Fw: An Article From Slate

[Max B. Sawicky]

Max, I don't see the advantage here. If size of credit depends on
regularity of workhours,
>>>>>>>>

[mbs] The size of the credit depends on earnings, not
hours.  Over an initial range, the credit increases
with earnings.  Over a second range, it remains
constant at the maximum.  Over a third range,
it phases out to zero.  The phase-out range
begins at $12,500.  "Regularity" has nothing
to do with the level of the credit, only with
the ease of estimating what it will be, which
was my point.  If you're an employer and you
are trying to substitute the credit for wages,
an overestimate means you pay too little, and
an under-estimate means you pay too much.

>>>>>>>>>>>
 the more irregular the work hours, the less the
poverty relief just as it is needed most. . . .
>>>>>>>

[mbs] See above.  What you say is true in the sense
that benefits are conditioned on work.  That's its
political strength and its policy weakness.

>>>>>>>>>>
. . . 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. . . .
>>>>>>>

[mbs] Yes and no.  If the credit continues to expand, that
would be a good thing.  It doesn't solve other problems,
but it doesn't preclude them being solved either.

>>>>>>>>>
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?
>>>>>>>>

[mbs] There is some substitution.  On the whole there does
not seem to be very much.

>>>>>
Are you speaking tomorrow in NYC?
Yours, Rakesh
>>>>>>

I did.

mbs