You are here

State Earned Income Tax Credits and Minimum Wages Work Best Together

February 7, 2018

As state legislative sessions begin, policymakers can help build an economy that works for everyone by adopting or strengthening two policy tools at their disposal:  state earned income tax credits (EITCs) and state minimum wages.  These are the twin pillars of making work pay for families that earn low wages.  They boost income, widen the path to the middle class, and reduce the gap between high- and low-income households.  They help women and communities of color — two groups that disproportionately work in low-wage jobs — see the fruits of their labor and share more fully in economic growth.  And they help build a stronger future economy by putting children on a better path in life.  The increased income helps working parents better meet the needs of their children, and as a result those children do better in school and earn more in adulthood.[1]

Strengthening either a state’s minimum wage or a state EITC will boost incomes for low-wage working families, but these improvements are particularly effective in combination: 

  • State minimum wages and EITCs reach overlapping but different populations.  Each supports families and individuals that the other doesn’t reach.  For example, EITCs primarily target low-income families with children and are available to working families earning up to more than three and a half times a full-time minimum wage worker’s annual salary of $14,500.  The minimum wage, in contrast, targets the very lowest-wage workers, regardless of factors like total family income, family status, or age.
  • Increasing both at the same time provides added support to the working families who need it most.  Together, a minimum wage boost and a robust state EITC can move families beyond poverty and further down the road to economic security.  A minimum wage increase provides the added benefit of increasing the EITC for some families.
  • Workers receive the benefits of the two policies on different schedules.  An expanded minimum wage increases every paycheck, which helps workers cover routine expenses like food, monthly bills, and rent.  State EITCs are paid at tax time and can be used for larger, one-time expenses, like car repairs or a security deposit.  
  • A combination allows the public and private sectors to share the cost of boosting workers’ incomes.  The EITC’s cost is largely borne by state government, and by extension state taxpayers.  The state minimum wage is borne principally by the private sector, especially employers and consumers.  Improving both policies spreads the cost of making work pay more broadly than does either policy alone.

Recent improvements to the federal EITC and the federal Child Tax Credit (CTC), as well as less recent increases in the federal minimum wage, have helped many low-income working families across the country move closer to or above the poverty line.  But we need to do more to get working families and individuals on a path to financial stability and self-sufficiency.  State lawmakers can use their own policy tools to help keep people working, increase incomes, and reduce financial hardship.  

Many states have raised their minimum wage in the past couple of years, and several states have strengthened their EITCs.  Oregon expanded both in 2016 and Rhode Island did so in 2015.[2] In 2014, three states — Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island — plus the District of Columbia strengthened both. Other states also should look to advance the two policies in tandem for the biggest impact.  No state enacted a new law raising the minimum wage in 2017, but states still made progress.  Several of the raises of the past few years included ongoing cost of living adjustments that raised wages for workers in ten states in 2017, and will increase wages in 18 states by 2023.  In addition, three states adopted new EITCs in 2017 to boost income — Montana, Hawaii, and South Carolina — and another three states — California, Illinois, and Minnesota — substantially expanded their credits.

Wages Have Stalled for Low-Wage Workers

Low wages make it hard for working families to afford basics like decent housing in safe neighborhoods, nutritious food, reliable transportation, and quality child care, as well as educational opportunities that can move working families toward the middle class.  But the wages of workers paid the least are not much higher than they were over 40 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.

For the most part, wages have stagnated or declined over this period, with the only period of sustained growth coming from the late 1990s to the early 2000s.[3]  Wages fell during the Great Recession and didn’t tick back up again until 2014 and 2015.  In 2016, the 20th percentile wage (that is, the wage that exceeds the bottom 20 percent of wages) was 3.6 percent higher than in 1973 and 0.4 percent lower than in 2007.  The 10th percentile wage was 6.6 percent higher than in 1973 and 2.6 percent higher than 2007, likely due to the state minimum wage increases of the past few years. (See Figure 1.)  To put those gains into context, wages at the bottom have barely budged when compared with robust productivity growth over that same time period (productivity has increased 73.7 percent since 1973).[4]  In other words, many workers are not sharing in the benefits of economic growth.


Figure 1
Wages for Low-Paid Workers Same as Over 40 Years Ago


Instead, those benefits have been concentrated at the top.  Looking at income from all sources, after taxes and adjusted for inflation, the richest 1 percent of households have seen extraordinary income growth since 1979, peaking at 314 percent in 2007.  The Great Recession substantially reduced these gains, but incomes still grew four times faster for the top 1 percent of households than for the poorest households between 1979 and 2013.  (See Figure 2.) 


Figure 2
Income Gains at the Top Dwarf Those of Low- and Middle-Income Households


This glaring disparity has major consequences.  If the incomes of all households had grown at the same rate between 1979 and 2013, roughly 22 million fewer people would have been below the poverty line in 2013 (about 23 million, as opposed to the actual figure of 45 million) and the 2013 poverty rate would have been 7.4 percent (as opposed to the actual figure of 14.5 percent).[5]  The disparity in income growth has had a much bigger impact on the poverty rate than other commonly cited factors like demographic changes and increases in the number of families headed by single mothers.

The failure of economic growth to reach low-wage workers particularly affects women and people of color.  Women, for example, comprise less than half of the total workforce but roughly 3 out of 5 workers in occupations with low pay.  African American and Latino women comprise about twice as big a share of the low-wage workforce as they do of the workforce as a whole. [6]  And African American and Latino workers in general are far more likely than white workers to earn poverty-level wages.[7]  

Persistent inequality and barriers to higher-paying jobs for women and people of color also have inter-generational implications.  The effects of low pay and poverty can last a lifetime for children.  Relative to their better-off peers, poor children do less well in school, complete fewer years of education, and work less (and earn less) as adults.  One reason appears to be that poor children are more likely to be in poor health, which can affect their ability to learn and sometimes carries into adulthood.[8]  Another reason is the stress associated with poverty.  Unsafe neighborhoods, unstable housing, hunger, and other hardships associated with poverty can affect children’s still-developing brains, impeding their social and emotional development and ability to learn.[9]

States Have Tools to Foster Broadly Shared Prosperity

State policymakers can partially address stagnant wages, hardship, and extreme income inequality by enacting or expanding a state EITC and by raising their state’s minimum wage and maintaining its real value over time by indexing it to inflation.  Both policies would buoy workers and their families and help them meet basic needs.  These policies should also support local businesses and economies, since low- and moderate-income households spend (rather than save) most of what they earn to cover living costs.

Enacting or Expanding State EITCs

Federal and state EITCs go to low-income working families and individuals.  Together with the federal credit, state EITCs:

  • Help working families make ends meet. Many low-wage jobs fail to provide sufficient income on which to live.  “Refundable” EITCs, which give working households the full value of the credit they earn even if it exceeds their income tax liability, provide low-income workers with a needed income boost that can help them meet basic needs.  
  • Keep families working. EITCs help low-wage working families pay for things that allow them to work, like child care and transportation. They are also structured to encourage the lowest-earning families to work more hours. Research demonstrates that unmarried mothers, in particular, work more hours as a result of the credit.  That extra time and experience in the working world can translate into better opportunities and higher pay over time.[10]  Three of every five recipients of the federal credit use it temporarily — for just one or two years at a time — while they get on their feet.[11]
  • Figure 3
    Higher Earned Income Tax Credit or Other Income for Poor Children Expected to Boost Work and Earnings Later in Life

    Reduce poverty, especially among children.  Nearly 9 million children in working families lived below the official poverty line (about $24,000 for a family of four) in 2016;[12] millions of families modestly above that income level have difficulty affording food, housing, and other necessities. The federal EITC is one of the nation’s most effective tools to reduce the struggles of low-income working families and children, particularly for unmarried women with children.  It kept 5.8 million people — over half of them children — out of poverty in 2016, and helped many with slightly higher incomes make ends meet.  And by boosting the employment of working-age parents, particularly women, the EITC also increases their Social Security retirement benefits and thereby reduces poverty among seniors.[13]  State EITCs build on that record.

  • Have a lasting effect. Young children in low-income families that get an income boost like the EITC provides tend to do better and go further in school because the additional resources help parents better meet their needs. (See Figure 3.)  Research suggests that boys and children of color particularly benefit.[14]  And because children in low-income families that receive EITCs attain more skills and education, they tend to work more and earn more as adults.  This helps communities and the economy because it means more people and families are on solid ground and fewer need help over the long haul.

State EITCs also help to address skewed state tax systems that require low- and moderate-income families to pay a larger share of their income in taxes than high-income families. 

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have EITCs.  (See Table 1.)  In 2017, Montana, Hawaii, and South Carolina created new credits, and California, Illinois, and Minnesota substantially expanded theirs.  In 2016, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island boosted this critical support for working families. In 2015, California adopted an EITC and Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island expanded their credits.

Increasing State Minimum Wages and Indexing Them for Inflation

Like the EITC, higher minimum wages can boost income and set children on a better path in life.  They also boost working households’ purchasing power, which is good for the economy.

The federal minimum wage is the nation’s wage floor.  Many states set their minimum wage equal to the federal minimum wage; other states have a lower minimum wage or no minimum wage at all, in which case the federal minimum wage becomes the default for most workers.[15]

Yet the federal minimum wage hasn’t kept pace with the cost of living.  It is currently 25 percent below its peak value in 1968, after adjusting for inflation.  (See Figure 4.)  Today, a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage and supporting two children lives below the poverty line.


Figure 4
Purchasing Power of Minimum Wage Has Not Kept Pace With Inflation


Raising the minimum wage would greatly improve the outlook for the nation’s lowest-wage workers in sectors of the economy that have seen little to no wage growth.  A 2015 proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 by 2020 and index it to the nation’s median wage, and to bring the tipped worker wage ($2.13 per hour) into line with the standard minimum wage over ten years, would boost wages directly for 28.4 million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).  The vast majority of affected workers would be adults, the large majority without a college degree, and over half of them women and full-time workers.  Over half of all workers benefitting would be white, yet more than one-third of African American and Latino workers would benefit, compared with one-fifth of white workers.  The raise would be enough to keep a family of four with one minimum-wage earner above the poverty line.[16]  EPI also estimated that the proposed increase would push up wages for another 6.7 million workers earning slightly more than the proposed $12 per hour, since employers typically increase the wages of workers slightly above the new minimum.  

States shouldn’t wait for the federal government to raise the minimum wage when they can improve the lives of their state’s workers now.  Many have done just that.  In 2016, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Washington increased their minimum wages via ballot initiative and California and Oregon raised theirs with legislative approval.  Rhode Island raised its minimum wage again in 2015.  In 2014, 14 states adopted a minimum wage increase — Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.[17]  Major cities like Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., increased their minimum wages to $15 per hour, as did smaller cities like Minneapolis, Minnesota; SeaTac, Washington; and Flagstaff, Arizona.  And many other cities have adopted smaller increases in the last couple of years.[18] In addition, 18 states have adopted cost of living adjustments to their minimum wages — 12 of them since 2014 — that help workers keep up with expenses.  

As of December 2017, 29 states and the District of Columbia have a minimum wage higher than the federal wage, although ten of them don’t index their minimum wage to inflation.  These ten states ― Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and West Virginia ― should take that additional step to ensure that their minimum wage keeps pace with the cost of living.  And the 21 states that have no minimum wage or have set their minimum wages at or below the federal minimum should improve their minimum wage to help working families meet basic needs and get ahead.

State EITCs and Minimum Wages
State EITC as Share of Federal EITC
Minimum Wage
(As of January 1, 2018)
Minimum Wage
Indexed to Inflation?
Alabama None Noneb No
Alaska None $9.84 Yes
Arizona None $10.50a As of Jan. 2021
Arkansas None $8.50 No
California 85% up to 50% of federal
phase-in rangec
$11.00a As of Jan. 2023
Colorado 10% $10.20a As of Jan. 2021
Connecticut 23%d $10.10 No
Delaware 20% (non-refundable) $8.25 No
District of Columbia 40% 100% (workers not raising children)e $12.50a As of Jul. 2021
Florida None $8.25 Yes
Georgia None $5.15b No
Hawaii          20% (non-refundable) $10.10 No
Idaho None $7.25 No
Illinois 18% $8.25 No
Indiana 9%f $7.25 No
Iowa 15% $7.25 No
Kansas 17% $7.25 No
Kentucky None $7.25 No
Louisiana 3.5% Noneb No
Maine 5% $10.00a As of Jan. 2021
Maryland 28%g $9.25a No
Massachusetts 23% $11.00 No
Michigan 6% $9.25a As of Jan. 2019
Minnesota Avg. 34%h $9.65 (large businesses) $7.87 (small businesses) Yes
Mississippi None Noneb No
Missouri None $7.85 Yes
Montana 3%i $8.30 (large businesses) $4.00 (small businesses) Yes
Nebraska 10% $9.00 No
Nevada None $8.25 (without healthcare coverage) $7.25 (with healthcare coverage) Yes
New Hampshire None Noneb No
New Jersey 35% $8.60 Yes
New Mexico 10% $7.50 No
New York 30% $10.40a No
North Carolina None $7.25 No
North Dakota None $7.25 No
Ohio 10% (non-refundable)j $8.30 (large businesses) $7.25 (small businesses) Yes
Oklahoma 5% (non-refundable) $7.25 (large businesses) $2.00 (small businesses) No
Oregon 8% 11% (workers with children under 3)k $10.25a As of Jul. 2023
Pennsylvania None $7.25 No
Rhode Island 15% $10.10 No
South Carolina 20.83% (non-refundable)l Noneb No
South Dakota None $8.85 Yes
Tennessee None Noneb No
Texas None $7.25 No
Utah None $7.25 No
Vermont 32% $10.50 Yes
Virginia 20% (non-refundable) $7.25 No
Washington 10% (when implemented)m $11.50a As of Jan. 2021
West Virginia None $8.75 No
Wisconsin 4% - one child
11% - two children
34% - three children
No credit - childless workers
  $7.25   No
Wyoming None $5.15b No

a These states have scheduled increases over the next several years. Maryland’s will reach $10.10 by July 2018. The minimum wages of Arizona, Colorado, and Maine will rise to $12.00 per hour and that of Washington State to $13.50 by Jan. 2020; the District of Columbia’s will reach $15.00 by July of that year.  California’s minimum wage will rise to $15.00 by Jan. 2022 and Oregon’s to $13.50 that year. New York’s minimum wage will reach $12.50 by the end of Dec. 2020 and then rise with the cost of living until it hits $15.00 per hour. Annual inflation adjustments in Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington State will resume after full increases in their minimum wages take effect.

b States whose minimum wages fall below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 are subject to the federal minimum wage.

c California’s credit is available to working families and individuals with wage income below $22,300 depending on family size. The credit is worth 85 percent of a household’s federal EITC until household income reaches half of the level at which the federal credit is fully phased in; it then begins phasing out at varying rates, depending on family size. The value of the credit will be set each year by the legislature.

d Connecticut cut its EITC to 23 percent in November 2017 as part of its budget for fiscal year 2019.

e The District of Columbia now offers a credit equal to 100 percent of the federal EITC to adults without dependent children with incomes up to twice the poverty line (for an individual).

f Indiana decoupled from federal provisions expanding the EITC for families with three or more children and raising the income phase-out for married couples.

g Maryland also offers a non-refundable EITC set at 50 percent of the federal credit.  Taxpayers in effect may claim either the refundable credit or the non-refundable credit, but not both.

h Minnesota’s credit for families with children, unlike the other credits shown in this table, is structured as a percentage of income rather than a percentage of the federal credit. It does not include the federal EITC’s features of a larger credit for families with three or more children or a higher income phase-out for married couples. The average given here reflects total projected state spending for the Working Family Credit divided by projected federal spending on the EITC in Minnesota as modeled by Minnesota’s House Research Department; this average fluctuates from year to year.

i Montana’s EITC will take effect in 2019.

j Ohio’s EITC is non-refundable and limited to half of income taxes owed on income above $20,000.

k Oregon’s EITC is set to expire at the end of tax year 2019. In 2016, lawmakers increased the credit for workers with children 3 years and younger to 11 percent of the federal credit.

l South Carolina’s EITC will be phased in in six equal installments starting in 2018, to reach 125 percent of the federal credit by 2023. This credit is nonrefundable and is less generous than a 5 percent refundable EITC because workers with very low incomes tend to have little to no tax liability.

m Washington’s EITC has never been implemented, but would likely be worth 10 percent of the federal credit or $50, whichever is greater

Source: CBPP, Economic Policy Institute, National Conference of State Legislatures, and CBPP analysis of state minimum wage laws.


State EITC and Minimum Wage Improvements Go Hand in Hand

Oregon expanded its state EITC and minimum wage in 2016; Rhode Island did so in 2015 and 2014; the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Minnesota did so in 2014.  While improving either policy helps low-wage workers, improving both in combination produces complementary benefits and goes much further to make work pay.

  • State minimum wages and EITCs reach overlapping but different populations.  The EITC and minimum wage are targeted differently, so enacting or improving both policies in tandem will reach more workers than either on its own.  For example, the EITC targets low-income working families with children.  Workers without children working full-time, year-round at the minimum wage are eligible only for a federal EITC worth about $27 and are ineligible for the credit if they are younger than 25 or older than 64.  Higher minimum wages, in contrast, benefit low-wage workers regardless of age, presence of children in the household, or total family income.

    Similarly, while the minimum wage is focused on workers with the very lowest wages, the EITC remains available (albeit at gradually declining levels) to families as their income rises.  (Of course, some minimum wage workers are also in families with higher incomes.)  The EITC also reaches some workers not covered by minimum wage laws, such as domestic workers and farm workers.

  • Increasing both at the same time provides added support to the working families who need it most.  Families modestly above the poverty line often can’t meet basic needs.  Improving state EITCs and minimum wages together not only helps more families climb out of poverty, but also helps working families get further down the road to economic security. [19]

    For example, a two-parent, two-child family with one full-time, year-round minimum wage worker claiming the federal EITC and Child Tax Credit has after-tax income below the poverty line ($24,600 for a family of four).  Adding in a state EITC set at 30 percent of the federal credit leaves this family just shy (at 91 percent) of the poverty line.  Alternatively, boosting the family’s hourly wage to $12 through a minimum wage increase would raise its income substantially above (121 percent of) poverty.  And a working family that benefits from both policies takes an even bigger step forward, seeing its income rise by close to one-third, to 128 percent of the poverty line.  (See Figure 5.)

    In addition, for families with very low earnings, a higher state minimum wage boosts their federal and state EITCs, which rise with every additional dollar earned until reaching the maximum credit.[20]  For example, even a small minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $7.75 for a single mother with two children working 35 hours per week would raise her federal EITC by $360.

  • Workers receive the benefits of the two policies on different schedules.  The EITC offers an annual, lump-sum payment when a family files income taxes.  This payment helps many families afford major expenses like car repairs or a security deposit that facilitates a move to a better neighborhood, or it can provide them with funds to build a savings account.[21]  An increase to the minimum wage, on the other hand, provides a boost year-round with every paycheck, helping working families afford monthly expenses like rent, utilities, and child care.
  • A combination approach allows the public and private sectors to share the cost of boosting workers’ incomes.  Strengthening both the EITC and the minimum wage in the same general timeframe ensures that the cost of “making work pay” is more broadly shared.  The EITC’s cost is largely borne by state government, and by extension state taxpayers, while the cost of a state minimum wage is borne primarily by the private sector, especially employers and consumers.[22]  (Where costs ultimately fall is not as straightforward as it might seem, given the interplay of the two policies and other programs for low-income workers.  For example, a minimum wage increase will boost some workers’ federal and state EITCs, thereby raising the cost of providing a state EITC but also adding EITC dollars into workers’ pockets and the state economy, which in turn would raise state tax collections.)   


Figure 5
States Can Make Work Pay by Boosting EITC and Minimum Wage


A higher state EITC and a higher state minimum wage individually offer significant support to many low-income workers.  States are right to consider strengthening these policies, which help make work pay and struggling families make ends meet.  But a strong state EITC and an increased minimum wage are even more powerful, and support more working people, when combined. 

End Notes

[1] See discussion of the research in Chuck Marr et al., “EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Children’s Development, Research Finds,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated October 1, 2015,

[2] In 2017, Oregon also passed a bill that requires wage statements, workplace wage and hour posters, and the Department of Revenue’s website to offer information about how to claim the EITC. However, this bill did not expand the size or eligible populations of the credit.

[3] Josh Bivens et al., “Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge,” Economic Policy Institute, June 4, 2014,

[4] Economic Policy Institute, “The Productivity-Pay Gap,” updated October 2017,

[5] Elise Gould, Alyssa Davis, and Will Kimball, “Broad Based Wage Growth Key Tool in Fight Against Poverty,” Economic Policy Institute, May 20, 2015, CBPP calculated the number of people who would have been above the poverty line using Census data on the rate of poverty and number of poor in 2013.

[6] Low wages are defined here as $11.00 per hour. See National Women’s Law Center, “Low-Wage Jobs Are Women’s Jobs: The Overrepresentation Of Women In Low-Wage Work,” August 2017,

[7] Poverty-level wages are defined here as $11.70 or less per hour. Economic Policy Institute Data Library, Poverty-Level Wages,*&r=*.

[8] Marr et al., and Arloc Sherman, Danilo Trisi, and Sharon Parrott, “Various Supports for Low-Income Families Reduce Poverty and Have Long-Term Positive Effects On Families and Children,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 30, 2013,

[9] Sherman, Trisi, and Parrott, 2013.

[10] David Neumark and Peter Shirley, “The Long-Run Effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit on Women’s Earnings,” University of California-Irvine Economic Self-Sufficiency Policy Research Institute, December 18, 2017,

[11] Marr et al.

[12] According to Census’ Current Population Survey, 8.9 million poor children had at least one working parent in 2016.

[13] Molly Dahl et al., “The Earned Income Tax Credit and Expected Social Security Retirement Benefits Among Low-Income Women,” Congressional Budget Office, March 5, 2012,

[14] Marr et al.

[15] Some workers are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and are therefore are not covered by the minimum wage or other provisions of the Act.  For a listing of workers exempt from the minimum wage, see:

[16] David Cooper, “Raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2024 would lift wages for 41 million American workers,” Economic Policy Institute, April 26, 2017,

[17] For more detail on state minimum wage activity in 2017, see:

[18] Yannet Lathrop, “Raises From Coast To Coast In 2018: Workers In 18 States And 19 Cities And Counties Seeing Minimum Wage Increases On January 1,” National Employment Law Project, December 19, 2017,

[19] A 2011 study by David Neumark and William Wascher finds that a higher minimum wage enhances the employment and earnings boost that single mothers aged 21-44 get from the EITC.  It also finds that for some childless workers (primarily those who are poorly educated and aged 21-34), the two policies may combine to reduce employment and earnings, for two reasons.  First, because the EITC encourages single mothers to enter the workforce, raising it can increase job competition and reduce wages for childless workers, who don’t benefit much from the EITC. This could be remedied by expanding the EITC for childless workers, as former President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan proposed.  (The District of Columbia recently expanded its EITC for childless workers.)  Second, a higher minimum wage can result in job losses for the same general group of individuals.  Other studies, however, have shown minimal negative employment effects of raising the minimum wage, and on net, an income boost for low-wage workers.  See David Card, “Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 46, no. 1, 1992; and David Card and Alan Kreuger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage, Princeton University Press, 1995.  Also see Dale Belman and Paul J. Wolfson, What Does the Minimum Wage Do?, Upjohn Institute Press, 2014.  For a discussion of a range of studies, see John Schmitt, “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2013,

[20] For some EITC families with relatively higher overall family income from multiple workers, an earnings bump from a higher minimum wage could result in a smaller EITC if their income enters the range at which the credit begins to phase out (about $24,000 for a married-couple family with two kids).

[21] See Ruby Mendenhall et al., “The Role of Earned Income Tax Credit in the Budgets of Low-income Families,” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series, June 2010,; Andrew Goodman-Bacon and Leslie McGranahan, “How Do EITC Recipients Spend their Refunds?” Economic Perspectives, Vol. 32 No. 2, 2008, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,; Timothy Smeeding et al., “The EITC: Expectation, Knowledge, Use, and Economic and Social Mobility,” National Tax Journal, December 2000,

[22] While the costs of both an EITC and a higher minimum wage ultimately are borne by individuals, a combined approach assures that precisely which individuals pay will be more varied than it otherwise would be.