Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters support a proposal to provide low-income workers with a wage subsidy. The government would provide a modest amount of extra income for every hour someone worked. The amount of extra income would gradually decrease as the worker’s income increased. A ScottRasmussen.com survey found that another 14% of voters would support the proposal if it would be paid for by reducing the cost of other government assistance programs.
The proposal for a wage subsidy is supported by 75% of Democrats, 56% of Independents, and 48% of Republicans (see crosstab results).
While supported more by liberals (79%) than conservatives (50%), an article posted on National Review recently made the case for a wage subsidy. The article was adapted from Oren Cass’s new book, The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America.
I’m generally supportive of making the safety net firmly oriented around work, both through work requirements and through more direct subsidies like this one. The strong polling support indicates that there’s a lot of political potential here, especially if we were to pair work requirements, which are more popular on the right, with a subsidy.
The more detailed results provide an interesting point of comparison, though. A minimum-wage hike is even more popular than the wage subsidy: 73 vs. 61 percent; and 42 vs. 18 percent if you look just at those who say they “strongly support” each idea. The minimum wage is far worse as a policy, because it amounts to taxing the employment of low-skill workers and then handing the money over to the low-skill workers — running the obvious risk of discouraging the creation of low-skill jobs — whereas with a wage subsidy everyone takes responsibility for making sure that low-skill work pays. But people seem a bit more attracted to the idea where low-income workers get a raise and those evil corporations supposedly pick up the tab.