Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Doug writes:
>
>> [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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>