Fw: An Article From Slate

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Mon Apr 3 06:06:53 PDT 2000


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list