The second disparity he is talking about is the lack of declination in out-of-wedlock births in the 80s when AFDC benefits decreased. To quote Tanner,
The last gripe which Moffit has the disparity in magnitude. If we look at the 14 biggest studies as detailed in Tanner’s book The End of Welfare: Fighting Poverty in the Civil Society. There is no real discrepancy. There are also some studies which look at family caps and find no correlation. The problem with these studies is that you have to look at the full welfare package of the state and the data there is also quite mixed. And the final study that illustrates my point on the subject, is one conducted by C.R. Winegarden using a brand new regression model which finds that the AFDC alone is responsible for half of the out-of-wedlock birth rate. And as I already mentioned the effect of other programs, this number should be far higher.
As far as the contrary evidence goes in regards to the marriage penalty, Moffit as also spoken there.
I already touched upon the race issue, but I think the most pressing thing to note is that we are just looking at one program. And the fact is that many programs today reach couples who are ready to marry. In fact, those programs have harsher penalties then the AFDC did. And, of course none of these studies account for the “group effect”. By welfare normalizing bad behavior it becomes a social norm which further exacerbates the out-of-wedlock births. There is also an article I found which supposedly debunks the myth. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremarriages.htm
I am going to quickly run through the flaws and provide some counterpoints.
This just further proves the point that the AFDC is not the only incentive structure which causes out-of-wedlock births. I already mentioned the Cato Institute study which goes over the effects of the other programs. A lot of the studies I cite mention the AFDC, but it's important to note that most of them refer to aggregate benefits and also discuss other programs like SNAP.
I found this to be slightly intellectually dishonest as the study just analyzed AFDC benefits. This just illustrates the point further. Michael Tanner actually discusses this study in both his books. In his most recent book The Poverty of Welfare he says this in regards to the study,
The article then cites this really old study which has very little relevance in the context of a modern debate.
1.Most of the years analyzed were pre-War on Poverty so it does not accurately represent welfare policies today.
2. Over ¾’s of the empirical work finds that welfare does significantly increase out-of-wedlock births:Ron Haskins, "Does Welfare Encourage Illegitimacy? The Case Just Closed. The Answer is Yes," American Enterprise Institute, January 1996.
3. And as for welfare's influence in encouraging mothers to divorce, the General Accounting Office released a report in 1987 that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup." (6)
Now, Huppi cites a meta analysis regarding welfare and divorce published in ‘87.
More recent meta-analyses have found contrary results so newer evidence has rebutted this claim.
So, the idea as later purported in this response, that welfare is not one of the causes of rising single motherhood rates, is simply not true.
Am I just using old studies and focusing on the AFDC?
The first point of import is that I only use old studies as most of the empirical work is quite old. That being said, there are still some new studies which corroborate my arguments. But the argument itself is weak as you have to attack methodology not age.
In regards to the point regarding the AFDC, I have briefly touched upon above but I will continue down here. As illustrated by a comparison between California and Mississippi, AFDC benefits are only a part of general welfare benefits. Despite the comparative lack of benefits in Mississippi the other means-tested benefits also had major deleterious effects. Most of the studies which I cite look at benefits as a whole.
Also, the penalty imposed by the AFDC now manifests in TANF. As summarized by Robert Rector,
I will have more commentary on the economic and social effects of marriage later on this paper and the 1996 Welfare reforms later in this paper.
They did not come close to doing this but they illustrate the effects of cutting benefits. At the bottom, when I address the CBPP’s concerns regarding the reforms. I will link a study which discusses the economics benefits ad nauseam. But for now, I will focus on what the reforms did in regards to the social fabric. When the Personal Responsibility act was first passed by the house it was truly a fantastic reform. The plan added requirements, time limits, and provisions to deal with out-of-wedlock births. The most important addition was the block grants provided to the states. So, the way welfare used to work was that as the number of enrollees increased the benefits would rise automatically. The block grants gave the states a fixed amount of money to distribute to those as they chose. This allows states to add restrictions on who receives benefits and who does not. Unfortunately, the Senate muddied the waters by forcing states to maintain at least 80% of their current welfare spending. This dramatically undercut the idea of slashing benefits. The Senate also enacted another childcare and spending bill. Clinton would not even support this bill as the lobbyists, particularly the Children Defense Fund, had their hands on his actions. After vetoing the bill twice, Clinton finally agreed to end the entitlement nature of welfare, if Congress would fund more child-care and jobs bills. PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF to quote The Poverty of Welfare, Helping Others in the Civil Society,
The best thing that the reforms did was discourage out-of-wedlock marriages through policy.
Depending on the study, this was found to reduce out-of-wedlock births by 4% which is pretty significant. That being said, most of welfare funding is federal so TANF still gives huge amounts of money to single and teen mothers,
And over 90% of the families receiving welfare benefits have no father present. And divorce and out-of-wedlock births are still the two most common reasons people go on welfare. While the reforms certainly paved the way to stopping out-of-wedlock births, the policy was not nearly as strong as it should have been. To quote Tanner,
Under this rubric, it makes sense that the decrease in out-of-wedlock births was quite modest. And more recent policy is continuing to exacerbate this problem. I could also talk about the effect of work requirements, but I will cover that at the bottom. But the 1996 welfare reforms, do solidify my ideas.
I, too, do not support a welfare state that gives money in an irresponsible manner. The reforms did fix some of that problem, but a lot of the work they did was written over by later expansions. However, the reforms do enshrine my ideas as seen above.
If we ignore all of the fraud, errors, and theft, involved in EITC, prima facie it looks like a good program. It increases employment through boosting labor force participation. To quote the Cato Institute,
But like every government policy, there is always the negative. Despite the increase in participation, workers have two reasons to reduce their working hours. There is the “income effect”. This means workers have less incentive to work long hours as they have an extra sum of money to work upon. And there is the more nefarious “substitution effect”. To quote economist Nada Ellsa,
Until recently, the empirical work did not support the obvious theoretical notion that the EITC reduces hours worked. Many attributed the odd results to the methodological faults, a recent Census Bureau analysis using a brand new regression kink found that there was a noted effect on hours worked,
What makes this paper better than previous literature is that it does not assume that single-women do not receive different benefits,
This discontinuity of benefits allows comparisons which were previously unable to be drawn.
They use a special more data-driven method which allows them the circumvent the usual difficulties.
One aspect of EITC effect on hours worked that is rarely discussed is the “Income effect”. There was one study ( Eissa and Hoynes) which found that the income effect reduced work effort in 2 parent families.
What is also worth noting is that the majority of people did not even utilize these benefits, but I digress.
Mead conducted his own research on the EITC by asking welfare administers questions regarding the EITC’s effects on employment. The results are quite astounding,
If we assume the EITC simply increases the participatory nature of current members, the rest of what is found by Mead makes more sense(I will detail this later on in the post). I will be discussing the empirical on all welfare programs effects on employment down below. Nichols and Rothstein find a small effect on hours worked when reviewing the research. When accounting for hours worked the Tax Foundation finds large effects on employment and output,
That being said, the study does not include the positive Labor Force Participation Rate. I will be discussing that effect in more detail in my next response. So, not only does the EITC have a relatively modest effect on employment it also has a modest effect on hours worked. Not to mention, the EITC is just one of many programs which decrease work effort. People seem more willing to stop working to receive benefits than work for them.
Whenever I cite a study or a graphic, I always make sure to provide the contrary evidence. There is one crucial issue with this study which makes the entire argument fall apart. This issue can be found in Lawrence Mead’s fantastic paper “Overselling the Earned Income Tax Credit”,
So, Mead claims its impossible that the EITC could have increased employment as the majority of workers did not even know about the benefits. Later in the paper, he uses survey data and finds similar results.
The second concern that Mead levels at these studies were addressed in (Nichols and Rothstein 2015),
1.Due to the fact that studies never accounted for this variable, it essentially nullifies their validity
2.Even if this were true, it would only make the existing labor force more participatory and as a result not have an effect on the employment rate. We essentially know it did not add new workers based on the number EITC claimants.
3.It is also essentially impossible to diagnose the effects of employment due to all of the compounding factors.
4.The increases in employment with the EITC are not congruent with any other employment program.
Mead sums up his argument in this quote,
So, in reality it is more likely that the removal of benefits and growing economy are responsible for the jump in employment. I really do recommend that you read the article it is really well done.
[B]The EITC and Errors/B]
Perhaps the biggest problem with the EITC is the fraud which clogs its arteries. The levels of fraud are astronomical. Since the 1980s, the EITC error rate has been over 20%, per the IRS. The Error rate in 2014 was 27% and that number is only getting worse despite numerous bills and plans to stop it. Firms also know how to use the EITC to their benefit as the Cato Institute notes,
The CBPP has addressed this issue and has a few possible solutions to fix this problem. The fact is that many programs and regulations have been instituted in an attempt to prevent the problem. To quote PolitiFact,
The CBPP also calls for Congress to support the IRS in ensuring that all tax preparers have passed a competency test before doing taxes. To be truthful, I almost guarantee that most of the error-ridden and fraudulent reporting is on purpose. So I question the real effectiveness. As the IRS has said on numerous, occasions the complexity and nature of the EITC essentially make it impossible to regulate.
The EITC and the Fiscal Disaster
88% of the benefits handed out by the EITC are to people who pay no income taxes! What a wonderful TAX CREDIT. This is a problem as it means people who pay income taxes are being forced to pay higher taxes. The behavioral economic response to economic taxes is to view them as a “deadweight loss”. To quote the CATO Institute,
The CATO Institute sums it all up,
But wait the Keynesian says, “I thought higher taxes pump-primed the economy” Well, I guess I will make this response even longer by debunking that statement. Just kidding. I will just link this article which reviews and critiques the empirical literature: http://cee.econlib.org/library/Colu...hytaxrates.html Alright, now onto the next point.
You have gotta go deeper into the data than that.
The cuts were not intended to be short-term. They were meant to be recertified and increased in 2002. Some of the policies stayed, but the Farm Act/Omnibus Spending Bill nullified the effects on spending.
Alright, I have finished part one. Now, onto the second post.
1.Citing one study does not “prove” that welfare programs have no effect on poverty. Especially when that study is incongruent with the majority of the research and is a cross-country comparison.
2.The aforementioned study was just in regards to unemployment insurance, this is one of the many programs which reduces employment.
3.The ASPMBTT simply shows that welfare programs have decreased self-sufficiency.
4.It is an incentive to work harder, but it is also filled with fraud has huge deadweight costs which undercut its efficiency.
5.I would not “dampen” the rewards as we would have far higher marriage rates, lower crime rates, higher employment rates, greater economic output and real income, and higher self-sufficiency.
The study you keep citing is just in reference to the unemployment insurance. But welfare has a myriad of programs which reduce work incentives. I will now look at the full body of welfare programs and assess their effects on employment. If you look at all of welfare’s programs roughly ⅔’s of people are on needs-based public assistance are either working or have a family member who’s working. Initially, this might come across as a relatively good statistic, but you have to remember how many welfare programs there are and how many people they actually effect. When you look at the core welfare programs and look at their employment numbers the results are less than satisfactory. In addition, this stat also includes people who have a family member working. When you exclude that variable the number drops considerably. If we look at SNAP only 44% of people on the program have at least 1 family member working. If we look at TANF only 33.5 of people actually fulfilled the work standard of between 20 to 35 hours per week. 56% of TANF participants are completely idle, not doing any work at all. It is quite a rational choice to choose welfare over work. The CATO Institute did a highly contested study analyzing the benefits of indolence. The results are quite astounding. Perhaps the greatest disincentive welfare provides is the income which one receives on welfare juxtaposed to the income received in the job market. As of 2013, Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour. These benefits are consistently increasing which of course explains the greater number of enrollees. In 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pre-tax first-year wage for a teacher. In 39 states it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the 3 most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer. After these results were released, there was an outcry from many left-wing think tanks. The EPI wrote an article attempting to debunk the study. The CATO Institute quickly defended the results. Their defense can be found here: https://www.cato.org/blog/work-vs-w...esponse-critics Perhaps the biggest meta-analysis on this subject was conducted by Robert Moffit, he found,
And welfare benefits have increased since the time the study was published as illustrated by the two CATO studies in 1995 and 2013. Right after the War On Poverty began there were studies which concluded that welfare had a negative effect on work,
As mentioned previously the Seattle Income Maintenance Experiment and the Denver Income Maintenance Experiments, found huge effects on employment all across the board. Welfare also has an effect on Labor Force Participation,
And most of the studies here do not focus on all welfare programs as well so they probably slightly understate the effect. And there is also the epic Hill O’Neil study which found,
But the greatest negative effect welfare has had is the physiological one. The journalist Ken Auletta reports on over hundreds of interviews with impoverished citizens in the inner-city and found,
Tanner explains the repercussions of such lackadaisical behavior,
This entire quote is mind shattering and explains why the ASPMBTT is so low. The culture created by welfare in conjunction with the death of marriage is destroying self-sufficiency. Welfare creates a culture of poverty. Adam Vas Gal discusses this in his book. I highly recommend it, it is a great read.
1.We know based on the Tax Foundation’s analysis that the payroll taxes are greater than the EITC in costs.
2.My estimations were serious lowballs as there were many programs which were not mentioned in the receipt.
3.The main problem with the aforementioned graph is that it does not include the hidden costs of Medicaid. To quote the Scholar Chris Conover,
The hidden costs can be seen on this graph:
[IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Op-Z-abrmvU/WlbdpXZ5A9I/AAAAAAAAESw/NKbCvbKu43QQsteoG5XR_11_U62G_DN4wCL0BGAYYCw/h720/2018-01-10.jpg[IMG/]
4. And of course, the only reason that private healthcare is that expensive in the first place is due to government regulations.
Making the EITC more expansive would simply increase the massive fraud and it would also have negative effects on the economy due to the “deadweight losses”.
Well, a lot of these programs are supplemented by the state, and I also am talking about abolishing the entire welfare state. Why would we want to keep the benefits as they have huge effects on the economy, marriage, the labor supply, self-sufficiency, and so much more?
I don’t possibly see how this is the “best of both worlds”. This reduces poverty but still has numerous other negative effects.
As I mentioned above, the empirical work demonstrates that economic effects of abolishing social security would be better for seniors than the current paradigm or changed paradigm you are purporting.
Firstly, the number is 40 million not 70 million and there is reason to believe that that number is an overestimation. Social Security is a terrible program for the economy and poor people. Those other means are higher marriage rates, lower crime rates, higher employment rates, better economy, higher self-sufficiency, and less immigration.
Sure, but welfare programs absolutely exacerbate the effect. I figure I should now talk about the power of marriage. (please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
If marriage rates were the same as they were in the 70s the child poverty rate would be 20 points lower per Bell Sawhill. To quote President Obama,
So, marriage is perhaps the greatest program for reducing poverty we have. Welfare’s effects on this incredible practice are extraordinarily said.
This factually is not true. The majority of empirical work supports the notion that welfare effects work rates.
Well, we can make assumptions based on cross-country analyses. Increases in real income and GDP almost always reduce poverty immensely. I am assuming that they would follow the trend which is consistent across countries and is consistent with our history.(but that graph is probably an overestimation). There are no studies which say the poverty would be 29% today. That number is in reference to the ASPMBTT which does not account for the increases in employment, marriage, self-sufficiency, crime, GDP, real income, and taxation.
I addressed this point up above. The graph shown is quite absurd due to the metric it uses.
Welfare is a powerful anti-poverty tool only insofar as it gives people money. But it does not increase self-sufficiency and it has many other deleterious effects. And the boost on poverty can be achieved through other means.
I appreciate the denunciation of the evil FED. That being said, the inflation wages gap is actually addressed in Sherk’s report.
To quote Sherk,
This graph by the Mercatus Center sums up the gap: (please log in to view the image)
The entire point of the quote is to illustrate that people are being fed fish, but they are not learning how to make their own money. This is demonstrated by the ASPMBTT.
Funny you mention this study as Murphy was actually responding to it in his article. To quote Murphy,
Terribly misleading graphic as I have discussed previously.
If you watched the video you would see Woods explain how it really was not any boost at all. Here are a few lectures which discuss the Marshall Plan: https://www.libertyclassroom.com/war/
Alright, well that is the end of counters. Now, I will briefly address some counter points and questions.
Addressing the CBPP’s concerns with the 1996 reforms.
I was going to actually write something up responding to this. But this post has really gotten lengthy, so I will link a response written up by the Manhattan Institute. https://www.manhattan-institute.org...are-reform.html
There is honestly way more I could say about welfare, but I will end my post here.
I doubt it is even possible for me to respond to about 12 walls of text. Surely, there were ways of skimming it down. This is just gish-gallop at this point.
But anyway, I'll definitely read through it eventually and make any comments if necessary. But I'm not going to reply because it seems that your responses keep multiplying exponentially, despite my attempts to be concise and actually bring the conversation back to the topic at hand (ie. its reduction in poverty and only that). Although already looking, I will fully concede the point about the 1996 reforms, because there was some good context there you provided. However, I still don't understand why you would really defend these reforms so much considering that you want to abolish welfare altogether. It still isn't a representation of what you want to see in action.
Can't deny that, but this is a 12-13(?) post reply to 3 posts of argumentation. Doesn't make it any less stunning in terms of content, but I'm just saying. Because from what I can see, there are some things in there that may have not even needed explaining, like deciding to explain why marriage is beneficial and lack of it harmful. I already conceded that it is a long time ago, I believe. Doesn't need explanation, and just makes it harder to sift through.
Although that's not to demean him or his work, because he clearly has a greater wealth of knowledge than I do, and has managed to totally exceed expectations here. But a far more concise reply would have been preferable, because then I could actually reply to it. And large posts like that risk losing the original point of this discussion.
Yea, I totally understand that. The post also kinda serves as a way for me to have all of my welfare notes in one place. But, I will admit I did kind of go overboard.
Hey look, that's cool. I respect that you have a lot of knowledge on this topic, and I think that this has been a good and informative experience for me. And if others are spectating, perhaps for them as well. I'm not here to settle any score so I don't really mind conceding here, although I'll have to sift through some of your individual points to see which ones to address, because there might be some things here that I can still object to. But if you ever need to debate welfare again, maybe this will help save some time in the future.
It seems that the general agreement here is that welfare (in the form of cash transfers) can help poverty on some level and by some metrics, but that there are alternatives and other negative effects that are not accounted for. I'm far more open on that latter point now, particularly considering the depressing effects of payroll tax. Although on that point, I still think a sales tax would be a lot better than a payroll tax and could allow for some limited preservation of the safety net for poorest people.
All taxes decrease growth, yes, but some decrease them less than others. Taxing someone's income at 25% directly is going to have a considerably more detrimental effect than taxing the things that they purchase at that number. Still a negative effect with the sales tax as you said, but it would be far easier to offset than the payroll tax simply because it is not as blunt and harmful as the payroll tax is.
Last edited by lazybones on Jan 11th, 2018 at 08:30 PM
Based on my estimate for posting time, that took you over 4 hours to compile, format, and post.
Four hours, man. That's a long time to invest into a post. It would have been far easier to type it all up in a word document, post it to google docs, and link it.
Well, of course, a GST is going to have less of an effect on GDP, but the effect will still be marked enough to at least equalize social security in terms of benefits. Also, changing the tax code does not change the fact that social security is a ticking time-bomb. And, I appreciate the concession, it was a very fun debate. Hope to clash heads on another thread. Don't worry, I will not be as lengthy.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.