I received information from the National Academies on their new report, Reducing Intergenerational Poverty, Sept 2023. It defines “intergenerational poverty,” provides demographics of this poverty, describes education and health issues associated with continual poverty, and makes recommendations.

The introduction reminds us of the relevance of this topic to us all (page 1):

“Capable and responsible adults are the foundation of any well-functioning and prosperous society. Yet low-income families struggle to offer their children the same advantages and necessities that better-off families can offer. As a result, throughout their childhoods children living in families with low incomes face an array of challenges that place them at much higher risk of experiencing poverty in adulthood as compared with other children.”

“The costs of perpetuating this cycle of economic disadvantage fall not only on low-income individuals and families themselves, but also on society as a whole. Poverty reduces overall economic output and places increased burdens on the educational, criminal justice, and health care systems. Understanding the causes of intergenerational poverty and implementing programs and policies to reduce it would yield a high payoff for children and for the entire nation.”

One of the recommendations is to increase and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Per the researchers: “The strongest direct evidence on the likely intergenerational effects for children is found for programs that increase both family income and parental employment during childhood and adolescence.” [page 133]

IRS data reports that in 2020, 26 million filers claimed the EITC with the aggregate credit at $59.2 billion (Table A of Individual Income Tax Returns Complete Report 2020).

Where could the money come from to increase and expand the EITC? We can and should reduce various tax breaks that reduce the tax liability of high income individuals by far more than a taxpayer can currently claim as the EITC. The OMB reports that the “cost” of the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance is $224 billion per year. It is not uncommon for this exclusion to be about $10,000 (or even lots more) for one of the roughly 64% of employees who get this tax break (their employer pays all or a portion of their health insurance premiums). Assuming $10,000 of excluded income, this tax break is worth the following at each individual marginal tax rate as follows (the savings is similar to a tax credit of the amount listed below):

10% $1,000 tax savings
12% $1,200 tax savings
22% $2,200 tax savings
24% $2,400 tax savings
32% $3,200 tax savings
35% $3,500 tax savings
37% $3,700 tax savings

The average EITC for a taxpayer claiming it is, per the IRS, $2,043. Thinking of the above tax savings as similar to a tax credit, individuals with $10,000 of employer-provided health insurance who are at a 22% bracket or higher are getting a larger credit than the average EITC claimer. And this is quite a tax savings because someone in these higher brackets can afford to pay their health insurance without the tax subsidy. Unlike the Premium Tax Credit, there is no income threshold or affordability limitations on claiming the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance (see blog post of 5/14/23).

Even if this one tax break for employer health insurance were cut in half to $112 billion per year, that would enable the EITC on average to be increased by about $4,000. I note this example just to illustrate that there are tax breaks that can be reduced or eliminated, particularly where they provide a tax break much larger than a typical ETIC, but to people with far greater means for whom the tax break doesn’t make a life-changing difference where it would improve the life of a low-income worker and improve economic conditions and living standards in the U.S. for everyone. There are over 100 other tax breaks that could be reduced, particularly where they provide significant subsidies and tax breaks to higher income individuals, whose well-being and that of our society is not improved much by them due to their income levels.

So, why don’t we reduce some tax expenditures and use the funds in ways that will truly help people who need the assistance more and will benefit our society and economy as a whole?

What do you think?
Professor Annette Nellen, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA