What's new

Raise the EITC

idestroyedthetoilet

Well-Known Member
Bringing it back up because Buffett is bringing it up again. I've been promoting it a bit here for years and think it's easily the smartest way to cure America's poverty problem. It's extremely affordable too.

Thoughts?
 
We already have the EITC, right? And it hasn't cured poverty yet.
 
I don’t care enough to read but if the money went directly toward housing, then sure. If it’s money people can use on whatever they want, then no. There needs to be firm guidelines. One of which is people who work more than 40-45 hours a week can not get this. We need poor parent(s) in the home.
 
I don’t care enough to read but if the money went directly toward housing, then sure. If it’s money people can use on whatever they want, then no. There needs to be firm guidelines. One of which is people who work more than 40-45 hours a week can not get this. We need poor parent(s) in the home.
I think that's a really good point. I'm also a huge supporter of anything that would reduce the "standard" work week from 40hrs to something, anything, less.

This idea that the only time in your life when you're worth anything is when you are at your job is BS. And most of us are just kind of at our job most of the time. If I worked 20hrs/wk and it was like get there and WORK for the entire time I was there and then leave I know I could get more done in a 20hr week than I do in a 40hr week.
 
I think that's a really good point. I'm also a huge supporter of anything that would reduce the "standard" work week from 40hrs to something, anything, less.

This idea that the only time in your life when you're worth anything is when you are at your job is BS. And most of us are just kind of at our job most of the time. If I worked 20hrs/wk and it was like get there and WORK for the entire time I was there and then leave I know I could get more done in a 20hr week than I do in a 40hr week.

Yep. There’s got to be some company in private who limits their employees to like 30-35 hours a week yet pays well and provides kickass bennies, with the understanding that, as an employee, you have to work hard and be great at your job because anyone and everyone would die to have that job.

Somewhere there has to be a company that exists like that.
 
We already have the EITC, right? And it hasn't cured poverty yet.

For those who care to look, there are plenty of studies showing the effect of EITC reducing poverty. Increasing it will only reduce it more. It's the easiest politically, most effective and cheapest way, and targets those most in need.
 
I don’t care enough to read but if the money went directly toward housing, then sure. If it’s money people can use on whatever they want, then no. There needs to be firm guidelines. One of which is people who work more than 40-45 hours a week can not get this. We need poor parent(s) in the home.

Expanding the EITC would cut the need for many to work a second job or for both parents to work.
 
I don’t care enough to read but if the money went directly toward housing, then sure. If it’s money people can use on whatever they want, then no. There needs to be firm guidelines. One of which is people who work more than 40-45 hours a week can not get this. We need poor parent(s) in the home.

How do you translate that to a salary employee. Or like me, a guy who is basically never “off the clock” and draws a salary.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
For those who care to look, there are plenty of studies showing the effect of EITC reducing poverty. Increasing it will only reduce it more. It's the easiest politically, most effective and cheapest way, and targets those most in need.

I would argue that the working poor are better served by the collective provisions of services like medicare, decent public transport, quality schools and access to University education. The USA compared to other OECD nations has a fairly low level of taxation, I think around 24 cents out of every dollar in the economy goes through the treasury, Norway and Sweden by comparison redistribute over 60 cents out of every dollar through their treasury. This may have something to do with why they regularly are rated as having the lowest disparity between rich and poor in the developed world.
 
How do you translate that to a salary employee. Or like me, a guy who is basically never “off the clock” and draws a salary.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
I think salary employees would be the easiest to move to a reduced workweek. I'm just gonna say it, they are at work 50+ hours a week so that they can do 12 hours of work. That's the ****ing facts.

Your position is a little different. Other than charging more for the work you do, which doesn't work in the competitive bid system, there is no solution unless you want to earn less.

But some salaried office worker? They don't need to be there 20hrs a week, let alone 50+. The only reason they have to be there so much is to play office politics, which takes way more time and effort than just doing the job they get paid to do.
 
How do you translate that to a salary employee. Or like me, a guy who is basically never “off the clock” and draws a salary.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
As a life long salaried employee I want to see the laws changed so that we have to be paid OT. You have no idea how often I've heard "you make a lot of money, you need to work a lot of hours" even though I'm getting everything done in 8 hours. Sure there are times it's necessary but more often than not they wear 12 hour work days like a badge of honor. Require OT pay for salaried folks, even if the limit was set at 50 hours per week, and we'd get to spend more time at home.

Not sure what to do with your situation b. My dad was in the same boat. Small business owners need some breaks imo.
 
Bringing it back up because Buffett is bringing it up again. I've been promoting it a bit here for years and think it's easily the smartest way to cure America's poverty problem. It's extremely affordable too.
Thoughts?
I like the EITC far more than raising the federal minimum wage or other federal welfare programs that have major costs to administer. It's not like it's free, though ($50+ Billion Annually). I would be for it if there were cuts to other federal spending.
 
I would argue that the working poor are better served by the collective provisions of services like medicare, decent public transport, quality schools and access to University education. The USA compared to other OECD nations has a fairly low level of taxation, I think around 24 cents out of every dollar in the economy goes through the treasury, Norway and Sweden by comparison redistribute over 60 cents out of every dollar through their treasury. This may have something to do with why they regularly are rated as having the lowest disparity between rich and poor in the developed world.

This is in addition to those programs. Even if it weren't, I'd strongly disagree with what you are implying (outside of healthcare).
 
I like the EITC far more than raising the federal minimum wage or other federal welfare programs that have major costs to administer. It's not like it's free, though ($50+ Billion Annually). I would be for it if there were cuts to other federal spending.

I think we need to redistribute much more income from the top to the bottom. 50 billion is about the number I've come up with in the past that's very reasonable through tax increases on the 1%, especially after Trump's cuts.

At 50 billion, we are talking $5,000 per year for America's 10,000,000 poorest families. Not that that's how we would structure it, but that's the order of magnitude that an affordable program could be. It would mean reversing Trump's cut on the top 1% from and bumping it up a few % higher than under Obama.

For those who care about the federal deficit, an equitable bill like that would provide billions in savings elsewhere.
 
I get that people hate giving cash. However, when compared to programs that offer job skills, or resources, or other types of aid, programs that offer cash almost always give more bang for the buck.
 
I think we need to redistribute much more income from the top to the bottom. 50 billion is about the number I've come up with in the past that's very reasonable through tax increases on the 1%, especially after Trump's cuts.

At 50 billion, we are talking $5,000 per year for America's 10,000,000 poorest families. Not that that's how we would structure it, but that's the order of magnitude that an affordable program could be. It would mean reversing Trump's cut on the top 1% from and bumping it up a few % higher than under Obama.

For those who care about the federal deficit, an equitable bill like that would provide billions in savings elsewhere.

I’d redistribute in a heartbeat (I’m not top 1% fwiw) if I trusted the government to distribute the money in a way that made sense and wasn’t pissed away on their own “administrative fees” or by the people who received that money.

Listen, perhaps the biggest problem with the lowest 10,000,000 is education. And that’s overarching. That encompasses academics, life skills, parenting, health, financial management, and so on. Sorry, but that money would be epically wasted by the far majority of those lower 10,000,000 lest stringent guidelines be put in place.

If it’s me, and I’m dishing out 50 billion, I’m dishing it out to fewer families to start. One third as many. To receive it, one would have to show gainful employment for x months of x years prior, and a minimal (and majority) amount would have to be spent on housing, and certain adult education requirements would have to be met regularly. Not on a weekly basis but something. Something to teach “these people” certain fundamentals that any adult and parent worth a damn should know and pass on down to their child. In order to continue to earn said money year to year, certain things need to be proven. That they’ve attended these classes and passed certain assessments, that they’ve shown they have invested a portion of this money, that their children are demonstrating an understanding of the importance of their academics by minimal performance standards in school. Perhaps these people also need to take part in minimal community service (32 hours?) each year as well to “give back” for what they’ve received.

This needs to be an improved version of our welfare system which is an abomination. It needs to be about education and community and realizing that this gift is just that and it needs to be cherished by those who receive it and that gifts are not always given. There needs to be guidelines in place that are reasonable and yet are a step to improving these families and the whole that is this country. This world for that matter.

If it’s me, I don’t give it to the worst 3.33M families in the country. I give it to a tier or two above them. And to people who’ve demonstrated consistent employment. Get these people who are perhaps upper lower class out of their struggles. Basically, I envision giving them 15K a year untaxed. 12K could go toward a mortgage. That’s about a 200K mortgage. Of the other 3K, perhaps 2K could go toward investments for retirement or higher education that can be used on nothing else and 1K for personal spending. Not much, but considering these people could get a brand new ****ing home down south (that’s where I’m picturing much of this) with little to no mortgage would be amazing for them. This could totally cause a boom in construction nationwide as well and help with jobs (perhaps for many of these people or those below them). This could be life-changing ****.

I’d worry about a neighborhood of 40 new homes that is built for these people turning over time into a ghost town-like Hamsterdams. I mean, you can only “change” these people so quickly, so much. But there could be regular check-ups perhaps to ensure these people are creating a community envisioned. That they’re adhering to some sort of HOA standards or something.

Okay done for now; tldnr

But I envision this working (some will **** up the opportunity) and by showing it works, the lowest 10% would feel hope and see something to strive for, and this could be expanded years later.
 
Top