Is the EITC even constitutional in the case where somebody receives more money back than they pay in taxes? The federal government has the power to lay taxes, and can reduce those taxes to $0, but a negative tax isn't a tax.
I can see it if individual states opted into a dedicated income redistribution tax, where the federal government would pool money from any states opting in and redistribute it back to people using the tax mechanisms they already have in place.
Why would it be unconstitutional for the government to give money to the poor? There have been thousands of bills created at all local, state, and national levels to create these programs. Is your argument that a constitutional amendment is needed for some reason? Government support for the poor is not a new concept, and certainly doesn't originate within the past century. It has been around since before the founding of the United States: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/05/poverty-and...
Not "the government", but specifically the federal government of the United States. The federal government here has a specific list of enumerated rights, and anything not listed is given to the states, which split it between themselves, the local governments, and the people.
Taxing needs to be explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and income taxes even needed their own amendment. It just seems like the EITC isn't actually a tax, and that the best they could do is offer an optional program that individual states could opt-in to.
The U.S. Constitution consists of lots of statements that grant the federal government powers. These statements have logical implications. Logically valid implications of the enumerated powers ought to be constitutional, right? It would be absurd to say the Department of the Air Force is unconstitutional even though there is no explicit mention of the federal government being granted the power to have said department. Should there be 50 different states with their own departments of the Air Force?
The originalist interpretation, so favoured by a certain faction on the political spectrum, would argue that the Taxation Clause concerns itself with laying taxes - indeed, as you say, a negative tax isn't a tax. Consequently, the EITC is constitutional, the constitution does not prohibit it. It doesn't even discuss it.
The Constitution doesn't mention painting your fence white, but it would still be unconstitutional for specifically the federal government to pass a law banning white fences. That power is usually left to the local city.
The state, county, or city could pass an EITC program, of course.
I would think that a "No white fences" law would be unconstitutional no matter what division of government passes it (whether federal, state, or local). Unless there was some pressing public safety need (i.e. "White fences are a breeding ground for the white-fence-virus") I don't think any such law would stand up to a constitutional challenge under the same freedom of expression challenges that protect art from government censorship.
I would think so too, but I hear some really bad stories about trying to get anything developed in San Francisco, and zoning law in general seems much more developed than is stictly necessary to ensure safety.
Replace 'white fences' with 'zoning law', I guess.
What? A) yes, the federal government is allowed to distribute benefits without income testing them. B) You misunderstand how the EITC works -- it's a credit, not a cash gift -- it can't go negative. In fact, its benefits disappear for someone without an income (or with too low an income), which is what differentiates it from a real basic income or "negative income tax".
You misunderstand how the EITC works. EITC is "refundable", which means that you can get more money back from the government than what you paid in tax. It can, so to speak, "go negative".
EDIT: Am I wrong? I took a taxation class, that's what I learned.
Nope, you're not wrong, I am. Sorry! It's definitely the case that in marginal cases it does go negative (it's hard to actually tell but it looks like the correct narrow income bracket AND a spouse and some kids, e.g. "normal" families++). Eyeballing it, it doesn't look like it could go more than a couple thousand $ negative in the most optimal circumstances, but not exactly sure.
I was familiar with the fact that EITC doesn't provide a credit if you don't have an income and narrows to zero with less income (and I've checked it out at both ends of the spectrum in a couple weird years), but not so much with its politics, which are surpluses for low-income-but-not-no-income families.
++ or at least how politicians like to pretend normal families look.
Comments
Is the EITC even constitutional in the case where somebody receives more money back than they pay in taxes? The federal government has the power to lay taxes, and can reduce those taxes to $0, but a negative tax isn't a tax.
I can see it if individual states opted into a dedicated income redistribution tax, where the federal government would pool money from any states opting in and redistribute it back to people using the tax mechanisms they already have in place.
Why would it be unconstitutional for the government to give money to the poor? There have been thousands of bills created at all local, state, and national levels to create these programs. Is your argument that a constitutional amendment is needed for some reason? Government support for the poor is not a new concept, and certainly doesn't originate within the past century. It has been around since before the founding of the United States: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/05/poverty-and...
Not "the government", but specifically the federal government of the United States. The federal government here has a specific list of enumerated rights, and anything not listed is given to the states, which split it between themselves, the local governments, and the people.
Taxing needs to be explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and income taxes even needed their own amendment. It just seems like the EITC isn't actually a tax, and that the best they could do is offer an optional program that individual states could opt-in to.
The U.S. Constitution consists of lots of statements that grant the federal government powers. These statements have logical implications. Logically valid implications of the enumerated powers ought to be constitutional, right? It would be absurd to say the Department of the Air Force is unconstitutional even though there is no explicit mention of the federal government being granted the power to have said department. Should there be 50 different states with their own departments of the Air Force?
The originalist interpretation, so favoured by a certain faction on the political spectrum, would argue that the Taxation Clause concerns itself with laying taxes - indeed, as you say, a negative tax isn't a tax. Consequently, the EITC is constitutional, the constitution does not prohibit it. It doesn't even discuss it.
The Constitution doesn't mention painting your fence white, but it would still be unconstitutional for specifically the federal government to pass a law banning white fences. That power is usually left to the local city.
The state, county, or city could pass an EITC program, of course.
I would think that a "No white fences" law would be unconstitutional no matter what division of government passes it (whether federal, state, or local). Unless there was some pressing public safety need (i.e. "White fences are a breeding ground for the white-fence-virus") I don't think any such law would stand up to a constitutional challenge under the same freedom of expression challenges that protect art from government censorship.
I would think so too, but I hear some really bad stories about trying to get anything developed in San Francisco, and zoning law in general seems much more developed than is stictly necessary to ensure safety.
Replace 'white fences' with 'zoning law', I guess.
What? A) yes, the federal government is allowed to distribute benefits without income testing them. B) You misunderstand how the EITC works -- it's a credit, not a cash gift -- it can't go negative. In fact, its benefits disappear for someone without an income (or with too low an income), which is what differentiates it from a real basic income or "negative income tax".
You misunderstand how the EITC works. EITC is "refundable", which means that you can get more money back from the government than what you paid in tax. It can, so to speak, "go negative".
https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/earned-income-tax-credit-do...
EDIT: Am I wrong? I took a taxation class, that's what I learned.
EDIT: Am I wrong? I took a taxation class, that's what I learned.
Nope, you're not wrong, I am. Sorry! It's definitely the case that in marginal cases it does go negative (it's hard to actually tell but it looks like the correct narrow income bracket AND a spouse and some kids, e.g. "normal" families++). Eyeballing it, it doesn't look like it could go more than a couple thousand $ negative in the most optimal circumstances, but not exactly sure.
I was familiar with the fact that EITC doesn't provide a credit if you don't have an income and narrows to zero with less income (and I've checked it out at both ends of the spectrum in a couple weird years), but not so much with its politics, which are surpluses for low-income-but-not-no-income families.
++ or at least how politicians like to pretend normal families look.
The refundable part of EITC can be viewed as a form of federal welfare. Federal welfare is constitutional as there is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause