Skip to content

Comment on The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79parent

Comments

Uh-huh. 4*8=32.

You used 316 million as one of your multipliers, that presumably includes children.

I think there would need to be some structure around children, what an incentive to make babies! $8k per baby per year, the Duggar family would be making $168k per year! I'd rather it be something as an adult. So the number of people 18 years or older is 242,470,820 [0]. Double the $8k to meet that poverty line as a couple. So at $16k per adult you come out to just under $3.9 trillion a year.

Edit: from the poverty data [1] you could say that only ~45 million people get the full $8k, the rest starts to taper off at the 50 cents to a dollar pace. That means this would cost considerably less. $360 billion is the minimum. The cost out would be $3.9 trillion, but those extra $8k checks would be collected at tax time. A one job two adult household, the job holder would have to pay back all the $8k, but the partner wouldn't if they didn't make any money.

[0] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

[1] https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Maybe. I think people mostly see children as a responsibility though, so I wonder if the problem would live up to the concern.

I wonder if you could try to measure the differences in birth rates for people receiving the EIC, comparing across numbers of children (at some income levels the first child provides ~2x the benefit as the third).

edit: Searching "EITC birth rates" shows that people have looked at it.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.