case: *These free things make it easier to look for and perform work.
*

Health care should be available for all, and already is for the non-working(Medicaid). Child care is also good, but should only be available for those employed or actively looking for work. Although I’m skeptical of universal child care. Child care for poor single working parents, okay, child care for two parent families or wealthier workers, it’s just not necessary.

Sure, it’s not necessary. It’s also not mandatory. :smack:

No, Medicaid is not available for the non-working, not in my state at least. I don’t qualify for Tenncare medicaid, even as a nonworking custodial parent. My 12 year old qualifies. I don’t qualify and neither does my 28 year old head-of-household part-time working student daughter. We JUST reapplied in July so I’m pretty sure nothing has changed since. I just got my rejection letter last week.

I just had this Vox article linked in my Facebook newsfeed and thought I’d share it here. I agree with it on SO many counts. This author discovered in a few years of software development what I experienced over and over again in my 20 years of it. I also agree that lots of people, if given a basic income, won’t sit around and eat bonbons. We will find tons of worthy things to accomplish for society.