If you ask many engaged couples what’s worrying them before the big day, you’ll probably hear about things like catering budgets, guest lists, or finding the right dress.

But for thousands of working-class people in Ģ����Ƶ and across the country, something else is causing their wedding anxiety: the financial benefits they might lose.

Because of rules in our tax system, walking down the aisle can sometimes lead to what’s called a “marriage penalty.” Instead of helping couples build a stable foundation, current policies often force a heartbreaking choice: commit to each other legally, or make ends meet.

The Cost of Combining Incomes

The is one of our country’s largest anti-poverty initiatives. The credit increases with every dollar workers make, up to a point, and then phases out as a household earns more.

But the EITC can also be a hidden poverty trap. When low-income people get married, the tax system unintentionally penalizes them for doing exactly what they should to escape poverty: working hard, combining resources, and building a stable home. 

Imagine two parents who want to marry each other. The woman makes $18,000 per year, and the man makes $30,000 per year.

As a single head of household tax filer with two kids, the woman qualifies for a much-needed $7,200 tax credit.

Her partner files single and doesn’t qualify for the EITC.

Together, unmarried, they use the $7,200 credit the woman gets at tax time to pay debts or cover expenses.

But if they marry, the tax system starts phasing out their credit based on their new $48,000 joint income, and it instantly drops to about $3,770.

The new spouses lose $3,430 overnight—almost a full month’s income—just because they made their relationship official. 

For some, this can be too much of a loss to risk.

The Life-Changing Power of Marriage and Family Stability

Marriage can lead to more happiness and satisfaction for couples—two incomes to cover the bills, a partner who shares the responsibilities, and the sense of well-being that comes from experiencing life with someone you love.

And kids who grow up in stable, two-parent homes are more likely to thrive in school, have better physical and mental health, and break cycles of generational poverty. 

But many low-income families aren’t getting to experience these benefits, and policies that discourage marriage—like the ones involving the EITC—are part of the reason why. 

Statistics confirm a decrease in marriages but also their importance for families.

• Just 50% of American adults are currently married, down from 69% in 1970. The number is even lower for people with less education and those who don’t identify as White.
• 63% of children live with two married parents. Again, that number drops for less-educated and non-White Americans.
• When married parents are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the poverty rate for a married person is 75% lower.
• Children raised by married parents are 82% less likely to live in poverty.

When it comes to Ģ����Ƶ:

• 54% of women and 49% of men are unmarried.
• 38% of children live in single-parent families.
• 18% of children (461,000 kids) live in poverty—the fifth highest number in the country.
• The state ranks 39th in the nation for overall child and family well-being.

Big cultural shifts have changed how many people think about marriage—and this plays a role in decisions not to marry. But the data shows that a stable, two-parent home still provides families with more financial security and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s also one of the most powerful solutions for lifting children out of poverty.

A Less Risky Path to “I Do”

A new study from the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity offers recommendations to make the EITC work better for low-income families. In particular, the federal government could adjust the maximum benefits and the eligibility limit for married couples. This would let new spouses combine their earnings without triggering an automatic loss of some or all of the credit. It would also remove a big barrier to building strong relationships and stable households.

Reforming the EITC won’t solve every challenge facing working-class families. But by restructuring the credit to reward partnership instead of penalizing it, the government can make sure that saying “I do” really is a celebration—a step toward a brighter future and a better quality of life for everyone in the family.

FAQs Ģ����Ƶ the EITC

Additional Resources

The post When a Love Story Meets the Tax Code appeared first on For Opportunity.

Remove Safety-Net Programs from the U.S. Tax Code

Of the federal and state agencies that run more than  intended to help low-income individuals and families, perhaps the worst administrator is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that runs several safety-net programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that provided $.

While many policymakers view the income tax system as an efficient way to dispense safety-net benefits, IRS performance leaves much to be desired.  A recent Wall Street Journal  listed the EITC with the second-highest improper payment rate—more than five times the average improper payment rate. The Journal’s article did not reveal anything new. The IRS also runs the program with the highest improper payment rate, the American Opportunity Tax Credit.

When it comes to marriage penalties, the income tax structure is a bad fit for distributing money to needy households. While there are tax filing statuses for married couples, heads of household, and single individuals, there is no option for unmarried couples. Consider an unmarried couple with two children. One partner can claim both children as head of household while the other files as a single person. Or they can split the children as heads of household. Either way, they will be treated differently than if they were married. 

Congress could create a new tax filing status to accommodate unmarried couples. However, it may be more trouble than it is worth. Unmarried couples run the gamut in financial and relational commitments, and using tax law to address the various situations is complicated and may be perceived as too intrusive for those who just want to pay their tax liability.

Besides, the IRS is set up for annual returns and refunds, not monthly payments. EITC recipients must wait until the following tax year for their benefits. Monthly payments would give assistance when needed, allow families to properly budget, and would be a more effective way to encourage employment, one of the goals of the program. 

The EITC had an advance payment feature that was repealed in 2010 due to . The system relied on employers making the monthly payments to their employees and then being reimbursed by the IRS, but the Government Accountability Office  IRS procedures to be ineffective with noncompliance rates of 80 percent. Although repealing the advance payment feature eliminated this extreme noncompliance rate, the IRS continues to struggle with taxpayer noncompliance with the EITC program.

Make Income Taxes Neutral to Marital Status

Removing safety-net programs from the tax system would allow Congress to focus on making the income tax marital status neutral. In 2017, Congress was successful in  for single individuals who want to marry, provided they have no children and do not qualify for refundable tax credits.

However, marriage penalties remain for the rest of tax filers. For example, suppose a mom earns $20,000, a dad earns $30,000, and they have two children. Table 1 shows the simple tax liability before tax credits for tax year 2025 assuming that, as an unmarried couple, each parent claims one child and the standard deduction. The tax liability before tax credits is $750 if they live together unmarried but $2,000 if they are married, which means a marriage penalty of $1,250.  Even if one parent claims both children, there would still be a penalty.

The example in Table 1 is just one wage combination for a couple with two children. The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity ran 40,401 wage combinations for this couple if each partner claims one child on their taxes and found that 81% had a marriage penalty. The figure below shows the distribution of the penalties (in red), neutral outcomes (in gray), and the bonuses (in blue). 

One option Congress might consider to eliminate income tax marriage penalties is the flat tax, which treats all taxpayers the same regardless of marital status. The reason can be easily shown using mathematics because the flat tax follows the distributive law of multiplication (see for more). 

Conclusion

The U.S. Tax Code is ill-suited for running safety-net programs without marriage penalties. Furthermore, the IRS has an awful record of improper payments and noncompliance when it comes to running its safety-net programs. Therefore, an important step to eliminate marriage penalties is to take those programs away from the IRS and give them to an agency that knows how to run safety-net programs.

 for an explanation of how these other agencies can eliminate all marriage penalties in safety-net programs.

Image Credits: Canva, Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

The post It’s Time to Eliminate Marriage Penalties in the U.S. Tax Code appeared first on For Opportunity.

Recent reports,, have highlighted a concerning trend in Ģ����Ƶ—declining marriage rates.

According to data from the, only 30% of Ģ����Ƶns have been married at least once in their lives. This is indicative of a larger national trend: The marriage rate across the U.S. by nearly 60% over the past 50 years.

While societal pressures to marry have lessened and many young people doubt the benefits of marriage, this decline raises important questions about the impact on individual well-being and societal mobility.

Marriage rates in Ģ����Ƶ are a leading factor in quality of life

Helping people form healthy, committed relationships is a key pillar of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity’s mission to help all Ģ����Ƶns flourish. Relationships are essential to well-being in general, but marriage has a particular impact on the quality of life and upward mobility for men, women, and children.

Quality of life

Marital status is one of the strongest predictors of adult well-being, surpassing other factors like education, race, age, and gender., married individuals often report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction compared to their unmarried peers. This isn’t just about companionship—marriage can provide emotional stability, financial security, and social support, all of which contribute to a better quality of life.

Upward mobility

. Couples often benefit from dual incomes, shared resources, and consolidated expenses, making it easier to save and invest in the future. This financial stability can lead to better opportunities in terms of education, homeownership, and overall wealth accumulation. Essentially, marriage can act as a catalyst for achieving a higher economic status and breaking free from cycles of poverty.

Benefits for children

Children raised in two-parent, married families often experience greater stability and economic advantages, contributing significantly to their overall well-being. from the Institute for Family Studies shows that children who live in households with married parents experience more financially secure environments, less conflict, and more parental support.

According to polling from Gallup, married people report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction. This is another indicator of how essential relationships are for personal well-being and quality of life. 

According to polling from Gallup, married people report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction. This is another indicator of how essential relationships are for personal well-being and quality of life. 

Certain barriers in Ģ����Ƶ make marriage and its benefits hard to pursue

Despite marriage’s benefits, Ģ����Ƶ has several barriers that discourage marriage as a path to fulfilling relationships and flourishing lives. Educational challenges and a social safety net that frequently discourages marriage are a couple of significant roadblocks that can make it harder for people to pursue marriage.

Educational challenges

Educational attainment is another significant barrier. Those with higher levels of education are more likely to marry, but educational opportunities are not evenly distributed across the state. Addressing these disparities could encourage higher marriage rates and, consequently, greater upward mobility.

A social safety net that punishes marriage

Another significant barrier to marriage in Ģ����Ƶ is the “marriage penalty” embedded within many social safety net programs. The term refers to the phenomenon where low-income individuals or couples may actually lose financial benefits by getting married.

Programs such as Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps often have income thresholds that discourage marriage. When two low-income individuals marry, their combined income might exceed these thresholds, leading to a reduction or complete loss of benefits—creating a “benefits cliff.”

This financial disincentive can make marriage less appealing for low-income individuals who rely on these crucial programs to make ends meet. By losing access to necessary support, the economic stability that marriage can potentially offer is compromised, perpetuating a cycle where the cons outweigh the pros.

Addressing these safety-net barriers is essential for fostering an environment where marriage can thrive and contribute positively to individual and societal well-being.

The way forward

While the decline in marriage rates in Ģ����Ƶ is a complex issue influenced by various societal and economic factors, it’s essential to recognize the underlying benefits of marriage. Beyond the romantic ideals, marriage plays a pivotal role in enhancing quality of life and facilitating upward mobility.

To counteract the downward trend, it’s necessary to address the barriers that discourage marriage and create a more supportive environment for couples.

The post Marriage Rates in Ģ����Ƶ Are Down. But Marriage Still Matters For Quality of Life and Upward Mobility. appeared first on For Opportunity.

Strong relationships are a cornerstone of vibrant communities. Of the many types of relationships in day-to-day life, research that marriage is one of the most important for empowering individuals, regardless of race or circumstance, to avoid long-term poverty and find stability and opportunity. 

But communities in Ģ����Ƶ and beyond are struggling to reap the benefits of marriage—and a big reason is a government tax policy called the .  

Why does marriage matter for those in poverty?

We celebrate marriage because it provides people with relational connection and support. When we think about helping someone escape or avoid long-term poverty, we might assume that a person’s economic needs are most important to address. But that would be missing a critical piece of the puzzle. 

A lack of connection and supportive relationships, especially at home, is a driving factor of long-term poverty. 

Those in poverty often need this relationship and support system to a greater level, which is why we at GCO emphasize the benefits marriage offers for individuals, children, and communities. Higher marriage rates tend to go hand-in-hand . 

Of course, not every person will get married, but the impact that close, healthy relationships have on the stability of lives and communities cannot be understated.

The impact that close, healthy relationships have on the stability of lives and communities cannot be understated. In fact, it’s one of the biggest factors in helping people overcome long-term poverty.

Understanding the marriage penalty tax

A occurs when a couple faces higher taxes as a result of marrying and filing jointly. Higher taxes are linked to higher income, so it might seem like the marriage penalty is simply an inconvenience for households with high enough earnings to afford it. 

But the marriage penalty poses a significant problem for low-income households, as well. It creates a financial risk if one or both spouses are receiving government benefits and getting married would increase household income. That increase can trigger a sudden loss in benefits—even if households aren’t fully earning enough to offset the loss. This scenario holds particularly true for couples who earn a modest income—those in the working class or lower middle class earning around $28,000 to $55,000 a year.

Marriage penalties apply at the federal tax level, but there are 15 states that also have marriage penalties built into their state income tax brackets. Ģ����Ƶ is one of them.

Marriage penalties stifle financial independence

The gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” has increased when it comes to marriage. While the wealthy and upper middle class continue to marry at high rates, marriage is far less common among the poor, working class, and lower middle class.

, 56% of adults between the ages of 18 and 55 are married who fall into the upper middle class. That contrasts with 39% of those in the working class and just 26% of those who are poor.

There are many reasons why marriage rates have declined for these groups, but in the realm of government policy, the marriage penalty is one of the most discouraging factors. 

For example, a single mom with a few kids would need to find a spouse who earns a significantly higher salary than her in order to overcome the loss of benefits if they chose to get married. In some cases, the penalty is so extreme that she would need to marry someone earning more than $40 per hour—or more than $80,000 annually if full time—to recover from the loss in safety-net benefits like food stamps, refundable tax credits, and medical assistance.

Through a focus group organized by GCO and the Institute for Family Studies, we met Tiana, who experienced this situation firsthand. “I chose not to marry,” she told us. “For one, I get a lot of assistance. I have a disabled child. So being if I did marry or put any other type of income in, I would not qualify for anything.”

More than one-in-10 unmarried Americans whose income falls below the median reported they were not married for fear of losing “access to government benefits,” . The research indicates that penalties can amount to between 10% and 30% of household income for many families in the poor and working-class income brackets.

Marriage penalties discourage strong support systems at home

The bottom line is that the marriage penalty harms many of the poor who are working and attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families. It does so by discouraging the very thing we know impacts poverty the most—family and relationship formation. 

Fewer marriages is bad news for children: Social science research shows, time and again, that children do best in a stable, married two-parent household.

. Meanwhile, live in a single-parent household today, 80% of those households being headed by a single mom. And the unfortunate reality is that single-mom households are the most likely to be in poverty of any family structure in the U.S.—, accounting for over 5.1 million children in poverty.

Solutions to eliminate the marriage penalty tax

The ultimate solution to eliminate marriage penalties is federal action to reform how government benefits are structured. However, states can take the lead as they streamline eligibility standards and form individual action plans.

That’s why GCO at in Ģ����Ƶ and across the country to educate lawmakers on the perils of benefits cliffs and possible fixes. 

At the end of the day, however, government reforms are only part of the solution. The institutions of marriage and family are suffering not only from government obstacles, but also societal challenges. Civil society organizations—such as churches, nonprofits, and schools—are critical avenues for local support and examples of how to cultivate healthy family relationships. While this is not something that government programs can accomplish, classes and curriculum may be incorporated into case management.

Americans deserve a strong safety net that serves as a bridge out of poverty. But no government program or policy should be a barrier to the relationships needed in the places where lives are formed and transformed— in homes and communities.

The post The Marriage Penalty: A Barrier to Relational Support and Better Opportunities for the Poor appeared first on For Opportunity.

Many Americans rely on SNAP benefits to afford food, but these same individuals and families face a trap that keeps them mired in dependency. It’s called the SNAP benefits cliff. A new report from the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity analyzes some possible solutions for addressing the benefits cliffs still present in safety-net programs like SNAP. 

What are benefits cliffs?

A benefits cliff is when an individual, family, or household loses more in net income and benefits from governmental assistance programs than it gains from additional earnings. This net loss is a perverse incentive that undermines the natural desire to earn more income.

At an individual level—or in the case of SNAP, at a household level—the impact has to do with the ability of the individual or household to overcome the cliff. If the household can increase its earnings (and other income) sufficiently relative to the loss in benefits and taxes, the cliff will have no impact on that specific individual or household.

Who is hurt the most by benefits cliffs?

Our computational analysis shows that it is mathematically possible for some one-member households, where the individual is disabled or elderly, to overcome a benefits cliff with a pay raise of less than 5%. However, almost all other households will require percentage income increases in the double digits or worse.

Larger families, especially those without elderly or disabled members of the household, fare much worse. For example, a family of four (where a single mom is raising three kids, for example) would require a pay raise of between 37% and 121%, assuming the family doesn’t have housing costs. For larger households with disabled or elderly members, that pay raise ranged from 30% to 109%.

Solving the food assistance (SNAP) Benefits Cliffs

Our comprehensive report on the SNAP Benefits Cliffs outlines the pitfalls in the current structure of the program and steps that can be made at a federal, state, and agency level.

Learn More Ģ����Ƶ This Report

Running the numbers: the impact of benefits cliffs

A family of four would begin experiencing SNAP benefits cliffs when their household income exceeds $36,084. This family would lose around $462.42 in SNAP benefits each month. To overcome those lost benefits, that same family would need to earn $58,280 a year, a 61.5 percent increase in income.

What is the marriage penalty? 

Another example of benefits cliffs’ detrimental impacts lies in the marriage penalty. For instance, a couple choosing to marry would leave them worse off financially by getting married than by staying single. Instead, many couples decide to remain unmarried to avoid the financial burden of the marriage penalty. 

SNAP benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SNAP maximum allotments were raised significantly—between 45% and 51%. The Thrifty Food Plan was recalculated by the USDA, which impacted these increases. However, SNAP’s current benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high and may be the highest they’ve ever been. 

The situation is getting worse

Setting aside COVID-19 and the emergency allotment program, SNAP benefits cliffs are getting worse and, based on twenty years of data, have never been higher. This was not always the trend. The benefits cliffs cycled up to a high in 2009, slowly came down, and then leveled off for a few years. However, since the pandemic, they have all shot up to record highs.

Policy goals for improvement

We recommend approaching change from a policy perspective, and engaging Congress and the states to solve the problems with SNAP’s benefits cliffs. 

As a public policy goal, it would make sense to design a safety-net assistance program in such a manner that it minimizes potential cliffs for most cases. We believe that it should be relatively easy for individuals and households to overcome benefits cliffs by earning additional income. 

Our recommendations include:��

• Limiting how long future emergency allotment programs last 
• Requiring the USDA to recalculate the Thrifty Food Plan
• Permanently eliminating benefits cliffs that a typical pay raise can’t mitigate
• Implementing strategies to prevent marriage penalties 
• Amending U.S. code to test potential solutions via demonstration projects
• Opening the floor for the Secretary of Agriculture to work with states to solve benefits cliffs
• Allowing states to conduct §2026 demonstration projects

The post Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Takeaways:

• Welfare cliffs and marriage penalties are discouraging people from work and forming families.
• The cliffs and penalties may mean that our clients are locked into poverty for much longer than they would be otherwise and despite our best efforts.
• GCO has created that allows anyone to see when a particular family can expect to experience benefit cliffs as they earn more money through work.��

Important Link:

If you work in a nonprofit serving the poor, you need to know that the government benefits your clients receive are likely discouraging them from working or forming a family, two things shows could lift them out of poverty the fastest.��

This is an especially tough problem for nonprofits, like GCO, that work to get their clients into good-paying jobs and strengthen their family relationships.

What’s going on?

These disincentives to work are often called “welfare cliffs” and the disincentives to family formation are called “marriage penalties.” Essentially, “cliffs” are generated any time a person receiving government benefits gets a raise at work that causes them to lose more in benefits than they will earn in additional income from the raise. These same individuals can face a similar financial penalty IF they decide to marry. In many cases, they will lose more in benefits than their spouse is able to provide in new income to the household.

While you would think (hope?) cliffs and penalties are rare, they are not. Instead, they are baked into the structure of nearly all welfare programs and many of the cliffs are severe. It’s also important to know that welfare recipients don’t face a single cliff or a single penalty, but they face cliffs and penalties at a number of different points as they have additional income from working or through marriage.

Why does it matter?

For nonprofit leaders, the cliffs and penalties may mean that our clients are locked into poverty for much longer than they would be otherwise and despite our best efforts. For workforce development nonprofits, cliffs could be the underlying reason why your clients don’t pick up additional work hours when they are offered or seem less than excited when they are offered a good promotion. In extreme cases, clients may quit jobs that seemed like a perfect fit simply because they panic when they learn they may lose a major benefit – like housing or childcare.

For nonprofits trying to help strengthen family relationships, marriage penalties may be driving behavior that is otherwise inexplicable, like seemingly happy couples refusing to marry or live in the same home. These dynamics can lead to stress for the couples affected and to a sense that a parent (usually the father) has abandoned the family when, if the system would allow it, he would be in the home. In these cases, children pay the biggest price.

What can you do about it?

Fortunately, we have created that allows anyone to see when a particular family can expect to experience benefit cliffs as they earn more money through work. For nonprofits working with these families, you now have a tool (available for 10 states, with two more on the way) that will allow you to help your clients plan for the future. In some cases, knowing when cliffs are likely to happen will allow your clients to seek a larger raise that will help them bypass or leapfrog a cliff. In other cases, maybe the answer is seeking additional training or certifications that will get your client into a different payscale entirely – one that avoids the cliffs.

In the coming weeks, we will be adding a tool that will allow users to see the impact of penalties on couples who decide to marry. We will also be incorporating a solutions tool that will allow anyone to see how reforming our government benefit programs can actually eliminate cliffs and penalties entirely, giving recipients every reason to pursue work and form stable households.

For GCO, it is this last point – reforming the system – that remains the ultimate goal. In the meantime, we are looking for ways to mitigate the harm caused by the welfare system, so that as many people as possible can escape the system and break cycles of poverty now.

The Success Sequence provides an outline of how to reverse the cycle of poverty in our communities. GCO uses this as a framework for much of our work.

The post Why Nonprofits Should Care and What to Do appeared first on For Opportunity.

��

By Erik Randolph

��

��

If you had the opportunity to tell federal agencies what they need to do to help low-income people improve their economic circumstances, what would you tell them?

This is not an arbitrary question. It was formally asked by the current administration in Washington, D.C.

A New Council on Economic Mobility

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is leading the development and establishment of an interagency Council on Economic Mobility. This council will include the heads, or their delegates, of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and the Treasury. It will also include the heads of the Social Security Administration and the Council of Economic Advisors.

The purpose of the Council is to find areas where the participating agencies can collaborate for a very important purpose: “to promote family-sustaining careers and economic mobility for low-income Americans … and help individuals sustain their economic success.” Note that all these departments administer important welfare and workforce-development programs.��

Last July, HHS solicited comments to 15 questions to help�� develop�� this new council. What should be its priorities? What barriers do individuals face? How are welfare cliffs impacting individuals?��

Relying on its experience with providing services, working with other service providers, and research, the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) submitted recommendations to this request on October 2, 2020.

GCO’s Top Recommended Priorities

Below are GCO’s top recommendations for what the council’s priorities ought to be.

Priority #1: Eliminate Marriage Penalties

Marriage penalties make number one on our list.��

The strong correlation between marriage and prosperity is well-researched and undeniable. Research also demonstrates overwhelmingly that a stable home with married parents benefits children in many ways, including emotional stability, educational achievement, and future income. Unfortunately for many, the idea of healthy marriage is something desirable but unattainable for themselves. A strong marriage has It’s becoming a luxury for many, and they are losing out on which denies too many the economic and otherwise fulfilling benefits.��

Recently, the Office of Family Assistance at HHS sponsored the study , authored by Bradford Wilcox, Ph.D., Chris Gersten, and Jerry Regier, Ph.D. This study does an excellent job at detailing current research in the area and discusses potential solutions. By the way, GCO gave input to the authors of the study.

Priority #2: Eliminate Welfare Cliffs

As just indicated, the welfare system has embedded disincentives that can discourage recipients from seeking employment, working additional hours, or accepting pay increases. And our research in this area has been recently corroborated by a National Bureau of Economic Research written by five economists, including two who work for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.��

Many of these disincentives are the direct result of federal government policies and are found within the tax code and various eligibility and benefit determination rules of means-tested welfare programs.

Priority #3: Sponsor Research and Financial Modeling to Solve the Big Problems

In a prior blog , I wrote about how welfare programs and the tax code can be barriers by creating disincentives to advance economically. Also, a prior study illustrated how marriage penalties are further barriers.��

Well, these problems are complex, and the solutions have perplexed policymakers for years. Therefore, it is important for continued research to come up with the best solutions.��

By the way, GCO is well positioned to help examine these issues. We have studied both the problems and offered potential solutions.��

Priority #4: Promote Work-First Policies

Research and experience show that promoting work first for those applying for welfare assistance—as opposed to seeking education and training first—usually works better in helping them secure meaningful employment in the long run.��

A work-first policy does not mean that education and training are forsaken. It simply recognizes the reality that connecting people to real jobs in the economy gives them a foothold in the workforce where further skill development and training can often be accomplished while they are holding down a job and earning earned income.��

Priority #5: Look for ways to reduce regulatory barriers

The federal government should review its policies to make sure they do not make it harder for people to get jobs or start job-creating businesses. This recommendation falls under the broad heading of “getting government to help facilitate job growth, not hinder it.”

So what do you think? Should these be the recommended priorities for the new federal council? Are there other priorities you would have included? Post your comments below.��

Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Ģ����Ƶ. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

DOWNLOAD WHITE PAPER

DOWNLOAD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The post The Top 5 Recommendations to the Feds on Economic Mobility appeared first on For Opportunity.

Imagine being a worker on government assistance because your job doesn’t quite meet your bills. Then, finally, you get that raise to put you over the top and relieve some stress.

The one catch: You lose assistance needed for things like health insurance. Now, you bring home less than before.

This is called the “welfare cliff,” and it’s a situation for far too many people working to get off government assistance.

And the biggest culprit of this “welfare cliff”? Healthcare.��

A practical example

Picture a single person earning the equivalent of $8.25 per hour in a full-time job with no health benefits. She would qualify for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion rules. But just by earning a five-cent-per-hour raise would disqualify her entirely from Medicare due to the benefit cliff.

What’s more, the welfare system is also discouraging this single mom from marrying. Only in a situation where the dad earns enough to overcome the loss in benefits would marriage be financially worthwhile.

This example shows the negative impacts of welfare cliffs in preventing people from transitioning off assistance, moving up the economic ladder, and creating better lives for themselves and their families. While well-intentioned, these welfare benefits end up trapping people in a low-income existence.

The real tragedy of welfare cliffs is that hard-working welfare recipients who are striving to get ahead find that becoming independent of public assistance is virtually impossible because of the financial hardship they will have to endure.

A practical example

Picture a single person earning the equivalent of $8.25 per hour in a full-time job with no health benefits. She would qualify for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion rules. But just by earning a five-cent-per-hour raise would disqualify her entirely from Medicare due to the benefit cliff.

What’s more, the welfare system is also discouraging this single mom from marrying. Only in a situation where the dad earns enough to overcome the loss in benefits would marriage be financially worthwhile.

This example shows the negative impacts of welfare cliffs in preventing people from transitioning off assistance, moving up the economic ladder, and creating better lives for themselves and their families. While well-intentioned, these welfare benefits end up trapping people in a low-income existence.

The real tragedy of welfare cliffs is that hard-working welfare recipients who are striving to get ahead find that becoming independent of public assistance is virtually impossible because of the financial hardship they will have to endure.

What’s the solution?

We all want a welfare system that truly serves as a safety net, helping those who can’t help themselves while encouraging able-bodied adults to find work, improve their lives, and form stable marriages and families.

The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity that would:

• Combine programs and reduce confusion and redundancy
• Not punish welfare recipients for earning more
• Encourage marriage and family formation

For healthcare specifically, our goal is to create a market-driven system that improves healthcare access for everyone by equalizing risk across the entire insured pool (as insurance is supposed to do), driving down prices while enhancing quality, having health insurance follow people rather than employers, and eliminating welfare cliffs and marriage penalties.

For those who are able to work, the ultimate question is this: Should the purpose of government-sponsored, means-tested healthcare programs, like Medicaid, be to get people back on their feet as they transition into the workforce? Or should the purpose be to provide perpetual benefits, with no end in sight?

Read more: A Real Solution for Health Insurance and Medical Assistance Reform

Read more: What Does an Ideal Solution to the Health Insurance Crisis Look Like?

The post Government healthcare benefits create another welfare cliff that hurts the poor appeared first on For Opportunity.