In the economic-based social welfare policy world, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been given a major role in the inequality and poverty facing low-income families and individuals within the United States. Taking a retrospective approach to the original meanings and present impact of the social policy and future trends, different angles of the multi-faceted dimensions of EITCs are discussed, indicating their role in overall social and human justice. This analysis holistically approaches the EITCs’ history, from its inception to its present realization. Through this study, the EITCs’ impact on breaking poverty cycles and promoting economic stability among many people can be transformative.
Question 1: Social Problems and Population Groups
Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) were devised to tackle the widespread societal problem of poverty, especially among working families who live below the poverty line. Despite being employed, many of these people and families fall short of sustaining their basic lives due to their low income. The extent and vastness of poverty are quite appalling, as the Census Bureau states that about 9.1% of the whole US population has been living below the poverty line (Chen & Burns, 2022). What is more, poverty is far more than the absence of economic means because it affects access to health services, education, and housing systems, making the next generation poorer.
The population groups the most affected by poverty and EITC beneficiaries are mostly represented by minority groups, single-parent households, and less-educated individuals. Participation of African American and Hispanic households among the working poor is much higher than the share of the working poor population qualified by that race or ethnicity (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). Therefore, social disparities are the role-playing factor behind higher poverty rates among African Americans and Hispanics, as historical racial discrimination and societal inequality play an important part in that. Additionally, single parents’ families, especially the women who had to make a living, are mostly impoverished as their potential to earn and the demands of caring are limited (Popple & Leighninger, 2015).
The fact that these population groups are first and foremost distinguished by poverty highlights a perennial issue of human rights and social justice because these people are deprived of chances to be on equal footing with others whose economic advancement and social mobility are guaranteed (Stern & Axinn, 2017). The EITCs are, thereby, the most viable answer to the problem of poverty endured by those most vulnerable by supplying short-running financial aid programs to alleviate the issue.
Question 2: History of Institutional Responses
The evolution of the antipoverty policy in the United States between the past and the present has seen different paradigm shifts that have been influenced by many factors, such as social, economic, and cultural circumstances (Stern & Axinn, 2017). In the progressive era, the early interventions for the relief process had a moralistic and paternalistic steam reflected in the formation of private charities and religious organizations (Lynch, 2014). Though these efforts partly contributed to eradicating inequality, which held back the progress of poverty, the broadest state intervention became a critical factor in the final triumph.
The most critical change came in the New Deal era when President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid great emphasis on state-sponsored safety programs, which were the first step in creating a social security program (Stern & Axinn, 2017). Initiatives such as Social Security and unemployment insurance were pioneer interventions that aimed to bring down economic insecurities and poverty at a societal level by considering the vulnerable ones (Lynch, 2014). On the other hand, the fact that farm and domestic workers, mostly African Americans, are not covered by the welfare program reveals that the welfare state still responds to prevailing imbalances (Gilbert & Terrell, 2017).
The establishment of the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1975 signified a revolutionary move in the welfare paradigm from working-based incentives towards alleviating poverty. Originally introduced as a temporary measure, the EITs have since gained wide support within the bipartisanship with the effectiveness of the policy in encouraging job and poverty reduction (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). EITC’s sequential changes and improvements have shifted the spotlight on it, and it is recognized as the anchor of antipoverty policy in the United States. From a human rights standpoint, the EITC is imperative to economic and social rights, which means that all individuals must have access to adequate income, and society must be pushed toward stability (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). Thus, EITC adds to the reach of the minimum wage, aiming at meeting basic needs and improving individuals’ access to all aspects of society.
Question 3 Evaluation of Current Policy Outcomes
The EITC’s landscape policy has been evolving with complex results due to several successes and difficulties in maintaining social equality and human rights (Reichert, 2011). On the other hand, though, it positively demonstrated that millions of individuals and families allowed back to their jobs lifted them out of poverty, rendering some critical financial support to low-wage workers (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). According to a study, the EITCs have a substantive impact on decreasing poverty rates, close to 50 percent among children, by increasing economic security and promoting intergenerational mobility.
Nevertheless, the utilization of EITCs, in terms of equalizing underlying inequalities and providing short-term economic stability, is under discussion and regarded as controversial by many. The critics maintain that the main function of EITC is to pay the minimum wage. Hence, employers obtain wage subsidies from the public and taxpayers, who are the burden-bearers, while employers continue to pay substandard wages (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). The complexity of eligibility criteria and administrative obstacles, mainly the socially and economically marginalized, to obt, hinder the benefits. Essentially, this mechanism of EITC has proven to be helpful in the forerunner of poverty eradicating and promoting economic justice; however, the challenges of systemic biases and policy restraints still call for comprehensive reforms for a holistic solution to achieve socio-economic equity.
Question 4: Current Policy Choices and Benefit-Allocation Framework
Current choices on EITCs reflect the political, economic, and social complexity that makes poverty-fighting in government so challenging. Gilbert and Terrell’s benefit-allocation framework offers an understanding of the basis of those decisions, highlighting the alignment of societal demands, economic concerns, and political practicability (Gilbert & Terrell 2013).
Policymakers have been expanding the EITC over time, thus acknowledging its effectiveness in fighting poverty and enhancing economic activity. Efforts to simplify the application procedures and spread the word aim to make the system more transparent and enable eligible people to get the bonanza rightfully (Gilbert & Terrell 2013). Another option includes extending the eligibility rules and enhancing the benefits amounts to get a competitive edge on the EITCs for an antipoverty crusade.
Despite these, constraints in budgeting occasioned by economic storms and population changes are some of the complexities that separate policy options on EITCs. Furthermore, the policymakers’ ideological positions contribute to the fragmentation of the political outlook toward the EITCs. For instance, healthcare reform and investment in infrastructure are competing priorities, which, along with existing political dynamics both nationally and globally, imply that the policy design process becomes more complex (Gilbert & Terrell 2013). On the other hand, the dynamic nature of social welfare policy development evolves.
In summary, the progressive development of the EITCs depicts a dynamic and dynamic process that starts in the past and ends in the future. These historical traits, social realities, and future aspirations unite social welfare policies to pursue equity and inclusivity. Through a critical examination of the social problem of poverty with a human rights and justice lens, policymakers can articulate a structure aimed at profoundly improving the status quo that safeguards human rights and the well-being of all individuals and communities. Using detailed investigation and joint work, an atmosphere can be created that will accomplish the following: all economic opportunities become available, the social safety nets will be stronger, the system inequalities will be destroyed, and therefore, humanity will reach the happiness for which generations strive.
References
Chen, F., & Burns, K. (2022, January 24). Two Ways the U.S. Census Bureau Measures Poverty to Capture a Clearer Picture of Poverty in America. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/national-poverty-in-america-awareness-month-measuring-poverty.html
Gilbert, N. &, Terrell, P. (2013). Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy. United Kingdom: Pearson.
Lynch, J. (2014). A Cross-National Perspective on the American Welfare State. In D. Béland, K. J. Morgan, & C. Howard (Eds.), Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838509.013.023
Popple, P. & Leighninger, L. (2015). Chapter 11: Politics and Social Welfare Policy (pp.245-261) in The Policy-Based Profession: An Introduction to Social Welfare Analysis for Social Workers: Pearson.
Reichert, E. (2011). Human rights in social work: An essential basis. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 27(3), 207-220. DOI: 10.1080/17486831.2011.595070
Stern, M. J., Axinn, J. (2017). Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need. (n.p.): Pearson Education.
write