Not by much. You are again only near the cut offs for the 3 programs really contributing to the cliff - childcare, housing, and, medical assistance. You could add more money in the beginning so as not to hurt poorer folks at first and the incentives should help reduce the overall need over time anyway, in fact, a temporary boost should result in needing less money since people would be seeking higher wage overall. Unless the theory is b.s. in which case you just go back to square one and try something else.
I agree this is probably the best solution. Not sure how complicated the formula would become but I'm sure they can figure it out.
Looking at the charts Mr Clutch posted, it's hard to see how (at least in the particular sets of circumstances illustrated there) simply smoothing the cutoffs would work. You'd still have a very flat line over a large range of incomes. Still better than a sudden cutoff, I suppose, but not a perfect solution.
I know what you are saying, but you can put a slope to that line. It doesn't have to be steep. Remember some welfare benefits expire after a certain time. So there is some pressure to move off of them. But the maximum benefit should go to the person earning all their income themselves. That's a travesty that it is not that way.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-inequality-for-all/ I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.
Speaking of inequality in America - it would seems someone at the fed leaked some important info. And the person it was leaked to did not quite understand physics. But carry on citizen - nothing to see here!
If the fed is so enormously, incredibly, overwhelmingly stupid as to give this information to journalists ahead of time...well, hell, we're ****ed. Do they really do that? My understanding is that there's supposed to be ZERO communication ahead of the precise release time.
Journalists get info in advance. They are locked in a room with no commnication methods until the official time. That's how the statement is reported the second it's released - the journalists have already read through it before then. This is pretty standard on a lot of data releases - the last thing you want is people hurrying up and trying to be the first to report something, and end up reporting something incorrectly (like we saw with the Obamacare Supreme Court ruling). That said, this is more a problem with computer trading than anything else. Basically, the Chicago computers got the info a few milliseconds before they were supposed to - but even if they hadn't, NY computers would still get the info earlier than Chicago, and Chicago would get it earlier than SF. So you have an inherent unfairness there - even ignoring the disadvantage of actually being human.
Actually no, you are not taking money from anyone you are giving them less and it is not the same thing. Any program that punishes you for doing better is flawed. Politically it will be portrayed as taking from the poor and giving to the rich by whichever side opposes it and that is the reason it won't happen. Sad but true, we will not help our population to help itself because politicians can't handle the negative press. The only way this will happen is if we expand the programs to remove the cliffs.
Cutting benefits for the longterm unemployed and retiring military veterans. Meanwhile, the .01% keep their loop holes on the backs of the aforementioned:
