The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (4 comments)

  1. Jane Johnson

    From a purely microeconomic standpoint, expansion of EIC is preferable to increasing the minimum wage or other politically sexy suggestions that have recently been floated. And Milton Friedman’s original idea of a “negative income tax”, which provided the theoretical basis for EIC, is sound.
    But as a retired tax preparer with H&R Block, I can attest to the fraud and abuse so prevalent in the current EIC program. So many people have cleverly figured out how to cheat on the EIC rules, and IRS’s own statistics reveal the large amount of fraudulent EIC payments made each year. IRS should not be in the welfare business, which it essentially is with EIC. Perhaps a more fraud-proof means can be designed to distribute EIC payments to those who legitimately deserve these entitlements–via the states or whatever.

  2. Don’t expect reforming the anti-poverty safety net to save money“….

    No, the only way to save money is to get rid of these ‘socialist pandering to parasites‘ programs…

    $100 billion in improper welfare payments per year

  3. Benjamin Cole

    Interesting post, good ideas…but $1 trillion a year is also what we spend on DoD, VA, DHS and intelligence…why is the topic never how get better results for less money from the warfare state?
    If federal deficits are a problem, should not we be asking how to cut both welfare and warfare waste?

    1. Micha Elyi

      “…why is the topic never how get better results for less money from the warfare state?”–Benjamin Cole

      That’s a constant political topic, one that’s always fashionable in the halls of the Congress.

      So you gotta ask yerself, honey, what else are you wrong about?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content