They were and still are a disaster in the UK - something like 20% of eligible people have never claimed and now billions have been overpaid - yes, clerical error and overly complex systems means the UK government is trying to claw back over payments from some of the poorest in UK, who have already spent it anyway. It's ridiculous.
No - keep it simple stupid, almost everyone can work out what they have to spend by looking in their pay packet. Working out what complex tax credit - no way
I agree with you, it's a better way to do it and to raise the standard of living in this country. It might even have a big effect on reducing crime.
At least this Republican thinks it's a way better anti-poverty choice than raising the minimum wage, for many of the reasons already argued here.
As to any difficulty the eligible have in claiming it: How hard would it be to add another checkbox to the W-4 asking about other sources of income? If your total income including the job you're filling out witholding for is estimated to be less than X, it's your employer's responsibility to claim the EITC for you and add it to your paycheck. Perhaps grease the skids on this a bit by giving the employer some tax benefit for doing so.
The minimum wage, however, while not theft, is a destroyer of jobs. The minimum wage increases unemployment. Raising it, further increases unemployment. Additionally, you are telling people under what terms they may enter into voluntary business arrangements with each other, which is none of your concern. You have no natural right to direct the affairs of others.
Right: because it's giving money to moochers. Period. Makers and takers, man. (This is what the Republican Party actually ran their campaign on this past November.)
Left: because it's an effective subsidy for sub-living-wage employers.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/fa...
Just FYI EITC was reduced this year.
Left: EITC provides relief for the poor.
Right: EITC is workfare, not welfare.
Since both parties have expanded the program over the last 30 years, my version aligns with the facts better.
Sounds oddly close to the "strivers vs scroungers" debate the Conservative and UKIP parties in the UK are trying to drum up.
EITC: Money is given to the poor people that need it most. The money that goes to them comes out of progressive taxation. Very little dis-employment effect.
Minimum wage: Money mostly comes from higher prices, which fall disproportionately on poor people. Fairly substantial dis-employment effect.
The only reason to favor the later is that politicians can rely on the public not noticing that they're paying for it.