Talk:Earned income tax credit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Impact

I don't see how the deleted portion was biased or in any way bad (it was an official government website which was cited) and I think that it demonstrates the fact that the EITC has a huge impact on the working poor. I don't see why it shouldn't be included, so I've added it back in. Jackson744 06:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are 2006 EITC parameters?

I've just spent several hours trying to dig up the precise parameters for the 2006 tax year EITC (i.e., for each filing status, what is the ramp up rate, the maxiumum credit, and the phrase out rate). I've found historical data, which I've linked to, but nothing from the last couple of years. Any hints? The article gives some of the information, but I'd like to include more or it, as well as a citation of a more official source for the figures. -- Ryguasu 06:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found some figures here that the Tax Policy Center has assembled. Good stuff, and I've referenced it in the article. I still wish there were a source on a government website, though. You'd think the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office, the Weighs and Means Committee, or somewhere, would put it on their site. It appears to be hard to locate. The Tax Policy Center, for its 2006 figures, cites http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-05-70.pdf as the source of its figured. The document's header says "26 CFR 601.602", and a bit of sleuthing reveals that CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations, and that title 26 pertains to "Internal Revenue". I don't want to cite this document in the article, however, because I don't understand its legal status. Is it the sort of thing that could be ammended after publication, for instance? I don't know. There should really be a more nicely formatted document out there, one with a header that would make it trivial to discern what the document is about and who publishes it. -- Ryguasu 26 January 2007

Graphs?

I've seen a few presentations of the EITC that include a graph of how the credit varies with income. I'm wondering if one would be appropriate here. http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-06tax.htm has an example graph. This graph has the caption "Source: Congressional Budget Office", which might mean the graph is produced by the Office, in which case it's in the public domain. But maybe we'd need to make our own graph. Ryguasu 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename this article

This article should be renamed to Earned Income Tax Credit (note the capitalizations). ~ UBeR 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Euros?

"the UK EITC is worth up to 6150 Euros" - given that the UK does not use the euro, and so the exchange rate is variable, a date should have been included here to say *when* it was €6150. 81.159.58.245 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a Worldwide POV

This article primarily deals with the EITC in the US. The article should be renamed "Earned income tax credit in the U.S." and the other countries should be taken out. If they want to have an entry about the EITC in general, then make that a separate article and talk about the other countries there. 12.227.254.234 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Military

The little blurb about the Military sounds like it is coming from someone who wants to express their personal opinion against the military receiving the EITC, or perhaps even bitter that they receive it. The comment about WIC is also pulled from out of nowhere. Then they bring in the subject of deployments and taxes. These statements can easily be interpreted as a statements to back up a specific viewpoint. Even though this person never mentions their opinions, the facts are presented in a way to persuade a reader of their opinion. 12.227.254.234 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Impact: "Economists suggest..." -- does this count as a source?

I may have found the origin of this passage -- the first part is a word-for-word match for http://acorn.org/fileadmin/ACORN_Reports/State_Reports/massachusetts.pdf . Possibly some other regional report is the origin as that would explain the different dollar number. My question is whether that is an acceptable source under Wikipedia's guidelines. It's not really an authority on economics and I don't know what their source is. 24.118.231.159 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of adding more texture and more color to the article, provided we don't show so much deference to the status quo. That seems to be the default position of wiki. We very quickly and very nervously decide what the 'mainstream' view is, then we seemingly demand huge evidence to move millimeter from it.

By all means, identify the quote as ACORN, and include a very juicy ACORN quote (even if it's long), and a number of other interesting quotes as well. It's not just two sides. Like a gem, there are many interesting sides. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Too abstract: missing examples

The article should add examples with the situation before and after for low-income earners making e.g. $5,000 and $10,000 including all other taxes.

The explaination of how EITC works is unclear. Do you get the refund in cash the year after? Is it deducted from other taxes: payroll taxes ? state taxes?

What is the total tax burden for these people?

The figure is impossible to understand for non-neoclassical economists.

MaxPont 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's do some numbers for tax year 2006.

$5,000 income, no children --> $384 earned income credit

$5,000 income, one child --> $1,709 earned income credit

$5,000 income, two or more children --> $2,010 earned income credit

$10,000 income, no children, single --> $160 earned income credit

$10,000 income, no children, married joint --> $313 earned income credit

$10,000 income, one child --> $2,747 earned income credit

$10,000 income, two or more children --> $4,010

(For claiming the credit with child(ren) at $10,000, it doesn't matter whether you're married or not because you're not yet in phase-out range.)

Most people get the credit in cash when they file their taxes toward the beginning of the next year (after they receive their W-2s late January or early February). A few people get it throughout the year by filing a W-5.

For a person or couple without income children, EIC exactly matches the 7.65% paid in social security. For people with children, it's considerably more. As far as other taxes, it would take a substantial economic discussion. Low-income persons typically rent rather than own housing and thus indirectly pay property taxes, plus do not have the tax benefit of deducting mortgage interest. Then there's the interesting thesis that the poor pay more: for groceries at stores located in low-income neighborhoods, for washing clothes at laundromats rather than buying their own machines, etc, etc. And most of all, I hope we can discuss the seeming observation that modern economies do not create enough jobs, much less enough good jobs.

And for the person who said a graph would be helpful, I heartily second the motion! [1] This is a good basic graph, although now a couple of years old.

FriendlyRiverOtter 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For childless couples, the EIC indeed amounts to a refund of the FICA tax owed on personal account. But the maximum income for which this is the case is only $5600, about what a college student can expect to make on a decent summer job, and much less than a year's earnings from a full time job paying the minimum wage. Little known fact: one cannot purchase very cheap slummy housing with a mortgage, because such properties cannot pass the inspection lenders require. Hence the shacks on the dark side of town are bought with cash. Hence the the deductibility of mortgage interest and property taxes is irrelevant for EIC recipients. The poor do indeed pay higher retail prices. There are fewer stores, and no Walmarts, where they live. The poor often cannot research where the lowest prices are, because of limited literacy. They often either do not drive or minimize their driving. The American economy creates lots of jobs, but jobs for unsophisticated people usually do not pay well. That's why the EIC was created, as a wage subsidy for the working poor. It rewards having one adult in a household with children working at a low wage job. In mid-2009, the annual minimum wage, assuming 2000hours/year, will be $14500; the EIC phase-out range for households with children began at $15400 in 2007. The downside is a substantially higher marginal tax rate for those in the range where the EIC declines.123.255.60.35 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd want to explore is NAIRU, which stands for Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. This is basically the technical version of the idea that some unemployment is "necessary" in a modern economy. And maybe it is. I just want to question it and not merely accept it on face value. And if it turns out to in fact be the case, then I'd want to ask a whole separate set of questions about fairness, inclusion, open fields, living large, etc, etc, much more serious than they're usually asked. (Maybe an economy that's 70% capitalism and 30% socialism, and at least we can ask the questions.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RALs, H&R Block, Tax Season 2003, “debt offset,” 2 out of 100

RAL is a Refund Anticipation Loan. I worked in a New England branch of H&R Block from January to April 2003 and did about 220 individual returns.

First the good parts. Some of the customers were an absolute delight and would tend to really open up toward the end of the interview. One farmer, after we had talked about animals earlier, showed me a picture of his cat and said, 'That's my Friend.' One young woman, who was making pretty modest income that year, shared with me her hopes of going to nursing school. And my co-workers impressed me as very dedicated individuals. Looking back on a number of discussions, Wow, we really wanted to get it right. As it ended up, since we were in a college town, the single most useful bit of advice that I was able to give clients was, Yes, you can still get it with a loan. As long as you are responsible for the debt, you can still get either the Hope Scholarship Credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit for tuition paid for by a student loan (as long as you qualify otherwise of course!).

What wasn't so cool were the refund loans. First off, the interest rates were really high, "85% interest," "65% interest," "126% interest." And then, these interest rates were not disclosed until the end of the whole process, when the client had already done an half hour's work in answering questions, many of them personal.

Then there were fees that were not included in the interest rate. There was a fee on the part of H&R Block and there was a bank fee, the two of them totalling just shy of 61 dollars. These were over and above the actual tax prep fees.

Then, two people had ALL of their money taken by the bank! This was called "debt offset," and that's all the information the bank would tell either the client or us when we called. This wasn't child support. This wasn't a delinquent student loan. This was the bank collecting consumer debt, either credit card, cell phone, whatever (this industry practice is also called "cross collection"). One man was due a refund of about $1200 and got none of it from the bank. One lady was due a refund of about $4500 and got none of it from the bank. She was in tears on the phone. They were both my clients. Out of my grand total of 220 clients for the season, these two were in a subset of approximately 100 who took a bank product. So maybe someone who's good in statistics can tell us, if we hit two times out of a hundred in a sampling, what's the range it easily could hit if that sampling is taken many, many times, and what's our percentage confidence in that interval. To me, it could easily have been zero, it could have easily been five.

And no, this was not adequately disclosed. It was buried in a long loan application in vague language.

The bank was Household Finance. They are one of a few large banks who serve Block and other large national tax preparers. The situation is more of an oligopoly than it is of genuine competition.

I don't think we can fully discuss Earned Income Credit without discussing RALs. When we discuss the big aggregate numbers (and we're a big country with 300 million people, and just like with Social Security, the aggregate numbers are going to be big numbers), a certain percentage of that money is being skimmed off the top and going to banks. In fact, a case could be made that RALs are the engine which drive the tax prep industry.

This article is not SUPPOSED to be about the tax preparation industry! It's supposed to be about the Earned Income Credit. I can't believe there is so much discussion over the "Tax Preparation companies" exploiting Earned Income Credit clients, yet there is little to no discussion of the ridiculous amount of Fraud the EITC creates...Hsox05 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(People's most common complaint was that they did not get the loan after having their hope built up, and seemingly for stupid reasons when they had a perfectly good tax return. They then didn't have to pay the interest, but they were still stuck with the bank and had to pay the account fees. They got their money--most times!--when the IRS issued the refund in one to two weeks.)FriendlyRiverOtter 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Different company, 2007, “cross-collection,” 0 out of 75, probably

I worked for another national tax preparer in a later year. Out of approximately 75 clients of mine who took out a loan product, none of them got hit with cross-collection, I think. I do not know this for absolutely sure, since the office was not as open and participatory as the previous one, but I’m reasonably sure, and I’m going to go with those numbers: 0 out of 75.

If we consider the population to be all persons who took out loan products for their tax refunds during the previous five years, my two experiences can be viewed as small samples. Someone excellent with statistics could give us an estimated range of where the entire population is likely to fall, say within 95% confidence. I suspect that this estimated range will be somewhat broad.

And I wish to apologize to you, my reader, for not including this information earlier. I had originally wanted to write a narrative like the above (a narrative that might give ideas for Internet searches), but the situation was just too messy, awkward, and personal. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This section was removed by a wiki user on Feb 12, 2009, who cited not related to improving article. Re-added by FriendlyRiverOtter on July 9, 2009. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I came of age in the 1970s where one of the slogans was--"The personal is the Political!" To me, that's good advice. Keep it real. Now, I realize the above does not have clickable links. But then again, I'm not putting it on the main article page, I'm putting it here on the discussion page. And if nothing else, yes, it can give us ideas for Internet searches.

Now, the plot thickens, 75 clients, no cross-collection, but about 5 clients were blue-carded. The company had been under pressure, hey, you've got to let people know if you're going to debt collect. Generally, the company's response was to officially include it amongst about 8 pieces of paper they asked the client to sign, but not really inform the client. But, perhaps because of lawsuits, the company began handing blue cards to clients when their social security number brought up debt owed. And that could mean anything from IRS debt, to student loans, to prefile loans when everything was going smoothly, to the much broader category of consumer debt HSBC collects for, including credit card debt (which the IRS could care less about). In keeping with the general lack of communication, we were not told. From the customer's perspective, they were denied the loan. It's not even on their radar screen that their entire refund can be potentially grabbed by the bank for purposes of third party debt collection. Not on their radar screen! In fact, it's hard to get this across to clients when you try to communicate. That's just too much a bolt from the blue. And sometimes it's even hard to get this across to fellow tax preparers who do not work for a store front doing RALs. No, no, it's not just not being approved for a loan, there is a bigger downside than that.

To the best of my knowledge, as of 2009, HSBC and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust are the only two banks doing RALs in the United States. This is true whether the client goes to H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, a smaller chain, or an independent practitioner. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RAL section

This section needs to be COMPLETELY removed from this article. It has NOTHING to do with Earned Income Credit. Someone that makes 500,000 dollars can apply for a Refund Anticipation Loan if they want. That entire paragraph is written to belittle tax preparation companies and that has zero to do with EIC. Someone have any reason that it should stay?Hsox05 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will reply to my own statement by saying that I don't really have too much opposition to a link to the Refund Anticipation Loan article itself, but the wording of the paragraph on this article is so inflammatory it's not even funny. Or worthy of an encyclopedia.Hsox05 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The dryest recitation of facts . . .

Please keep in mind, this is not me saying this about RALs (the inflammatory parts). This is California Attorney General Bill Lockyer! This is IRS Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen. Now, there was a part "all the other fees," and which should probably be more simply stated just as "the other fees." And the section had said something along the lines 'notably credit card debt.' That may well be the case. When Bank A collects for Bank B, it may well be for any delinquent debt, but I don't see see where the references are saying that. So, for the time being, we should probably leave out that part. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For links on RALs, please see Talk:Refund anticipation loan. This has more than 10 links, including some really good ones. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation in California, no state EIC, but . . .

it looks like the state has a child care credit http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2009/09_3506.pdf http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/03_forms/03_3506ins.pdf

(And looks like the California Child and Dependent Care Credit is no longer refundable.)

And because approximately one out of ten Americans lives in California (yeah, really!), it's probably worth including this. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We might now have enough additional citations

We are actually doing pretty good. I’m going to go ahead and remove the following tag:

Of course, we can always use more (for example, maybe on the debate between EIC or raising minimum wage, or some version of and/or?), and probably about ten other potentially interesting, worthwhile topics. So, again, if you have the time, please jump in and help out. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But of course we'll need help updating for 2010!

The dollar amounts are indexed for inflation, so they change. And some of the rules change, sometimes, not always. And the application of how it works in practice, and scholarship on how it works out generally. So please, jump in. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

IRS page gives a preview of next year

Preview 2010 EITC Income Limits, Maximum EITC Amount and the EITC-related Tax Law Changes., IRS, Page Last Reviewed or Updated: December 04, 2009:

" . . . Tax Year 2010 maximum credit:

• $5,666 with three or more qualifying children
• $5,036 with two qualifying children
• $3,050 with one qualifying child
• $457 with no qualifying children

"*The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides a temporary increase in EITC and expands the credit for workers with three or more qualifying children. These changes are temporary and apply to 2009 and 2010 tax years."

It's October (?), November (?) that the IRS gives the complete rules for next year. And I think it's kind of better to hold in reserve till that time. So, perhaps we can backtrack a little and make our article all 2009 for now, and then later all 2010. And . . . could use your help as always, yes you! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Age, Relationship, and Residence test to claim a qualifying "child"

A couple of surprises, such as the age test that a young person can be 18 years and 364 days on December 31th and still count as your qualifying "child." And can be up to 23 years and 364 days if full-time student for at least one long semester or equivalent (and this includes high school or college or tech school) .

There is not a support test. Now, for claiming a child as a dependent there is a watered-down support test in that the child cannot more than 50% support himself or herself. But for purposes of the EIC, there's not even this watered-down test. There are simple the three tests of age, relationship, and residence. Plus, your earned income, plus the other requirements, so it gets complicated enough. As I heard a CPA point out, the residence test has largely taken the place of the support test. And for EIC, residence test has entirely taken the place of support test.

I think we should consider whether to highlight a 'negative,' that is, something that's not a test. So for the time being, I'd like to roll the section currently entitled 'support' into the Relationship test. Let's see what that looks like.

And when the new changes for EIC come out, which will be new numbers and might be other changes, later in October (?), in November (?), we will need pretty much all the help we can get in updating our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Single, Head of Household, Qualifying Widow(er), Married Filing Jointly all are equally valid filing statuses for EIC

Currently, we so emphasize Head of Household (and yes, largely through my writing), that we make it look like it's a requirement. And that's just not the case. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps . . .

'Single, Head of Household, Qualifying Widow(er), and Married Filing Jointly are all equally valid filing statuses for EIC. In fact, depending on the income of both spouses, Married Filing Jointly can be advantageous in some circumstances because, in 2009, the phase-out for MFJ for begins at $21,450 whereas phase-out begins at $16,450 for other filing statuses. A couple who is legally married can file MFJ even if they lived apart the entire year and even if they shared no revenues or expenses, as long as both spouses agree. However, if both spouses do not agree, or if there are other circumstances such as domestic violence, a spouse who lived apart with children for the last six months of the year and who meets other requirements, can file as Head of Household.[footnote] In addition, if a person receives a divorce by Dec. 31, that will carry, . . . or "legally separated" . . .

'[footnote] A person who is legally married can file as Head of Household if the following conditions are met: The person lived apart from his or her spouse for the last six months of the year, the person paid over half the costs of keeping up a home (or several homes) for the year, the home was the main home of a child for more than half the year, and the person can claim the child as a dependent (or could but are waiving the child to the other parent). Please see pages 15-16 of 1040 Instructions 2009. And again, Head of Household status is not a requirement for EIC, it’s not even particularly advantegeous. It is just one more option to consider in some circumstances.'

Yes, if a couple is splitting up, they can use Form 8888 to direct the refund to up to three separate bank accounts (but they cannot also use 'Injuried Spouse Allocation' at the same time). But, Wow, this is a lot of details to include (and yes, even though I am the one who included them!). Yes, for an article on EIC, I think this can be viewed as a second level of complications, which can confuse perhaps as much as it clarifies. 'Furthermore, Form 8888 can be used to request direct deposit into up to three separate bank accounts[ref]Form 8888, Direct Deposit of Refund to More Than One Account A person cannot file this form if they are also filing Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation. Now, with this Direct Deposit to more than one account, if the IRS decreases the refund because of child support or student loans, that amount is subtracted from the account with the lowest routing number first, with any additional amounts being subtracted from the account with the next lowest routing number. (On the other hand, if the IRS decreases the refund because of back taxes or math error, that amount is subtracted from the account which is listed last on this form, with any additional amounts being subtracted from the next-to-last account. Or, if the IRS increases the refund because of math error, that amount is added to the account which is listed last.) With the more regular single account direct deposit, the routing number, account type (checking or savings), and account number is entered directly on the 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ. Direct deposit usually leads to a quicker refund, but it is not required.[/ref] (this typically cannot be done, however, with the loan and bank products offered by tax prep companies).'

gearing up to make some changes, mainly to shorten. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edited out, and now going to partially re-add. That part in which, if the refund is reduced for one reason, one set of rules. But if it's reduced for another reason, then another set of rules. Wow. One of the most complicated parts of tax regulations I've run across. A bog down. Our reader just comes to a stop. It becomes just a swirl of confusions. Unless someone can find a good way and really make a case, let's keep it in reserve here. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

2 year disallowance for 'reckless' claim, 10 year disallowance for fraudulent claim

1040 Instructions 2009 last paragraph in the introductory material to EIC, the Caution note, page 48 [page 49 in PDF]:

"If you take the EIC even though you are not eligible and it is determined that your error is due to reckless or intentional disregard of the EIC rules, you will not be allowed to take the credit for 2 years even if you are otherwise eligible to do so. If you fraudulently take the EIC, you will not be allowed to take the credit for 10 years. See Form 8862, who must file, that begins on page 50. You may also have to pay penalties."

And the next step is to look at page 50, well of course! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

and okay, from the bottom of page 50, top of page 51 (51 and 52 in PDF):

""Form 8862, who must file. You must file Form 8862 if your EIC for a year after 1996 was reduced or disallowed for any reason other than a math or clerical error. But do not file Form 8862 if either of the following applies.

• "You filed Form 8862 for another year, the EIC was allowed for that year, and your EIC has not been reduced or disallowed again for any reason other than a math or clerical error.
• "You are taking the EIC without a qualifying child and the only reason your EIC was reduced or disallowed in the other year was because it was determined that a child listed on Schedule EIC was not your qualifying child.
  . .
• " . . .
• " . . . "

When does the new 1040 Instructions come out?

early December? The upcoming 1040 Instructions 2010 will talk about numbers and updated rules for tax year 2010, the filing of which is traditionally due April 15, 2011.

http://www.irs.gov/

Rule changes typically have advance notice since they're based on legislation afterall. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And this page gives a preview of some of the numbers:
Preview 2010 EITC Income Limits, Maximum EITC Amount and the EITC-related Tax Law Changes., IRS, Page Last Reviewed or Updated: December 04, 2009. (yeah, the IRS kind of projects it out ahead of time, but I still want to see the old familiar format of the 1040 Instructions.)

Enough people who are eligible for EIC also apply for RALs (Refund Anticipation Loans), that it's probably worth discussing.

NATIONAL TAXPAYER ADVOCATE: 2005 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS, VOLUME 1, 31 December 2005, page 166 (174 in PDF file) [Cleveland study]:
[footnote 17] “Over 61 percent of RALs processed in 2005 included EITC funds. . . . Further, in a recent Brookings Institution study focusing on Cleveland taxpayers for Tax Year 2002, 47 percent of EITC claimants purchased RALs and ten percent of taxpayers without EITC purchased RALs. Alan Berube, Connecting Cleveland’s Low Income Workers to Tax Credits, Presented at the Levin College Forum, available at http://www.brookings.edu/metro/speeches/20050113_connectingcleveland.htm [<--broken link], 17 (Jan.13, 2005). Proponents of RALs state that the data provided by IRS actually combines RALs and Refund Anticipation Checks (RACs) and that at least one-half of the number of RAL customers in the IRS data actually received RACs. RAL Industry Briefing to the National Taxpayer Advocate (Oct. 27, 2004). However, the IRS has no way to verify these claims that are based on data collected by the RAL/RAC industry.”

PDF file: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/speeches/2005/1/13childrenfamilies%20berube/20050113_connectingcleveland Page 4 has a good graph of the EIC. Page 17 talks about what percent of persons or couples claiming EIC apply for a RAL or use a paid preparer. See also page 18.

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/Berube20061101eitc.pdf

---

National Taxpayer Advocate’s
2007 Objectives Report to Congress,
Volume II
The Role Of The IRS In The Refund
Anticipation Loan Industry
June 30, 2006
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2007_objectives_report_vol_ii_ral_final.pdf

page 2 (top paragraph): " . . Because approximately 56 percent of Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) consumers also claim the EITC,[1] there is a government interest in delivering this means -tested benefit to the beneficiary without intermediaries siphoning off fees. . "

"[1] IRS, Ad Hoc Report 4-05-08-1-036N (IMF-270), ETA Database, Full Tax Year 2003, Total Population=127,084,129, RAL Population = 13,755,163."

Now, logically, logically, we need to ask, what percentage of non-EIC clients apply for RALs. But commonsense, figure it's less than 56%. And from the Cleveland study cited in the Taxpayer's Advocate '05 report above, it was 10%. Approximate ten percent of clients without EIC applied for RAL loans. And remember, not all these loans are approved. Some are converted to the RAC (the account that merely sits open waiting for the IRS refund, estimated two weeks, but by no means guaranteed). And there is still the danger of "cross-collection" whether with the RAL or the RAC ("cross-collection" being debt collection on the part of the bank, including for third-party banks). And as the Taxpayer Advocate points out, not all tax preparation clients are informed of these risks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Under the February 2009 stimulus package signed by Pres. Obama there were two temporary changes to EIC for tax years 2009 and 2010. There was a new category added of three or more qualifying children. This increased the previous maximum of $5,028 to a new maximum of $5,657. And, secondly, the greater plateau (and thus phase-out) for married filing jointly was increased. Under changes that had occurred during Pres. Bush's tenure, the plateau for married filing jointly had been increased in increments so that it was $1,000, $2,000, and $3,000 longer than the plateau for single, head of household, and qualifying widow(er). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed by Pres. Obama on Feb. 17, 2009, increased this so that the plateau is now $5,000 longer for married filing jointly. This is still quite a ways from doubling the phase-out.

As an example, for 2009, if a single parent (filing as single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er)) has income of $30,000 and three or more qualifying children, he or she is eligible to receive $2,791 earned income credit. A married couple with income of $30,000 and three qualifying children is eligible to receive $3,844. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

&&&

And apparently, Senator Russell Long was also a big proponent, with EIC running in competition to a negative income tax. http://www.econ.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/EITC_Survey.pdf

And frankly, it seems like the political debate often comes down to, EIC or an increase in the minimum wage? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Does the EITC result in lower wages, i.e. a pool of people willing to receive lower paychecks due to EITC increasing supply of labor at equilibrium? In other words not only do the recipients apparently benefit, but employers benefit by less upward pressure on wages. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

This article could use a broader economic perspective. Specifically in the areas of Impact and Cost. First, is there any evidence that the EITC reduces poverty? I recognize the goal may be to reduce poverty, but does it work?

Second, the arguments are not well supported and quite assymetric. This article claims the EITC lifted more than 5 million families above the poverty level. While this may be true, isn't it just as likely that it also prevents families from further improving their economic situation. At the margin, there will be some families that decide a rebate check is preferred to additional labor and will, therefore, choose to remain under the program's earning threshold. Even worse though is the claim that "economists suggest...[the EITC produces] a multiplier effect of between 1.5 - 2 times the original amount..." This could only be true if the $ used to fund the EITC had no other productive use... they were just sitting around gathering dust. The reality is that these dollars would be spent or invested elsewhere and would have the same effect. In fact it's actually worse because the EITC needs to be administered. Administrative costs create a wedge between the productive use and alternate use of these $.

Probably the weakest section of this article pertains to cost. The authors suggest the cost to implement the EITC are partially offset by the benefits. Again, this is a very narrow and one-sided view. If the goverment takes your money and gives it to me, the economy is not better off, in fact it might well be worse off. I'm probably better off, but the costs to the economy are potential very large, inlcuding... - There will be less productive work because production is taxed. - There will be more unproductive members of society because they are subsidized. - There is an opportunity cost because the $ that are transferred are not allowed to be spent in the method you believed to be most productive. - There are administrative costs to facilitate the wealth transfer.

In the end, individuals and economies can only increase their wealth if they become more productive.

Ddb66 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ddb66, the entire tenor of the discussion hinges on whether you're comparing the effects on economic efficiency from having no welfare whatsoever and the EITC, or in having just welfare for those who don't work at all to having the EITC (which works like a negative income tax). If you believe that the EITC's effective marginal tax rate discourages work, then you have to believe that an even stronger effect would happen with welfare alone without the EITC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.207 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is fine as far as it goes (except I think it misses some key facts such that a modern economy does not seem not produce enough jobs, much less enough good jobs!), but it is squarely in the realm of abstract theory. And I think, if we're going to have a really good discussion, we're going to have to try and get some interplay going between abstract theory and the messy, unpredictable, hard-to-categorize facts of real life. I mean, to me there's just no other way. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Economics is no more abstract than quantum physics. If you don't understand the basic principles you can be easily tricked by those who seek to use your ignorance against you. The simple fact is that EITC does not lift people up, it keeps them down. The proof is just as simple... are there more people claiming EITC or fewer? If more, where are they coming from... welfare (moving up) or middle class (moving down)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.41.27 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, alright. Let me ask you this: with the recession starting in Oct. 2008 and following, and the approximate 10% unemployment, what do you recommend as a remedy instead? And true, for someone out of work the entire year, EITC does not address that. But for someone out of work for half the year, EITC can potentially be a big help. (And actually, unemployment is higher that 10% if we count people working part-time seeking full-time and people no longer carried on the unemployment rolls but who very much want a job.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

---

There's no dependent requirement for 2008, this article is dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.12.41 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a person can claim the credit without a qualifying child, but the dollar amounts are like only one tenth what it is with a child. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Qualifying child is a sub-category of dependent, and that's a potential source of confusion. All qualifying children are dependents, but not the other way around. In general, as our article does a pretty good job of talking about, the three tests for a qualifying child are age, relationship, and shared residency. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Half this article is based on speculation.

++++

None of this article is based on speculation.

Here's some websites: http://www.tax-coalition.org http://www.cbpp.org/7-19-05eic.htm http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H30JY3-70:

LegCircus 04:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

++++

Well, let's say some of the article. We can always use more references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Looking for relatively recent references.

IRS offices to open weekends to talk about the Earned Income Tax Credit, St. Petersburg Times, Jan 29, 2010.
“ . . will both be open from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. this Saturday as well as Feb. 6 and Feb. 20. . ”

Well, they're in there trying, but it's a little late in the game. Tax refund storefronts (like H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax) do their landsale business the last week of January, first week of February because people on low and middle income often need their money as soon as they can get. (Once again, all their products such as "Money Now," 24 hours, 48 hours, are merely loan applications. No guarantee at all you'll actually get the money that quick. A fair number of people do get the loans; a fair number don't.)

(Look at the EIC numbers for persons and couples making income, say, of $35,000. The Earned Income Credit is solidly middle-class.)

In fact, the more savvy people, as soon as they get all their W-2's, and as soon as the IRS starts accepting e-files mid-January are looking to file.

You can file for free through the IRS site if you're yearly income is less than like 50,000. They will give you a choice of which commercial preparer to use and you're not required to accept the "RALs" of these commercial preparers although they will promote them. Not as streamlined a system as it should be by any means! (and with "RALs" comes the danger of third-party bank "cross-collection," maybe only 1 out of 100 people, but it's a body blow when it happens). Most IRS offices have walk-in hours. And the phone lines sometimes aren't that busy. In addition, I kind of recommend the method of multiple quick passes, including for writing here at wiki. A new thing, you might not get right away. But a couple of passes at it, yeah, you're starting to get it. I think this makes it less likely that you'll have a big oversight. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To Be Considered, of course

If overpopulation is the route of all evil, why give tax breaks for producing children and depleting the world of it's resources? No, I'm not a "Go Green" liberal freak, but it's time for "change."

Let's not reward childbirth anymore. The U.S. doesn't need it right now and won't for another 20 years.

Kick it around. And adopt a kid and get a tax break. Makes more sense.

Blondesareeasy (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Storefront tax prep, "RACs," prep and account fees, third-party debt collection

[Reference included in article:]
Refund Anticipation Loans Come With Risks, Better Business Bureau, 2/26/2013. “ . . . The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has forced all major national banks to discontinue these types of loans. Be wary of sketchy lenders, both online and off.”

[Reference included in article:]
Tax refund offers include extra fees, KGET [California], Feb. 7, 2013. ‘ . . . "It's still the same animal, it's just packaged differently. Before people weren't aware that it was a loan, so they did do away with that. They had to restructure how they were selling it to the consumer because there is interest, there are fees associated with it that people need to be aware of," said Hudson. . . ’

So yes, it looks like the major banks have discontinued RALs but are going with the similar RACs. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Action Line: Tax-time 'refund anticipation loans' to no longer be widespread, Tulsa World [Oklahoma], By PHIL MULKINS World Action Line Editor, Jan. 20, 2013. ' . . . "Even with the end of RALs, low-income taxpayers still remain vulnerable to profiteering," says the center's report. "Tax preparers and banks continue offering a related product - 'refund anticipation checks' (RACs) - which are subject to significant add-on fees and represent high-cost loans of the tax preparation fees. Tax preparation fees can often be opaque and expensive, with taxpayers unable to obtain estimates of fees to comparison shop. [Center for Responsible Lending] . . "

http://www.responsiblelending.org/other-consumer-loans/refund-anticipation-loans/tools-resources/rals-news.html

[Reference included in article:]
New tax refund loans carry sky-high fees and rates, CNNMoney, Blake Ellis, March 6, 2013: " . . . The NCLC [National Consumer Law Center] also found that some shady tax preparers are even offering tax refund loans to lure taxpayers into their offices, but have no intention of lending them the money. . . "

[Reference included in article:]
National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2007 Objectives Report to Congress, Volume II, The Role Of The IRS In The Refund Anticipation Loan Industry, pages 10–11 (11-12 in PDF), June 30, 2006.
" . . . Cross-collection has also been challenged based on fair debt collection principles. . . . written notification containing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor and a statement providing that the consumer has 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof.[40] Accordingly, with cross-collection, it is unclear whether the taxpayer had a reasonable opportunity to dispute the existence or amount of the debt before the third party bank collects it from the taxpayer’s refund. . . "

http://www.taxsoftwaresupport.com/wizard/04_sbbt/rals_vs_rts.htm

Ineligible filers cost

The figures for the cost due to ineligible filers sounded doubtful to me, so I checked the reference. The paper is twenty years old, which is a problem in several ways, but even so I cannot find the cost figure given. In fact, the figure cited in the section is greater than the total cost of the program named in the reference for the year studied. I didn't delete because this may be an updated cost from some recent year, and someone may know the reference. If not, I will see what I can dig up. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Economic studies regarding whether EIC helps people increase the material quality of their lives

The $9 Minimum Wage That Already Exists, Op-Ed by Michael Saltsman, Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2013. (Mr. Saltsman is research director at the Employment Policies Institute.)

" . . . In a study published by the Employment Policies Institute last year, economists Joseph Sabia at San Diego State University and Robert Nielsen at the University of Georgia found a 1% drop in state poverty rates associated with each 1% increase in a state’s EITC. A 2007 study by Mr. Sabia found that a higher Earned Income Tax Credit can boost the wages and employment of single mothers. . . "

Okay, this is an editorial, but it might give us a couple of leads for research. And please remember, some state EICs are refundable and some aren't. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Plan to demote "EIC Table, 2010" to talk page

If someone has the time and inclination and energy, please by all means, update for 2012. And please make a judgment call whether we need an additional separate table for MFJ, which has a $5,000 greater plateau range and is now equal or greater than single for every dollar amount. But . . the combined plateau and phase-out is no where near double that as single. So, the marriage penalty has been reduced but not eliminated. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

EIC Table, 2010:

The credit is characterized by a three-stage structure that includes phase-in, plateau, and phase-out.

Size of credit (tax year 2010) for Single, Head of Household, and Qualifying Widow(er).

Earned income (x)	Stage	Credit (3+ children)
$1–$12,549	phase in	45% * x
$12,550–$16,449	plateau	$5,666
$16,450–$43,349	phase out	$5,666 – 21% * (x – $16,450)
>= $43,350	no credit	$0
Earned income (x)	Stage	Credit (2 children)
$1–$12,549	phase in	40% * x
$12,550–$16,449	plateau	$5,036
$16,450–$40,362	phase out	$5,036 – 21% * (x – $16,450)
>= $40,363	no credit	$0
Earned income (x)	Stage	Credit (1 child)
$1–$8,949	phase in	34% * x
$8,950–$16,449	plateau	$3,050
$16,450–$35,534	phase out	$3,050 – 16% * (x – $16,450)
>= $35,535	no credit	$0
Earned income (x)	Stage	Credit (no children)
$1–$5,949	phase in	7.65% * x
$5,950–$7,499	plateau	$457
$7,500–$13,449	phase out	$457 – 7.65% * (x – $7,500)
>= $13,450	no credit	$0

The actual credit is given by an IRS table which breaks down yearly income into $50 increments.

For Married Filing Jointly in 2010, the credit is no greater; however, the plateaus travel $5,000 further. Thus, the phase-outs for MFJ both begin and end $5,000 later than do the phase-outs for Single, Head of Household, Qualifying Widow(er).

The same data, in words: for a single person with two qualifying children, the credit is equal to 40% of the first $12,550 of earned income, thus reaching a plateau of $5,036 of credit received and staying there until earnings increase beyond $16,450, at which point the credit begins to phase out at 21% of income past this point.

The dollar amounts are indexed annually for inflation.

California, no state EIC, but a Child and Dependent Care Credit

http://www.calcpa.org/Content/consumers/ask/understanding0206.aspx

" . . The credit can range from 20 percent to 35 percent of qualifying expenses paid during the year, with the exact percentage based on your adjusted gross income (AGI). . "

" . . The childcare credit is not refundable. This means that the tax credit may reduce your regular tax liability to zero, but not below zero, where a refund would result. . "

And since California is 10% of the U.S. population, this is well worth including. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. This article is exclusively about the federal EITC; state income taxes are a separate topic, and credits relating to state income taxes wouldn't belong here. Hatster301 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Planning to remove 'Inappropriate Tone' notice

People have moved what might be overexplanation and examples to the Impact section. I think our lead and opening sections now read fine. Can always be improved of course.

The longer examples were previously moved on May 8, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earned_Income_Tax_Credit&diff=428040545&oldid=426020565

And as alway, we can probably use more references especially recent reference, including academic references, including references of professional accounting literature. Well, perhaps owing to the fact that EIC mainly benefit low- and middle-income families, for well-heeled accounting firms, a lot of potential EIC clients are not going to come walking in through the door, so there may not be a lot of articles about EIC in professional accounting publications, and that's a loss.

Let's find what we can. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking for 2012 that Single, Head of Household, Married Filing Jointly, and Qualifying Widow(er) are all equally valid filing statuses for purposes of the EIC

From our article:

"Single, Head of Household, Qualifying Widow(er), and Married Filing Jointly are all equally valid filing statuses for EIC. In fact, depending on the income of both spouses, Married Filing Jointly can be advantageous in some circumstances because, in 2009, the phase-out for MFJ for begins at $21,450 whereas phase-out begins at $16,450 for the other filing statuses. A couple who is legally married can file MFJ even if they lived apart the entire year and even if they shared no revenues or expenses for the year, as long as both spouses agree. However, if both spouses do not agree, or if there are other circumstances such as domestic violence, a spouse who lived apart with children for the last six months of the year and who meets other requirements can file as Head of Household. Or, for a couple that is split up but still legally married, they might consider visiting an accountant at separate times and perhaps even signing a joint return on separate visits. There is even an IRS form that can be used to request direct deposit into up to three separate accounts. In addition, if a person obtains a divorce by December 31, that will carry, since it is marital status on the last day of the year that controls for tax purposes. In addition, if a person is "legally separated" according to state law by December 31, that will also carry. The only disqualifying filing status for purposes of the EIC is married filing separately."

---

I think this is still the case for 2012, but let's check. And please jump in and help if this topic interests you. Thanks.  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How much do these people pay income tax?

Sorry for the possibly stupid question, but as I don't know the US tax system I was left wondering if all/most/some/few/none of the people who receive earned income tax credit, initially pay any income tax, some income tax or more income tax than their credit is worth? Basically what I wonder is if this is a form of negative income tax. 37.219.219.125 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Earned income tax credit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091229164239/http://www.nashvilleafi.org:80/Files/ImpactStudy.pdf to http://www.nashvilleafi.org/Files/ImpactStudy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Earned income tax credit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102194526/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/speeches/2005/1/13childrenfamilies%20berube/20050113_connectingcleveland to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/speeches/2005/1/13childrenfamilies%20berube/20050113_connectingcleveland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102194540/http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/Berube20061101eitc.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/Berube20061101eitc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earned income tax credit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211170851/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/ to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What does "the credit phases out at 21%" in the second paragraph mean?

Not clear, I don't believe. Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This means that for every $1 of additional income someone earns, they receive 21¢ less in the tax credit. So if someone had total income of $20,000 (earned income + EITC), and then earned $1 more in earned income, their new total income would be $20,000.79 (earned income + EITC). (In practice it doesn't work quite like this, due to rounding, but that's the idea.) The point it is trying to make is that earning an additional dollar will not decrease total income because the credit is reduced only a little. Feel free to boldly rewrite the section if you think you can make that clearer, or I will make an attempt in the next few days. In general, I feel like the lede is already a little too long and detailed, so it might be best to just remove the math entirely. MarginalCost (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hard to follow

The article is very hard to follow; after reading it I still don't understand the mechanism.

The key explanation seems to be the graph labelled "Graph, 2006" which is also very hard to follow. What is the text in the left column? What does "over (minus) mean"-- is the text in the left supposed to be divided by the text on the right, or subtracted? The actual graph with unlabelled axes seems to show that the earned income tax credit is not zero even at zero income. Is that correct? This graph might have some use if it (1) had labelled axes, and (2) showed curves for different cases, not just one. Michael-Zero (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I added some text to this section explaining what I THINK the graph is attempting to convey. Michael-Zero (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)