Fact checking Gwyneth Paltrow on $29 of food stamps for a week
26 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in labour economics, politics - USA, welfare reform Tags: food stamps, Gwyneth Paltrow, Left-wing hypocrisy, welfare state
Tony Atkinson’s ‘Inequality – What Can Be Done?’
24 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, labour economics, minimum wage, Public Choice, Rawls and Nozick, welfare reform Tags: guaranteed minimum income, Leftover Left
I find proposal number 3 to target reducing unemployment rather perplexing because Atkinson in proposal number 5 wants to increase the minimum wage to the living wage, which will increase unemployment. He proposes a guaranteed child income, but he doesn’t appear to make proposals for a guaranteed family minimum income. A guaranteed family minimum income or an increase in the earned income tax credit, to use the American terminology, would increase the incomes of the low paid without threatening their job through a minimum wage increase.
Out Today: Tony Atkinson's new book 'Inequality – What Can Be Done?'
Here are his 14 proposals to reduce inequality: http://t.co/RPXmEBBFCR—
Max Roser (@MaxCRoser) April 23, 2015
The changing American family
24 Apr 2015 3 Comments
in economics of love and marriage, gender, labour economics, labour supply, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: family demographics, single parents
via Was Moynihan Right? What happens to the children of unmarried mothers : Education Next
The war on poverty at age 50: What US social programs worked and which failed? – Chris Blattman
23 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in economic history, labour economics, labour supply, poverty and inequality, welfare reform
Via The war on poverty at age 50: What US social programs worked and which failed? – Chris Blattman.
Stay-at-home moms are poorer, less educated than working moms
18 Apr 2015 4 Comments
in gender, labour economics, labour supply, occupational choice, poverty and inequality, unemployment, welfare reform Tags: child poverty, demographics, family, single parents
Why are welfare beneficiaries so allergic to contact with case managers?
17 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of crime, labour economics, labour supply, welfare reform
The futility of increasing the minimum wage to reduce poverty
13 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in labour economics, minimum wage, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: living wage, poverty and inequality, welfare state
What was the impact of neoliberalism on welfare spending in the USA?
12 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in welfare reform Tags: Director's Law, expressive voting, growth in government, welfare spending
A Guaranteed Minimum Income for New Zealand? The Treasury costings
12 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in income redistribution, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, welfare reform
The Treasury modelled a Guaranteed Minimum income (GMI) at the request of the Welfare Working Group in 2010. A GMI paying $300 per week – the mean benefit income among those on benefits – would cost $44.5 billion (model 1) or $52.6 billion if we extended it to super annuitants as a replacement for NZ Superannuation or old age pension (model 2). The former could be covered by a flat personal income tax rate of 45.4%; the latter, 48.6%.
Full fiscal neutrality would require tax rates of 50.6% and 54.4% – the lower tax rates would be just enough to cover the transfers, but income tax revenues are currently also used to fund more than just transfers.
If we recognize that most parents are beneficiaries via Working for Families and compensate them for their loss with a $86 per child per week payment (model 3), we get a $57.1 billion fiscal cost and a personal tax rate of 50% (or 55.7% for fiscal neutrality).
Treasury noted that many beneficiaries (including the disabled, carers and sole parents) currently receive more than $300 per week and would be made financially worse off under a GMI scheme.
Treasury also warned about potential adverse labour supply responses to the necessary higher personal income tax rates. The large gap between company and personal tax rates would increase IRD’s enforcement costs.
In 1987, Finance Minister Roger Douglas announced a Guaranteed Minimum Family Income Scheme to accompany a new 22% flat income tax. The idea did not go ahead.
Richard Nixon also proposed a guaranteed minimum family income plan in 1969 to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AIDC) scheme at the behest of future Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This was based on the negative income tax proposals of Milton Friedman and George Stigler. Nixon’s plan passed the House but not the Senate after 3 years of infighting.
The final outcome was the earned income tax credit (EITC) in 1975 that was expanded significantly in the 1990s to become the largest single federal income transfer programme. One attraction of the EITC is that because its benefits rise positively with earnings up to the phase-out point, so it can have a positive rather than negative effect on work incentives for workers on a low wage.
Australia has the most targeted welfare state
10 Apr 2015 2 Comments
in politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: welfare state
In Mexico, most cash-based public social benefits go to households in the highest income quintile, per OECD. http://t.co/xykkPkDVZs—
Catherine Rampell (@crampell) November 24, 2014
Single motherhood compared internationally
05 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in gender, health economics, labour economics, occupational choice, population economics, welfare reform Tags: single parents
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3536970/Screen_Shot_2015-03-23_at_7.40.03_PM.0.0.png)
The impact of US 1996 welfare reforms on single mothers’ employment
03 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in gender, labour economics, labour supply, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: 1996 US welfare reforms, female labour force participation, single parents
Who has the smallest Anglo-Saxon welfare state of them all?
02 Apr 2015 1 Comment
in income redistribution, labour economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, welfare reform Tags: social insurance, social safety nets, welfare reform, welfare state
I have reanalysed data published by the Peterson Institute on the true levels of social expenditure across the industrialised countries for the Anglo-Saxon countries.
Figure 1: gross public social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
When you just look at gross public social expenditure, New Zealand is in the middle of the pack with the United Kingdom having the largest spending. There are not particularly large differences across social spending in the Anglo-Saxon welfare states.
Figure 2: Gross public social expenditure and the effects of taxation in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
There is not much change when you include the effects of taxation on consumption by benefit recipients.
Figure 3: Net after-tax public and private social expenditure in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
When private mandatory social spending is included, such as employer sponsored health cover, there is considerable change with United States leaping to the front and New Zealand dropping to the bottom. The USA has the largest and most expensive is health sector in the world so they are leaping of the front, either because healthcare is expensive in United States or people in the United States are not constrained by government rationing to spend less than they would prefer on their own healthcare. Let’s leave that war of ideas for another day.
Figure 4: Net after-tax total social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
On the face of it, New Zealand has the smallest Anglo-Saxon welfare state while the United States has the largest. A more accurate measure of the relative sizes of these Anglo-Saxon welfare states would require the wisdom of Solomon in measuring waste and underfunding in the respective systems and more trust than you should have in services sector in purchasing power parity adjustments.
For those that are interested, the OECD-wide gross social spending and net after-tax total social spending are reproduced below in figures 5 and 6.
Figure 5: Net after-tax total social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
The Figure 5 data on the OECD wide welfare state sizes shows that when you add private spending, including social spending mandated by law, the US has the second largest OECD social safety net as Kirkegaard said in his Peterson Institute paper:
Taking the full effects of tax systems and social spending from both private and public sources into account, the United States is seen to be devoting more resources toward social purposes than is generally acknowledged. In fact, only the French spend more than Americans, while the alleged welfare-addicted Scandinavians and Europeans spend less on average.
Figure 6: Gross public social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
Via The US welfare state and safety net are bigger than you think. But who are they helping? – AEI | Pethokoukis Blog » AEIdeas and POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies
The rising educational attainment of the poor
01 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of education, human capital, labour economics, labour supply, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: educational attainment
@mattyglesias poverty trends a good example of why americanprogress.org/issues/poverty… http://t.co/tgn7RzBKzw—
Shawn Fremstad (@inclusionist) March 28, 2015
Recent Comments