lbo-talk at lists.panix.com wrote:
> The math is not exact but the basic ballbark is right. The bottom line is that the $25,000 per year waitress-mom earns a dollar, but only gets to spend about another 50 cents on groceries or whatever. After-tax gains from a raise is what matters for most people.
>
Forgive me for beating a dead horse. And I concede the general point that marginal tax rates for the poor are awful. But how do you get this 50-cents-on-the-dollar stuff? Taking away a tax break isn't the same as adding a tax burden, since the first tax break was relief from a marginal degree of taxation, not taxation altogether, right? Or is the EITC negate all taxation and give all taxes, and then some, back?
>As Doug's Urban League comment notes, the waitress-mom in question won't actually benefit.
>
But she would benefit from being taxed on a smaller income, no?
Christian