Opinion

Why Welfare Doesn’t Work: And What We Should Do Instead

Written by: Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD

Democrats and Republicans don’t see eye to eye very often, but they can safely agree on one point: welfare doesn’t work. Liberals are concerned that an ever-shrinking social safety net reaches fewer and fewer families in need. Republicans worry that welfare benefits create dependence. They are both right.

The primary cash assistance program in the United States, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, served 68% of low-income families in 1996. Today, only 23% of poor families receive assistance. This change has been largely brought about by the imposition of five-year lifetime limits (states are allowed to set lower limits) and stricter eligibility criteria. Welfare caseload reductions have been solidly linked to the rise of deep poverty in America, family strain and increased foster care placements. 1.46 million US households (including 2.8 million children) now live on less than $2 per person, per day (the World Bank’s measurement of extreme poverty).

Meanwhile, welfare eligibility rules designed to encourage independence have achieved the opposite effect. For example, though many states impose strict work requirements, states which loosen these rules actually see recipients move to higher wage, higher benefit work, presumably because they have the breathing room to search for a good job rather than take the first one that comes along. Similarly, in states with strict limitations on recipient assets, poor families are less likely to own a car, making it nearly impossible to maintain employment in areas without public transportation. Even worse, some researchers are discovering a “cliff effect” in which welfare recipients immediately lose all benefits (including child care assistance) after a small increase in income. As a result, many parents turn down promotional opportunities because they would be ultimately worse off financially. Any parent would make the same decision if it meant the ability to feed their children and afford quality childcare.

We must redesign this entire system. In the most prosperous nation in the world, it is ludicrous that children are growing up in the kind of deprivation we normally associate with developing countries. Simultaneously, we must ensure that no one is discouraged from growing their income or assets. One potential solution is a universal basic income, which would provide an annual benefit to every citizen. However, this idea comes with a hefty price tag and would either increase our national deficit or increase the marginal tax rate, both of which might be political non-starters. The simpler solution is a Negative Income Tax (NIT) which is potentially cheaper than our current poverty alleviation efforts. An NIT is a refundable tax credit which brings every household to the federal poverty level. The most effective way to do this is to decrease the credit slowly (for example, a $0.50 reduction for each $1.00 increase in earned income) so that there is never a penalty for hard work.

Researchers at the University of Michigan calculated what this might look like in practice. If a family had no income, their tax credit would be 100% of the poverty line ($20,780 for a family of three). If the family’s earned income increased to half the poverty line ($10,390), their tax credit would decrease to $15,585. The credit would phase out completely once the family’s income reached twice the poverty level ($41,560). This plan would cost roughly $219 billion per year and could be almost completely paid for by replacing most or all of our current poverty programs.

With this one simple policy, we can achieve many goals of both the left and right. Poverty would be eliminated overnight. Work disincentives would be removed. American bureaucracy would be significantly reduced. Families would be free to make financial decisions without government intrusion. And in the long run, we would save money. Childhood poverty alone costs the US $1.03 trillion (yes, trillion) per year. In the 21st century, eradicating poverty isn’t complicated. We’re just going about it in the worst possible way.

About the author:

Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Appalachian State University. She received a BSW from Metropolitan State University of Denver, an MSW from the University of Denver and a PhD in Public Policy at the University of Arkansas. She served as a Foster Care Case Worker and trainer for five years in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Hamilton’s research interests include poverty, economic justice, and social policy.

About Guest Contributor

Guest has written 134 articles.

The views expressed in this Op-Ed piece are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of Basic Income News or BIEN. BIEN and Basic Income News do not endorse any particular policy, but Basic Income News welcomes discussion from all points of view in its Op-Ed section.

19 comments

  • The level of poverty in America is getting to a terrifying rate. There are fixes for it and it’s simple…
    1. Replace welfare with BI. I mean all of it. Food stamps, rent assistance, and insurance. Make the BI high enough people can live while they are up dating their skills for work. I put in BI not UBI because people who are wealthy don’t need it.

    2. Price control. I know this is a slippery slope. Have rent set for less that 10% of people’s income. Put price caps on things like food, electric, and gas.

    3. Communal apartments. These would be for people who are homeless and want to get their lives together. And for people who can’t afford so-called affordable apartments.

    • Cammi

      This is ridiculous! Welfare is welfare! BI, UBI—whatever—It’s welfare & there’s NO such thing as “unconditional free money”! Anything that creates dependency in adults, kills pride. You CAN’T live on BI or UBI! It’ll NEVER be high enough for you to live on because then it’ll be too expensive to implicate! We’ll ALL be living in “communal apartments”!

      UBI is a scam! If it’s not high enough for you to live on and not work, it’ll only depress wages and create a lot of dead end jobs people will be forced to take just to survive! How can people be so gullible! The elderly and disabled would perish! But then again, that’s what these globalists want! How soon before “Right To Die” becomes “Duty To Die”?
      Wake up, you idiot! This is not freedom! Global order is slavery! Who was it that said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”?

  • Steve Richardson

    Thanks for the post, Prof. Hamilton. I agree wholeheartedly – and offer for your consideration my own plan for a NIT-type basic income solution: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bis.2013.8.issue-1/bis-2013-0001/bis-2013-0001.xml?format=INT

  • Steve Richardson

    Thanks for the post, Prof. Hamilton. I agree wholeheartedly – and offer for your consideration my own plan for a NIT-type basic income solution – Entitlement Reform: From Tangled Web to Safety Net at https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bis.2013.8.issue-1/bis-2013-0001/bis-2013-0001.xml?format=INT

  • Steve Richardson

    Thanks for the post, Prof. Hamilton. I agree wholeheartedly – and offer for your consideration my own plan for a NIT-type basic income solution – Entitlement Reform: From Tangled Web to Safety Net in Basic Income Studies, August 2013.

  • DH Fabian

    Welfare can work, it there is a legitimate welfare system. We only had one for a short time, many years ago. It provided enough to enable people to keep their families together, housed and fed, and to move forward as opportunities came along. (You can’t get a job once you no longer have a home address, phone, etc. You’re just out.) Remember that over 80% of welfare recipients relied on welfare aid short-term, for reasons that shouldn’t be hard to figure out. People want more in life than what is possible when on welfare. Of course, actual welfare aid ended back in the 1990s. We know that not everyone can work, and that there aren’t jobs for all, and today’s Americans decided that this isn’t their problem. We abandoned all concept of “the common good,” and I think the ugly consequences are obvious.

  • DH Branski

    Welfare aid did work, during the few years that we had a legitimate, non-punitive system. In real life, not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there simply aren’t jobs available for all. When we did have a comparatively comprehensive system, recipients were provided with enough aid to keep their families together, housed and fed, and to move forward when opportunities came along. Some 80% of recipients were short-term, by choice. The reasons are easy to figure out: People want more (both materially, and more out of life) than the bare minimum. “Job security” is a thing of the past, and once you no longer have a home address, phone, etc, you can’t get a job. You’re out. Actual welfare aid ended back in the 1990s, and we’re living with the ugly consequences.

  • Scooter Hoffman

    I think universal income is dumb. Paying people to be non productive is a definite road to ruins. People are like cats. If you feed a cat, he will sit around and not hunt but wait for you to open up the next can of food. Paying people to sit at home will make a new generation of people “addicted” to social welfare programs. People need incentive to work and giving them money to just sit around definitely doesn’t do that. Welfare of any type shouldn’t be guaranteed. It should be limited and people should be encouraged to find work. We have spent over 25,000,000,000,000 dollars (25 trillion) on social welfare programs and we have created a society of people looking for their check. Lest I remind you we are 21 trillion in debt? Unfortunately poverty will never go away. I think that new standards of subsistence need to be determined. As as communal living for poor where they share a home and share in expenses and labor. The American dream is not the post WWII dream of living comfortably in your home with a pension. The new reality is escaping poverty which can be done by altering concepts of how people should live. These people could live in communal housing with food, etc provided but they would have to communally take care of their surroundings or they would be out. They could have food, shelter, etc but they would be encouraged to want more and thus work to achieve it. Socialism never works long term. It always has failed. Yet people keep trying it over and over again expecting a different result. I believe that is the definition of insanity.

    • Andre Coelho

      Dear Scooter Hoffman,

      Cutting down to the real question, which would be: what would YOU do if your income was taken care of?

      Sit around in your sofa, like a cat, or do something meaningful with your life, while helping to sustain the community you live in?

      The choice is entirely up to you/us.

      Best regards,

    • Cammi

      Thank you. UBI or BI whatever they want to call it, is a globalist scam. If it were made high enough for people to live on an not work, it would be too expensive to implement. If it’s not high enough for people to live on without working, it will only depress wages, creating a whole lot of dead end jobs that people will be forced to take just to survive. Welcome to Sweatshop, USA! When a bunch of neoliberal globalists start trying to shape domestic policy—look out! A red flag should go off in your head! The elderly and the disabled would perish & communal living would turn whole neighborhoods into hotbeds of crime! We’ll ALL be living in communal apartments!

      Neoliberalism is imperialism and that’s not freedom, that’s slavery for the rest of us! Don’t fall for this crap!

  • Warren Mills

    Welfare benefits are the enabling force behind laziness. The first immigrants did not rely on give away programs. There would be no need for an immigration policy if all freebies were eliminated. Only the ones interested in working and contributing would stay.

    • John

      Why would UBI not be the same, if not even worse? UBI provides a set income, which can also motivate people to be lazy and sit in their couches while free money just comes in. This can lead to people not working as well. Plus, welfare benefits help people by providing them with necessities to their lives, including food, jobs, etc. Even though welfare programs do consist of a multitude of downsides, UBI cannot solve these problems as well.

  • gespil

    NIT is not UBI.
    Why people are professors, earn much more than me and still say things like ” [UBI] … comes with a hefty price tag and would either increase our national deficit or increase the marginal tax rate, both of which might be political non-starters.”

    Imagine a ‘sand-box world’ where the fish is all the wealth there is.

    If me and you need a fish each to survive a day but you are my employer making me catch fish for you and I catch 5 fish a day then we must tax you 2 fish as UBI (one for me and one for you) then you have to pay me 1 fish as wage for working for you while you get to keep 2 fish as your wage for managing me…. LOL … does it sound fair to you? … or perhaps you can pay yourself 1 fish as a wage for managing me and then try to sell me the remaining fish on the free market … for which I could only pay you up to 1 fish which I received as a wage? LOL … how many fish each of us gets? … and … I did all the work, you just claimed ownership of all the fish (wealth) there is.

    It is why UBI must come from taxing ownership of Wealth (fish) regardless who owns it i.e. a government or private entities..

    if I just keep the fish I’m catching (the wealth I’m harvesting) …it would be stealing from you, would it not? LOL

    What is Leah Hamilton PhD talking about when saying “…. increase our national deficit or increase the marginal tax rate…”.
    It is nonsense because she fails to understand that UBI is about redistribution of Wealth as it is now, it is not about investment or borrowing from the future or whatever else.

    UBI is about taking Wealth from the rich entities in the society and giving evenly to all citizens perpetually and sustainably. There is no increase in deficits or other no-sensical things if UBI is implemented correctly….
    UBI just shifts the Wealth down the wealth ladder.
    UBI is about the ratios of Wealth distribution among the population and the entities that own or control the wealth..

    Thank you.
    Do align your thinking with the people, not the corporations or the government.

    Too many people spend too much time in government or in corporations so their thinking changes to protect the institutions they work for instead of the humans.

    • you would do well to actually READ about the long discussion historically re the concept of the “UBI”; it goes well back to the 16th century & has had proponents from sir thomas more to bertrand russell, greater minds than either of us. as for “socialism doesn’t work”, well apparently u r unaware that it actually does w/the proviso here that there r different forms of ‘socialism’, like social security & Medicare in the US e.g. in point of fact, the state of Alaska actually HAS a “UBI” in effect & has done since the 1970’s. & u r eligible regardless of how long u have lived there. read up on it. currently the US has a few HUNDRED thousand ‘food challenged’ children EVERY DAY & the state of ‘affordable housing’ has become grotesque & obscene as is the idea of a family of say, 4 or 5 ppl, who r ‘worth’ 10 billion $’s. these conditions CANNOT continue to obtain w/o DIRE consequences for EVERY U.S. citizen. & ppl who react w/a kneejerk emotional reaction of “these lazy ppl need to work” r NOT helping advance any thoughtful, PRODUCTIVE discussion.

    • Cammi

      UBI is a scam. It’ll never be high enough to live on without working and if it’s not, it’ll just depress wages, creating a bunch of low-paying dead-end jobs people will be forced to take just to survive. UBI will replace all other benefits. It’s only $1,000 per month. You can’t live on it. The elderly, retired, and the disabled would perish. Have you looked at rents in NYC or LA lately? Plus the fact, creating dependency in adults kills pride. UBI will only up the crime rate. Stop listening to Neoliberal pro-globalization “tin gods” who have no idea how real people live anyway and don’t care. Yang is pissing on people’s legs and telling them it’s raining and people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. Who was it who said, “Those who could make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”?

  • Welfare does not pay no where near enough to enable laziness. The entire welfare system and the American citizenry have become just as diseased, selfish, and corrupt as their own goddamned government.
    Want to talk about the national debt then start looking at corporate welfare and out of control government spending sucking off big business.
    Americans, have long been robbed of their very own tax dollars, by their very own government but the citizenry is too blinded by its own goddamned demagoguery addictions to see, or care just as long as none of it goes to help the poor.
    Because we all know that the poor, are the reason why America’s in debt, says every indoctrinated narrow minded American in existence.
    Americans who actually believe in this kind of ignorant narrow minded shit, just proves it’s own point and every last one of them should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
    Look around eden’s not burning its burnt and your blind demagoguery addicted hypocrisy are responsible for fueling this fire. It’s no goddamned surprise that America has a giant diseased two party pile of political shit destroying country and constitution at the expense of all but its own. If governments, are a reflection of the people then we need to look in mirror at the disease we’ve become.

    • Michael

      You hit it 100% from top to bottom! Great points! You see the entire reality. American Government has become a mirror of it’s own people.

  • Philip Tuuta

    Hi
    I first became aware of a guaranteed Basic Income when I read a book review online 20+ years ago. I brought the book . . . The $30,000 Solution by Robert R Schutz PhD. 1976,, and have been interested in new and innovative solutions to help low-income people and families ever since reading the book. Actually, I brought two copies and I am going to purchhase more for a new “Intentional Community” that I am planning to start.
    My Vision: No poor and no crime among us.

    Capitalism has been good. But it is not good enough! We keeping stuffing rich people with money. Don’t say they all work for it for many of them don’t, and the biggest transfer of wealth is going to occur in the next few years when it moves to the next generation.

    We need a new caring economics and culture as proposed by Riane Eisler in “The REAL Wealth of Nations.
    By the way, $30,000 is not a lot of money. Just ask a rich person.

  • Andrew Middleton

    When the scarcity principle is used within a monetary system then the human instinct is brought down to the primal instinct for survival, the scarcity principle needs to be removed from a monetary system too create a more civilised system.

    There is no real need for money to have any inbuilt value other than being the lubricant that helps monetary bubbles to keep flowing in a circular fashion.

    Digital money should be unlimited in its creation, we should have access to money as and when needed to pay our bills and for anything we need it for, this abundance of money would change the way humans think because there would be no reason to try to amass or horde money anymore as it would be on tap so to speak.

    Let’s remember that money would be the lubricant to keep the system flowing.

    A monetary system without scarcity would mean inflation would become non existent as why would one need to put prices up if money was on tap. If we are to have a monetary system then it needs to evolve so we can better utilise it for human evolution to a truly civilised level for all life.

    We may initially be a little crazy on having the abundance of money because we are so conditioned for scarcity but I think our priorities would change as we got use to the abundance of money and new generations would not know the scarcity we had.

    No more fighting over money just team cooperation in creating a better future for all.

    Maybe this could be the bridge to a resource based economy as when we realise that all the things we do could be done for free then we truly evolve.

Leave a Reply to Andrew Middleton Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.