It is not to be interpreted as GFOA sanctioning the underlying activity that gives rise to the exposure.
Work Incentives The effects of either of the two GAI models on the amount of work supplied cannot be predicted with any precision. While experiments have been conducted in the United States and Canada, those participating knew that their benefits were not permanent and, consequently, they were not likely to change their behaviour as much or in the same manner had the GAI been ongoing.
As a result, total hours worked fell by about five percent on average. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for the main earner.
Further, the negative work effect was higher the more generous the benefit level. The GAIs discussed here are very different from those of the experiments because of the inclusion of a UI reform based on a purer social insurance model.
This would improve the overall impact on work incentives other than for part-year work. Whether this is enough to offset the negative effect of the GAI itself is not known.
The main aspect of the NIT and UD design that would help improve work incentives is the removal of high reduction rates for social assistance. Generally effective marginal tax rates for the social assistance population would drop from about 75 to 80 percent to around 50 percent for the NIT and 40 percent for the UD.
Since there is no family income testing in the UD option, work incentives could be significantly improved for a low income spouse or common-law partner since incomes are not added together for the purposes of calculating the benefit or for taxation.
For the NIT, this improvement to incentives would be offset by three features. One is the higher benefits available to working poor and low income families at their current level of work effort. The second is the higher reduction rate on the NIT than on the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Credit for the middle income group up to 27 percent compared to about 10 percentand the third is a lower personal income tax threshold for all levels.
For the UD, the improvement of work incentives for social assistance recipients is offset by higher benefit levels at current levels of work effort, a lower personal income tax threshold and the sharp increase in the marginal rates of the personal income tax system e.
Horizontal Equity With horizontal equity, the benefits received by families in different circumstances, but at similar levels of income, should reflect those different circumstances.
Both proposals have major horizontal impacts. The UD provides more benefits to families with children at every level of income, an effect similar to the Family Allowance program before the clawback, but at a much higher benefit level.
Generally, except in the case of children, the UD benefits do not vary by family type. Since all adults receive the same benefit level and since children over 18 who are living with their parents receive adult benefits and the personal credits are eliminated, there is no difference in benefit levels for different family configurations.
For example, single- and dual-earner families receive the same benefits at the same income level unlike the current system where single earners claim a personal and a married income tax credit, and dual earners get more by claiming two personal income tax credits. However, since the net impact of the UD depends on the combined effect of the transfer plus the increase in personal income taxes and since personal income taxes are individually based, the net benefits to any family will depend on the distribution of income between spouses.
Whether this is desirable or not depends on one's point of view. For example one consequence of family type neutrality is the equity issue known as "The Banker's Wife" problem, where a non-working spouse of a high income individual receives a maximum benefit.
With respect to the NIT, there is also more neutrality to family type for example single- and dual-earner families are treated the same but, unlike the UD, there is a family-based income test. This means that two people reporting as a couple must add their incomes together to claim their benefits while two people reporting as singles do not, resulting in more favourable treatment.
The cost of the NIT is more modest i. The NIT design produces far more losers than winners, particularly among families without children, and only slightly reduces the incidence of low income. However, it is affordable without additional tax rate increases and significantly reduces the depth of poverty.
Both options would probably have net negative effects on labour supply except for current social assistance recipients.
The results seem disappointing. The significant disruption associated with implementing any of these designs would make it difficult to advance the GAI as the centrepiece of social security reform. The bottom line is that both these models are too expensive.
In the UD approach, the additional cost is clear: In the NIT, the expense is less clear because the option was designed to fit existing fiscal parameters.Fiat money. This is money that has no tangible value. An alternative is gold, which in itself has tangible value.
Form SSA is Social Security Benefit Statement. Short-term social security.
Preface. Social Security Reform Discussion Paper released. In Quebec City on September 18, the Prime Minister outlined four key components of the government's jobs and growth agenda. Short-term bond portfolios invest primarily in corporate and other investment-grade U.S.
fixed-income issues and have durations of one to years (or, if duration is unavailable, average. Short-term investments are readily marketable securities (stocks and bonds) that are intended to be sold within the time period of current assets.
Logically, short-term investments are classified as current assets.. Security investments have to meet the following two (2) criteria to be classified as short-term .
In Washington State, private short-term disability provides partial income replacement in the event the policyholder is unable to perform the primary duties of his or her full-time job.
A short-term government security paper is called.