All this is well illustrated in Suzanne Mettler's book "The Submerged State", which shows how these hidden subsidies can distort voters' view of the way that government policy works; a 2008 poll found that 57% of Americans denied ever using a government programme. But when shown a list of 21 actual programmes, including student loans and home-mortgage interest deduction, 94% of the deniers turned out to have benefited after all.Some of these programmes are heavily skewed towards the better-off. According to Ms Mettler, 69% of the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction went to those who earned $100,000 or more; 55% of the benefits from employer-provided retirement benefits* went to those earning $100,000 or more. Only 16% of workers in the lowest income quintile had employer-sponsored (and tax deductible) health insurance compared to 85% of those in the top quintile.In cash terms, the average subsidy for those earning $200,000 to $500,000 is three times that for those earning $10,000 to $20,000.And these programmes are large; mortgage-interest tax relief cost $104.5 billion in 2010 while the tax subsidy for retirement benefits was $67 billion. But these programmes are politically very hard to get rid of…Universal benefits are very expensive. But targeting benefits requires means-testing, an instrusive process that causes hard cases at the margin. And restricting benefits to the poorest may weaken political support for the whole system, along the lines highlighted by Mr Romney; people may believe that the hard-working "us" are subsidising the feckless "them".
Ever wonder why the welfare state is headed for a collapse?



![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment