Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

How Often Would You Like to be Paid?
If you're poor, you're generally acutely aware of exactly how much money you have at any given time, and that amount is generally very low. Andrew Goodman-Bacon and Leslie McGranahan have a paper out now on the Earned Income Tax Credit, saying that one of the great things about it is that it generally arrives just once a year:
Because the EITC makes one relatively large payment per year, it may provide low-income, credit-constrained households with a rare opportunity to make important big-ticket purchases.
Mark Thoma isn't very impressed:
This is like forced saving, requiring households to give up monthly consumption for one large annual payment. The fact that they are able to buy more durable goods - cars - with the one time payment is nice, and the argument is that this helps them find employment, but we need to know what they gave up each month before we can conclude they are better off...
Tthere are arguments that can be made here, but the particular argument ought to be made explicit. Why is it better to force people to save? Unless there's some good reason for the government to step in and make choices for people, I'd rather not have the government get in the habit of thinking it knows better than I do what is good for me.
And I'd note that given the choice, people nearly always prefer their income more frequently rather than less frequently. In some situations, workers are now being paid daily, and that's a good thing:
Upon completion of a daily work shift, an employee's payroll card account is credited with salary payment as quickly as two hours after an approved time card is submitted.
Temporary workers can receive payments on the day that a shift is completed, giving them faster access to funds to pay basic living expenses such as groceries, gas and utility bills.
If it's a good idea for income to arrive on a daily basis, why is it a good idea for the EITC to arrive only on an annual basis? Or is there a useful distinction to be made between income, on the one hand, and a tax credit, on the other?
Update: It did occur to me, after posting this, that there is a good reason to be paid biweekly or monthly rather than daily: you don't want to be saving up constantly just to make rent. Better to pay your rent out of your paycheck, and then live on what's left over.






