@scottsantens Welfare that cuts off as soon as you have other income always seemed to me like it was clearly designed to trap people.

That being one of the frequent criticisms against government aid, you'd think they would have designed it not to do that.

...or, more cynically, they made sure that was in there, so they could always attack it on that basis.

(...which, in the light of recent House shenanigans about The Border Crisis™, seems entirely on-brand.)

@woozle @scottsantens In a smart system (…I know :/) it’d function on different tiers instead of getting cut off at a certain point, and the tiers wouldn’t be larger than one can afford to lose.

And not just income, as unmarried disabled people find, which is especially cruel.

@WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens

...and how about a lag between gaining employment and cutting off assistance, too? It takes time to recover and build your reserves back up. [edited for wording & explanation]

(I'd do a smooth curve rather than tiers, just so people don't feel they have to avoid making more than X amount -- something like negative income tax.)

UBI seems like a better idea, though, if only because it's so much simpler and thereby less prone to political manipulation and administrative overhead costs.

@woozle @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens Most US means tested "safety net" programs phase out as income increases. While that does reduce the marginal gain from earnings, it isn't like the sharp cutoffs 50 years ago. The US also has a "negative income tax" in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Conservatives used to love this, now they complain about how many people don't pay federal income tax.

Means tested programs are a pain to administer, UBI could be a lot more efficient.