Sure Steven, I could see that the EITC is intended to offset the “burden of the Social Security pay roll tax” AND “encourage low income individuals to work”. I have no doubts that payroll taxes were part of the idea behind it- but your claim that the EITC was somehow calculated to primarily or only offset taxes still ins’t supported.
Althouh indeed, only 9 billion was claim by households with exactly tow children, 15.5 billion was claimed by households with 2 OR MORE qualifying kids- and the tables stop at 2 kids, so after 2 kids, benefits don’t increase any. Thus, we don’t need to compare families with more than 2 kids for our purposes, as the benefits for 10 kids = benefits for 2 kids.
Again, I have never seen any “legislative intent” that indicates that EITC was intended or calculated in any way shape or form to offset State taxes. Besides- if the reciepient spends the excess refund on taxes or groceries it doesn’t make any differenace- the EITC is subsidizing her living expenses above & beyond any Federal Tax laibility, thus it is (in some/many) cases “welfare”. It does not matter what % of the recipients get more than their total taxes, unless it is some tiny insignificant %- and having worked for H&R Block in the past, I can tell you that at least in CA, most of those who get large benefits are, indeed single moms with 2+ kids. Besides- taxes are “living expenses”, and for the Federal Gov’t to pay someones taxes for them is “welfare”. Although I do agree it doesn’t really matter if “some” or “most” of those who get EITC get more EITC that Federal taxes- or even all taxes- it does matter if you say that number is “vanishingly small”, and I’d like to see some support for that. I am not going to insist that I was absolutely right about it being “most”- maybe it is only " a fairly large%, but not a majority", but your claim that the number is insignificant needs to be backed up.
You have taken an unsupported claim- that EITC’s primary goal is to offset state & local taxes, then taken that claim to insist that such a subsidy wouln’t be “welfare”. Neither your claim- or your definition of “welfare” is backed by the facts.
OTOH, I have shown that a hypotheical single parent (or even a married couple) can get more EITC that they pay in FIT, or even FIT + Social security. in Fact, over 2/3 of the chart used to calculate EITC, plus also the two “standard examples” given in Pub17 would get more that they pay. I am not making up some weird “lifeboat, happens so rarely it is insignificant” examples, I can simply use the US Governments own examples- both of whom get back more than they pay in.
Our disagreement is fundamental. You reject the support for my claims and you make up hypotheticals instead of providing cites. You also use anecdotal experience from when you worked for H&R Block to substantiate your claims about a nationwide program with over twelve million participants in 1999. You reject the idea that EIC is based on tax burdens beyond the federal income tax and FICA level although the Census beauru cite showed it does exactly that. Still you seem to believe that was a coincidence. You continue to assert your view of which populations claim the most credit and somehow the burden is on me to disprove it. I’ve shown, with Census cites, that out of the entire population of the US, only a tiny fraction could possibly be in the situation you claim is the “standard recipient”.
I think the kicker for me was the last bit when you claim the example worksheets in Pub 17 is proof of anything. Good god man, they’re EXAMPLES! To claim this is proof that the largest demographic who recieves the credit is of the type simulated in those examples is ludicrous.
I think we’re at an impasse.
Enjoy,
Steven
PS. The phrase “standard example” doesn’t exist anywhere in Pub 17. Nowhere in all 289 pages does the IRS actually claim that their example forms are representative of the largest demographic who will be using the forms. Nice of you to pretend they said that though.
No, the census data did not show that, not even close. Come on, let’s not make things up.
No, in fact, as I said above, it does not matter for my arguement which demographic gets the “most” EITC, thus I don’t need to prove it. Maybe my demographic really doesn’t. All that matter is that my demographic gets SOME of the EITC. Your claim now is that it gets “almost none” of the EITC, for which I asked for a cite.
No you haven’t. You have shown nothing of the kind. Your math was wrong, even.
Again, like I have asked repeatedly- DON’T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH . I claimed nothing of the sort. The IRS examples may or may not be representaive of the LARGEST demographic- but they are not going to use as an example something that almost never happens, as you claim. They use examples that are useful to many of the users, not examples that no one would ever be close to. Perhaps these examples are only representative of a significant demographic, instead of the largest demographic.
You put words in other dudes mouths. You make claims you have “proved things” when your “proof” was instantly disputed. You have a rude & offensive debating style, and I will no linger debate with you.