Proponents of an increase in New York’s minimum wage argue that no full-time worker — especially a head of household raising children — should have to live on $7.25 an hour, or $15,000 a year.

But here’s the thing: No one has to live in such poverty.

Low- and modest-income workers in New York receive more than $4.6 billion annually in wage supplements from the federal, state and New York City provision for an Earned Income Tax Credit. The credit is now claimed by more than 1.6 million working households in the state — one out of every five income tax filers — yet is often ignored in debates over the minimum wage, welfare reform and the perceived fairness of New York’s tax system.

A single mother raising two children in New York and working full time at the minimum wage can claim a total of $6,646 from the federal and state EITC, increasing her annual income to $21,726. This is the equivalent of a job effectively paying $10.44 an hour, rather than the nominal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

The EITC is based on income tax returns, so it is a benefit available only to people who work. And, the credit is refundable, meaning that if it exceeds the amount of taxes owed, the difference becomes a refund. As a result, it puts money directly into people’s pockets, effectively acting as a negative income tax. In fact, more than 85 percent of EITC benefits are refunded.

Estimates by the Internal Revenue Service and others show that 75 percent to 80 percent of all eligible EITC households receive the benefit. The federal EITC is a major anti-poverty tool, lifting 6.3 million people including 3.3 million children out of poverty in 2010. The state EITC, set at 30 percent of the federal credit, adds an additional anti-poverty effect for working households.

Unlike a minimum wage increase, the EITC provides income support only to workers who really need it — without leading to job loss, deterring hiring or raising the cost of labor across the board.

By contrast, based on a comprehensive analysis of minimum wage studies, economists David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board concluded that a higher minimum wage “neither helps low-income families or reduces poverty.” They found that the EITC “subsidizes earnings for low-income working families and creates incentives for employment among families with no workers — pursuing much the same goals as suggested by the rhetoric, if not the reality of minimum wages.”

Few minimum wage earners are the primary source of household income. A 2007 study by economists Richard Burkhauser of Cornell and Joseph Sabia of the University of Georgia found that only 13 percent of workers earning a wage of $7.25 or less were the primary earner in a household, while 46 percent were in families with incomes at or above three times the poverty level. The study concluded: The majority of low wage workers are not household heads … and an even greater share are not poor household heads.”

In another study, particular to New York, the same researchers concluded that an increase in the state minimum wage from the then $7.15 to $8.25 hourly would result in the loss of 29,000 jobs.

The state EITC increases tax progressivity, making New York the most generous state in the nation when it comes to taxing poor workers. Among the 42 states with income taxes, New York has the highest tax thresholds in the nation — the income at which earners begin to pay state income taxes — at $34,600 for a family of three and $40,300 for a family of four.

Debates will continue about adequate wages, whether New York taxes are fair and what more can be done to alleviate poverty. But in the interest of full disclosure, it’s time for decision makers to stop ignoring the existing EITC and the $4.6 billion it provides to New York’s low-income earners annually.

You may also like

NY must prune its bloated Medicaid program — and focus on improving low-quality care

The coronavirus pandemic exposed a fundamental imbalance in New York’s approach to health policy: Albany spends too much money on its bloated Medicaid plan but neglects the public-health programs that used to be the Health Department’s main focus — Read More

Kathy Hochul will have to prove she can hold the line on state spending

Hochul’s specific priorities were lowest-common-denominator stuff: “combating” the spread of COVID-19 linked to the Delta variant, pushing billions in stalled federal rent relief out the door to tenants (and ultimately their landlords) and “beginning to change the culture in Albany.” Read More

A Corona Commission for New York

New York is finally ahead of the coronavirus, but its outbreak stands as a world-wide horror story. A sophisticated city was caught unprepared and suffered some of the worst levels of infection and death. The need for an investigation is clear. The harder question is who can credibly take the lead. Read More

New York, beware Warren’s Rx

Elizabeth Warren is an unabashed believer in wealth redistribution, so it was predictable that her Medicare for All plan would hit high-income individuals and large corporations with trillions in tax hikes. More surprising are the two other targets she chooses to soak: states that spend most heavily on Medicaid, and employers that offer the costliest health benefits. Read More

Blame Cuomo for New York’s Medicaid crisis

When it comes to New York’s latest Medicaid mess, the buck stops with Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Read More

What is ailing New York’s hospitals? They’re taking in lots of money but operating in the red

These should be boom times for New York’s hospitals, whose collective revenues have been surging by the billions for several years. Read More

Banishing Profit Is Bad for Your Health

Eliminating profit from an entire sector of the national economy would be unprecedented. But the example of New York, on a smaller scale, shows why it is a recipe for dysfunction. Read More

Single-payer health care could cost some hospitals

The debate about a proposed single-payer health plan for New York State has mostly focused on its potential cost. But far less attention has been paid to the radical impact it may have on hospitals and physicians across the state. Read More