IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v81y2005i255p367-377.html

An In‐Work Payment with an Hours Threshold: Labour Supply and Social Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • JOHN CREEDY

Abstract

This paper examines the effect on a measure of social welfare of an in‐work payment, involving a discontinuity at an hours threshold. Social welfare is defined in terms of individuals' utilities, which depend on leisure and net income. The in‐work payment augments a modified minimum income guarantee having two tax rates. Numerical simulations, which ensure that a fixed amount of net revenue per person is collected by the government, show that social welfare falls systematically as the extent of the discontinuity increases, and as the hours threshold, at which the jump in net income occurs, increases. Eliminating the discontinuity resulting from the in‐work payment, therefore, improves social welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • John Creedy, 2005. "An In‐Work Payment with an Hours Threshold: Labour Supply and Social Welfare," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 367-377, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:81:y:2005:i:255:p:367-377
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2005.00275.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2005.00275.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2005.00275.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lambert, Peter J., 1985. "Endogenizing the income distribution: The redistributive effect, and Laffer effects, of a progressive tax-benefit system," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 3-20.
    2. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    3. Yoram Amiel & John Creedy & Stan Hurn, 1999. "Measuring Attitudes Towards Inequality," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(1), pages 83-96, March.
    4. Duncan, Alan & Giles, Christopher, 1996. "Labour Supply Incentives and Recent Family Credit Reforms," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(434), pages 142-155, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Creedy & Penny Mok, 2017. "Labour supply in New Zealand and the 2010 tax and transfer changes," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 60-78, January.
    2. Luis Ayala & Milagros Paniagua, 2019. "The impact of tax benefits on female labor supply and income distribution in Spain," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1025-1048, September.
    3. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2014. "Labour Supply Models," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Handbook of Microsimulation Modelling, volume 127, pages 167-221, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. John Creedy & Joseph Mercante & Penny Mok, 2018. "The Labour Market Effects of ‘Working for Families’ In New Zealand," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 51(2), pages 211-231, June.
    5. John Creedy & Penny Mok, 2017. "Labour supply in New Zealand and the 2010 tax and transfer changes," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 60-78, January.
    6. Mike Brewer & Marco Francesconi & Paul Gregg & Jeffrey Grogger, 2009. "Feature: In‐work Benefit Reform in a Cross‐National Perspective ‐ Introduction," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(535), pages 1-14, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    2. Anthony B. Atkinson & Andrea Brandolini, 2010. "On Analyzing the World Distribution of Income," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 24(1), pages 1-37, January.
    3. Michel Lubrano, 2008. "The Redistributive Aspects of ELIE: a simulationapproach," Working Papers halshs-00347278, HAL.
    4. Rafael Salas & Juan Rodríguez, 2013. "Popular support for social evaluation functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 985-1014, April.
    5. Maureen Cropper & Alan Krupnick & William Raich, 2016. "Preferences for Equality in Environmental Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 22644, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. John Creedy, 2023. "Comparing Income Distributions Using Atkinson's Measure of Inequality," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(1), pages 141-155, March.
    7. Constantine Angyridis & Brennan Scott Thompson, 2016. "Negative income taxes, inequality and poverty," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 1016-1034, August.
    8. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Carlsson, Fredrik & Daruvala, Dinky, 2001. "Measuring Hypothetical Grandparents Preferences For Equality And Relative Standings," Working Papers in Economics 42, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Camacho Cuena, Eva & Neugebauer, Tibor & Seidl, Christian, 2005. "Compensating justice beats leaky buckets: an experimental investigation," Economics Working Papers 2005-06, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    10. Santiago Burone & Martin Leites, 2021. "Self-centered and non-self-centered inequality aversion matter: Evidence from Uruguay based on an experimental survey," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 265-291, June.
    11. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2014. "Labour Supply Models," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Handbook of Microsimulation Modelling, volume 127, pages 167-221, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Frikk Nesje & Paolo G. Piacquadio & Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2025. "Intergenerational Discounting and Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 11630, CESifo.
    14. Orlando Sotomayor, 2019. "Growth with reduction in poverty and inequality: did Brazil show the way?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 17(4), pages 521-541, December.
    15. Lambert, Peter J. & Millimet, Daniel L. & Slottje, Daniel, 2003. "Inequality aversion and the natural rate of subjective inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(5-6), pages 1061-1090, May.
    16. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2003. "Lorenz, Pareto, Pigou: Who Scores Best? Experimental Evidence on Dominance Relations of Income Distributions," Economics Working Papers 2003-04, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    17. Gaëlle Aymeric & Brice Magdalou, 2025. "Does the Gini index represent people’s views on inequality?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 23(3), pages 637-665, September.
    18. Glenn Sheriff & Kelly B. Maguire, 2020. "Health Risk, Inequality Indexes, and Environmental Justice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2661-2674, December.
    19. John Creedy & Ross Guest, 2008. "Discounting and the Time Preference Rate," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(264), pages 109-127, March.
    20. Erin T. Mansur & Glenn Sheriff, 2019. "Do Pollution Markets Harm Low Income and Minority Communities? Ranking Emissions Distributions Generated by California's RECLAIM Program," NBER Working Papers 25666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:81:y:2005:i:255:p:367-377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.