3 ms·

EITC encourages some negative behavior and should actually be axed or corrected. it is not hard to find stories of people only working part of the year so as no

EITC encourages some negative behavior and should actually be axed or corrected. it is not hard to find stories of people only working part of the year so as not to void their EITC money. a better incentive is to raise the wages of all those earning below certain wage per hour with the money used to fund EITC. We all win this way, people working know they are going to have enough money, we don't have people sitting around with idle time which is not good for them or others and we have the community investing in others through their taxes directly benefit low wage earners regardless where they work. We also take a load off small shops who might be able to withstand a pricier market. there are really no negatives to boosting hourly income through taxes compared to just handing them money for earning less than X per year

phil21 9y ago
EITC should be axed for one simple reason: It allows people to be dishonest when it comes to social spending. EITC is never included, but it's a wealth transfer before any accounting is done so it's never really talked about. Welfare should be welfare. Taxes should be taxes. This constant cross-subsidization is insane, and at this point absolutely no one has any idea who is paying for what and how much.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It allows people to be dishonest when it comes to social spending. EITC is never included “Tax expenditures” are frequently included in analyses of social spending, and often broken out as a separate category. EITC is the headline example of the category. Your basic premise is false.
  - phil21 9y ago
    In professional analyses? Certainly. During election campaigns quoting the numbers spent on budget items? Almost never. I guess I did a poor job explaining what I meant. If you ask the common citizen what our welfare spending is, they will quote you back the number mentioned by CNN or Fox on the news. Those numbers rarely include anything but the headline budget numbers, and do not delve into items such as tax credits before any transfer payments are made.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > In professional analyses? Certainly. During election campaigns quoting the numbers spent on budget items? Almost never. Most of the numbers cited in election campaigns (if they aren't just made up and pulled from thin air, which also happens; but,for those, the allocation of real spending doesn't really matter) come directly from professional analyses, which as you acknowledge do include them.
      - phil21 9y ago
        Fair enough, we're not mid-cycle so I don't have any numbers to readily double check easily. I still cannot recall a single instance of those numbers including EITC when quoted during election cycles, but I'll certainly concede the point and pay closer attention. I've noticed when the numbers do include them in reports and such, because it's so amazing to me someone is actually showing the data honestly in those cases.
TimJYoung 9y ago
I'm cool with that, also. My main requirements are: 1) The benefit should revolve around work. Unless you're disabled and unable to work, any adult should be required to work in order to receive benefits. 2) The phase-out should always be structured so that moving on to higher wages is the obvious preferred choice for a recipient. No benefit cliffs that discourage advancement. 3) The benefits need to be enough to actually make a difference. Otherwise, we're just wasting our money and not improving the situation.

phil21 9y ago

EITC should be axed for one simple reason: It allows people to be dishonest when it comes to social spending. EITC is never included, but it's a wealth transfer before any accounting is done so it's never really talked about. Welfare should be welfare. Taxes should be taxes. This constant cross-subsidization is insane, and at this point absolutely no one has any idea who is paying for what and how much.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> It allows people to be dishonest when it comes to social spending. EITC is never included “Tax expenditures” are frequently included in analyses of social spending, and often broken out as a separate category. EITC is the headline example of the category. Your basic premise is false.
- phil21 9y ago
  In professional analyses? Certainly. During election campaigns quoting the numbers spent on budget items? Almost never. I guess I did a poor job explaining what I meant. If you ask the common citizen what our welfare spending is, they will quote you back the number mentioned by CNN or Fox on the news. Those numbers rarely include anything but the headline budget numbers, and do not delve into items such as tax credits before any transfer payments are made.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > In professional analyses? Certainly. During election campaigns quoting the numbers spent on budget items? Almost never. Most of the numbers cited in election campaigns (if they aren't just made up and pulled from thin air, which also happens; but,for those, the allocation of real spending doesn't really matter) come directly from professional analyses, which as you acknowledge do include them.
    - phil21 9y ago
      Fair enough, we're not mid-cycle so I don't have any numbers to readily double check easily. I still cannot recall a single instance of those numbers including EITC when quoted during election cycles, but I'll certainly concede the point and pay closer attention. I've noticed when the numbers do include them in reports and such, because it's so amazing to me someone is actually showing the data honestly in those cases.

TimJYoung 9y ago

I'm cool with that, also. My main requirements are: 1) The benefit should revolve around work. Unless you're disabled and unable to work, any adult should be required to work in order to receive benefits. 2) The phase-out should always be structured so that moving on to higher wages is the obvious preferred choice for a recipient. No benefit cliffs that discourage advancement. 3) The benefits need to be enough to actually make a difference. Otherwise, we're just wasting our money and not improving the situation.