Study: Welfare Benefits Pay $28,872 Per Year In Michigan

'The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive to work'

State and federal welfare benefits pay $28,872 per year in Michigan, according to a new study. This puts Michigan in about the middle of the pack nationwide.

The Cato Institute on Monday released "The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off," which examines the total level of welfare benefits by state.

The study focuses on the level of benefits a single mother with two children would be eligible to receive. Benefits in Michigan are up nearly 10 percent since 1995, prior to federal "welfare reform," and pay about 77 percent of the median salary in the state.

The poverty guideline in Michigan for a household with three people is $19,530 a year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

"The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work," the study said. "Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour."

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

In Michigan, the wage equivalent for welfare benefits is $12.71 an hour.

The report says that there are 126 separate federal anti-poverty programs, spending about $668.2 billion annually, with states spending another $284 billion per year. The most prominent of these programs are the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, Housing Assistance, Utilities Assistance and the Women, Infants and Children Program. There also are county and municipal government programs.

The authors of the study said they think the government should work to encourage people to find jobs, even low-level or part-time work when possible.

"There is little doubt that one of the most important long-term steps toward avoiding or getting out of poverty is taking a job," the report said. "Only 2.6 percent of full-time workers are poor, as defined by the Federal Poverty Level standard, compared with 23.9 percent of adults who do not work. Even part-time work makes a significant difference; only 15 percent of part-time workers are poor. And while many anti-poverty activists decry low wage jobs, a minimum-wage job can be a springboard out of poverty."

The study went on to recommend that welfare programs be more tightly controlled.

"If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the definition of work. Moreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements," the study said.

The Cato Institute is a public policy think tank "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace." It is based in Washington, D.C.


Related Articles:

More State Oversight Needed for Government Assistance Programs

Tilt from Tax Cutting to Corporate Welfare Renews Failed Approach to Economic Growth

Cut Corporate Welfare to Help Balance State Budget

Pure Flummery: Seeing Double on Corporate Welfare Spin

Return of the Mega Subsidy

New Corporate Welfare Proposal is Unfair

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:

Facebook
Twitter

There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites