Effects Of Earned Income Tax Credit Research Articles

근로장려금과 복지함정 및 역선택

This paper empirically analyzes whether earned income tax credit (EITC) has induced the welfare trap and/or the adverse selection problem. In contrast, previous studies have focused on the effects of EITC on labor income/hours or the labor market participation. With the introduction of EITC, some households may strategically maintain their income below the income threshold level of EITC, called the welfare trap. Also some households may even reduce their income to move below the income threshold level, called adverse selection. Based on the Korean Welfare Panel Study data, this paper does not find the welfare trap, but does find the evidence consistent with the adverse selection problem. These results provide important insights on the recent policy debates between the universal welfare and the selective welfare.

883-P: Associations of State Earned Income Tax Credits with Self-Reported Health Status among U.S. Adults with Diabetes, 2000–2016

Persons with low socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by diabetes and among people with diabetes, those with lower incomes tend to have poorer health status than those with higher incomes. Few studies have examined whether policies to improve the financial status of low-income populations can improve health outcomes among people with diabetes. Using data on state earned income tax credit (EITC) policies from the National Bureau of Economic Research and self-reported health status from the 2000-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) , we examined the association of state EITC with poor health status among United States (US) adults with self-reported diagnosed diabetes. Poor overall health was defined as self-reported general health status of “fair” or “poor” in BRFSS. Poor mental and physical health were defined as having at least 14 self-reported days in poor mental or poor physical health in the past 30 days, respectively. State EITC was defined as the state’s EITC amount as a percentage of the federal EITC. We used weighted logistic regression to model the effect of EITC variation across states and over years and calculated the marginal effects of state EITC on health status, controlling for poverty, race, education, unemployment, state gross domestic product (GDP) , state Medicaid expansion, and state minimum wage policy. Poisson regression models were conducted as a sensitivity analysis. A 10-percentage point increase in the state EITC was associated with a 3% lower rate of poor mental health status (-2,759 per 100,000, 95% CI = -5,494, -25) . The associations of the state EITC with physical health and overall health status were not statistically significant. The results were robust to choice of model based on the sensitivity analysis. Policies that increase income retained may help to improve self-reported mental health status of US adults with diabetes. Disclosure S.Tang: None. Y.Chen: None. D.B.Rolka: None. G.Imperatore: None. C.S.Holliday: None. P.Zhang: None.

Anti-poverty policy and health: Attributes and diffusion of state earned income tax credits across U.S. states from 1980 to 2020.

The U.S. federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is often considered the most effective antipoverty program for families in the U.S., leading to a variety of improved outcomes such as educational attainment, work incentives, economic activity, income, and health benefits for mothers, infants and children. State EITC supplements to the federal credit can significantly enhance the magnitude of this intervention. In this paper we advance EITC and health research by: 1) describing the diffusion of state EITC policies over 40 years, 2) presenting patterns in important EITC policy dimensions across space and time, and 3) disseminating a robust data set to advance future research by policy analysts and scientists. We used current public health law research methods to systematically collect, conduct textual legal analysis, and numerically code all EITC legislative changes from 1980 through 2020 in the 50 states and Washington, D.C. First, the pattern of diffusion across states and time shows initial introductions during the 1990s in the Midwest, then spreading to the Northeast, with more recent expansions in the West and South. Second, differences by state and time of important policy dimensions are evident, including size of credit and refundability. Third, state EITC benefits vary considerably by household structure. Continued research on health outcomes is warranted to capture the full range of potential beneficial effects of EITCs on family and child wellbeing. Lawyers and policy analysts can collaborate with epidemiologists and economists on other high-quality empirical studies to assess the many dimensions of policy and law that potentially affect the social determinants of health.

Analysis on the Effect of EITC(Earned Income Tax Credit) on Work Incentive -Focus on the second policy that was revised in 2011-

Analysis on the Effect of EITC(Earned Income Tax Credit) on Work Incentive -Focus on the second policy that was revised in 2011-

The effects of EITC and children's allowances on the economic well-being of children

This article introduces the concept of children's allowances as a strategy for the redistribution of income to children and reports the findings of an empirical study on the distributive effects of a children's allowance program and an improved earned income tax credit (EITC), separately and in combination. The source of data for the study was the 1999 Current Population Survey. The study found that these programs would greatly increase the income statuses and reduce the poverty rates of all children in this country, but especially of EITC-recipient children and children in large families, among whom black and Hispanic children are overrepresented. Implications for policy are discussed. Key words: children of color; children's allowances; earned income tax credit; economic well-being; large families ********** The United States is at a crossroad with its social policy on income support for children. The demographics are changing rapidly in two dimensions. First, the U.S. population is aging, with the proportion of children shrinking; second, the proportion of children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds is increasing, with considerable differences in birth rates and net immigration rates between the white and racial and ethnic minority populations (Day, 1996; Ozawa, 1997). If the United States is to develop effectively into a multiracial and multicultural society with a viable growing economy, public policy should focus on children from racial and ethnic minority groups, who are concentrated among large low-income families. How political leaders deal with the interplay between the wage structure in a free economy and the needs of families determined by family size will determine whether the United States can maintain its vitality as a nation. Policymakers in many countries addressed this problem long ago (Beveridge, 1942; Douglas, 1927; Vadakin, 1958). They realized that employers in capitalistic societies cannot and are not obligated to provide differential wages according to the number of dependents in a family. On the other hand, a society cannot survive unless it finds the means to meet the financial needs of families with different numbers of dependents. These policymakers found the solution in children's allowances (Beveridge; Douglas; Vadakin). Through the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P. L. 107-16), the federal government signaled its commitment to channel financial resources to families with children, using a tax credit approach. Section 2 of the law established a child credit of $600 per child, which will gradually increase to $1,000 in 2010, and made the tax credit refundable. Close scrutiny of this law indicates, however, that children whose parents have no earnings do not receive tax credits. Furthermore, for children of taxpayers who have earnings but not enough to pay income taxes, the law places a cap on the amount of refundable tax credits. For example, a family with two children that earned $15,000 in 2001, and hence would pay no income tax, would receive a total child tax credit of $500, not $1,200, because the law provides that the tax credit in this case must be the lesser of $1,200 or 10 percent of the difference between $15,000 (the family's earnings) and $10,000 (a statutory provision). It is important to note that the equation ($15,000-$10,000) x 0.1 applies to taxpayers with $15,000 in earnings, no matter how many children they have. Taxpayers with income tax liabilities that are smaller than the full child tax credit can claim the tax credit in the amount equal to the income tax amount, but the balance (the refundable component) is subject to the same cap as described here. In contrast, taxpayers with large income tax liabilities can claim a $600 tax credit for each child and can claim the tax credit for all the children. If, for example, a taxpayer with such a liability has eight children, he or she receives $4,800 in the form of a tax credit in 2001, as long as the adjusted gross income does not exceed the stipulated amount. …