Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Economics

ECO.MIC16 The Poverty Trap and the Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off in Redistribution

AQA 7136 · Calculators not allowed · about 105 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer all questions. Full sentences are required for explanations and the essay. Time guidance: 105 minutes total.

Multiple choice, household incentives context: A single-parent household receives means-tested benefits which are withdrawn as earnings rise. Which of the following describes the poverty trap?

A. A situation where higher earnings lead to a larger rise in disposable income than expected, encouraging more work
B. A situation where increases in gross earnings are largely offset by higher taxes and benefit withdrawal, leaving little or no extra disposable income
C. A situation where benefits are paid irrespective of income
D. A situation where public spending is so low it causes absolute poverty

(Total for Question 1 is 1 mark)

Define the term 'poverty trap' as used in UK redistributive policy debates, naming the mechanisms involved.

(Total for Question 2 is 2 marks)

State what is meant by the marginal rate of benefit withdrawal (taper rate) for a means-tested benefit in a UK context.

(Total for Question 3 is 2 marks)

Explain, with two linked reasons, why a high combined effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) weakens the incentive of a low-income household to increase their paid hours.

(Total for Question 4 is 4 marks)

Numeric calculation: A low-income household faces the following marginal deductions on an extra £1 of gross pay: income tax 20%, employee national insurance 12%, and means-tested benefit withdrawal at a taper rate of 50%. Calculate the household's effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) on that extra £1, showing each step and the resulting net extra disposable income. Whole-number percentages are used and no calculator is allowed.

(Total for Question 5 is 4 marks)

Explain two reasons why the poverty trap tends to be concentrated among households with part-time or intermittent work patterns rather than those in continuous full-time employment.

(Total for Question 6 is 4 marks)

State, in one sentence, what is meant by the equity-efficiency trade-off in redistributive policy.

(Total for Question 7 is 2 marks)

Explain briefly how progressive income tax and generous means-tested benefits together can reduce incentives to save.

(Total for Question 8 is 3 marks)

State one policy, other than lowering taper rates, that could help a household escape the poverty trap, and give one short reason why it would help.

(Total for Question 9 is 2 marks)

Explain how tapering benefit withdrawal more gradually (a lower marginal withdrawal rate) differs in effect from providing a small universal basic income paid to all households, in terms of both equity and work incentives.

(Total for Question 10 is 4 marks)

Numeric follow-up: Using the same starting EMTR components as Question 5, suppose the government reduces the means-tested benefit taper from 50% to 30% while income tax remains 20% and national insurance 12%. Calculate the new EMTR and the net extra disposable income from an extra £1 of gross pay. State whether this reduces the disincentive compared with the original EMTR, briefly.

(Total for Question 11 is 3 marks)

Data extract, small case comparison: Two fictional households, Household A and Household B, face the following marginal deductions on each extra £1 earned: Household A: income tax 20%, NI 12%, benefit taper 30%. Household B: income tax 20%, NI 12%, benefit taper 60%. Explain how the data show that Household B faces a larger disincentive to increase earnings than Household A. Use the figures in your explanation.

(Total for Question 12 is 9 marks)

Policy evaluation: Consider the proposal to reduce marginal benefit withdrawal rates (tapers) as a primary policy to help households escape the poverty trap. In your answer, analyse how lower withdrawal rates would affect work incentives and public finances, consider alternative policies such as in-work subsidies, childcare support, training, and a universal basic income, and reach a supported judgement. Where helpful, refer to marginal-rate calculations or distributional trade-offs.

Evaluate whether reducing benefit withdrawal rates is the best way to help households escape the poverty trap.

(Total for Question 13 is 25 marks)

Mark scheme · ECO.MIC16 The Poverty Trap and the Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off in Redistribution

Question 1

B1 Correct option B, which states that higher gross earnings are largely offset by taxes and benefit withdrawal, producing little extra disposable income
Answer: B

Question 2

B1 a definition that identifies the poverty trap as where increases in earned income produce little or no rise in disposable income
B1 explicit mention of the mechanisms, such as means-tested benefit withdrawal and marginal tax rates reducing the net gain from extra earnings
Answer: The poverty trap occurs when increases in earned income are largely offset by taxes and the withdrawal of means-tested benefits, so the household gains little extra disposable income, reducing the incentive to increase work effort.

Question 3

B1 statement that the marginal rate of benefit withdrawal is the proportion of an extra pound of income that is lost due to reduced benefit entitlement
B1 explicit statement of units, e.g. a 50% taper means 50p of benefit is withdrawn for each extra pound earned
Answer: The marginal rate of benefit withdrawal is the percentage of each extra pound earned that is taken away by a reduction in means-tested benefits, for example a 50% taper withdraws 50p of benefit for every extra £1 of gross earnings.

Question 4

M1 identifies that EMTR is the sum of income tax, national insurance and benefit withdrawal on an extra pound
A1 explains that a higher EMTR means a smaller marginal increase in disposable income, reducing the financial reward for extra hours
M1 identifies behavioural effect, e.g. substitution effect or reduced marginal benefit of labour
A1 develops by linking the reduced financial reward to likely choices, such as preferring leisure, informal work or reducing hours because the net gain is too small
Answer: A high EMTR, being the sum of income tax, national insurance and benefit withdrawal on an extra pound, means each extra pound earned yields only a small rise in disposable income, so the financial reward for extra hours is small. Behaviourally, this reduces the incentive to work more as households substitute leisure or non-declared work for paid hours when the marginal monetary gain is tiny.

Question 5

M1 20% of £1 = £0.20 tax deducted
M1 12% of £1 = £0.12 national insurance deducted
M1 50% of £1 = £0.50 benefit withdrawn
A1 EMTR = 20%+12%+50% = 82%, net extra disposable income = £1 - £0.82 = £0.18
Answer: Tax £0.20, NI £0.12, benefit withdrawal £0.50; total deductions £0.82, so EMTR = 82% and the household keeps £0.18 of the extra £1.

Question 6

M1 reason 1: means-tested benefits are designed to taper as earnings rise, so small increases from part-time to slightly-more hours can cause large benefit losses
A1 development: part-time workers often cross thresholds where benefits withdraw quickly, so each additional hour reduces net income substantially
M1 reason 2: intermittent workers face fixed costs of work, such as childcare and travel, which make the net gain from extra hours smaller
A1 development: these fixed costs combined with high EMTRs can make additional paid hours financially unattractive for those with unstable hours
Answer: Part-time and intermittent workers often face rapid benefit withdrawal for small earnings increases, so small extra hours can cut benefits sharply and reduce net gains. They also incur fixed work-related costs like childcare and travel which further reduce the net benefit of extra hours, making them more susceptible to the poverty trap.

Question 7

B1 statement that equity-efficiency trade-off means greater redistribution to improve fairness can reduce incentives for work, saving or investment, harming economic efficiency
B1 explicit link: redistribution improves equity but can reduce efficiency by lowering incentives
Answer: The equity-efficiency trade-off is the idea that policies which redistribute income to achieve greater fairness can reduce incentives to work, save or invest, thereby lowering economic efficiency.

Question 8

M1 progressive income tax reduces after-tax returns to additional income, lowering the reward to saving from current income
M1 means-tested benefits may be withdrawn as assets or additional income rise, reducing the incentive to accumulate savings
A1 combined effect: lower after-tax returns and risk of losing means-tested support make saving less attractive, reducing capital accumulation and long-run growth incentives
Answer: Progressive tax reduces the after-tax return on income, while means-tested benefits that are withdrawn when income or assets rise reduce the payoff from saving. Together they lower the incentive to build savings, which can reduce capital accumulation.

Question 9

B1 identifies a valid policy, e.g. improving access to affordable childcare, in-work tax credits, or training and skills provision
B1 gives a short reason why it helps, e.g. affordable childcare reduces the fixed cost of working more, increasing the net gain from extra hours
Answer: Example: subsidised childcare, because it cuts a major fixed cost for working parents, increasing the net benefit from working additional hours and making employment more attractive.

Question 10

M1 identifies that lowering taper rates reduces EMTRs only for benefit recipients, improving work incentives at the margin for them
A1 develops: a lower taper increases net gain from extra earnings, encouraging labour supply among low-income households
M1 identifies that a universal basic income (UBI) gives payments to everyone, so it changes equity by raising incomes universally rather than targeting the poorest
A1 develops: UBI may have smaller work disincentive effects for recipients if it replaces means-tested withdrawal, but it is costly and less targeted, so its equity impact differs from a tapered benefit reform
Answer: Lowering taper rates directly reduces EMTRs for benefit recipients, improving marginal work incentives for the poorest, whereas a UBI gives everyone a payment, changing the pattern of redistribution and costing more. UBI may remove some withdrawal disincentives if it replaces means-tested benefits, but it is less targeted and affects equity differently.

Question 11

M1 sum deductions: 20% + 12% + 30% = 62% EMTR
A1 net extra disposable income = £1 - £0.62 = £0.38
B1 states that this reduces the disincentive compared with the original EMTR of 82%, since the household now keeps £0.38 rather than £0.18 of the extra £1
Answer: New EMTR = 62%, net keep £0.38; this reduces the disincentive compared with the original EMTR of 82% (keeps £0.18).

Question 12

Level 1 (1-3): Basic statements using the data: identifies that Household B has a higher taper and therefore higher deductions, with limited or no quantitative comparison.
Level 2 (4-6): Clear quantitative comparison: calculates EMTRs and net gains, and explains that Household B keeps less of each extra £1, reducing incentive to work.
Level 3 (7-9): Detailed quantitative analysis and applied evaluation: computes EMTRs and net extra income for both households, explains behavioural implications for labour supply, and considers the broader context such as fixed costs of work or non-monetary factors.
Indicative content:
- Compute EMTR for Household A: 20% + 12% + 30% = 62%, net keep £0.38 of each extra £1
- Compute EMTR for Household B: 20% + 12% + 60% = 92%, net keep £0.08 of each extra £1
- Compare: Household B keeps 8p per extra £1, Household A keeps 38p, so B faces a much smaller marginal reward for extra work
- Behavioural implication: with only 8p net gain, B is less likely to increase hours, move to paid work, or accept overtime, compared with A
- Contextual evaluation: mention fixed costs such as childcare or transport which make tiny net gains especially unattractive, and note distributional fairness and fiscal cost considerations of reforms

Question 13

Level 1 (1-5): Basic and general statements about reducing withdrawal rates with limited analysis or development, little or no evaluation, and no clear judgement.
Level 2 (6-10): Clear explanation of effects of lower withdrawal rates on EMTRs and incentives, some analysis of public cost or distributional consequences, limited evaluation of alternatives and tentative judgement.
Level 3 (11-15): Well developed analysis with quantitative reasoning and reasoned evaluation: examines incentive effects, fiscal costs, equity-efficiency trade-offs, compares alternatives and offers a supported judgement that balances effectiveness, cost and fairness.
Level 4 (16-20): Thorough and balanced evaluation that includes detailed analysis of behavioural responses, fiscal and administrative feasibility, distributional outcomes, likely magnitude of effects and possible unintended consequences; reaches a well-argued conclusion.
Level 5 (21-25): Excellent evaluation: integrates quantitative examples (such as EMTR changes and likely net income gains), considers time lags, labour market heterogeneity, political and practical constraints, and provides a nuanced, evidence-based conclusion on whether lowering withdrawal rates is the best approach or part of a package.
Indicative content:
- Lowering taper rates reduces EMTRs and increases the net gain from extra earnings, directly improving work incentives for benefit recipients; example: reducing taper from 50% to 30% lowered EMTR from 82% to 62% in Questions 5 and 11
- Fiscal cost: lower withdrawal rates increase benefit outlays or reduce savings from withdrawals, requiring higher taxation or reallocation of spending; consider the budgetary trade-off
- Equity-efficiency trade-off: lower tapers improve incentives (efficiency) but may reduce progressivity if targeted poorly; discuss how lower tapers could be combined with higher top rates or alternative funding
- Alternatives: in-work subsidies or targeted tax credits increase net pay for workers without permanently raising benefit bills for non-workers; childcare support reduces fixed costs of work; training raises employability and earnings potential
- Universal basic income: removes tapering and simplifies administration but is costly and less targeted, with different incentive effects depending on design
- Behavioural and administrative issues: potential for people to game the system, stigma reduction with simpler schemes, and the importance of fixed costs which taper reduction alone may not address
- Magnitude and timing: supply-side policies like training take time; taper reduction can act quickly but may have limited impact if fixed costs remain large; assess which households are most affected
- Supported judgement could argue that reducing withdrawal rates is a useful and direct tool, but not necessarily the best sole policy; a package combining lower tapers with childcare, in-work support and training is likely more effective and cost-efficient

The Poverty Trap and the Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off in Redistribution - Worksheets, Questions and Revision