I understand incentives but the more I try to understand Scott's assumptions concerning disincentives and how and why they work, the more confused I become.
Especially as I recall the startling payout, $9.88 million in a one-time payout settlement and $350 million in stock, Scott received in 1997-98 when he became ‘jobless' at his departure from Columbia HCA.
His payout certainly didn’t disincentivize him as he went on, as a venture capitalist and entrepreneur, to buy, run and create a string of companies and then to become the Governor of Florida and last year its junior U.S. Senator.
Perhaps the amount of the payout is key to whether it will incentivize or disincentivize someone:
- $6 a week would do neither and would only allow someone to buy a cup of coffee and a doughnut.
- $60 a week for a family of four or a single mother isn’t enough to move anyone either to or away from working.
- $6,000 a week might very well disincentivize someone from work and move them to an early retirement in Sarasota.
- But a $180,000 a week($180,000 x 50 = $9,000,000) payout did just the opposite and moved Scott to double down and expand his business and professional activities.
Using Senator Scott as the model of what could be done in a bailout to really energize and motivate the jobless, the Congress should have increased the weekly payout.
Dren Geer
Osprey, FL
====
Ed's note: On the horrific legacy of Rick Scott, see also:
‘It's a sh-- sandwich': Republicans rage as Florida becomes a nightmare for Trump
