Earned Tax Credit (EITC) Means To Low-Income Families

The level of pay and the general material prosperity of American families has been an issue of developing concern in national discussions. Specifically, the progressing welfare open deliberation has centered consideration on the living states of poor families, both in an outright sense and with respect to those of different families. Primarily, government and culture must clearly communicate the serious importance of marriage to decreasing future poverty and other social troubles. Youth at risk of becoming unwed parents deserve information and assistance to prepare them for the task of bearing and nurturing children. Welfare should be changed to inspire rather than punish marriage, as the current system does. Also, by differentiating out results for people in both poor, single-folks families and families accepting welfare, America has the capacity to better concentrate on those people well on the way to be influenced by welfare change. Along the majority of the measurements citizens talk about, poor people, particularly those in single-guardian families, are fundamentally more regrettable off than the non-poor (Manning).

The effects of the 1996 welfare reform bill helped declined caseloads on the social and economic well-being of fragile families, single mothers, and children. Although, the welfare reform was documented for making several positive changes such as reducing poverty rates, lowering the out of-wedlock childbearing, and formulated a better family structure, it is undeniable that poverty remained high among single mothers and their children. The reality of the matter was that most welfare recipients experienced serious barriers to maintain a stable employment due to their lack of skills, not having anyone available to take care of their young children when they leave for work as well as not gaining long-time employment with decent pay to help foster the family. As a result, most poor women and children were faced with the instability of economic and social future as welfare eligibility exhausted their efforts of supporting their families.

It is not enough to provide material relief to those experiencing extreme deprivation(158). Therefore the federal government should establish and create opportunities for the poor to gain and maintain their citizenship in standard living. According to the book, "$2.00 a Day" writer Kaitlyn Edin emphasize one have the strong will to work but opportunities lack extremely, in which concede the fact that there aren't enough jobs with adequate pay, hours, and stability to go around(159). On one hand, I agree with Edin that the will of the poor is there, but the federal government should play more substantive role in getting individuals jobs.For instance, stated in the book, “In-depth interviews with 209 EITC claimants in the Northeast and Midwest in 2007 showed that while TANF receipt confers stigma and shame, claiming the EITC gives people dignity and restores their pride”(172). Also the federal government need to restore relationships in the workplace, increase wage, and prevent wage theft . For example, a successful grocery store called Market Basket located in New England starts employees off at twelve dollars an hour, offer health insurance, and paid sick to all employees(164). Creating better jobs and opportunities is the government role as it is our role to maintain a job and contribute as

Throughout the years, the ability to survive in the American economy without a college education has been diminishing. The employment opportunities now available to many Americans without college degrees are called “unskilled” jobs. These forms of employment are often unstable and offer low pay without much of a change for advancement within the company . Low income families are often constrained by many hurdles that do not allow them to raise themselves from below the poverty line . Many misconceptions come to light when talking about those American families below the poverty line, of those misconceptions are highlighted by statements such as that they do not work, work

Poverty is present in today’s U.S. social system. For example, as Lesser states in the Clearinghouse Review, “Forty-six million Americans live in poverty” (1). Lesser then goes on to say how forty-six million Americans living in poverty correlates to almost one in every three single-parent families is poor (1). This is a daunting fact as it applies to today’s economic context with “rising unemployment rates and mortgage crises driving more individuals and families to seek the support of a cash-strapped social welfare structure” (Grijalva 1). With this in mind, many legislators are discussing the topic of poverty in the political realm. In order to tally the score of representatives the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law conducted its sixth annual Poverty Scorecard. “The 2012 Poverty Scorecard grades the voting record of every U.S. senator and representative on the most important poverty-related votes in 2012” (Lesser 1). The 2012 votes covered a range of topics such as budget and tax, food and nutrition, health care, housing, and many more (1). The results of the 2012 Poverty

Race, gender, and social class has several implications in the United States and how it shapes policy and perceptions of those who live in poverty. Current welfare systems are not perfect, and capitalistic policies do not work as intended to solve income inequalities. Given this, we will discuss social inequalities and capitalism, the welfare system, and propose two policies that solves welfare, and social and income inequalities.

Great discoveries always begin with great questions. Barbara Ehrenreich asked two great questions, “how does anyone live on the wages available to the unskilled” and “how were the roughly four million women about to be booted into the labor market by welfare reform, going to make it on $6 to $7 an hour” (2001, p. 12). To answer the questions, Ehrenreich embarked upon a journey to discover for herself, whether she could match income to expense as a low-wage worker. In effect, Ehrenreich tested the fundamental premise of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also known as welfare reform, in order to determine whether those individuals formerly on welfare and largely unskilled, could earn a living wage on the

One of the United States most effective tools is The Earned Income Tax Credit which encourages work and improvement of family (Center for American Progress, 2016). In the year of 2014 Earned Income Tax Credit helped more than 6.2 million Americans in the fight against poverty (Center for American Progress, 2016). A disadvantage to the Earned Income Tax Credit, is experienced in workers whose income is relatively low without qualifying children (Center for American Progress, 2016). In these instances

In contrast, expenditures on the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) have grown sharply from $5 billion in 1975 to $45 billion in 2005. No other federal antipoverty program has grown so rapidly. The EITC is now U.S.’s most immensely colossal cash antipoverty program. The incentives embedded in the EITC differ from those in AFDC/TANF. AFDC recipients with no earnings received the most astronomically immense welfare payments. In contrast, the EITC inspirits less-adept workers to enter the labor market, since nonearners do not receive the credit and the EITC amount elevates with earnings up to about the impecuniosity

The question of concern in the article, Dignity and Dreams (Sykes, 2015), was whether the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] provided families with enough support to progress financially just over the poverty line. While This was an important focus there was a The emphasis on how the family respectfully and discreetly received the money was also an active factor. Likewise, in the second article, Bonus or Rebate? (Epley, 2006), there was a concern about a consumer’s reluctant choice to spend a check depending on its label. They specifically tracked spending patterns of consumers receiving either a Rebate (a loss) check or a bonus (a gain) check and documented whether they spent a larger portion of the check or saved more of it.

The state of Michigan’s Earned Income Tax Credit is a good anti-poverty mechanism for low and moderate income working families. The Michigan credit was an effective technique for achieving a reduction of the poverty rate in 2011. The Michigan Earned Income Tax Credit targets a certain income level of working families. In 2011 the state Earned Income Tax Credit reached over 700,000 households. Governor Rick Snyder does not support its state credit geared toward low income families irrespective of the amount of families that were elevated out of poverty. The tax credit advocates for children and child education, can stimulate the economy by way of the multiplier effect, and lead families to self-sufficiency.

Moffitt R. (2015). The Deserving Poor, the Family, and the U.S. Welfare System. Population Assistance of America

This essay aims to evaluate the merits of minimum wage schemes compared to and in conjunction with the EITC in lifting families out of poverty and ultimately reduce the working poor’s reliance on government assistance. It eventually argues that while the EITC is empirically more effective in targeting families living in poverty, minimum wage increases could still be considered useful in helping segments of the economy in need that may be neglected by the EITC. However, this essay argues that both policies are limited in their efficacy due to poverty traps in government means-tested

Edin and Lein wanted to discover the surviving strategies of single mothers who are on welfare or work on a low-waged job. They argue “neither welfare nor low wage work gives single mothers enough income to meet their families’ expenses” (253). To find out the set of survival strategies of single mothers to make ends meet Edin and Lein interviewed 379 low income single mothers. They chose their interviewees from different cities, different aged group, and different ethnic background. Most mothers who are on welfare wanted to find a job and be out of the welfare but the primary problem that single mothers face was that “family economics”. With the minimum wage income it was impossible for the single mothers to bring the ends meet. Neither working nor being on welfare was enough to survive therefore mothers who are on welfare supported their budget by generating substantial supplementary income. Edin and Lein states that “welfare recipients generated extra income by working at side jobs, obtaining cash from network members, community groups and local charities”. They also get cash help from the family members, child’s fathers, and from a boyfriend. Because they were afraid to lose welfare benefits they did not tell anyone about the extra income they have. To survive they needed both the welfare benefits and the extra income. It was very difficult to establish a trust with the interviewees in the beginning because they were afraid if they talk about it they might lose the

The pinpoint cause of poverty is challenging to find. People who live well off and are above the poverty line may be quick to assume that laziness, addiction, and the typical stereotypes are the causes of poverty. Barbara Ehrenreich, a well known writer on social issues, brings attention to the stereotypical ideology at her time, that “poverty was caused, not by low wages or a lack of jobs, but by bad attitudes and faulty lifestyles” (17). Ehrenreich is emphasizing the fact that statements like the one listed, often influence readers to paint inaccurate mental pictures of poverty that continue to shine light on the ideology of stereotypes being the pinpoint cause to poverty. However, there are many other causes that are often overshadowed, leaving some individuals to believe that poverty was wrongfully placed upon them. Examples would include: high rates of unemployment, low paying jobs, race, and health complications. Which are all out of one’s ability to control. There is no control over a lack of jobs and high rates of unemployment, nor the amount of inadequate wages the working poor receive. Greg Kaufmann, an advisor for the Economic Hardship Reporting Project and The Half in Ten campaign, complicates matters further when he writes, “Jobs in the U.S. [were] paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent. Jobs in the U.S. [were] paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent” (33). Acknowledging Kaufmann’s fact, the amount received for a family of four is fairly close to the yearly salary of a high school graduate, which means, receiving that kind of pay for one man may seem challenging, now imagine caring for the needs of four individuals. To make matters worse, certain families receive that amount of money and carry the burden of paying for