North Carolina Should Reinstate Its EITC

May 13, 2013 at 4:04 pm

The Tax Foundation’s Elizabeth Malm recently expressed concern on an issue about which we have already weighed in — North Carolina’s decision in March to eliminate its Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which provides important support for low-wage working families.  Before we get to Malm, here’s what you need to know:

North Carolina ended the credit as of next year, which will mean a tax hike for 900,000 working households, most of them with children to support.  Adding insult to injury, policymakers also cut the credit for this, its last year on the books, from 5 percent of the federal credit to 4.5 percent, shrinking an already modest benefit.

I wrote in February about the harm that this action would cause to North Carolina’s struggling working families — at a time when the state had just slashed its unemployment benefits and while lawmakers were considering eliminating the estate tax that’s levied on just 23 of North Carolina’s wealthiest estates.

At a recent debate, Malm described regressivity as “a very important concern” and cited the EITC as “one way that we can mitigate the regressivity concerns that do come up when we think about reducing the income tax.”  Malm and CBPP Senior Fellow Jared Bernstein agreed that North Carolina should revisit its decision to eliminate the EITC.

Meanwhile, the state will likely eliminate its estate tax, and lawmakers are considering major tax plans that would force low-income families to pay a greater share of their income in taxes while reducing the taxes of the wealthiest North Carolinians.  They should rethink tax cuts for the wealthy, especially when they come at the expense of tax credits like the EITC that help working families support themselves.

Print Friendly

More About Erica Williams

Erica Williams

Erica Williams joined the Center in August 2009 as a Policy Analyst with the State Fiscal Project

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact

five − = 4

 characters available