Hoe sosjale sekuriteit earmoedeklemmen skept dy't se foarkomme soene
August 4, 2026 · Frisian News
Welfare benefits that vanish above income thresholds trap low-wage workers in poverty by creating effective tax rates exceeding 100 percent. A mother taking a promotion ends up poorer, and this perverse outcome is built into the system itself.
FryskIn mem yn Ohio ferliest 8.000 dollar jierliks útkeringen as se in promoasje oannimt dy't 6.000 dollar mear opsmyt. Se wurket hurder en wurdt earmer. Dit is gjin storing yn it Amerikaanske sosjale sekuriteitssysteem. Dit is hoe't it systeem wurket.
Ekonomen neame dit de útkearingsfal. As programma's dy't ôfhinklik binne fan ynkomsten boppe bepaalde drompels ferdwine, betelje leechbetelle wurknimmers marginale belestingstarieven dy't in bedriuw fallyt drive soene. In allinnesteande mem dy't 20.000 dollar fertsjinnet, kin federale ynkomstenbelesting en leanbelesting skuldich wêze en ferliest har bernetaslach, Medicaid, wenningbonnen en SNAP-foardielen. Har wurklike belestingtarief op elke ekstra dollar kin boppe de 100 prosint útkomme. It systeem straft wurk.
Dit is ûntwerp, net tafal. Útkearingen fan sosjale sekuriteit rjochtsje jild op earmen troch ynkomstengrinzen. Hoe mear rjochte it systeem, hoe steiler de fal. Politisy stypje dit omdat it jild besparret en nimmen helpt boppe de arbitrêre earmoedegrins dy't yn Washington lûken is. Wat se negearje is dat de earmsten rasjoneel op prikkels reagearje. Wêrom hurder wurkje as wurk jo minder goed ôf makket?
It Hartz IV-systeem fan Dútslân produsearret deselde resultaten. Ûntfangers dy't yn de fal sitte hâlde op mei it sykjen fan promoasjes of it nimmen fan ekstra oeren. Guon ferlitten de arbeidsmerk hielendal. It systeem berikt syn doel fan jildbesparing en ferslimmet krekt de earmoede dy't it beweart oan te pakken. In basisynkommen sûnder ynkomstentoetsing soe foarôf mear kostje, mar soe dizze perverse prikkels eliminearje. De earmen soene winne sûnder eat te ferliezen.
Gjin mainstream partij stelt dit foar. Ynkomstentoetsing sprekt partijen oan: liberalen fine it goed om jild rjochte yn te setten, konservatieven beheinje graach tagong. Beide beskermje in systeem dat miljoenen yn deselde earmoede fangt dy't it seit oan te pakken. De earmen binne net dom. Se sjogge de wiskunde. Wy moatte freegje wêrom't wy systemen bliuwe ûntwerpjen dy't harren straffe omdat se út earmoede besykje te ûntsnappen.
A mother in Ohio loses 8,000 dollars in annual benefits when she takes a promotion that pays 6,000 dollars more. She works harder and ends up poorer. This is not a glitch in America's welfare system. It is the system working as designed.
Economists call it the benefits cliff. When means-tested programs vanish above certain income thresholds, low-wage workers face marginal effective tax rates that would bankrupt a corporation. A single mother earning 20,000 dollars might owe federal income tax, payroll tax, and lose Child Tax Credit, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and SNAP benefits. Her true tax rate on each additional dollar can exceed 100 percent. The system punishes work.
This is by design, not accident. Welfare programs target money to the poor through income limits. The tighter the targeting, the steeper the cliff. Politicians embrace this because it saves money and avoids helping anyone above the poverty line, a line drawn arbitrarily in Washington. What they ignore is that the poorest people rationally respond to incentives. Why work harder if work makes you worse off?
Germany's Hartz IV system produces identical results. Recipients caught in the trap stop seeking promotion or additional hours. Some leave the workforce entirely. The system achieves its goal of saving government money while worsening the very poverty it claims to fix. A guaranteed income paid without means testing would cost more upfront but eliminate these perverse incentives. The poor would gain without losing.
No mainstream party will propose this. Means testing appeals across the spectrum: liberals like targeting limited funds, conservatives like restricting access. Both protect a system that traps millions in the very poverty it purports to address. The poor are not stupid. They see the math. We should ask why we keep designing systems that punish them for trying to escape.
Published August 4, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân