Fw: An Article From Slate

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>Often low-wage workers have irregular work schedules,
>hold multiple jobs over the course of a year, and have
>changed family circumstances over the course of a year.
>All these can change their benefits.  It can be seen
>that for an employer or employee, on an hourly basis,
>determining the exact amount of subsidy is not easy.
>(Imagine arranging your withholding so that your income
>tax bill in April was always exactly zero.)  This may
>be a blessing in disguise because it reduces the
>likelihood that employers can substitute the credit
>for wages.

Max, I don't see the advantage here. If size of credit depends on
regularity of workhours, the more irregular the work hours, the less the
poverty relief just as it is needed most. To the extent the EITC becomes
(or is already) the backbone of anti poverty policy, US style, it seems to
me that we are in a very weak position. What more evidence does one need of
the limits of government policy under capitalism than this attenuated
poverty relief first developed by the Republicans after all?  And is there
really no evidence that employers have taken advantage of the intra working
class transfer the EITC represents to pay poverty wages?

Are you speaking tomorrow in NYC?

Yours, Rakesh