Sure he is...
Originally Posted by cpwill
In my mind, the country’s economic policies should have two main objectives. First, we should wish, in our rich society, for every person who is willing to work to receive income that will provide him or her a decent lifestyle. Second, any plan to do that should not distort our market system, the key element required for growth and prosperity.
The problem is that the market has been distorted since the application of supply-side neo-liberal policy since 1977 through today, it broke the connection between productivity and wage gains resulting in nearly flat real wages for 80% of wage employment. Households require 2 earners and still household expenses outstripped income by 30% from 2000 to 2012. In other words, the market has not provided jobs with incomes to allow folks below the median to maintain a "decent" lifestyle, their lifestyle is in descent.
That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.
Perhaps the old man is not aware that the plans spread the increase out over years, but he undercuts his whole argument by claiming that even with MW increases "many" will remain in poverty. Is he admitting the market has failed (it has) or is he muddying with a truism about the elderly and children?
That sounds like a really bad idea since those with significant amounts of EIC also have the largest amount of income variance. His "plan" would require an anticipation of annual income to calculate a month going forward (which could result in a tax charge if income falls short of anticipation) or will require monthly reporting/paperwork.
So is Paul Ryan, who has called not only for expanding the EIC, but for making it payable as part of a monthly stipend, so that you are increasing low-income Americans monthly take-home pay with it, vice simply providing them with a once-a-year lump-sum.