Your Opinion on Replacing EITC and other Welfare with Wage Subsidies

[LukeR]

I think it's a pretty good idea. What's your opinion and why?

[P3ter_Griffin]

As long as you're the one doing the subsidizing, I don't give a $#@!. Because I just don't.

[euphemia]

I am not in favor of replacing welfare with anything, or subsidizing wages. It should be phased out over the next 5-8 years and replaced with nothing. Figure out what you plan to do, because beyond a date certain, the United States government will not send out any money to individuals. And beyond a date certain, other countries need to figure it out, because we won't be sending them money, either.

[TheUglyTruth]

Replacing the Earned Income Tax Credit with a system of wage subsidies would be a great idea. It has so many benefits, including reducing fraud and encouraging employment, that is a much better alternative to either increasing EITC or raising the minimum wage. A wage subsidy sounds expensive, but in reality it is money that America already spends on the EITC and on a host of other anti-poverty programs that cost a combined $1 trillion per year. In fact, properly targeted wage subsidies would likely be much cheaper both in the near and long term, not even taking into account the positive economic consequences of an expanded labor force and increase in disposable income every paycheck for workers that stand to benefit from such a scheme.

[angelatc]

In fact, properly targeted wage subsidies would likely be much cheaper both in the near and long term, not even taking into account the positive economic consequences of an expanded labor force and increase in disposable income every paycheck for workers that stand to benefit from such a scheme.

Just so much no in their it takes me breath away.

[tod evans]

I am not in favor of replacing welfare with anything, or subsidizing wages. It should be phased out over the next 5-8 years and replaced with nothing. Figure out what you plan to do, because beyond a date certain, the United States government will not send out any money to individuals. And beyond a date certain, other countries need to figure it out, because we won't be sending them money, either.

I agree, +rep!

[TheUglyTruth]

Just so much no in their it takes me breath away.

Why not? Wage subsidies cost less than EITC, are much less prone to fraud, promote work, allow workers to see the benefit within each paycheck (as opposed to after tax season), and are not economically destructive in the way a minimum wage would be.

[angelatc]

Why not? Wage subsidies cost less than EITC, are much less prone to fraud, promote work, allow workers to see the benefit within each paycheck (as opposed to after tax season), and are not economically destructive in the way a minimum wage would be.

1. Stop paying people not to work.
2. Stop "targeting" certain sectors for anything.
3. Stop promoting this "spend spend spend or the economy will crash!!!" mentality.
4. Stop spending money that isn't yours.
5. Stop believing that Washington is better suited to determine wages than the market is.

Just...stop with all of it.


"

[TheUglyTruth]

1. Stop paying people not to work.

I agree. Wage subsidies would not do that. It would encourage people to work.

2. Stop "targeting" certain sectors for anything.

I agree. They wouldn't be sector specific.

3. Stop promoting this "spend spend spend or the economy will crash!!!" mentality.

I agree. I wasn't promoting that.

4. Stop spending money that isn't yours.

Sure, which is why I support abolishing the EITC and various other ineffective "anti-poverty" measures.

5. Stop believing that Washington is better suited to determine wages than the market is.

I don't believe that, nor does this proposal promote that idea.

[TheUglyTruth]

This is a very good policy paper on wage subsidies as a replacement for a higher minimum wage and EITC:

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...poor-7778.html