4 ms·

>Instead, he proposed a “work bonus” plan that passed as the EITC in 1975, the first program to exclude the poorest Americans from government assistance by phas

>Instead, he proposed a “work bonus” plan that passed as the EITC in 1975, the first program to exclude the poorest Americans from government assistance by phasing in benefits alongside earned income. EITC was not initially designed as welfare, rather it was "supposed to be a temporary refundable tax credit for lower-income workers to offset the Social Security payroll tax and rising food and energy prices."[0] TFA misses the blindingly obvious "wrong way" of providing income to poverty-level residents, which is to implement it via the income tax system. This unfairly burdens the IRS with enforcement of rules that actually have little to do with income tax, and leads to such things as accusations of racist audits when in fact an EITC audit is a very different thing from, say, an audit of business income and expenses (an EITC audit usually has more to do with eligibility of, and who gets to claim, dependents).[1] [0]https://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-cred... [1]It is true that some taxpayers try to cheat on self-employment (business) income to maximize their EITC (either by over-reporting or under-reporting net profit), but does not apply to wage earners.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
And all that's not even going into things like the pandemic business loans that were handed out like fucking candy, many to businesses that barely even existed at the time, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, most of which were entirely forgiven after the fact. But that's not socialism of course, that's not "financing bad decisions" and those people definitely 100% used all that money in their businesses and not for frivolous and unnecessary luxuries, so that's fine. The hypocrisy in all these issues is absolutely mind-boggling. If you're rich, getting free money from the Government is just business as usual. If you're not, it's the worst thing in human history and you deserve to die.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > And all that's not even going into things like the pandemic business loans that were handed out like fucking candy, many to businesses that barely even existed at the time, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, most of which were entirely forgiven after the fact. It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Had those loans not been handed out like candy, the gov would have violated 5A. You cannot seize private property for public good without just compensation. As it stands, I think many folks should sue the federal and state governments for 5A violations, especially if they did not receive true just compensation for the shutdowns.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Is there a source for this? This seems incredibly shaky, basically saying that because of public health mandates, the government had to "repay" businesses for lost business/the inability to conduct business, which is just... not the same thing. Lost business is at best a nebulous "I might've made X" proposition, it's not nearly the same thing to, for example, say that the Government confiscated your truck which was worth $12,000 and should pay you as such. Like, I can see the logic but this seems like something that should be handled in court, not pre-empted by the feds this way.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Businesses would have lost customers naturally and folded due to a lack of revenue. But that's not what happened in the US. In many states, the state government forbade service businesses from operating and actively revoked licenses and/or fined businesses that tried to operate. [1] Why did they force businesses to close? To prevent covid transmission. That is definitionly done for the public good and is therefore subject to 5A. Here is the relevamt text from the ammendment: """ ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. """ A quick ddg search isn't turning anything up for ppp and 5th ammendment, but it's obvious it applies. [1] https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-murphys-covid-rules-must-pay-124k-in-fines-court-rules.html https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-mur...
      - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        > Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Oh this is going to be one of those conversations. I see. No thank you.
        hellojesus 3y ago
taxicabjesus 3y ago
> EITC was not initially designed as welfare, rather it was "supposed to be a temporary refundable tax credit for lower-income workers to offset the Social Security payroll tax and rising food and energy prices."[0] Hah, that makes a lot of sense. The Social Security tax is suffocating for self-employed people at the bottom of the economic dogpile. 12.4% of your already-spent income is an impossible bill for low-income people to pay. I, of course, diligently tracked my income and paid all taxes due. But... if your income is 'off the books', it's easier to just not pay Uncle Sam than to put a target on your back by filing possibly-indefensible returns.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

And all that's not even going into things like the pandemic business loans that were handed out like fucking candy, many to businesses that barely even existed at the time, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, most of which were entirely forgiven after the fact. But that's not socialism of course, that's not "financing bad decisions" and those people definitely 100% used all that money in their businesses and not for frivolous and unnecessary luxuries, so that's fine. The hypocrisy in all these issues is absolutely mind-boggling. If you're rich, getting free money from the Government is just business as usual. If you're not, it's the worst thing in human history and you deserve to die.

hellojesus 3y ago
> And all that's not even going into things like the pandemic business loans that were handed out like fucking candy, many to businesses that barely even existed at the time, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, most of which were entirely forgiven after the fact. It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Had those loans not been handed out like candy, the gov would have violated 5A. You cannot seize private property for public good without just compensation. As it stands, I think many folks should sue the federal and state governments for 5A violations, especially if they did not receive true just compensation for the shutdowns.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > It was a terrible system with malaligned incentives, but it was the government's attempt to not violate 5A. Is there a source for this? This seems incredibly shaky, basically saying that because of public health mandates, the government had to "repay" businesses for lost business/the inability to conduct business, which is just... not the same thing. Lost business is at best a nebulous "I might've made X" proposition, it's not nearly the same thing to, for example, say that the Government confiscated your truck which was worth $12,000 and should pay you as such. Like, I can see the logic but this seems like something that should be handled in court, not pre-empted by the feds this way.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Businesses would have lost customers naturally and folded due to a lack of revenue. But that's not what happened in the US. In many states, the state government forbade service businesses from operating and actively revoked licenses and/or fined businesses that tried to operate. [1] Why did they force businesses to close? To prevent covid transmission. That is definitionly done for the public good and is therefore subject to 5A. Here is the relevamt text from the ammendment: """ ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. """ A quick ddg search isn't turning anything up for ppp and 5th ammendment, but it's obvious it applies. [1] https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-murphys-covid-rules-must-pay-124k-in-fines-court-rules.html https://www.nj.com/news/2023/03/nj-gym-owners-who-defied-mur...
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      > Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Oh this is going to be one of those conversations. I see. No thank you.
      - hellojesus 3y ago

taxicabjesus 3y ago

> EITC was not initially designed as welfare, rather it was "supposed to be a temporary refundable tax credit for lower-income workers to offset the Social Security payroll tax and rising food and energy prices."[0] Hah, that makes a lot of sense. The Social Security tax is suffocating for self-employed people at the bottom of the economic dogpile. 12.4% of your already-spent income is an impossible bill for low-income people to pay. I, of course, diligently tracked my income and paid all taxes due. But... if your income is 'off the books', it's easier to just not pay Uncle Sam than to put a target on your back by filing possibly-indefensible returns.