Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Many countries around the world are driven by two distinct motives as they define their economic systems.
Most people desire, on the one hand, to have a chance to work hard and to have that hard work rewarded. They
want the opportunity to improve their standard of living and to provide economic advantages for their children.
These sorts of goals often lead to a limited economic role for government.
On the other hand, many people also want to provide some measure of equity across their societies. As we
have seen in earlier chapters, each economic system must define equity for itself by combining social and
cultural characteristics with historical reality. Regardless of the particular definition chosen, government must
step in to administer these collective decisions.
As noble as these two goals are, one of the lessons of economics is that these goals frequently get in each
other’s way. The very programs that provide some measure of protection for the disadvantaged cost money to
run. They therefore require tax revenues to operate, and taxation reallocates society’s resources from those who
have achieved some measure of economic success to those who have not. Welfare programs themselves are
often accused of generating disincentives among the disadvantaged, discouraging them from working to provide
better lives for themselves. Arthur Okun, a famous economist, termed this whole business the big
tradeoff—the classic tradeoff between equity and efficiency that all societies must struggle with.
These objectives make it clear that the debate hinges on the theoretical tradeoff between equity and
efficiency, but the fundamental lesson of this chapter is that the debate must be conducted in the context of the
practical, political world of interdependent government decision making. This chapter investigates the sources
of inequality found in the distributions of income and wealth. Given this inequality, alternative antipoverty
policies are considered. Finally, the issue of health care reform is considered and at the close of this
microeconomic section of your textbook you are left to ponder the appropriate role for government in the
market for health care services.
After you have read Chapter 19 in your text and completed the exercises in this Study Guide chapter, you
should be able to:
1. Understand the difference between the terms income and wealth as economists use them, and
recognize the major sources of income and the major reservoirs of wealth in the United States.
2. Use the Lorenz curve as a tool to investigate relative (in)equality in the distribution of income and/or
wealth. Outline (a) the information that these curves are intended to convey, (b) the link between that
intention and their construction, and (c) the interpretation of the bulges that they usually portray. Compare
the distribution of income across countries or regions using Lorenz curves.
3. Outline and explain potential sources of inequality in the distribution of income both across the
United States and elsewhere around the globe.
4. Define the term poverty and characterize the group of people that tends to be poor. Trace historical
trends in poverty.
5. Contrast three notions of equity (equality of political rights, opportunity, and outcome), and use
Arthur Okun’s notion of a leaky bucket to delineate the costs of providing increased equity.
6. Use an income-possibility curve to illustrate efficiency-equity tradeoffs that must occur when income
is redistributed. Discuss the inefficiency that is created by redistribution.
7. List the major welfare programs still in place in the United States (food stamps and child nutrition;
aid to the needy aged, blind, and disabled; Medicaid; housing assistance; etc.). Note the comparative
expense of running each. Understand how qualifying standards might impose very high effective marginal
tax rates on the working poor.
8. Define two views of poverty, and trace the implications of both for government activity.
9. Critically analyze the notion of substituting a negative income tax for the plethora of welfare programs
currently in place. Describe the pros and cons of income supplements for the poor.
10. Discuss the nature of the 1996 welfare reform program and list its positive and negative aspects.
316
Match the following terms from column A with their definitions in column B.
A B
__ Personal income 1. Shows incomes available to different groups when government programs
redistribute income.
__ Disposable 2. Program that would provide an income supplement, rather than impose an
income income tax, to those who earn below a certain income level.
__ Wealth 3. Diagram that shows the degree of inequality in the income distribution.
__ Distribution of 4. Goods whose benefits are indivisibly spread among the entire community,
income whether or not individuals choose to purchase them.
__ Gini coefficient 5. Total income or receipts earned by a person or household in a given year.
__ Lorenz curve 6. Wage supplement applied to labor income.
__ Subsistence cost 7. Shows the dispersion of incomes.
__ Poverty Line 8. Personal income less any taxes paid.
__ Income-possibility 9. Line of demarcation between those the government labels “poor” and
curvet “nonpoor.”
__ Welfare state 10. Found by multiplying the minimum family food budget by three.
__ Negative income tax 11. Situation in which the government modifies market forces, guaranteeing people
a minimum standard of living.
__ Earned income credit 12. Goods with no external costs or benefits.
__ Public goods 13. Dollar value of financial and tangible assets minus the amount of money owed
to banks or other creditors.
__ Private goods 14. A measure of the income inequality in a country.
refinement of a welfare “safety net;” programs like social security and Medicare have particularly led to
significant declines in poverty among the elderly. Another significant wave of welfare programs came into
being during the Great Society era of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Over the same time period, increases in
productivity and improvements in technology made workers more valuable to firms and hence led to increases
in income.
Between 1975 and 1998, this trend has reversed, and the distribution has in fact become increasingly
unequal. This trend has been caused in part by changes in government policy; many welfare programs have
been eliminated or cut. Additionally, the college/high school wage premium has increased as jobs in
manufacturing become more scarce and returns to training and education increase. Increases in the
compensation of top executives and professionals have ballooned the most extreme incomes in the top quintile.
All of these factors have played a role in the increasing inequality in the United States over the past two
decades.
6. The notion that industrialization would help only the rich has not been borne out by experience.
Enormous inequality is displayed by the industrializing countries, and the distribution of wealth throughout
most of the world is extremely concentrated at the top. Nonetheless, most of the economies in the
industrialized world display distributions of income without a large, thoroughly impoverished underclass.
B. Antipoverty Policies
1. Three important notions of equity dominate our thinking. First, political equality includes the right to
vote, trial by jury, and other constitutional liberties. Equality of economic opportunity implies that there
should be some sort of level playing field defined for economic agents, administered by the legal system.
Equality of economic outcome is the most contentious; it would provide the same consumption for all people,
regardless of their contributions to the economic system.
2. Economists have recognized that movement toward equity generally involves efficiency losses—Okun’s
analysis of a leaky bucket of disincentives and administrative costs illuminates this idea. How big are the
leaks? What are their sources? First, there are the administrative costs of running welfare and tax redistribution
programs. Second, there is the potential for welfare programs to create disincentives to work. Third, there is
the potential for progressive taxation to retard saving and investment and thus growth. Finally, there are
potentially harmful changes in attitude and behavior that might be fostered by a progressive tax and welfare
state. More people might cheat on their taxes, or lie around and not work, and so on. All these leaks are hard
to measure, and the jury is still out.
The opposite side of the argument can lead to the suggestion that the tradeoff between equity and efficiency
is overstated to the extreme. What if the drive toward equality opened opportunities to extraordinarily
productive people who would have otherwise been shut out? What if programs that provide health care and
nutrition for poor families actually broke the cycle of poverty, thereby increasing productivity and efficiency?
Would not, then, operating the welfare state and incurring its expense be an investment in expanded human
capital for the future?
3. An income-possibility curve can help to illustrate the inefficiencies involved in redistribution. Figure 19-5
from your text is reproduced here as Figure 19-1.
The population is divided into two equal-size groups based on income. The lower income group is
measured on the Y axis and the higher income group is measured on the X axis. Point A shows the distribution
of income when there is no redistribution and each group consumes its own income. If markets are perfectly
competitive, this point will be efficient, but it may be considered inequitable because the high-income group
consumes a significantly greater amount of income than the low-income group.
Figure 19-1
318
Suppose this society decides to institute a redistribution program. The move from A to E would describe
an efficient program, with each dollar transferred from the high-income group resulting in a dollar increase in
the low-income pool. Due to the existence of the inefficiencies described above, most redistributions would
cause a move along the ABZ curve, showing that a dollar transferred from the high-income group results in less
than a dollar increase in the low-income pool.
4. The United States offers a wide array of programs designed to alleviate poverty (welfare, food stamps,
Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, etc.). These programs are frequently criticized for
necessitating high effective marginal tax rates on income. However, all federal poverty programs in place today
amount to only approximately 10 percent of the total federal budget.
5. Two general views of poverty can be described as follows. Some social scientists would argue that poverty
is the result of social and economic conditions over which the poor have no control. Basic inequality of
opportunities within the economy create insurmountable barriers for large communities of people. Other social
scientists claim that poverty is created by maladaptive individual behavior. This theory describes the poor as
being lazy, shiftless, and unconcerned about their own productivity. Most people believe that elements of both
of these theories characterize the nature of poverty.
6. Many economists believe that the current set of welfare programs in the United States generates
disincentives for the poor. For example, in order to maintain welfare benefits for their children, single mothers
must not live with the fathers of their children. This stipulation leads to the dissolution of families, something
that no one would in fact want to encourage.
In order to remedy this situation, a welfare reform program was put in place in 1996. It primarily targeted
the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, revising many of the entitlements that it
had contained. States are given block grants to distribute as they see fit. Each family is now limited to 5 years
of lifetime benefits. Adults in the program must now engage in market work activities after 2 years on the
program. Legal immigrants may now be excluded from the program.
Although designed to eliminate some of the disincentive effects generated by the old program, many
economists fear that these changes will have a tremendous impact on the number of women and children living
in poverty. Table 19-4 in your textbook reports that in 1998, 18.9 percent of children under 18 years of age
live in poverty. This startling statistic may skyrocket when AFDC benefits are revoked from those families
that have exhausted their five years on the new program.
7. In order to reverse these disincentives, the negative income tax is advocated by many as an alternative
means of coping with poverty. This program would provide a cash supplement, or “negative tax,” to people
whose income falls below a particular threshold. Families with incomes above this level will pay a positive
tax. The earned income tax credit is a derivative of this program that has been instituted in the United States.
This wage supplement accrues to those families whose income is below $13,000 per year.
V. HELPFUL HINTS
1. Throughout this chapter we have referred to median family income. A median is one way of defining the
average in a set of data; it is the observation that is exactly in the middle of a distribution, with half of the
observations below it and half of the observations above it. There are other ways to describe the average.
Oftentimes people refer to the mean family income; the mean is the sum of the observations divided by the
number of observations. People also might refer to the mode of family incomes; this is the income that occurs
most frequently. All these definitions help to describe the distribution of income.
2. Your text mentions a Gini coefficient, which can be calculated using a Lorenz curve. This coefficient
allows us to quickly and easily compare income distributions across time or across regions. Without it, we are
left trying to eyeball the differences using diagrams.
To find a Gini coefficient, calculate the area between the actual Lorenz curve and the curve of perfect income
equality. In Figure 19-2, this is the gray shaded area. Multiply this area by two and you have your Gini! This
quantifies the notion of inequality so that we can make comparisons.
3. Many critics have opposed national health insurance and managed competition because both plans provide
explicit rules as to how care is to be rationed. We might point out that care is rationed under the current
system! Those who have the money to pay for insurance are able to afford and obtain care. Those who are very
poor or old have the government as provider and are able to obtain care at taxpayer expense. All other people
are effectively rationed out of the system.
319
Figure 19-2
These questions are organized by topic from the chapter outline. Choose the best answer from the options
available.
B. Antipoverty Policies
12. A poor family’s employment earnings are supplemented by a negative income tax—in the amount, say, of
$4000. Under this tax proposal, if family employment earnings were to rise by $1000, the income received
from the negative tax would typically:
a. fall by $1000.
b. fall by more than $1000.
c. fall by some amount less than $1000.
d. fall by $4000.
e. rise by some amount such as $500.
Use the diagram in Figure 19-3 to answer questions 13 and 14.
Figure 19-3
13. Let point A represent some initial distribution of income between the indicated upper half and the lower
half. Which point would represent the equal distribution of income if there were no leaks in the bucket?
a. A.
b. B.
c. C.
d. D.
e. E.
14. Which answer to question 13 would have been correct if it had asked for the point that would represent
equality given the leaks that produce curve ABCD?
a. A.
b. B.
c. C.
d. D.
e. E.
15. Which of the following is not likely to be a significant source of leaks in the equity-efficiency tradeoff?
a. The administrative costs of running a welfare income redistribution program.
b. The work disincentives of the progressive income tax.
c. The disincentives against saving and investment that are produced by the progressive income tax.
d. A change in attitude that makes cheating on taxes more acceptable.
e. All the above could be significant, though there is little evidence to support choice c.
16. In the 2000 budget, which of the following was the largest item targeted directly at helping the poor?
a. Medicaid.
b. Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
c. Food stamps and child nutrition.
322
The following problems are designed to help you to apply the concepts that you learned in this chapter.
TABLE 19-1
Percent of Income Received by Lowest:
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 100
b. Draw the Lorenz curve illustrating this distribution of income in Figure 19-4.
c. If the distribution of income were more unequal than that indicated at the beginning of this question,
then the Lorenz curve would (bulge closer to the lower right-hand corner / be drawn nearer to the 45°
diagonal); if it were less unequal, the curve would (bulge closer to the lower right-hand corner / be
drawn nearer to the 45° diagonal).
323
Figure 19-4
2. Suppose, using the data provided in question 1, that a 20 percent income tax is imposed by the
government.
Such a tax would collect, assuming no disincentive effects, $11 in revenue. Assume further that it costs
$1 to administer the tax and that the remaining $10 is distributed to everyone as equal $1 “social” payments.
Fill in the blanks in Table 19-2 and draw a new Lorenz curve in Figure 19-4 to illustrate the resulting after-tax-
and-payment distribution of income; use a different color pencil or pen for clarity.
TABLE 19-2
Person 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Income $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00
Taxes paid $0.20 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Income after taxes $0.80 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Income after taxes
and payment $1.80 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Percent of total
income after the
program received
by the lowest
indicated % 33.% ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 100%
3. The following list records changes in a Lorenz curve that might be expected in response to some change in
economic circumstance:
1. Movement up toward the 45° line.
2. Movement away from the 45° line.
3. No movement at all.
Using the numbers from the list above, indicate in the blanks provided the likely effect of the following
changes in economic condition on a Lorenz curve illustrating a distribution of income:
a. A 5 percent proportional income tax whose revenues are not redistributed.
b. A 5 percent proportional income tax whose revenues are redistributed equally to everyone.
c. A progressive income tax (which taxes higher incomes at a higher rate) whose revenues are not
redistributed.
d. A progressive income tax (which taxes higher incomes at a higher rate) whose revenues are
redistributed equally to everyone.
e. A 5 percent sales tax whose revenues are not redistributed.
f. A deep recession that reduces employment for the working-class poor.
324
4. Table 19-3 records data that describe the distribution of income in the United States in 1984.
TABLE 19-3
Cumulative PercentageCumulative Percentage
of People of Income
20 4.7
40 15.7
60 32.7
80 57.1
100 100.0
Figure 19-5
TABLE 19-4
Percent of Group
in Poverty
Population Group 1982 1998
White 12.0 10.5
Black 35.6 26.2
Hispanic 29.9 25.6
Elderly 14.6 10.5
Married couples 7.6 5.3
Families headed by women 40.6 29.9
Total population 15.0 12.7
325
a. Families headed by women ranked (first / second / third) on the list, with ___ percent of their
numbers falling below the poverty line in 1998. Blacks ranked (second / first / fourth), with ___ percent
in 1998.
b. Referring now to Figure 19-6, note that the average income of the bottom one-fifth of the population
(ranked by income) has climbed ___ percent since 1930, from $___ (real 1989 dollars) to $___.
Figure 19-6
c. As a percentage of national income, however, the income earned by the lowest 20 percent of the
population (fell / remained roughly the same / rose), to stand at about (4 / 5 / 10) percent in 1996. For
the lowest 20 percent, therefore, 60 years of history has (shifted the Lorenz curve in toward the 45° line
/ done little to the Lorenz curve / shifted the Lorenz curve away from the 45° line), indicating (a
trend toward greater equality / no significant trend toward greater equality / a trend toward less
equality) in the lower incomes. Put another way, the average income of the lowest 20 percent of the
population has climbed only because (total income has fallen / total income has remained the same /
total income has risen).
7. The very concept of equality is at best a controversial issue. Most people would agree that equal
opportunity, equal access to adequate education, and equal access to the electoral process are essential elements
of American democracy. But what about a (more) equal distribution of income? More specifically, should a
progressive income tax system be used to redistribute income? There is no definitive response to this question.
There are too many potential sources of inequity in the distribution of income that would exist regardless of the
economic policy of the U.S. government. List at least five of these sources in the spaces provided below:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
B. Antipoverty Policies
8. Figure 19-7 can be used to illustrate the disincentive or leaky-bucket consequence of income redistribution.
The horizontal and vertical axes measure, respectively (to the same scale), the incomes of the upper half and the
lower half of the population. This diagram has a 45° line emerging from the origin. If there were complete
equality in income distribution (if each individual received exactly the same income as every other individual),
then the words “upper half” and “lower half” would be meaningless. Alternatively, the so-called upper half (any
half) of the population would receive exactly the same total income as the so-called lower half. The
distribution between them would have to be represented by some point (such as E) on this 45° line.
(Remember, the scales on the two axes are the same.)
326
a. In fact, incomes are not equally distributed. On this diagram, then, the point indicating the
distribution between the two halves must lie (to the right of and below / to the left of and above) the
45° line.
Suppose that total income received by both halves is 0H, divided between an upper-half total of 0G
and a lower-half total of GH. A 45° line is drawn from point H extending up to the other 45° line. Point
E is where the two lines meet. On EH, point A is chosen such that AG is equal to GH.
Figure 19-7
Now we have things sorted out as they should be. 0G (measured horizontally) is the upper-half
income total; AG (measured vertically) is the lower-half total. Point A indicates the distribution of income
between the two halves. Any movement toward greater equality of income distribution would mean a
move away from A (toward / and also away from) E. Suppose there is such a movement, with
absolutely no disincentive, or leaky-bucket, effect. That is, suppose that the population’s entire income
total is (reduced / not reduced at all). On the diagram, this redistribution movement will follow the
straight line EH from A toward E.
b. It is usually argued that any movement directed toward greater equality of income distribution would
have at least some disincentive consequences. Suppose this redistribution is tackled by means of heavier
progressive income taxation. The extra taxes thus collected from higher income people would be passed on
to lower income groups. Insofar as people try to avoid heavier taxation by working shorter hours or in
other ways earning less money income, the total of real GDP would (fall / rise). The path of redistribution
will no longer run along the straight line EH. Starting at A, it will drift (above / below) EH. The total of
real income will become (less / more) than it was at point A. The more sweeping the intended income
redistribution, the (less / more) pronounced this disincentive effect is likely to be.
c. The three curved lines in Figure 19-8, DA, CA, and BA, show three possible sets of disincentive
consequences. Among them, the smallest disincentive effect is indicated by (DA / CA / BA).
Notice that line CA is approximately flat in the region close to point C. This means that if
redistribution toward complete equality were pressed hard enough, the resulting drop in total GDP would
be sufficient for the real income of the lower half, in absolute terms, to (increase only slightly / not
increase at all / decrease). In relative terms, though, the share of the lower half would (still increase /
remain constant / decrease).
9. a. List the following welfare-transfer programs in the order of their importance in the federal budget of
1998: Medicare; Medicaid; social security; unemployment compensation, food stamps and child nutrition;
housing (Table 19-5 in the text).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
327
(6)
b. The total amount budgeted for these programs in 1998 was $___ billion. This is a large amount of
money, but it should be noted that only $___ billion (___ percent of the total budget) is spent on
programs designed to benefit the poor directly, with $___ billion devoted to all income security programs.
10. Consider a welfare system organized around the following rules of qualification:
1. Basic welfare support is $4000; 50 cents is deducted from that amount for every dollar earned up to
$8000.
2. $3000 in food stamps is available for $1000, provided outside earnings do not exceed $2500.
3. $2500 in housing subsidy is granted, but that amount is reduced by 50 cents for every dollar earned
over $2000.
4. $1000 per child in supplemental income is available to families with dependent children and outside
incomes that do not exceed $3999.
Fill in the blanks of Table 19-5 to reflect the benefits received by each of four different families
according to these rules. Assume that each family takes advantage of all four programs to the fullest extent
possible (not, in reality, a good assumption).
Family A has one child and no private outside income.
Family B has no children and a private income of $2000.
Family C has two children and an outside income of $2500.
Family D has two children and an outside income of $4000.
TABLE 19-5
Family Family Family Family
A B C D
1. Basic Welfare
2. Food stamps
3. Housing subsidy
4. AFDC
5. Outside income
6. Total
7. Marginal tax rates:
Last dollar earned
Next dollar earned
Answer the following questions, making sure that you can explain the work you did to arrive at the answers.
1. Carefully distinguish between income and wealth. What different notions of well-being do these quantities
embody? How does inequality in the distribution of income compare with inequality in the distribution of
wealth?
2. Table 19-1 in your text, reproduced here as Table 19-6, shows the income distribution in the United States
for 1995. What are the three most important observations that you can make about these data?
TABLE 19-6
(4)
(1) (3) Percentage of
Income Class Percentage of Total Income
of (2) All Households Received
Households Income Range in This Class in This Class
Lowest fifth Under $12,664 20.0 3.8
Second fifth $12,664-$24,229 20.0 9.4
Third fifth $24,300-$37,999 20.0 15.8
Fourth fifth $38,000-$58,199 20.0 24.2
Highest fifth $58,200 and over 20.0 46.8
Top 5 percent $99,372 and over 5.0 18.6
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons in the United
States: 1992, Current Population Report, Series P60, No. 184, September 1993.
328
3. Figure 19-2(a) from your text, reproduced here as Figure 19-9, shows Lorenz curves for several different
countries. It is apparent that the United States has decidedly greater income inequality than several other
developed countries. Why is this? List and explain two possible explanations for this outcome.
Figure 19-9
4. What does Table 19-4 from your text, reproduced here as Table 19-7, tell you about the incidence of
poverty among different population groups in the United States? What might be some causes of these
differentials?
TABLE 19-7.
Poverty in Major Groups, 1992
Percent of
Population Group Group in Poverty
Total population 14.5
By racial group:
White 11.6
Black 33.3
Hispanic 29.3
Other 17.0
By age:
Under 18 years 21.9
18 to 64 years 11.7
65 years and over 12.9
By type of family:
Married couple 7.5
Female householder, no spouse present 38.5
Unrelated subfamilies 54.8
By education:
No high school diploma 25.6
High school diploma, no college 10.4
Some college 7.0
Bachelor’s degree or more 3.0
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty Status in the United States: 1992, Current Population Repo,”
Series P-60, No. 185, September 1993.
329
5. Review the trends of income inequality in the United States in this century. How might a negative income
tax be used to reverse the recent rising trend of income inequality?
Figure 19-4
c. bulge closer to the lower right-hand corner, be drawn nearer to the 45° diagonal
2. Table rows:
Taxes paid = $.40, $.60, $.80, $1.00, $1.20, $1.40, $1.60, $1.80, $2.00
Income after taxes = $1.60, $2.40, $3.20, $4.00, $4.80, $5.60, $6.40, $7.20, $8.00,
Income after taxes and payment = $2.60, $3.40, $4.20, $5.00, $5.80, $6.60, $7.40, $8.20, $9.00
330
Percent of total income = 8.1, 14.4, 22.2, 31.5, 42.2, 54.4, 68.1, 83.3
The Lorenz curve should be closer to the 45° line, indicating a more equal distribution of income.
Figure 19-5
3. a. 3
b. 1
c. 1
d. 1
e. 2
f. 2
4. a. See Figure 9-5.
b. (1) SC
(2) SF
(3) MF
(4) MF
(5) SC or MC, depending upon your perspective.
(6) SF
5. a minimum-subsistence income, 3, one-third, $15,569.
6. a. second, 36.5, first, 39.3
b. 400 percent, $2000, $8000
c. remained roughly the same, 4 percent, done little to the Lorenz curve, no significant trend toward
greater equality, total income has risen.
7. Ability, education, occupation, work effort, property ownership, inheritance, and discrimination are all
possible sources.
8. a. to the right of and below, toward, not reduced at all.
b. fall, below, less, more.
c. DA, not increase at all, still increase .
d. increase, decrease.
9. a. (1) Social Security
(2) Medicare
(3) Medicaid
(4) food stamps and child nutrition
(5) housing
(6) unemployment insurance
b. $804.4, $277.9, 15.5, $911.1
10. See Table 19-5.
331
TABLE 19-5
Family Family Family Family
A B C D
Basic welfare $4,000 $3,000 $2,750 $2,000
Food stamps 2,000 2,000 2,000 0
Housing sub. 2,500 2,500 2,250 1,500
AFDC 1,000 0 2,000 0
Outside income 0 2,000 2,500 4,000
Total 9,500 9,500 11,500 7,500
Marginal tax rates:
Last dollar earned NA 50% 100% 200,100%
Next dollar earned 50% 100% 200,100% 100%