Talk:Welfare trap

message: Made some changes to this thing, tried to reorganize and reflect everyone's point of view with sentences like: "some argue that X, others argue that Y."  No reason why both points of view can't coexist in an article like this.  Also added another example with some simple mathematics to further illustrate the issue and give it individual recognizability.  I also codified the different approaches to the problem by the dominant theory in various countries.
RiseAbove 07:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you turn up for an interview unshaven, dirty, pick your nose, etc., you can still deliberately fail to get hired. With workfare schemes there isn't the change in hours occupied by working or complying with unemployment requirements, but there is still a possibility of being worse off in purely monetary terms.150.101.19.117 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howdy! 

message: The verify tag was added because the article is unsourced. The neutrality tag was added because of sections like this:
In short, the welfare trap demonstrates the way that social welfare systems can create a perverse incentive. Although such systems are intended to reduce unemployment and poverty, they often create a situation whereby the welfare recipient has an incentive to avoid raising his own productivity because his net income gain after benefits and taxes is not enough to compensate for the effort he must expend at work.
Surely welfare systems are intended to reduce poverty not unemployment. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and verify

message: I deleted the criticism paragraph at the bottom of the page, because I'm not certain there's a meaningful distinction in this instance between "psychological" and "economic" decisions.  That is, economics is, to a large degree (especially where political economy and economic policy are concerned) nothing more than psychology on a mass scale.  It is nothing more, that is, than the study of human action and the reasons (psychological and otherwise) for that action.  Thus, I think the final paragraph may serve more to confuse readers than clarify a very subtle distinction.  Anyway, that's my two cents, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.RiseAbove 08:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted criticism

message: A person on disability in the United States currently receives 603 a month from SSI. If they've worked they may also get SSDI. They may also receive Food Stamps, which may add about $90 a month. They may also be able to find subsidized housing. They also usually receive Medicaid, though as well. Hackwrench 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: A while back I was reading about India and Australia proposing/starting new schemes that involved having to work for the government a set number of hours for welfare Eddus 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed solutions

message: ...the Welfare Trap DOES exist.  I'm living proof of it.  I never wanted to be on disability... but rather than pay for my further education and training to be able to drive a car, or learn a trade.... my mother filed me for disability payments, because I AM disabled.  However, I quickly found out that she sold my soul to the government so I might have some money to pay bills.  I am now 30 years old, IN debt with the cost of living going up through the roof... and I can't even think of GETTING a job, not when I live nowhere near transportation TO a job.  Let alone, have the money to pay for things like a car, license, insurance, etc.
I never thought I'd be in this fix.  Where I'm struggling to get out of the poorhouse and my PITIFUL $3,500.00 worth of accumulated debts, and into perpetual unending tax debt through the IRS.  The ONLY upside to my situation is, my income is non-taxable AND well below the poverty level so I've never dealt with the IRS in my life.  But MAN, what a price to pay for that mercy.....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.20.131 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking from experience... 

message: A person on disability in the United States currently receives $623.00 a month from SSI.  Which means their annual income is $7,476.00. The federal annual poverty level for a single person family in 2007 is $10,210.00.  If you're on SSI, you can earn up to about $700.00 extra a month, before you risk losing or having your benefits reduced.  Additionally, the first $70 a month you make, aren't reportable to SSI.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.20.131 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current accuracy 

message: I typed "Poverty traps" by accident and it took me to "Welfare trap". Then when I typed "Poverty trap" it took me to "Poverty trap". Why is this? This doesn't make sense.--Burrburr (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it makes no sense. I just changed it.Cretog8 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: America Now by Marvin Harris mentions this concept among others. --Error (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible reference

message: I have some ideas which might improve this page, but I'd like to get some feedback first.
* Right now, the article talks about the US or the UK - should we divide up the page by country and try to get some more examples?
* Perhaps have a subsection on policies that attempt to eliminate the welfare trap? e.g. means-tested versus universal benefits.
* Might there be some benefit from merging this with the poverty trap page? That one could also use a cleanup, but I think it could be useful to differentiate between what the poverty trap means in the UK (as shown in this article, which is the terminology used by social policy experts such as Howard Glennerster) versus what it means in developing countries, because as it stands now it's kind of confusing to have two different meanings dependent on context spread over two pages. JuliaK (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Edits

message: Previous versions of the page contained this graph, which was evidently removed (17 November 2022‎) for lack of proper sourcing. Indeed, the source referenced for the image does not, itself,  provide a working source of the actual data used to compose it (it suggests "www.dpw.state.pa.us", but this is currently defunct). (Interestingly, the image currently at the source is not identical, but there is no note of an update to the 2012 post, making it probable the image was recreated by User:Wikideas1 [who lists it as "Own work"] using the data.)
In any case: that image was an excellent illustration of the article: literally showing the "gap". Ideally, a new image could be found/created that is better sourced. However, in the meantime, unless someone is seriously questioning the accuracy of that data, I think it appropriate to seek consensus to restore the image, perhaps with a "citation needed" tag (per Wikipedia:Citation_needed: "Is the information probably factual?").
2601:404:D400:4AF0:2C68:C962:E353:F90 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph Image Illustration