JD: . . .
(BTW, I can't believe that I awakened MBS's ire so much when I asserted
that "the earned income credit (unlike classic income-support measures)
make workers more dependent on their employers' good wishes, i.e., hardly
helps their bargaining power." This is hardly a radical statement.)
>>>>>
It wasn't just that, it was the comparison between the
IRS and the traditional welfare system. What bugs me
in the overall sense is the negative and grossly
inaccurate depiction of one of the most progressive
aspects of the Gov. It encourages ultimatism and
left-wing-left-wing communism.
Regarding audits, audits are scary if you have
cheated on your taxes, and/or if you have elaborate
financial arrangements and merely documenting them
is an enormous burden. If you are poor and have
cheated, the worst that is likely to happen is you
lose the refund and get disqualified from the program.
The penalties in this vein are not fair, relative to
treatment of other types of taxpayers, but they are
not the stuff of terror.
In any case, the proof is the pudding, not in JD's
speculations about what people might be thinking,
and the pudding is the exceptional participation rate
under the EITC (which Federal, state & local govs are
spending money to increase).
The treatment of welfare recipients in the olden days
is legendary. It had progressed since the publication
of "Regulating the Poor," but there was still no
comparison between that process and filing for the
EITC. Since welfare reform, of course, the process
of applying for welfare is regressing again.
The IRS behavior towards EITC filers vs. everyone
else is of course an artifact of Congressional behavior.
That was not at issue. There is no reason for a low-
income person to fear filing for the EITC, and it
remains the case that filing for the EITC --
if you're eligible -- beats the hell out of
applying for AFDC/TANF or GA benefits.
mbs
