I thought about rewording my comment, perhaps I should have. I was responding to a comment that tried to muddy the waters by essentially changing the subject. I

I thought about rewording my comment, perhaps I should have. I was responding to a comment that tried to muddy the waters by essentially changing the subject. I likely should not have responded, since the comment may not have been in good faith. But obviously people on HN debate all kinds of stuff without having any background, that's part of the fun! Also entirely reasonable for others to inform folks that there is a background of which they may be unaware. The point I was making is that none of the decisions around the EITC are flippant, and one is unlikely to pop onto HN with a novel idea. Your comment is nothing like that, you're citing papers and Congressional testimony. There is absolutely debate here, but helpful debate must be informed by a basic understanding of the lay of the land. For what it's worth, Heriot's position in the cited paper is intellectually interesting (and not similar to the parent comment) but not currently represented at all in our laws or legal precedents.