Tax time has come, and many of us are probably eyeing the Earned Income Credit – money that isn’t a return on taxes paid, but rather, money simply given to those who meet certain criteria. Certainly the legislators who enacted it had the best of intentions when they implemented it into the tax laws. But this tax credit was applied with no thought given to social reality. Our country can ill afford to turn our backs even in part on the principles that have made our country what it is today, the same principles that separate our nation from socialistic or communistic governments. The Earned Income Credit is a step backwards from the rewards of equal opportunity afforded every individual in our union.
The idea behind this credit was to help out working families – and especially single parents – who were struggling with the cost of living, childcare especially. And the credit has been structured so that those eligible to receive it may incorporate it into their monthly paychecks, enabling them to budget more appropriately for their needs. The EIC has therefore been pointed to as a tool to empower those on welfare to join the workforce by providing a monetary incentive.
This is a laudable goal. But upon examining the reality of how the EIC is being spent, one finds that it is nearly always taken as a lump sum, and promptly spent on any manner of things – any manner of things except true cost of living items. Computers, game systems, DVD players, you name it. But almost never daycare, children’s clothing, or living essentials.
People that don’t need any help qualify for EIC as well. Any loser in the right income bracket, still living in his mother's basement, may receive the EIC. Needless to say, this EIC money is spent in areas our tax money was never meant to go. Where do these types of people fit into the picture of the needy poor?
Doubtless, some people use their tax credit quite responsibly. But I am not acquainted with a single person that does. And would it be too harsh to presume that some people aren’t near the poverty line out of sheer misfortune? Speaking as an unintended father, irresponsible behavior certainly contributes to destroying a number of opportunities. But I hardly expect the government and society to pay for my indiscretion. I don’t know many people that have been forced to procreate. It is entirely fair to say that if one is not in the financial position to provide for children already, they shouldn’t be having them.
Had the legislators who proposed the EIC wanted to target a needy group, the best thing they could have done would have been the establishment of a government voucher for daycare, distributed to those meeting certain guidelines. Merely handing out money to people making “X” number of dollars in a calendar year is a poor idea. This tends to reward the irresponsible and unmotivated more than it aids the needy or unfortunate. We may as well take everyone’s paychecks in their entirety and divvy the overall cash flow back out in equal proportions. Hooray for communism!
The type of thinking that spawned the EIC has an insidious side as well. Generally speaking, the more educated and affluent members of society have fewer children than the poor and uneducated. Removing the consequences of irresponsibility will only accelerate the growth of the burgeoning lower class. Is that what we want to do? Create a social division of elitists and working class people? Consequences are a necessary part of the maturation process, and merit should be the deciding factor in who achieves the leadership positions in our society.
Our legislators must give more forethought to the implications of any policy they put into law. Only then will a reasonable amount of fairness be achieved with respect to those in actual need of help, and those who foot the bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
