Income redistribution

Today: Conceptual issues Programs for the poor

Previously

Income redistribution through Social Security Redistribution from young to old Redistribution from rich to poor Redistribution from those that die young to those

that die old

Today

More on income redistribution Chapter 12

Conceptual issues Distribution of income Rationales for redistribution In-kind versus cash transfers

Chapter 13 Various welfare programs for the poor

TANF, EITC, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, Unemployment insurance, Nutrition programs, Housing assistance, Education/Job training

Conceptual issues

How is income distributed? Is there such a thing as “too much” income

inequality? Why should there be redistribution?

Simple utilitarianism Maximin criterion

In-kind versus cash transfers When income is redistributed, should recipients be

forced to consume a minimum amount of certain goods?

Is there “too much” income inequality Some people would argue yes

“Marginal utility of income is lower for somebody with high incomes”

“Each person has a right to a minimum standard of living”

“Social unrest may occur unless each person is above the poverty line”

Is there “too much” income inequality Some people would argue no

“When economic incentives to make a good living go away, the economic pie becomes smaller” Think about communist systems

“People that have a good work ethic and work hard should make more money”

“There are plenty of opportunities for anybody born today in the US to become successful” Free K-12 education; subsidized colleges and

universities

Absolute income

Real income growth, 1980-2000 Bottom 20% has been flat Top 20% has seen huge growth (59%)

Note that the “economic pie” is getting bigger See also Table 12.1, p. 259, for more on this topic

Quintile 1980 1990 2000

Bottom 20 percent $12,756 $12,625 $14,232

Second 20 percent $27,769 $29,448 $32,268

Middle 20 percent $41,950 $45,352 $50,925

Fourth 20 percent $58,200 $65,222 $74,918

Top 20 percent $97,991 $121,212 $155,527

Top 5 percent $139,302 $190,187 $272,349

Source: “Principles of Microeconomics” 3rd edition, by Frank and Bernanke

Problems with annual income figures Ignores number of workers in a household

General trend from one earner to two Expenses, such as child care, could be higher with in two-

worker households In-kind transfers ignored Taxes change over time

Disposable income changes over time (given the same income)

Income changes over time If a rich person earns no income in a calendar year, should

she be considered “poor?”

Different views of income redistribution Some people believe that utility, not income,

should be maximized within a population Additive social welfare function

W = U1 + U2 + … + Un

See Figure 12.2, p. 264, for a model of optimal income distribution

Different views of income redistribution Others believe that social welfare should be

the minimum of the utilities of each person in society “Veil of ignorance” argument developed by John

Rawls Conceals knowledge and talents from people Risk averse people will want to have income equality

under these conditions No inferiority, jealousy or envy based on income

Different views of income redistribution Commodity egalitarianism

Some things should be made available to everyone without restrictions Right to vote (if 18 or older) Basic education “Needed” items such as food, shelter, and clothing Basic medical care

Recall issues presented in Chapters 9 and 10

Some other factors

Income redistribution does not directly take into account other factors Number of hours worked

If our goal is to maximize utility from income, why not reduce leisure? Not necessarily, since additional leisure likely increases

utility Income depends on number of hours worked

Does relative income matter? Does someone get a decrease in utility when his income

remains the same and someone else’s increase?

In-kind versus money transfers With some views, such as commodity

egalitarianism, in-kind transfers have more appeal than monetary ones

How does this affect individual utility? See Figures 12.3, p. 272, and 12.4, p. 273

Summary: Conceptual issues

People have conflicting opinions as to whether or not there is too much income inequality

Most increases in income in recent decades have gone to the wealthiest of Americans

Some arguments support the use of in-kind transfers rather than monetary transfers

Welfare programs for the poor Over $500 billion in expenditures in 2002

TANF EITC Supplemental Security Income Medicaid Unemployment insurance Nutrition programs Housing assistance Education/Job training

TANF

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Federal government provides block grants to

states for welfare spending Over 80% of recipients in every state must be on

TANF for five years or less States face penalties if a substantial percentage

of recipients are not working or in work preparation programs

TANF

TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Under AFDC, some argued that many women on

AFDC had children out of wedlock to continue get benefits and not have to work If the mother had to work once the child reached

kindergarten, then there would be an economic incentive to have another child

TANF and benefit reduction rates TANF benefits are reduced when income

reaches a certain level Example: In California, recipients can earn up to

$225 per month before benefits are reduced at a rate of 50% of money earned

How do people respond to these incentives in the short run?

Work incentives

B = G – tE

B = 0 if E = G/t

The Basic Trade-offs

G – basic grant if not working

t – rate at which grant reduced when recipient earns money

B – benefit received

Analysis of work incentives

Figure 13.1, p. 281 Budget constraint for leisure and income

Figure 13.2, p. 282 Utility maximization based on the labor-leisure

options

Analysis of work incentives

Figure 13.4, p. 284 In this example, someone can get $100 in TANF

benefits if not working Between point Q and point S, an implicit tax rate

of 25% is imposed Note that there are some incentives to work while

still receiving benefits Figure 13.6, p. 286

In this case, a 100% implicit tax rate is imposed after a benefit of $338 is received

Analysis of work incentives

Hours of leisure per month

Inco

me

per

mon

th (

= e

arni

ngs

+ t

rans

fers

)

0 T

D

P

M

G

R

E2

Hours worked (if working)

This person is indifferent between working and receiving benefits.

See also Figure 13.7, p. 286, for a case in which an individual chooses to work.

EITC

The earned income tax credit A success story for the working poor Provides credits to workers within low incomes

How it worked in 2006 for a family with 2 or more kids 40% credit for first $11,340 earned No additional credit for next $5,470 earned Phased out at a 21.06% rate after $16,810 is

earned, until the credit is gone at $38,348 earned See Figure 13.8, p. 289, for two graphs about this

What has the EITC done?

Households with nobody working Encourages one person to work

Households with one person working Additional work not encouraged once a family with

2+ kids earns $11,340 Does not encourage additional hours of work of the

person already working Does not encourage a second worker in the household

to work

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Federal program that provides benefits for

the aged, blind, and disabled with little or no assets

In 2003, average benefit was $342 SSI recipients can earn up to $65 per month

without loss in benefits After $65 is earned, additional earnings have a

50% implicit tax rate

Medicaid

Medicaid affects incentives to work Under old incentive structures, people

often lost eligibility once they earned enough money to get off of welfare

This created a “Medicaid notch” See Figure 13.9, p. 292

For main details about Medicaid, see Chapter 10

Solving the Medicaid notch problem In recent years, families that earn enough to

leave welfare can often stay on Medicaid 12 month coverage after leaving TANF Low-income children and pregnant women

Unemployment insurance (UI) States provides insurance for unemployment due to

adverse selection and moral hazard reasons Benefits

Average weekly benefit in 2005: $266 Maximum length of benefits in most states: 26 weeks

Typically financed by a payroll tax on employers Empirical studies find that increasing benefits

increases the duration of unemployment

Food stamps

Many poor households are eligible for food stamps Can only be used for purchasing domestically-

produced food, excluding alcohol and animal food 2004 averages

Monthly benefit was about $200 23.9 million people on food stamps in a given

month

Housing assistance

Public housing projects Largest program, currently about 1.3 million units When kids see building with everyone with low

incomes, there are no role models for being successful

Crime is a big problem Section 8

Recipients rent a unit in the private market Government provides subsidy if unit meets certain

requirements

Education and job training

Programs aimed at poor families Head Start

Results mixed, but mostly positive Training programs

Evidence shows that costs are higher than benefits Job search programs

Not effective in increasing living standards of many people

Overview

See Figure 13.10, p. 299 Estimates marginal tax rates for a one-parent,

two-child household residing in Wisconsin Negative until about $10,000 per year Over 40% from about $12,000-$31,000 per year

Future of social insurance?

Academics are starting to study alternate ideas to help the poor Providing benefits to those most in need, rather

than those that are already “in the system” “One-stop shopping” for help Faith-based support

Government provides cash to the faith-based organization, and the organization provides the service

Summary: Welfare programs for the poor Many programs exist to support poor people Some programs give little economic incentive

to work Exception: Earned income tax credit

End of Unit 3

Next lecture, begin Unit 4 Tax-related topics Read Chapters 14 and 15