Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.

"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
  -- Daniel Webster

Wednesday, December 09, 2015 :::

Over the last five or ten years I have become increasingly sympathetic to in-kind or restricted welfare programs as opposed to unrestricted cash grants to welfare recipients, but a reason to replace welfare programs, as much as we can, with a program of refundable personal tax credits administered through the income tax has just struck me, and I want to air it.

Occasionally one encounters on the internet someone who misunderstands how the income tax system works, thinking that if one earns $1 more than the threshold between the 15% tax bracket and the 25% tax bracket that one keeps less money than if one earns $1 less than the threshold.  It will be assumed that anyone who reads this knows that that is false, but something like that is true for Obamacare subsidies; if you earn just below the cutoff the subsidy can be substantial, and it abruptly drops to zero when your income inches above the threshold.  Even where marginal tax rates aren't infinite, they are often very high on "welfare programs"; AFDC, from 1935–1996 (at which point it was officially eliminated), never had a cliff of that sort, but did have a 100% phaseout rate for most of its existence, and had a 2/3 phaseout rate in the short periods in which its design was less mind-bogglingly stupid.  SNAP isn't quite as bad — it appears to be 30% — but that, of course, is on top of phaseouts for other programs that might be happening at the same time, not to mention various taxes.

Obamacare subsidies are, famously, administered through the tax system, but they are very much made to feel different to people, in a way that child credits and even the EITC don't.  If those could be recast to feel more like tax credits, with SNAP replaced by a refundable credit as well, perhaps the cumulative effect of the phaseouts could be made more salient both to Congress and the electorate and keep aggregate rates below 40% for all people, regardless of income level.

(I believe I have previously suggested here, as a different sort of safety valve, that one be able to elect to split 50/50 with the IRS any portion of one's income in exchange for having it officially removed from income for all tax and welfare benefit calculations; for logistical reasons, one might exclude payroll taxes from that deal.  I still think that is perhaps the way to go.)

::: posted by dWj at 4:09 PM

Comments: Post a Comment

Comment Policy

Dollars and Jens
Steven's web-site

Kitchen Cabinet
Colby Cosh
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Corner
The Bleat from James Lileks
Tim Blair
Daily Ablution
Mickey Kaus
Dave Barry
How Appealing
Virginia Postrel
Reason's "Hit and Run"
Captain's Quarters
Roger L. Simon
Power Line
IWF's InkWell
Blogs for Bush
Chetly Zarko
Signifying Nothing
Cosmo Macero
Hub Blog
Ex Parte from Harvard Law's Federalists
Harvard CR blog
Priorities & Frivolities
Daley News
Emil Levitin
Politica Obscura
Wave Maker
Town Watch
Worcester County Repubs

Election '08
Don't Vote
Dave Barry
John McCain

Other Sites of Note
Townhall columnists Cambridge Republican City Committee
Cambridge Chronicle
Robert Winters
Boston Herald
Boston Globe
Boston Metro
Channel 5
Commonwealth Mag
Fox News
Massachusetts Republican Assembly
Robert Benchley Society

U.S. Constitution
9/11 commission report [7 Meg PDF]
Iraq Survey Group report
Fahrenheight 9/11 deceits


Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.

Powered by Blogger