Key Points

  • When two lower-income workers marry and combine their earnings, the tax system can unintentionally cut their Earned Income Tax Credit by thousands of dollars overnight. Worries about this financial loss are keeping some couples from tying the knot.
  • Policies that discourage marriage can hurt both couples and their kids. A stable, two-parent home is one of the most powerful solutions for reducing poverty and strengthening families.
  • By adjusting the Earned Income Tax Credit’s benefits and eligibility limits for married couples, the government can make sure that saying “I do” opens the door to security and upward mobility for workers and their families.

If you ask many engaged couples what’s worrying them before the big day, you’ll probably hear about things like catering budgets, guest lists, or finding the right dress.

But for thousands of working-class people in Georgia and across the country, something else is causing their wedding anxiety: the financial benefits they might lose.

Because of rules in our tax system, walking down the aisle can sometimes lead to what’s called a “marriage penalty.” Instead of helping couples build a stable foundation, current policies often force a heartbreaking choice: commit to each other legally, or make ends meet.

The Cost of Combining Incomes

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is one of our country’s largest anti-poverty initiatives. The credit increases with every dollar workers make, up to a point, and then phases out as a household earns more.

But the EITC can also be a hidden poverty trap. When low-income people get married, the tax system unintentionally penalizes them for doing exactly what they should to escape poverty: working hard, combining resources, and building a stable home. 

Imagine two parents who want to marry each other. The woman makes $18,000 per year, and the man makes $30,000 per year.

As a single head of household tax filer with two kids, the woman qualifies for a much-needed $7,200 tax credit.

Her partner files single and doesn’t qualify for the EITC.

Together, unmarried, they use the $7,200 credit the woman gets at tax time to pay debts or cover expenses.

But if they marry, the tax system starts phasing out their credit based on their new $48,000 joint income, and it instantly drops to about $3,770.

The new spouses lose $3,430 overnight—almost a full month’s income—just because they made their relationship official. 

For some, this can be too much of a loss to risk.


The Life-Changing Power of Marriage and Family Stability

Marriage can lead to more happiness and satisfaction for couples—two incomes to cover the bills, a partner who shares the responsibilities, and the sense of well-being that comes from experiencing life with someone you love.

And kids who grow up in stable, two-parent homes are more likely to thrive in school, have better physical and mental health, and break cycles of generational poverty. 

But many low-income families aren’t getting to experience these benefits, and policies that discourage marriage—like the ones involving the EITC—are part of the reason why. 

Statistics confirm a decrease in marriages but also their importance for families.

  • Just 50% of American adults are currently married, down from 69% in 1970. The number is even lower for people with less education and those who don’t identify as White.
  • 63% of children live with two married parents. Again, that number drops for less-educated and non-White Americans.
  • When married parents are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the poverty rate for a married person is 75% lower.
  • Children raised by married parents are 82% less likely to live in poverty.

When it comes to Georgia:

  • 54% of women and 49% of men are unmarried.
  • 38% of children live in single-parent families.
  • 18% of children (461,000 kids) live in poverty—the fifth highest number in the country.
  • The state ranks 39th in the nation for overall child and family well-being.

Big cultural shifts have changed how many people think about marriage—and this plays a role in decisions not to marry. But the data shows that a stable, two-parent home still provides families with more financial security and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s also one of the most powerful solutions for lifting children out of poverty.


A Less Risky Path to “I Do”

A new study from the Georgia Center for Opportunity offers recommendations to make the EITC work better for low-income families. In particular, the federal government could adjust the maximum benefits and the eligibility limit for married couples. This would let new spouses combine their earnings without triggering an automatic loss of some or all of the credit. It would also remove a big barrier to building strong relationships and stable households.

Reforming the EITC won’t solve every challenge facing working-class families. But by restructuring the credit to reward partnership instead of penalizing it, the government can make sure that saying “I do” really is a celebration—a step toward a brighter future and a better quality of life for everyone in the family.


FAQs About the EITC

How can a low-income worker get the EITC?

People should apply through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which provides an EITC Assistant to help an applicant figure out if they qualify and how much their credit will be.

How does the EITC affect working-class families?

The EITC is designed to encourage low-wage workers to earn more—increasing with every dollar people make, up to a point, and then phasing out. But the income limit doesn’t double when people marry. As a result, a higher combined income pushes a couple into the EITC phase-out stage more quickly and reduces the credit they get compared to when they weren’t married.

Who does the EITC marriage penalty impact the most?

The penalty is highest when partners have children and earn similar low-level wages (each making around $15,000-$30,000).

Can a married couple file their taxes as “Married Filing Separately” to avoid the penalty?

The tax code won’t let couples claim the EITC if they choose “Married Filing Separately” as their tax status.

Does Georgia have its own state-level EITC?

Georgia doesn’t have an EITC, but it does offer a Low-Income Tax Credit for some residents.

Additional Resources

Key Points

  • As Americans become more skeptical of the American Dream, an important issue to address is the link between poverty and violent crime.
  • Research has found that violent crime negatively affects property values, employment, and outcomes for childrengoes here.
  • Providing a safe environment is a core government responsibility, and it’s essential for lowering fear, improving economic mobility, and building healthy communities. 

A recent Pew Research Center poll examined American attitudes about the attainability of the American dream. Overall, 53% of respondents believed the American dream was still possible. 

Responses were remarkably consistent across race and differed only slightly by party affiliation (56% for Republicans, 50% for Democrats). 

Age was the factor where more drastic differences of opinion started to emerge. The younger the cohort, the lower the percentage of respondents who felt the American dream was still possible. 

  • Age 65+: 68% believed the American dream was still possible. 
  • Age 50-64: 61% thought the American dream was still possible. 
  • Age 30-49: 43% felt the American dream was still possible. 
  • Age 18-29: Just 39% agreed the American dream was still possible.  

Among the youngest groups, a larger percentage—48% of 30 to 49-year-olds and 51% of 18 to 29-year-olds—thought the American dream was once possible but no longer was. 

The current attainability of the American dream is subject to much debate, not fleshed out here. One factor that deserves more attention is the role of public safety in shaping communities where people have opportunities for a better life for themselves and future generations.  

Of all the barriers to opportunity, violence is one of the most vicious because it can single-handedly upend all the building blocks of a flourishing life—family stability, access to quality education, and work opportunities. And a disproportionate amount of this suffering is borne by our poorest and most vulnerable communities. 

Nearly 50% of According to Pew Research polling, Americans think the American Dream is no possible.

The impact of crime on children

Future generations have a harder time getting ahead in life. 

It’s clear from the data that nearly half of children raised in the poorest households—the bottom 20% of incomes—end up in that bottom 20% as adults. A tremendous number of factors contribute to this cycle of poverty—from the flaws in government safety net programs to the affordability of housing to improving educational options and outcomes.

Then there’s the link between poverty and crime. One of the most visceral and heartbreaking things that impacts a child’s upward mobility is growing up in a community with a high rate of violence.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about 3.6 million kids live in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”

The level of violent crime in a county negatively affects the level of upward economic mobility among individuals raised in low-income families. Opportunities decline because high rates of violence reduce productivity among crime victims, depress economic activity, reduce home values, and drive out residents who can leave. 

In communities struggling with poverty, violent crime can lead to worse outcomes for kids.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about 3.6 million kids live in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”

The impact of crime on local economies

Communities become economically unhealthy. 

A relationship between poverty and crime also manifests itself in the effects that violence has on employment. Several studies have demonstrated that direct victimization is associated with more unemployment and less productivity at work. 

  • A study of violent trauma patients found a positive association between victimization and unemployment. 
  • Another study found that, following the homicide of a family member, employment went down 27% among surviving family members. 
  • In a sample of parents whose children had been murdered, more than 50% of the parents perceived themselves as nonproductive at their jobs in the four months after the murder.

High rates of violent crime don’t just impact victims. Rising crime has been negatively associated with business activity, resulting in downsizing and discouraging new businesses from entering the marketplace.

Neighborhoods then lose out on opportunities for jobs and affordable access to food, household items, and other essential goods and services. 

One large analysis looked at the impact of gun violence on the economic health of neighborhoods in six cities: Baton Rouge, LA; Minneapolis, MN; Oakland, CA; Rochester, NY; San Francisco, CA; and Washington, DC. The findings were remarkably consistent. An increase in gun violence in a census tract reduced the growth rate of new retail and service establishments by 4% in Minneapolis, Oakland, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. 

In Minneapolis, each additional gun homicide in a census tract in a given year was associated with 80 fewer jobs the next year; in Oakland, a gun homicide was associated with 10 fewer jobs the next year. 

Local business displays %22open%22 sign.

“Local and state governments must focus on reducing violent crime, not just as necessary to protect human life but also because doing so is a prerequisite to real economic opportunity in poor communities.”

Josh Crawford, GCO Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives

The impact of crime on neighborhoods

Communities stop becoming places that people want to call home.

Studies have also found that increases in gun violence hurt property values.

  • In Minneapolis: Each additional gun homicide resulted in a $22,000 decrease in average home values in Minneapolis census tracts.
  • In Oakland: Each additional gun homicide resulted in a $24,621 decrease in Oakland census tracts.
  • In Los Angeles: A separate study found that increases in violent crime in a neighborhood in a given year yielded decreases in property values in that neighborhood the following year. 

And those who can leave communities with high rates of violence, do. One estimate found that, for every homicide, 70 residents move out of a neighborhood.

Finally, increased violent crime often, justifiably, leads to more incarceration. But communities with higher rates of incarcerated parent-aged men often have weaker social institutions and are more unstable. 

To have vibrant communities and flourishing lives, public safety must take priority.

Improving economic conditions and opportunities for any community, but especially low-income neighborhoods, is incredibly difficult without first reducing violence.

One of the most recent examples is the great crime decline of the 1990s, which dramatically improved the most desperate neighborhoods and improved life among their residents. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. Decades of policy innovation, evaluation, and replication have taught us how to make communities safer and break the interconnected cycles of poverty and crime.

The most effective methods include:

  • Focusing law enforcement efforts on criminal street gangs
  • Punishing violent recidivists appropriately
  • Reducing the presence of abandoned buildings in crime hot spots

People have a deep need to feel safe and secure in the places where they live, work, and go about their day-to-day lives. Providing a safe environment is government’s first responsibility to its people.

When it comes to public safety, making good policy choices changes lives—not only by reducing physical harm but also by transforming neighborhoods into places where the American Dream can still be found.

Visit our public safety resource page to learn more about policy solutions and see recommendations for specific cities. 

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

Over the past few months, President Joe Biden has told Americans that the U.S. economy is strong,inflation is subsiding, and the job market is growing. The narrative being pushed is that everything is just fine.

Many people, however, especially younger and poorer Americans, aren’t feeling the same sense of optimism.

A recent Pew poll showed that a significant majority of poorer Americans view the economy negatively. While some differences are cut along party lines, the poor and middle class clearly feel less optimistic.

Read the full opinion in the Washington Examiner.

 

Gavel-and-Scales-300x225

When I tell people that part of my work involves heading up a project on prisoner reentry reform, I’m often met by puzzled looks. Given my organization’s other work – including fighting for education reform and school choice, encouraging stronger families, and combating human trafficking, etc. – many understandably wonder where prisoner reentry fits.

On the surface the answer is not necessarily obvious but, once I explain what motivates our work, the connection normally becomes clearer.

Over the last decade, part of our work involved efforts to strengthen families in the inner city through helping community leaders improve family life by offering workshops on relationship skills, conflict resolution, financial management, and similar topics to people in the community. The thinking – supported by the evidence and common sense – is that if you can improve relationships among family and community members, you can help improve many of the social problems people face. When you do this kind of work in the inner city, you quickly find that you can’t strengthen families there very successfully without also addressing the impact of incarceration, which too many inner-city families experience – especially in Georgia.

In 2009, the Pew Center on the States released a study showing that Georgia led the country with 1 in 13 adults under some form of correctional supervision. Nationally, the number is 1 in 31. The Georgia number includes some 56,000 prisoners and 160,000 probationers. Annually an average of 20,000 prisoners are released and, as our experience in inner-city Atlanta confirmed, most are not prepared to be successful outside the prison walls. Of those released nationally, nearly 65 percent will be re-arrested in three years and, in Georgia, about 30 percent will find themselves back in prison within that time.

That is why we launched our prisoner reentry working group in July after many months of research, dozens of interviews, and visits to four state prison facilities. Our nine working group members consist of individuals with considerable expertise in Georgia’s correctional system and a strong interest in improving outcomes for prisoners returning to the community. The working group will meet monthly over the next year to develop policy and service related recommendations on ways our state can improve prisoner reentry to reduce recidivism while improving positive outcomes for prisoners (like job attainment and retention, housing stability, and staying sober and drug-free, among others).

During our first meeting, the group quickly decided upon several broad areas of focus for their work over the next year. Those areas include

  • Employment: Looking at ways to remove barriers to and increase opportunities for prisoners to obtain and retain employment upon release
  • Reentry Courts: Exploring how the state might create courts that specialize in working with prisoners as they are reentering the community
  • Transitional Centers: Finding ways to increase the capacity of Georgia’s transitional centers to serve more people and looking at whether centers specialized to work with specific kinds of offenders could be more effective in reducing recidivism

While each of these topics is large, the working group is committed to zeroing in on very specific, common sense ways to improve each area that offer the greatest potential for measurable improvement.

In the coming weeks, we will be posting updates on the working group’s progress. Needless to say, we are encouraged by the work the group has done so far and by the level of commitment each person has shown in improving outcomes for reentering prisoners.

Subscribe

* indicates required

Subscribe

* indicates required