> [EITC] is better than nothing, but it'd be nice if wages were
> higher ...
While you're at it, I'd like a pony.
> and it didn't come with the moral wedge it drives between
> the deserving and undeserving poor.
I'm not sure where you're headed with this distinction, but EITC is designed to offset FICA for those families making below a certain threshold; it has evolved over the years to include even sigle people. If you implemented this in a different way -- say, by making the first $N not be taxed by FICA -- you'd wind up in the same boat: the gross $ cost of a worker can/will always be used by an employer to determine whether to create the job; and the net $ to the worker can/will always be used by the employee as to whether or not to take the job.
I'd prefer for it to be handled by payroll companies rather than by 1040EZ filers, but there you have it. I think the bottom line (and I think this is Max's original point) is that we should be 'for' anything that lowers the tax burden of the poor, right? It's not either/or: you can still be in favor of additional reforms.
So getting back to the original question: are you part of the people who are against EITC because it's an employer subsidy, or are you against EITC for other reasons?
/jordan