text:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC) began in 1975 as a temporary program to return a
portion of the Social Security tax paid by lower income taxpayers, and was made permanent in
1978. In the 1990s, the program became a major component of federal efforts to reduce poverty,
and is now the largest anti-poverty entitlement program. Childless adults in 2005 (the latest year
for which data are available) received an average EITC of $230, families with one child received
an average EITC of $1,809, and families with two or more children received an average EITC of
$2,833.
A low-income worker must file an annual income tax return to receive the EITC and meet certain
requirements for income and age. A tax filer cannot be a dependent of another tax filer and must
be a resident of the United States unless overseas because of military duty. The EITC is based on
income and whether the tax filer has a qualifying child.
The EITC interacts with several nonrefundable federal tax credits to the extent lower income
workers can utilize the credits to reduce tax liability before the EITC. Income from the credit is
not used to determine eligibility or benefits for means tested programs. However, 19 states and
the District of Columbia now offer an EITC for state taxes, and most of them are based on the
federal EITC. Any change in the federal EITC would flow down to impact the state EITC.
Policy issues for the EITC, which reflect either the structure, impact, or administration of the
credit include the work incentive effects of the credit; the marriage penalty for couples filing joint
tax returns; the anti-poverty effectiveness of the credit (primarily a family size issue); and
potential abuse (i.e., compliance with credit law and regulations).
The National Taxpayer Advocate heads an independent program within the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) to handle taxpayer problems not resolved through normal channels, and to identify
issues that create problems for taxpayers. As part of identifying problems for taxpayers, the
National Taxpayer Advocate prepares a report each year to Congress summarizing at least 20 of
the most serious problems faced by taxpayers with recommendations to resolve the problems. In
the reports for 2002 through 2005, EITC related problems have been included among the "most
serious problems." In the 2006 report, while the EITC was not listed as a specific problem,
concerns about the EITC and low-income taxpayers are components of some of the "more serious
problems." This report will be updated annually.
Eligibility .................................................................................................................................. 1
Families with Children........................................................................................................1
Childless Adults..................................................................................................................2
Credit Amount...........................................................................................................................2
Calculation of EITC Amount..............................................................................................2
Indexing .............................................................................................................................. 6
Marginal Tax Rates.............................................................................................................7
Participation .............................................................................................................................. 8
Characteristics of Tax Year 2005 EITC Tax Returns...............................................................10
Number of Children..........................................................................................................10
Filing Status......................................................................................................................10
Geographic Distribution.....................................................................................................11
Interaction With Other Tax Provisions....................................................................................13
Other Federal Tax Credits.................................................................................................13
Means Tested Programs....................................................................................................13
State EITC Provisions.......................................................................................................13
Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Work Incentives................................................................................................................13
Marriage Penalty...............................................................................................................14
Anti-Poverty Effectiveness (Family Size)........................................................................15
Compliance ............................................................................................................................. 16
National Taxpayer Advocate's "Most Serious Problems".......................................................17
Figure 1. EITC Levels by Income, Single-Parent Family with One Child, Tax Year 2007.............4
Figure 2. Statutory and Marginal Tax Rates, Single-Parent Family with One Child, Tax
Year 2007.....................................................................................................................................8
Table 1. EITC Parameters for Tax Years 2006-2008.......................................................................4
Table 2. EITC and Recipients 1975-2005.......................................................................................9
Table 3. Percent Distribution of Returns and Total EITC by Number of Children, Tax
Year 2005...................................................................................................................................10
Table 4. EITC by Number of Children, Tax Year 2005.................................................................10
Table 5. Percent Distribution of Returns and Total EITC by Tax Filing Status, Tax Year
2005 ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 6. Federal EITC Recipients and EITC Amount by State, Tax Year 2005.............................11
Table 7. Impact of Family Size on Net Income after Taxes Relative to Poverty Threshold,
Tax Year 2006.............................................................................................................................15
Table B-1. EITC Parameters, 1975-2008......................................................................................26
Appendix A. Legislative History of the EITC...............................................................................19
Appendix B. History of the EITC Parameters...............................................................................26
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................28
he Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program began in 1975 as a temporary and small
(6.2 million recipients) program to reduce the tax burden on working low-income families. 1
The program has grown into the largest federal anti-poverty cash program with 22.8 T
million tax filers receiving $42.4 billion in tax credits for tax year 2005. Appendix A outlines the
history of the EITC and Appendix B shows how the parameters for calculating the EITC have
changed since the original enactment in 1975.
The EITC is a refundable tax credit available to eligible workers earning relatively low wages.
Under current law there are two categories of EITC recipients: childless adults and families with
children. Because the credit is refundable, an EITC recipient need not owe taxes to receive the
benefits. An EITC eligible family may also receive a portion of the credit in the form of advanced
payments. Eligibility for, and the size of, the EITC is based on income, age, residence, and the
presence of qualifying children.
For a family to receive the EITC, the family must have adjusted gross income (AGI) and earned
income below the amount which reduces the EITC to $0, and have investment income no greater
than $2,200 (indexed for inflation). Investment income includes interest income (including tax-
exempt interest), dividends, net rent and royalties that are from sources other than the filer's
ordinary business activity, net capital gains, and net passive income.
Earned income includes wages, tips, and other compensation included in gross income and self-
employment income after the deduction for self-employment taxes. Earned income does not
include pension or annuity income; income for nonresident aliens not from a U.S. business;
income earned while incarcerated (for work in prison); and to the extent subsidized, earnings
from a mandatory state work program.
The family must reside in the United States unless in another country because of U.S. military
duty. For tax year 2004, the child (or children) had to meet three requirements for a qualifying
• relationship—the child must be a son, daughter or descendant of such
(grandchild); a brother, sister, or descendent of such (niece or nephew) cared for
by the taxpayer; or foster child;
• residence—the child must live with the taxpayer for more than half the year; and
• age—the child must be under age 19 (or age 24, if a full-time student) or be
permanently and totally disabled.
If a child qualified for more than one tax filer, the natural parent claimed the child. If the natural
parent was not one of the tax filers, the tax filer with the highest AGI claimed the child for the
EITC. If both tax filers were natural parents, the parent the child resided the longest with during
1 The EITC is larger in terms of spending and recipients than the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
the tax year claimed the child. If the child resided with each parent for the same period of time, 2
the filer with the larger AGI had to claim the child.
Beginning in tax year 2005, the EITC, along with other tax provisions used by families (child tax
credit, head of household filing status, and dependent care tax provisions) became linked to a
more uniform definition of a child under the personal exemption tax provision changes made by
the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311). The definition of a child and the
rules for when more than one party may claim a child for these tax provisions are the same as the
rules for the EITC in tax year 2004. However, the interaction between the new definitions of a
qualifying child and a qualifying relative may impact who could claim a child under various tax
Another change made by P.L. 108-311 affected families in which the taxpayer or spouse is in the
military. Although gross income for tax purposes does not generally include certain combat pay
earned by members of the armed forces, P.L. 108-311 allowed members of the armed forces to
include combat pay for purposes of computing the earned income credit for tax years that ended
after October 4, 2004, and before January 1, 2006 (generally tax years 2004 and 2005). The Gulf
Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-135) extended the option to include combat pay for
calculating the credit through tax year 2006 and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L.
109-432) extended the option through tax year 2007.
The Katrina Emergency Relief Act (P.L. 109-73) provided that taxpayers affected by Hurricane
Katrina may use their tax year 2004 earned income to compute their 2005 EITC. P.L. 109-135
also extended the option of using 2004 income to compute 2005 EITC to taxpayers affected by
Hurricane Rita, and clarified that to use this election, the taxpayer's 2005 income had to be less
than the taxpayer's 2004 income.
Childless adults must reside in the United States unless in another country because of U.S.
military duty. A childless adult must be at least 25 years of age, but not more than 64 years of age
to be eligible for the EITC, and cannot be claimed as a dependent on another person's tax return.
Childless adults may include married couples if both persons meet eligibility requirements.
Eligibility is restricted to those with both earnings and AGI below the income amount which
reduces the EITC to $0, and investment income (as defined above) not in excess of $2,200
(indexed for inflation).
Claimants receive an EITC in one of four ways:
2 An eligibility rule that an unmarried filer must meet the requirements for "head of household" tax filer status to be
eligible for the EITC was dropped by Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. This status was difficult
for many low-income working mothers to meet since many of them received more than half their cash income from
AFDC, which is not regarded as self-support income by the IRS in determining "head of household" status.
• as a reduction in income tax liability;
• as a year-end cash payment from the Treasury if the family has no income tax
liability;
• as a combination of reduced taxes and direct payments; or
• as advance payments by adjusting withholding.3
To receive an EITC, a person must file an income tax return at the end of the tax year, together
with a separate schedule (Schedule EIC) if claiming a qualifying child. An eligibility certificate
(Form W-5) must be filed with the employer to receive advance credits through the employer's
payroll.
If the family (or childless adult) is eligible for the credit, the credit is based on the credit rate,
which varies with the number of children, and the earned income. Up to the maximum earned
income amount, the credit equals the earned income times the credit rate. During this phase-in
period for the credit, for each additional $1 of earned income the recipient receives an additional
credit equal to the credit rate. For example, in tax year 2007 for a family with one child, for each
additional $1 of earnings (up to a total earned income of $8,390) the family receives an additional
34 cents in EITC.
For earned income between the maximum earned income amount and the phase-out income level,
the EITC is constant at the maximum credit. Above the phase-out income level, for each
additional $1 of income the recipient loses credit at the phase-out rate. In tax year 2007, for a
family with one child, for each $1 of income above the phase-out level of income ($17,390 for
married couples, $15,390 for others), the recipient loses 15.98 cents of EITC. Graphically, the
phase-in period for the credit is steeper than the phase-out period because the credit is increased
faster during the phase-in than the credit is reduced during the phase-out.
In general, the EITC amount increases with earnings up to a point (the maximum earned income
eligible for the credit), then remains unchanged for a certain bracket of income (the plateau), and
then (beginning at the phase-out income level) gradually decreases to zero as earnings continue to
increase. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of EITC levels, by income level for a single
parent family with one child.
3 Childless adults cannot receive the EITC through advance payments.
Figure 1. EITC Levels by Income, Single-Parent Family with One Child, Tax Year 2007
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The parameters for calculating the EITC (credit rates, phase-out rates, maximum earned income
amount, maximum credit amount, phase-out income level, and disqualifying investment income
level) for tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008 are shown in Table 1.
The EITC is taken against total tax liability (regular, alternative minimum, and self-employment
taxes) after several nonrefundable tax credits. Because the EITC is a refundable credit, on the tax
return the line for the EITC can be found in the payment section after the lines for withholding
and estimated tax payments. The individual income tax return booklet presents the EITC amounts
in tables by income brackets (in $50 increments). This allows a tax filer to look up the correct
amount of the EITC based on income, filing status, and number of children.
Table 1. EITC Parameters for Tax Years 2006-2008
Credit Phase-
2006 2007 2008 Rate Out
No children — — 7.65% 7.65%
Maximum earned income amount $5,380 $5,590 $5,720 — —
Maximum credit $412 $428 $438 — —
Phase-out income level $6,740 $7,000 $7,160 — —
Phase-out income level for married filing joint $8,740 $9,000 $10,160 — —
Income where EITC = $0 $12,120 $12,590 $12,880 — —
Income where EITC=$0 for married filing joint $14,120 $14,590 $15,880 — —
One child — — 34.00% 15.98%
Maximum credit $2,747 $2,853 $2,917 — —
Phase-out income level $14,810 $15,390 $15,740 — —
Phase-out income level for married filing joint $16,810 $17,390 $18,740 — —
Two or more children — — 40.00% 21.06%
Maximum earned income amount $11,340 $11,790 $12,060 — —
Disqualifying investment income level $2,800 $2,900 $2,950 — —
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: To reflect the statutory language for calculating the inflation adjusted EITC parameters, the maximum
earned income amount and the phase-out income level are rounded to the nearest $10, whereas the
disqualifying income level is rounded to the nearest $50. In preparing their tax returns, tax filers will use a table
with $50 increments of income to look up their EITC amount.
A formula presentation of the EITC calculation follows (where category reflects EITC factors
based on the number of children and filing status as in Table 1, and adjusted gross income (AGI)
is equal to gross income from all taxable sources such as earned income, dividends, taxable
interest, alimony, capital gains, taxable pensions, etc. less statutory adjustments).
EITC =
Lesser of: earned income or maximum earnings amount category
credit ratecategory
Greater of 0 or [earned income (or AGI whichever is larger) minus phase-out income levelcategory
times phase-out ratecategory]
The following three examples for a married couple with 2 children in tax year 2007, illustrate
how the EITC is calculated.
Example 1. For a family receiving less than the maximum allowable credit, with earned income
and AGI of $10,000 (which is less than the maximum earned income amount):
EITC = $10,000 times 40% = $4,000
Example 2. For a family receiving the maximum allowable with earned income and AGI of
$16,000 (which is greater than the maximum earned income amount but less than the phase-out
income level):
EITC= $11,790 (the maximum earned income amount) times 40%
= $4,716 (the maximum credit)
Example 3. For a family subject to the phase-out of EITC with earned income and AGI of
$20,000 (which is greater than the maximum earned income amount and the phase-out income
level):
EITC = $11,790 (the maximum earned income amount) times 40% or $4,716 (the
maximum credit)
($2,610 (the amount by which income exceeds the phase-out income level[$17,390]
times 21.06%)
or $550
With everything else held constant, when inflation increases income, taxes increase. In periods of
high inflation, this may result in increases in taxes which many view as a windfall to the
government. To reduce the impact of inflation on taxes certain tax provisions, such as the
personal exemption amount, are increased each year by the rate of inflation. The Tax Reform Act
of 1986 (P.L. 99-514) began indexing of the maximum earned income and the phase-out income
levels for the EITC. The structure of the EITC combined with indexing results in the largest
annual percentage increases in EITC going to higher income EITC eligible taxpayers. The effect
of indexing on the EITC between year 1 and year 2 can be defined for four groups of taxpayers:
• Tax filers below the year 1 maximum earned income level will have no increase
in the EITC between year 1 and year 2.
• Tax filers above the year 1 maximum earned income amounts and below the year
1 phase-out income level will have an increase in EITC equal to the change in the
maximum credit amount (the credit rate times the change in the maximum earned
income).
• Tax filers above the year 1 phase-out income amount but below the year 2 phase-
out income amount, will have an increase in EITC equal to the change in the
maximum credit plus the year 1 phase-out reduction in the EITC (the amount by
which their year 1 income exceeded the year 1 phase-out income times the phase-
out rate).
• Tax filers above the year 2 phase-out income level, will have a change in the
EITC that is fixed at every income level until the end of the phase-out range. The
change is calculated as:
Change in EITC (above phase-out income level)=
Change in Maximum Credit
Change in Phase-out Income Level x Phase-out Rate
Marginal tax rates reflect the additional tax paid for each additional $1 of income earned (or
subject to tax). Economic theory suggests that the higher the marginal tax rate, the lower the
incentive to work to increase income. The structure of the EITC (phase-in, plateau, and phase-out
) creates a wide range of marginal tax rates for EITC recipients based on income. The marginal
tax rate for an EITC recipient, excluding interactions with other credits, can be broken down into
four ranges that correspond to the structure of the EITC:
• During the phase-in, when income is below the maximum earned income, the
marginal tax rate is negative and equal to the credit rate because for each
additional dollar of income the EITC recipient pays no income tax and receives
an increase in the EITC equal to the credit rate times the additional income.
• Once the income reaches the plateau level, the marginal rate is zero while there is
no tax liability and no change in the EITC amount (which is at the maximum).
• During the phase-out of the EITC, for each additional dollar of income the EITC
recipient will pay taxes at the marginal tax rate and have a reduction in the EITC
at the phase-out rate creating a marginal tax rate equal to the sum of the two
changes. This results in a marginal tax rate that is significantly higher than the
statutory tax rate.
• At the end of the phase-out of the EITC, when the EITC equals zero, the
marginal and statutory tax rates for the taxpayer are equal.
Figure 2 shows the statutory and marginal tax rates, in tax year 2007, as income increases for a
single parent family with one child. The marginal tax rates reflect the combined impact of the
statutory tax rate and the EITC phase-out and do not reflect the use of any other tax credits.
Taxpayer no
0.3longer eligiblefor the EITC
$8,390t e
0R a
$25,850 $33,240$15,390
Inc ome
StatutoryTax RateMarginal Tax Rate
The EITC program has grown significantly since its inception in 1975. In 1975, there were 6.2
million recipients for a total of $1.2 billion in EITC, with 72.0% of the EITC received as a refund,
and an average EITC of $201. For tax year 2005, a total of 22.8 million tax filers received an
EITC, for a total of $42.4 billion. In 2005, the average EITC was $1,894, and 88.4% of the EITC
was received as a refund. Estimates of the percentage of EITC eligible families participating in 4
the EITC program (i.e., receiving an EITC ) ranged from 80%-86% in a 1993 study using 1990 5
data to 93%-96% for families with children in a 2001 study by the General Accounting Office
using 1999 data.
Table 2 provides the total EITC, refunded portion, number of recipients (tax filers), and average
credit for 1975 through 2005.
4 John Karl Sholz, "The Earned Income Credit: Participation, Compliance, and Antipoverty Effectiveness," National
Tax Journal, March 1994, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 63-87.
5 U.S. General Accounting Office, Earned Income Tax Credit Participation, GAO-20-290R, December 14, 2001.
Table 2. EITC and Recipients 1975-2005
Refunded Number of Average
Tax Year Total EITC ($ millions) Portion of EITC Recipients EITC
($ millions) (thousands) ($)
1975 1,250 900 6,215 201
1979 2,052 1,395 7,135 288
1988 5,896 4,257 11,148 529
1991 11,105 8,183 13,665 813
1993 15,537 12,028 15,117 1,028
Sources: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means. 2004 Green Book. Background Material and thnd
Data on Programs Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 108 Congress, 2 session,
WMCP 108-6, Mar. 2004, p.13-41. Internal Revenue Service. Total File, United States, Individual Income and Tax
Data, by State and Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Years 2003 through 2005. Expanded unpublished version,
Table 2.5.
Note: The number of recipients is the number of tax filers claiming the EITC.
In tax year 2005, the majority of the EITC (61.2%) went to families with two or more children,
which represented 40.9% of the returns. Table 3 shows the percent distribution of returns and
total EITC by number of children. Table 4 shows the number of recipients, amount of EITC, and
average EITC by number of children for tax year 2005.
Percent of aPercent of
Total Returns Total EITC
No children 21.2 2.6
One child 37.9 36.2
Two or more children 40.9 61.2
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from data provided by the Joint
Committee on Taxation. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
a. Total returns is all returns claiming an EITC.
Table 4. EITC by Number of Children, Tax Year 2005
Number Number of Total EITC Average Percent
of Recipients ($ thousands) EITC of EITC
Children (tax filers) Refunded
None 4,737,000 1,089,000 $230 68.9
One 8,479,000 15,430,000 $1,809 87.3
Two or More 9,146,000 25,915,000 $2,833 89.8
Committee on Taxation.
Heads of Household represented 53.2% of the EITC returns and 65.6% of the total EITC in 2005,
whereas single filers represented 24.2% of the returns and only 9.6% of the EITC. Table 5 shows
the percent distribution of returns and total EITC by filing status.
Filing Status Percent of Total Returnsa Percent of Total EITC
Single 24.2 9.6
Married joint 22.7 24.8
Head of household 53.2 65.6
Committee on Taxation. Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
The distribution of EITC by state is a function of the relative populations and income levels of the
states. In general states with larger populations or a large number of lower income workers will
have more EITC recipients. The number of federal EITC returns, the total EITC, average EITC,
and percent of the credit refunded by state for tax year 2005 are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Federal EITC Recipients and EITC Amount by State, Tax Year 2005
State Number of Returns Total EITC ($ thousands) Average EITC % of EITC Refunded
Alabama 502,914 1,089,650 2,166.67 91.1%
Alaska 41,578 65,838 1,583.48 89.1%
Arizona 413,730 771,178 1,863.96 90.2%
Arkansas 287,085 574,086 1,999.71 90.0%
California 2,501,510 4,575,681 1,829.17 84.9%
Colorado 274,839 461,368 1,678.68 87.2%
Connecticut 172,838 286,109 1,655.36 88.7%
Delaware 59,692 107,849 1,806.76 91.1%
District of Columbia 50,041 88,386 1,766.27 91.7%
Florida 1,631,758 3,054,048 1,871.63 86.7%
Georgia 905,365 1,876,182 2,072.29 89.7%
Hawaii 87,540 143,818 1,642.88 89.8%
Idaho 106,143 189,334 1,783.76 87.5%
Illinois 884,010 1,669,290 1,888.32 87.8%
Indiana 446,347 802,842 1,798.69 90.5%
Iowa 177,348 294,858 1,662.60 88.4%
Kansas 181,348 318,957 1,758.81 89.8%
Kentucky 352,878 642,625 1,821.10 89.3%
Louisiana 494,289 1,088,921 2,203.00 91.7%
Maine 88,923 145,056 1,631.25 84.4%
Maryland 352,221 620,577 1,761.90 88.4%
Massachusetts 319,973 518,021 1,618.95 86.9%
Michigan 680,765 1,245,934 1,830.20 88.1%
Minnesota 272,171 442,074 1,624.25 87.1%
Mississippi 376,998 830,508 2,202.95 92.2%
Missouri 451,570 826,976 1,831.34 89.7%
Montana 74,627 125,715 1,684.58 86.7%
Nebraska 113,877 198,808 1,745.81 89.0%
Nevada 169,055 292,511 1,730.27 90.8%
New Hampshire 64,012 100,433 1,568.97 84.3%
New Jersey 501,105 890,122 1,776.32 87.5%
New Mexico 199,825 373,090 1,867.08 90.7%
New York 1,527,318 2,774,885 1,816.84 84.4%
North Carolina 788,523 1,526,465 1,935.85 90.5%
North Dakota 40,222 66,353 1,649.67 88.1%
Ohio 815,691 1,471,341 1,803.80 89.9%
Oklahoma 318,879 607,091 1,903.83 88.9%
Oregon 231,934 390,857 1,685.21 87.9%
Pennsylvania 799,335 1,376,533 1,722.10 89.8%
Rhode Island 68,034 119,536 1,757.00 89.1%
South Carolina 439,010 864,267 1,968.67 91.7%
South Dakota 56,415 95,967 1,701.09 89.2%
Tennessee 565,090 1,077,468 1,906.72 88.6%
Texas 2,288,849 4,826,049 2,108.50 88.0%
Utah 145,622 260,639 1,789.83 88.9%
Vermont 38,824 59,499 1,532.53 83.2%
Virginia 503,896 908,481 1,802.91 90.0%
Washington 364,929 617,971 1,693.40 88.7%
West Virginia 146,840 256,234 1,744.99 91.0%
Wisconsin 309,552 522,675 1,688.49 88.9%
Wyoming 33,208 55,092 1,659.00 89.1%
U.S. Total 22,718,546 42,588,248 1,874.60 88.3%
Source: Internal Revenue Service, Total File, All States, Individual Income and Tax Data, by State and Size of
Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2005, Expanded unpublished version, Table 2.5. U.S. total does not include
outlying areas.
On the tax return, the EITC is calculated after total tax liability and several nonrefundable credits.
The nonrefundable tax credits, which are taken against (reduce) tax liability, include credits for
education, dependent care, savings, and the child credit. To the extent an EITC eligible family has
a tax liability and can utilize one or more of these credits, the refundable portion of the family's
EITC is higher. This is because using one or more of the tax credits reduces tax liability before
the EITC, but does not affect the calculation of the EITC.
For tax filers in the plateau or phase-out period of the EITC, pre-tax contributions to savings for
retirement, education or medical purposes can increase the amount of the EITC by reducing the
amount of "earned income" used to calculate the EITC, in addition to reducing tax liability before
the EITC if the contributions also qualify for a nonrefundable credit. This is because the earned
income for the EITC, like the income subject to tax, does not include these pre-tax contributions
as income.
By law, the EITC cannot be taken into account for purposes of determining eligibility or benefits
for food stamps, low-income housing, and Medicaid and Social Security Income (SSI). Under
Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), the states have the authority to determine if the
receipt of an EITC is taken into consideration in determining eligibility or benefits. Currently, no
state does so. However, an EITC refund that is saved may become an asset and could be used in
determining TANF eligibility and benefits.
Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia offer an EITC for state taxes. Of these
jurisdictions, three have a nonrefundable EITC. In 2008, three states (Louisiana, Michigan, and
North Carolina) will begin a refundable state EITC. For states with an EITC that is calculated
based on the federal EITC, a change in the federal EITC will generally flow through and change
the state EITC unless the state takes positive legislative action to alter or prevent the change.
The structure, impact, and administration of the EITC are reflected in the major policy issues—
work incentives, marriage penalty, anti-poverty effectiveness (family size), compliance, and the
use of paid tax preparers.
Although the original purpose of the EITC was to return payroll taxes to low-income workers, in
its current form as a cash transfer program it provides assistance to working low income families
to meet basic needs. As such it may be viewed as creating an incentive to work, both in
participating in the labor force (beginning to work), and increases in work effort (more hours).
Economic theory suggests that the phase-in range of the EITC (when income is below the
maximum earned income) would create an incentive to begin work, and to work more hours by
increasing the marginal return to work after taxes. This is because the EITC increases as work
increases and is reflected in the negative marginal tax rate during the phase-in range of the credit.
Conversely, the phase-out range of the EITC would create a disincentive to work because the
more the individual works and earns the greater the individual is penalized (although the after-tax
income is higher). The individual not only has to pay taxes at the statutory rate, but the earned
income credit is reduced by the phase-out rate. This is reflected in a marginal tax rate for the
phase-out period that is higher than the statutory tax rate. In the phase-out range, an individual
may attempt to maintain a level EITC by reducing work hours (substituting leisure for work).
However, many workers do not have the flexibility (in their jobs) to reduce hours.
Alternatively, the EITC can be viewed as a wage supplement for lower income workers. The
wage supplement increases the hourly wage rate over the phase-in range, the supplement remains
steady over the plateau range, and over the phase-out range the wage supplement is reduced,
reducing the hourly wage down to the level actually paid by the employer.
In evaluating the work incentives of the EITC it is important to remember that all of the benefits
and costs of work are not reflected in the marginal tax rate. A family receiving TANF benefits
may be required to work a stated number of hours to maintain certain non-cash benefits.
However, by working those hours the family earns income that may reduce other non-cash
benefits such as food stamps or housing allowances, and may require additional cash expenditures
for child care, clothing, etc.
Studies on the EITC and labor force participation have concluded that the EITC has a significant 6
positive impact on participation in the labor force, particularly for single mothers. Some studies
have concluded that there is a negative impact on work hours at the higher levels of income, but 7
that the impact is not significant.
The structure of the EITC may, depending on the relative income levels of both parties, impose a 8
"marriage penalty" on single low-income parents if they choose to marry. For example, in tax
year 2007 two single parents, each with one child and earned income of $15,000 would receive an
EITC of $2,853 each for a total of $5,706. If they marry, their combined income is $30,000, and
with two children, the EITC is $2,060. The EITC marriage penalty for the couple is $3,646. The
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA, P.L. 107-16) reduced
the marriage penalty for the family by $421 in 2007. The EGTRRA provisions for marriage
penalty relief in the EITC will sunset at the end of 2010.
6 Bruce D. Meyer and Dan T. Rosenbaum, "Making Single Mothers Work: Recent Tax and Welfare Policy and Its
Effects," National Tax Journal, vol. 53 (December 2000), pp. 1027-1043. Robert Moffitt, Welfare Programs and Labor
Supply, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 9168, September 2002.
7 Stacy Dickert, Scott Houser, and John Karl Scholz, "The Earned Income Tax Credit and Transfer Programs: A Study
of Labor Market and Program Participation," Tax Policy and the Economy, James M. Poterba ,ed. (National Bureau of
Economic Research and the MIT Press,1995), pp. 1-50. V. Joseph Hotz and John Karl Sholz, The Earned Income
Credit, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8078, January 2001.
8 The "marriage penalty" is the difference between the tax liability for a married couple (filing a joint tax return) and
the sum of the tax liabilities for each person if they each filed using the single filing status.
Empirical research has concluded that the structure of the EITC, through the phase-out and the
marriage penalty, has a negative impact on the labor market participation of nonworking spouses
in two-parent families at higher income levels (levels of income in the plateau or phase-out range 9
of the EITC).
While the EITC is available at incomes above the federal poverty thresholds, to the extent the
EITC is an anti-poverty program, one goal may be to keep families above the poverty threshold
(or level). The structure of the EITC with respect to family size has not changed since 1990.
Although benefits for most poverty related programs are related to family size, the family size
adjustment for the EITC is capped at two children. As a result, a low-income family with two
children may remain above the poverty threshold because of the EITC, while families with three
or more children at the same income level and EITC may slip below the poverty threshold. An
example for tax year 2006 is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Impact of Family Size on Net Income after Taxes Relative to Poverty
Threshold, Tax Year 2006
Family 1. Family 2. Family 3.
Two Adults, Two Adults, Two Adults,
Two Three Four
Children Children Children
Income($) 20,000 20,000 20,000
Federal tax before credits ($) 0 0 0
Child credit (regular credit limited to tax before credits) 0 0 0
EITC ($) 3,864 3,864 3,864
Additional child credit 1,305 1,305 1,305
(refundable portion of credit) ($)
Net tax refund after credits ($) 5,169 5,169 5,169
Payroll tax ($) (1,530) (1,530) (1,530)
Net income after tax ($) 23,639 23,639 23,639
Poverty level ($) 20,444 24,059 26,938
Net income after tax as a percent of poverty level 115.6% 98.3% 87.8%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Certain childless adults, even if the adult receives the EITC, also may have a net income after tax
that is lower than the poverty threshold. In tax year 2006, a childless adult working full-time (40
hours a week for 52 weeks) at the minimum wage (in 2006) of $5.25 would earn $10,920. That
adult would receive an EITC of $92. However, when combined with a tax liability before credits
9 Nada Eissa and Hillary Williamson Hoynes, "The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Labor Supply of Married
Couples," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6856, 1998. V. Joseph Hotz and John Karl Sholz,
"In-Work Benefits in the United States: The Earned Income Credit," The Economic Journal, vol. 106, no. 434 (January
1996), pp. 156-169.
of $246, and payroll taxes of $835, the adult has an after tax income of $10,177. This is 98.9% of
the poverty threshold (for one adult) of $10,294.
Compliance with the EITC provisions has been an issue for the program since 1990, when the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program
(TCMP), released a study on 1985 tax year returns with the EITC. The study concluded that there
was an over-claim rate of 39.1%. This over-claim rate however, did not reflect any later efforts by
the IRS to collect on the over payments. Later studies by the IRS have resulted in lower over-10
claim rates. The 1997 and 1999 tax return studies estimated that the unrecovered over-claim
rates were 23.8% to 25.6%, and 27.0% to 31.7%. These studies presented the rates as upper and
lower bound-estimates because a number of individuals contacted as part of the study did not
respond. The lower bound assumes that the over-claim rate for the nonrespondents is the same as
for respondents, while the upper bound assumes that all the nonrespondents are over-claims.
In the 1999 study, 24.9% of over-claims (with errors known) were due to the child claimed not
being the tax filers's qualified child. The most common qualifying child error was that the child
did not meet the residency test, six months or one year depending on relationship. The second
most common was the child not meeting the relationship test, particularly in the case of foster
children where the child did not live with the tax filers for the full year or was not cared for as the
tax filers's own child.
After errors in claiming an unqualified child, errors in income reporting accounted for 21.4% of
the over-claims. Most frequent income reporting errors were underreporting of earned income and
modified adjusted gross income. Another 17.2% of known errors were for a qualifying child also
being the qualifying child of another tax filer.
As a result of the over-claim rates, there have been several legislative changes to improve EITC
compliance. Among them are: the requirement that dependents have identification numbers
(social security numbers); prohibitions of 2 to 10 years on receiving the EITC after improperly or
fraudulently receiving the credit; for tax preparers due diligence requirements (maintaining
certain paperwork); and permission for the IRS to match tax filers to the Federal Case Registry of
Child Support Orders. (Maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services.)
In addition, some of the EGTRRA changes to the EITC definition of a qualifying child and the
tie-breaker rules (rules for when more than one person can claim a child), may help in the future
to reduce these problems. However, the general rate of over-claims has not changed significantly
To reduce the complexity created by the different definitions of a child, proposals were made by
both the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation to conform the
definition of a child for purposes of the personal exemption, child credit, EITC, dependent care,
and head of household filing status. The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311)
10 Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, "Compliance Estimates for Earned income Tax Credit
Claimed on 1999 Returns," February 28, 2002, p. 18.
created a more uniform definition of a child for tax purposes, including the EITC. This new 11
definition became effective with tax year 2005.
In 2003, the IRS announced plans to conduct a pre-certification effort for the tax year 2003
returns, in which tax filers expecting to claim the EITC would need to pre-certify that any child
claimed for the EITC met the residency requirement (had resided with the tax filer for at least half
of the tax year). The pre-certification effort was converted to a study of approximately 25,000
returns expected to claim the EITC, and combined with two other compliance studies related to
the EITC: (1) a study of filing status; and (2) an automated underreporter (income) study. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199) required a report to Congress on the
qualified child study (the pre-certification of a child for the EITC residency requirement).
According to the IRS,12 the three studies uncovered and prevented payment of more than $275
million in erroneous claims for the EITC, with approximately $250 of the $275 million from the
automated underreporter study. In the automated underreporter study, the IRS manually reviewed
300,000 tax returns that claimed the EITC in tax year 2003, that also had indications of income
misreporting for tax year 2002. Approximately 83% of the tax returns had a reduction or
disallowance of the EITC as a result of the manual review.
Each year the National Taxpayer Advocate13 must report to Congress and analyze at least 20
serious problems taxpayers have with the tax system. The reports for 2002 through 2005 included
EITC related problems among those listed as the "most serious problems" encountered by tax
filers. In the report for 2005, included among the problems for the EITC are the documentation
requirements, the length of time taken to complete examinations (particularly exams conducted
through correspondence with the taxpayer), the taxpayer response rate for examinations, and
delays in the re-certification process. It is important to note that while including the time to
complete the examination process (an average of 181 days in FY2005), the Taxpayer Advocate
noted that the time had declined each year since FY2002 (when the average time for completion
of an EITC examination was 220 days).
The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) also did a study of TAS cases with refunds frozen by
Criminal Investigation (by the Questionable Refund Program), which is an IRS program designed
to stop fraud. The Taxpayer Advocates notes that of the 473 returns selected for the study, 75%
claimed the EITC and that 80% of the returns selected for the study eventually received at least a
partial refund. The Taxpayer Advocate has made several recommendations for the CI program
related to the freezing of refunds including (1) that the IRS conduct a study of returns with
refunds frozen by CI that were not TAS cases; (2) notify taxpayers soon after their refunds are
frozen that their refunds are frozen and will not be released until a determination is made
(currently taxpayers are not notified); and (3) shorten the time period (currently six months)
11 For information on the new definition of a child, see CRS Report RS22016, Tax Benefits for Families: Changes in
the Definition of a Child, by Christine Scott.
12 The final report of the EITC initiative can be found on the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/
irs_earned_income_tax_credit_initiative_final_report_to_congress_october_2005.pdf.
13 The National Taxpayer Advocate heads an independent program with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) known as
the National Taxpayer Service. The program is designed to handle taxpayer complaints not resolved through normal
IRS procedures and to analyze problems encountered by taxpayers with the IRS and suggest solutions for the problems.
during which other IRS organizations (such as TAS) cannot help taxpayers with respect to frozen
refunds.
On January 24, 2006, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson announced that he had directed a review
of the program, and that in the near future the IRS will announce plans "to institute notification
procedures as well as significant improvements to minimize the number of taxpayers whose 14
refunds are frozen unnecessarily."
In addition to the problems listed by the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Treasury Inspector 15
General for Tax Administration, released a report, finding that taxpayers were not treated
consistently by the service centers regarding the two-year ban, and that the ban notice and other
material related to the ban and re-certification needed more clarification for taxpayers.
14 Internal Revenue Service, news release, available at http://www.irs.gov/newroom/article/0,,id=15813,00.html.
15 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Application of the Earned Income Credit Two-Year Ban Could
Be More Consistent, Accurate, and Clear to Taxpayers, 2004-40-015, December 2004.
The idea that became the EITC first arose during congressional consideration of President
Nixon's 1971 welfare reform proposal. Nixon's proposal, the Family Assistance Plan, would have
helped working poor, two-parent families with children by means of a federal minimum cash
guarantee that would have replaced the federal-state welfare program of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC).
The EITC was patterned after a proposal, then known as a work bonus for the working poor,
recommended by the Senate Finance Committee in April 1972. Though the idea originated as an
alternative to the proposed Family Assistance Program, the work bonus provision was advocated
as a "refund" of Social Security taxes paid by employers and employees on low annual earnings
and was to have been available only for wages subject to Social Security taxation.
The Senate approved the work bonus plan in 1972, 1973, and 1974, but the House did not accept
it until 1975.
The Tax Reduction Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-12) included a provision that established, in Section 32
of the Internal Revenue Code, a refundable credit to tax filers with incomes below $8,000. This
"earned income credit" was to equal 10% of the first $4,000 of any earnings (including earnings
not subject to Social Security taxation) and thus could not exceed $400 per year. The credit was to
be phased out, at a rate of 10%, for adjusted gross income (AGI) above $8,000.
The Revenue Adjustment Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-164), Tax Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-455), and
Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-30) each extended the EITC by one year.
The Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600) made the EITC permanent and increased the maximum
credit to $500 and the eligibility limit to $10,000, provided for EITC payments in advance of the
annual tax filing, and simplified eligibility determinations.
Under the 1978 law, the EITC was set at 10% of the first $5,000 of earnings (including net
earnings from self-employment). The maximum credit of $500 was received for earnings between
16 This legislative history of the EITC is a shortened version of the more detailed history in CRS Report 95-542, The
Earned Income Tax Credit: A Growing Form of Aid to Low-Income Workers, by James R. Storey.
$5,000 and $6,000. For each dollar of AGI above $6,000, the EITC was reduced by 12.5 cents,
reaching $0 at an AGI of $10,000.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-369) raised the maximum credit by 10%, from $500
to $550 by establishing the EITC at 11% of the first $5,000 of earnings. Earnings between $5,000
and $6,500 qualified for the maximum credit of $550. For each dollar of AGI above $6,500, the
law required that the EITC be reduced by 12.22 cents. As a result, the credit was completely
phased out when AGI reached $11,000.
Effective with tax year 1987, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514) increased the EITC from
11% of the first $5,000 of earnings to 14% of the first $5,714 of earnings. The act also began
indexing the credit for inflation. This was done by indexing the maximum earned income eligible
for the credit and phase-out income level by using the change in the average Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the 12-month period ending August 31 of each year, from the CPI for the 12-
month period ending August 31, 1984. In addition, the starting point of the phase-out income
level was increased for 1987 and 1988. The 1986 Act also lowered the phase-out rate from
12.22% to 10% beginning with the 1987 tax year.
The increase in the maximum earned income for the credit and the credit rate raised the EITC,
while the reduction in the phase-out rate reduced the marginal tax rate on recipient earnings. The
combination of a higher EITC and a lower phase-out rate increased the income eligibility level
from $11,000 in 1984 to $14,500 (in 1984 dollars) for 1987. During debate on the Tax Reform
Act of 1986, it was said that "the liberalization of the earned income credit will help to assure that 17
low-income citizens are no longer taxed into poverty."
Because the EITC was originally established as a work bonus and advertised as an offset to the
Social Security tax, it had not been designed to vary by family size. Thus, the larger the family, st
the less it met the family's needs. Proposals were introduced in the 101 Congress to vary EITC
credit amounts by number of children, up to a maximum of two, three, or four children depending
on the bill. These proposals intended to increase EITC's welfare role while continuing its
provision of payroll tax relief and work bonuses. However, no one proposed that EITC family-
size variations be modeled after AFDC, which varied for much larger family sizes.
The EITC expansion enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 (P.L.
101-508) took effect in 1991 and was to be completed in 1994. An adjustment for family size was
17 In floor statement of Senator Matsunaga, Congressional Record, daily edition, September 26, 1986, p. S13818.
introduced and the credit and phase-out rates for each of the family sizes (one child , two or more
children) were increased each year. However, the planned rate increases for 1994 were
superseded by a 1993 law. (See below.)
Numerous proposals were introduced in the 101st Congress to establish refundable tax credits for
families with young children. These proposals would have set credit amounts based on earned
income and number of qualifying children. Both House and Senate passed such provisions in
competing versions of child care legislation. These measures were seen as aiding lower income
families in need of child care for preschool children.
Final action in OBRA of 1990 limited additional credits for young children to those under one
year of age. Eligible families with such children had an extra 5.0 percentage points added to their
credit rate in computing the EITC amount. This extra credit had a maximum amount in 1993 of
$388, and was phased out by adding 3.57 percentage points to the family's phase-out rate. Thus,
in 1993 families with one or more children under age 1 had a combined credit rate of 23.5% or
24.5%, depending on total number of children, and a combined phase-out rate of 16.78% or
17.50%.
This extra credit was ended effective for tax year 1994 by OBRA of 1993 (P.L. 103-66).
A new refundable credit aimed at helping parents finance health insurance for their children was
included in the Senate-passed OBRA of 1990. The House did not include such a provision, but it
was accepted by House-Senate conferees. The supplemental health insurance credit applied to
earnings up to the maximum amount to which the EITC applied and was then reduced over the
same income range used for the EITC phase-out. The rates set for the child health insurance credit
and its phase-out were 6.0% and 4.285%, respectively. These percentages were added to those
that applied to a family for the basic EITC and, if eligible, the young child credit. The maximum
amount of the supplemental health insurance credit in 1993 was $465. The credit could not
exceed the health insurance premiums actually paid by a family during the tax year. Unlike the
basic EITC, this supplemental credit could not be received in advance of the annual tax filing.
The health insurance credit was ended, effective in 1994, by OBRA of 1993.
President Clinton began his term in office in 1993 with a pledge to use the EITC to eliminate
poverty for families with a member working full-time at the minimum wage in order to "make
work pay." Fulfillment of his pledge required a proposal to raise the EITC credit rates, especially
for families with two or more children. His proposal was enacted as part of OBRA of 1993 (P.L.
103-66) with little change by Congress. President Clinton also proposed extending the EITC for
the first time to low-income working adults with no children to offset tax increases in OBRA of
1993, and Congress adopted this proposal with only minor changes. To offset part of the EITC
expansion's cost, and to meet the criticism of the EITC's growing complexity, Congress also
passed the President's proposal to repeal the supplemental credits for young children and for child
health insurance premiums as part of OBRA of 1993.
The EITC parameters for families were significantly changed by OBRA 1993. The credit rates
were increased from 23% to 34% in 1996 for a family with one child, and from 25% to 40% for a
family with two or more children. The phase-out rate for families with one child was slightly
lowered (from 16.43% to 15.98%) and the phase-out rate for families with two or more children
was increased from 17.86% to 21.06%.
The Clinton Administration proposal enacted in OBRA of 1993 extended the EITC for the first
time to workers who have no children. The main rationale for this credit was to offset partly the
effect on low-income workers of a gasoline tax increase included in OBRA of 1993. The 1993
law provided, effective in 1994, a credit of 7.65% of the first $4,000 of annual earnings, for a
$306 maximum credit. It is phased out at a 7.65% rate, beginning at an income level of $5,000
and ending at $9,000. The maximum earned income and the phase-out income level are adjusted
annually for inflation.
This credit applies to adults ages 25 to 64 who are not claimed as dependents on anyone's tax
return. The age limits were imposed by Congress to exclude two groups (students under age 25,
retirees over age 64) whose incentive to work was not regarded as an important priority.
Before 1995, the EITC had always been restricted to families residing in the United States. This
rule excluded from EITC otherwise eligible lower income American military families living in
foreign countries. A provision in the 1994 legislation to implement the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (P.L. 103-465) provides EITC eligibility for qualifying families outside the
United States if their foreign residence is because of a U.S. military assignment. This provision
became effective in 1995.
This law also included measures to (1) deny the EITC for wages earned by prison inmates; and
(2) deny eligibility to anyone who spent part of the tax year as a nonresident alien.
Limitation of EITC eligibility by a filing unit's income has always been based on the greater of
AGI or earnings. However, following up on a proposal in President Clinton's FY1996 budget,
Congress enacted in 1995 (P.L. 104-7) a new limitation tied to investment income. This provision
prohibits EITC claims by tax filers whose annual investment income exceeds $2,350. Investment
income is defined to include taxable interest and dividend income, tax-exempt interest income,
and net income from rent and royalties not derived in the normal course of the filer's business.
This provision took effect in 1996. (It was modified in August 1996 action. See discussion
below.)
Although not proposing specific legislation, the FY1997 congressional budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 178) "assumes reforms of the Earned Income Credit ... to eliminate fraud and abuse
within the program, to better target to low-income working families with children, and to
coordinate the credit with the $500 per child tax credit that also is assumed in this budget." In
followup, Congress included EITC savings in the welfare reform measure (H.R. 3734) signed by
President Clinton on August 22, 1996 (P.L. 104-193). These provisions are described below.
This provision requires tax filers to have valid taxpayer identification numbers (usually Social
Security numbers) to be eligible for the EITC. Social Security numbers are issued only to persons
who can document their age, identity, and U.S. citizenship or legal alien status. It becomes
effective for tax returns due more than 30 days after the enactment date. This measure helps the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) gain compliance from tax filers lacking valid numbers before
accepting their EITC claims.
Congress acted in March 1995 (see earlier discussion) to exclude from EITC eligibility all filers
with "disqualified income," defined as income in excess of $2,350 a year from interest (taxable
and tax-exempt), dividends, and net rents and royalties. The welfare reform bill broadened this
definition to include net capital gains and net passive income. The maximum allowance for
disqualifying income was reduced from $2,350 to $2,200 for 1996 and indexed for inflation in
later years.
The EITC is phased out when the greater of earnings or AGI exceeds a certain level ($11,610 in
1996 for families with children). Broadening the definition of income used for EITC phase-out
reduces the EITC for persons with income from the sources to be included. Effective for 1996,
the welfare reform bill expanded the income used to phase out the EITC by netting out certain
losses that are normally taken into account in calculating AGI. These losses are net capital losses,
net losses from estates and trusts, net losses from nonbusiness rents and royalties, and half of net
business losses.
The 1996 welfare reform bill (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,
P.L. 104-193) repealed AFDC. And in its place created the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) program, a state-run system funded partly by federal block grants. This
conversion to state control alters the EITC-welfare relationship. Federal law had required that the
EITC be disregarded as income in determining eligibility for AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and housing aid. Lump-sum EITC payments had to be
ignored in comparing applicants' assets to program asset limits for the month of receipt and the
next month. (The Food Stamp program must ignore lump-sum EITC payments for one year.)
Ending AFDC eliminates federal restrictions on states' treatment of the EITC for cash welfare
(TANF) recipients. States may count the EITC as income available to families aided by TANF
programs and reduce their welfare accordingly. Lump-sum EITC receipt may be counted by states
as assets immediately available to state-aided families, thereby denying them that aid if counting
the EITC causes their assets to exceed state asset limits. States adopting such policies may spend
less on aid to needy families from their federal grants, in effect substituting the federal EITC for
state welfare and lowering the income of those affected.
To improve compliance related to the EITC, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34),
denied the EITC to tax filers for a specified period of time if the tax filers had previously made a
fraudulent or reckless EITC claim. A tax filer is denied the EITC for two years after it has been
determined that the tax filer made a reckless claim, and ten years after a determination that a tax
filer has made a fraudulent claim. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) provided initial
funding for a five-year initiative by the IRS to improve compliance for the EITC.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA, P.L. 107-16), to
reduce the marriage penalty, increased the phase-out income levels for married couples filing a
joint return by $1,000 for tax years 2002 through 2004, $2,000 for tax years 2005 through 2007,
and $3,000 beginning in tax year 2008 (indexed for inflation). The bill also simplified the
definition of earned income to reflect only compensation included in gross income; based the
phase-out of the credit on adjusted gross income instead of expanded (or modified) gross income;
and eliminated the reduction in the EITC for the alternative minimum tax.
The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311) created a more uniform definition of
a child for tax purposes. The EITC, along with other tax provisions used by families (child tax
credit, head of household filing status, and dependent care tax provisions) are linked to this more
uniform definition of a child under the personal exemption tax provision. The definition of a child
and the rules for when more than one party may claim a child for these tax provisions are the
same as the rules for the EITC in tax year 2004. In effect, the changes in the tax code for a more
uniform definition of a child will not impact eligibility for the EITC. In addition, P.L. 108-311
allowed members of the armed forces to include combat pay for purposes of computing the
earned income credit for tax years that ended after October 4, 2004 and before January 1, 2006
(generally tax years 2004 and 2005).
Katrina may use their tax year 2004 earned income to compute their 2005 EITC.
The Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-135) extended the option to include combat
pay for calculating the credit for another year (tax year 2006, or tax years ending before January
1, 2007).
P.L. 109-135 also extended the option of using 2004 income to compute 2005 EITC to taxpayers
affected by Hurricane Rita, and clarified that to use this election, the taxpayer's 2005 income had
to be less than the taxpayer's 2004 income.
Extension of Combat Pay (2006 Law)
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) extended the option to include
combat pay for calculating the credit through tax year 2007.
Since its inception in 1975, the EITC has evolved from a small program to refund a portion of
social security taxes to the largest anti-poverty entitlement program. The credit has been modified
through changes in eligibility and in the values of the parameters used to calculate the credit.
Table B-1 shows the changes to the parameters for the EITC for tax years 1975 through 2008.
Table B-1. EITC Parameters, 1975-2008
Credit Maximum Maximum Phase-Out Phase-Out Income
Rate (%) Earned Income Credita Rate (%) Income Level Where EITC=$0
For families with children:
1975 10.0 4,000 400 10.0 4,000 8,000
1979 10.0 5,000 500 12.5 6,000 10,000
1985 10.0 5,000 500 12.22 6,500 11,000
1989 14.0 6,500 910 10.0 10,240 19,340
For families with one child:
1991 16.7 7,140 1,192 11.93 11,250a 21,250a
1994 26.3 7,750 2,038 15.98 11,000 23,750
2002 34.0 7,350 2,506 15.98 13,550b 29,250b
2005 34.0 7,830 2,662 15.98 14,370c 31,030c
2008 34.0 8,580 2,917 15.98 15,740d 33,995d
For families with two or more children:
2001 40.0 10,000 4,008 21.06 13,100 32,121
2002 40.0 10,350 4,140 21.06 13,550b 33,150b
2005 40.0 11,000 4,400 21.06 14,370c 35,263c
2008 40.0 12,060 4,824 21.06 15,740d 38,646d
For childless adults:
1994 7.65 4,000 306 7.65 5,000 9,000
1998 7.65 4,450 341 7.65 5,600 10,050
2001 7.65 4,750 364 7.65 5,950b 10,750b
2005 7.65 5,220 399 7.65 6,530c 11,750c
2008 7.65 5,720 438 7.65 7,160d 12,880d
a. The credit maximums for 1991-1993 do not include the two supplemental credits that were available to
some EITC recipients in those years. The young child supplement added 5 percentage points to a family's
credit rate; the child health insurance supplement added up to 6 points.
b. For this tax year the phase-out income level for a married couple filing a joint tax return is $1,000 higher
than shown in the table.
c. For this tax year the phase-out income level for a married couple filing a joint tax return is $2,000 higher
d. For this tax year, the phase-out income level for a married couple filing a joint tax return is $3,000 higher
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
cscott@crs.loc.gov, 7-7366


The dramatic shift to colder and drier climates likely resulted in rapidly changing Australian habitats, which hugely impacted the animals that inhabited them.
ANU biologists have found the first evidence of mass extinction of Australian animals caused by a dramatic drop in global temperatures 35 million years ago.
"The dramatic shift to colder and drier climates likely resulted in rapidly changing Australian habitats, which hugely impacted the animals that inhabited them," said Mr Brennan from the ANU Research School of Biology.
"Our research provides evidence that rapid shifts in climate may have profound and long-lasting effects on global biodiversity."
"Our findings suggest that arid regions of Australia have acted as a cradle for geckos, promoting the rich gecko diversity that is found across the continent," he said.
"Many desert geckos also have strategies and attributes to avoid water loss, such as having relatively rugged skin and scales," he said.
"The clear scale over the eye, called a spectacle or brille, is one such example of this, as it helps them avoid water loss from the surface of the eye. But that means they can't blink, so they have to lick it clean.
"Underwoodisaurus and their relatives Nephrurus have little 'eyebrows' that stick out to keep dust and dirt off their eyes, because they're burrowing species."


In Gmail you will notice just how clean the new interface is. Every thing looks simpler, focused, more direct. There is also plenty of negative space being used to provide some relief to your eyes and the whole thing seem less cluttered. In my opinion, Gmail never looked better.
The new look isn't permanent for now though. You will have to manually select it from the Themes menu in mail settings, however, moving on it will become the default look, with the option to change it of course. Google also admits that it may be a bit rough around the edges and some Labs features may look strange in the new theme. They are also planning on launching a darker version of this theme for those working in dark environments.
Calendar too gets the new look but unlike Gmail it is not optional. But that is fine with me as like Gmail, Calendar never looked better.


text:
A club deal, in finance, refers to a leveraged buyout or other private equity investment that involves two or more private equity firms. It can also be referred as consortium or syndicated investment.

Definition
In a club deal, the investor group of private equity firms pools its assets together and makes the acquisition collectively. The practice has allowed private equity to purchase larger and more expensive companies than each firm could acquire through its own private equity funds. By syndicating the equity ownership across a group of investment firms, each firm reduces its concentration and is able to maintain the diversification of its portfolio of investments.

History
In the US, syndicated investment began as early as 1870 with a Pennsylvania Railroad offering. In the 1920s several syndicates existed for the purchase and sale of securities.

From 1984 to 2007, an average of 63% of US venture capital firm investments were syndicated according to a 2010 study, rising up to 77% in 2000.

In the US, the years from 2000 to 2010 have been called "the conspiratorial era." The years from 2003 until 2007 were also described as "the era of club deals", since the 2006 antitrust investigation of the Department of Justice prompted a decrease; though, the Department has not brought charges. In 2007, private plaintiffs filed a first class action law suit against 13 private equity firms for conspiring in club deals to keep buyout prices down, followed by two more in the ensuing years, which the court consolidated and scaled down against 11 equity firms. In June 2014, Bain Capital Partners and Goldman Sachs settled for a combined $121 million after more than six years of litigation. An unnamed Goldman executive was quoted as saying "club etiquette" had prevailed in the $17.6 billion takeover of Freescale Semiconductor.
End of July Blackstone, KKR, and TPG Capital settled for a combined $325 million, as published only in August. In September 2014  a judge will decide whether the plaintiffs can be considered a class whether to approve the settlements. The Carlyle Group is the only hold out that has not settled yet.

Financial characteristics and outcomes
In a 2009 study of 198 leveraged buyouts in the US from 1984 to 2007, 29% were syndicated and "target shareholders receive[d] approximately 10% less of pre-bid firm equity value, or roughly 40% lower premiums, in club deals compared to sole-sponsored leveraged buyouts", the so-called club discount. However, the lower premiums disappeared with increasing percentage of institutional ownership in the target company, maybe because of institutional owners greater bargaining power for a higher price. On average, club deals were larger in transaction size than sole-sponsor buyouts, but fewer than 20 percent were larger than the largest sole-sponsor buyouts in the last four years. Premiums were lower in club deals announced prior to 2006 than since then. Club deals were no less risky as measured by return volatility and beta, than a sole-sponsor buyout. Even when controlling for size, risk and leverage ratios, club deals required more lenders than sole-sponsor buyouts.

According to authors of the 2010 study, the prevalence of syndication suggested a diseconomy associated with venture capital firm scale.

Criticism
In 2006 the US Department of Justice, concerned with bid rigging, opened an investigation of private equity firms regarding their participation in consortiums in past sales.

The 2009 study of US buyouts from 1984 to 2007 with 59 club deals concluded that "[...] private equity clubs constrain the supply of debt financing for competing bids by aggressively locking up debt financiers".

Institutional investors investing as limited partners in private equity funds criticize the practice of club deals that results in holdings in the same investment through different funds. Large limited partners have preferred to support large leveraged buyouts through equity co-investments alongside the leading financial sponsor.

Examples
Among the most notable of the large club deals completed were the following:

Houghton Mifflin, 2002 - Acquired by a consortium of Bain Capital, Blackstone and Thomas H. Lee Partners

SunGard, 2005 - Acquired by a consortium of seven private equity investment firms led by Silver Lake Partners (Bain Capital, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, KKR, Providence Equity Partners, and Texas Pacific Group)

Freescale Semiconductor, 2006 - Acquired by a consortium led by Blackstone and including the Carlyle Group, Permira, and TPG Capital)

HCA, 2006 - Acquired by a consortium of KKR, Bain Capital, Merrill Lynch and the Frist family

Kinder Morgan, 2006 - Acquired by a consortium including Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, the Carlyle Group and Riverstone Holdings together with co-founder Richard Kinder

NXP Semiconductors, 2006 - Acquired by a consortium of KKR, Silver Lake Partners and AlpInvest Partners

Biomet, 2007 - Acquired by a consortium including Blackstone, KKR, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners

TXU, 2007 - Acquired by a consortium including KKR, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners

See also
Private equity in the 21st century
Leveraged buyout
Equity co-investment

References

Further reading
Do Too Many Cooks Spoil the Takeover Deal?.  New York Times, Andrew Ross Sorkin, 3 April 2005
Goodbye to All That. New York Times, Andrew Ross Sorkin, October 10, 2004
Measuring the Club-Deal Discount.  New York Times, Dealbook, 5 May 2008
Selling to the club:How a seller should negotiate a club deal. John D Franchini, and Elad Roisman, private equity group, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP, International Financial Law Review, 2007, milbank.com
The decline of the club deal.  The Deal, 2007

Private equity

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
¶۞¶۞¶۞¶ ADVENTURE CEYLON (8 NIGHTS / 9DAYS) ¶۞¶۞¶۞¶
COLOMBO / KITULGALA / NUWARAELIYA
On arrival you will meet our tour and travel agency representative and warmly Welcome you at Colombo International Airport and transfer to the Colombo Hotel afternoon visit Colombo City and Leisure at the hotel.
Dinner and overnight stay at a star class hotel at Colombo
After breakfast proceed to Kitulgala and excursion on white water rafting and proceed to Nuwara Eliya via visit Devon Falls and st.clairs Falls
Nuwara Eliya is the heart of the hill country. The Central Highlands of Sri Lanka offer a salubrious cool climate. The mountain slopes are covered with acres and acres of tea with its fragrant aroma mingling with the fresh air. Nestled among the mist covered central hills in a cool basin Nuwara Eliya, the hill resort, resemble a little English village. Road leading to this hill station winds through miles and miles of 'green carpet' of tea bushes where tea pluckers are seen busily picking the 'bud and two leaves' that go to form the most popular brew in the world, the 'Ceylon Tea'.
Dinner and overnight stay at a star class hotel at Nuwara Eliya.
After breakfast proceed to Horton Plane and visit
Horton plains is well recognized for its rich biodiversity, its flora given to a high level of endemism. Traditionally Mahaeliya in Sinhala, it was rechristned as Horton Plains after Sir Robert Horton, Sri Lanka's British Governor in 1831-37. it was gazetted as a Nature Reserve in 1969 and was upgraded as a National Park in 1988 because of its unique watershed and biodiversity values. Leopard, Bearmonkey ( Trachypithecus vetulus monticola), Barking deer, Giant squirrel, Fishing cat, Wild boar.
The total extent of the Horton Plains is 3159.8 hectares. Formed as an amphitheatre of beautiful mountains and grassland, Horton Plains is a highlight in the central hill country. At 2359 meters, Totupolakanda in the northern part of the park is the third tallest mountain of Sri Lanka. To its west Kirigalpotte rises to 2393 meters to be the second tallest. Horton Plains cradels Belihul Oya, Bagawanthala Oya and Agara Oya which are the source streams for the country's major rivers viz Walawe, Kelani and Mahaweli. The latitudinal range of the park is 2100-2300 meters.
BUNDALA
After breakfast proceed to Yala via Visit Ravana Falls and afternoon visit Bundala National Park safari by jeep.
History - Bundala was designated a wildlife sanctuary in 1969 and redesignated to a national park on 4 January 1993. In 1991 Bundala became the first wetland to be declared as a Ramsar site in Sri Lanka Bird Sanctuary, covering an area of barely 25 km 2, and located about 12 km from Kothamangalam In 2005 the national park was designated as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO, the fourth biosphere reserve in Sri Lanka.
Nearest city: Hambantota
Dinner and overnight stay at a star class hotel near Yala.
After breakfast proceed to Yala National park safari by jeep and afternoon continue visit Yala National park safari by jeep Dinner and overnight at camping site.
The Yala West (Ruhuna) Ntional park includes a strictly protected natural reserve and a national park, which together form a total area of 126,786 acres preserved.
This game park has one of the highest densities of leopards. You may have the opportunity to spotted Deer, elephants, crocodiles, sloth bears and mongoose the Yala, Udawalawe and other 11 National Parks such as Wilpattu, Wasgamuwa, Kaudulla and Bundala are home to 92 species of mammals 14 of which are endemic to the island. Pride of place goes to the majestic elephant and other exotic species which include the leopard, sloth bear, sambhur, spotted deer, mouse deer, wild boar, porcupine, ant eater, civet cat, jackal, giant squirrel, and a variety of monkeys including the endemic macaque, purple faced leaf monkey, grey langur and the shaggy bear monkey. Also 427 recorded birds species make Sri Lanka an Ornithologist's paradise. Not forgetting 242 species of breathtaking butterflies, exotic and varied Flora .
After breakfast proceed to Weligama beach.
Dinner and overnight stay at star class hotel at Weligama.
TOUR END / AIR PORT
GALLE / OLOMBO
After breakfast proceed to Mirissa whale watching excursion
afternoon leisure at beach or Hotel.
After breakfast proceed to Galle , visit Galle fortress
History 12 and 16 century A.D
Galle fortress is very famous in the world 16th century Portuguese, Gall was a port in pre- Christian times but gained in importance after the 12th century. By 14 century it was the most important port on the south western and southern coasts of Sri Lanka. Galle is one of the heritage sites in Sri Lanka.
The geographical position of Galle, the main routes world, rendered certainly for many centuries a important stopover between the Middle East and the 'East transforming it into a shopping center with a people rich and internationally.
According to James Emerson Tennent, Galle was the ancient seaport of Tarshish, from which King Solomon drew ivory, peacocks and other valuables. Certainly, cinnamon was exported from Sri Lanka as early as 1400 BC and the root of the word itself is Hebrew, so Galle may have been the main entrepot for the spice. So Galle is one of oldest harbor in Sri Lanka.
Proceed to Balapitiya and Madu River safari by boat.
Proceed to Colombo.
Last capital city 18 century AD
Colombo city Like many capital cities in developing countries, Colombo is changing at a fast pace, however its old world charm has been retained and can still be found, like the 100 year old clock tower and several British built colonial buildings. Also to be found are the old parliament buildings, together with Hindu and Buddhist temples as well as the affluent residential areas where you will find stately homes and the Bandaranayake Memorial Conference Hall, an outright gift to Sri Lanka from the People's Republic of China.
Dinner and overnight stay at star class hotel Colombo
According to flight time proceed to Airport for departure.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A local fisherman who had been taken ill after suffering a heart condition was safely brought ashore by the Sri Lanka Navy. According to Navy media, the fisherman had ventured to sea onboard the fishing trawler 'Laksiri 4' from the Gandara fisheries harbor in the Southern region, on Monday (05 November).
Sri Lanka Navy had rushed one of its Fast Attack Craft to bring ashore the sick fisherman upon receiving information from the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. By then an Indian merchant vessel plying the seas had picked up the fisherman. Later, he was safely transferred to the Navy craft and brought ashore to the Trincomalee harbor and dispatched to the Trincomalee General Hospital for treatment.


Microsoft has released update 3 for Visual Studio 2013. The new update includes the latest software updates, feature additions, and bug fixes.
For more detailed information about the new changes and the current known issues visit http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2933779#MT4.
You can download the ISO file directly (4.0GB) from Microsoft's website. I would recommend using the online installer instead if you have limited bandwidth as it will simply download only the information you will need instead of just everything.


Terra5 was a natural choice for GKK Works of San Diego for the new Miramar College Service Center. The terracotta rainscreen added warmth and was the featured architectural facade material. Various features were added to create this energy-efficient building – including the use of green sunscreens.


"Money for Nothing" takes an even-handed approach when evaluating the performance of America's central bank. The film balances interviews with Fed Chair Janet Yellen, as well as former Fed Chairs Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, with commentary from critics of the Fed such as Jim Grant. The film provides an objective look at the history of the bank, and gives the audience an informed perspective on the difficult decisions the Fed makes when managing interest rates.
"Money for Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve is a well-informed, reasoned critique of the Fed, and its role as an enabler in the recent financial crises."
"Bruce uses "Money for Nothing" as an educational tool, delving into the bureaucratic muck contained within the Federal Reserve to explore how money is treated and where the ills of our time emerged from."
"Far from a tin-foil hat critique, [the film] approaches the Fed's flaws with a refreshing clarity, humor, even-handedness and level-headedness"


Holcim (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Holcim Ltd in Switzerland. Holcim Malaysia is located in Pasir Gudang, the premier industrial zone where Johor Port is located.
Holcim (Malaysia) Cement Plant Purchase TOMMS (EAM) to maintain their Cement Plant in Pasir Gudang, Johor. En. Shamsul (Maintenance Engineer) chose TOMMS (EAM) for its rich functionalities and ease of use. His manager, Mr Mukunnan like the way TOMMS (EAM) generate the Master Schedule which he can used it easily to plan and schedule his employee during any shutdown or PM. Huan (IT Manager) likes TOMMS (EAM) because of its screen interface and reusability which he is currently using to maintain his IT Assets.
Please Contact TOMMS at 603-78759488 or email helpdesk@tomms.com.my for News Information.


Aristeia is a R&D group of graduate students tasked to help the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh's MAKESHOP in shifting family members of children from observer to co-learner.
The conclusion was that a professional development tool was needed.
Collaborating, we organized our notes into a professional development card deck, Makerbox. These cards detailed the several archetypes we noticed visit the MAKESHOP, how to identify them, and how to communicate and form ideas to interact with them.The result is a deck of cards that greatly helped the Teaching Artists communicate with each other, and better their performance in seeing everyone as co-learners.
*Note - Because some of the cards contain findings from the museum's researchers (we took and expanded upon it to help link our observations to what the MAKESHOP was already working with) only the archetype and behavior model cards are displayed below.
Would you like to view/download the full, free deck? Click HERE!
Would you rather have the Makerbox cards professionally printed? Click HERE!
The money you pay goes only towards printing, shipping, and handling. Neither Aristeia or the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh profit off of your purchase.


In the 80s, a few duty officers in an isolated room in Russia had the ability to unleash hundreds of these.
The Dead Hand system was the Soviet Union's last line of deterrence in the event of a crippling nuclear strike, a way to inflict millions of casualties on its enemies even if the Soviet chain of command were decapitated.
The system was set up in 1985, not long after the most serious war scare of the late Cold War period. It's been likened to a real-life doomsday machine, and it isn't decisively known if the Kremlin's dismantled it.
David Hoffman, a Washington Post contributing editor and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the Cold War nuclear arms race, recently described the mechanics of the Dead Hand system on arms control scholar Jeffrey Lewis's podcast. The Dead Hand or "perimeter," which Hoffman characterized as a "system of guaranteed retaliation," had a critical human safeguard, bunkered in an incredibly strange underground chamber.
As Hoffman told Lewis, the Perimeter system's on-switch was "briefly" located in "a deep hardened underground bunker in the shape of a sphere, very deep and very hardened, probably the most secure place of all time in the Cold War."
In this isolated spheroid room, "a couple of duty officers" would sit and wait for three conditions to be met: "predelegation," decapitation, and active nuclear war.
Hoffman explains that the duty officers could make the perimeter system operational only if the Kremlin activated the system through a "predelegation switch," if there was "a complete loss of communication with the national command authority," and if "a complex system of sensors" had detected a nuclear detonation inside of the Soviet Union.
Three lights in the bunker had to be flashing the indicate the three criteria. The duty officers then had the option of issuing launch commands to small missiles that would fly the entire width of the Soviet Union and "give commands electronically to all the missile silos below to launch," Hoffman said.
In a sense, the spherical bunker really was the most secure place in the Cold War: inexplicably, the Soviet Union never told the US about the existence of its automated deterrence system and the US may not have even realized it existed until after the Soviet Union fell.
The US had figured out the system's "hardware," Hoffman says: the CIA knew about the existence of command rockets that had been tested to beam information to military bases, for instance, but wasn't sure what this hardware was actually for. "Dead Hand" didn't become publicly known in the US until 1993, when researcher Bruce Blair revealed its existence in a New York Times opinion piece.
Bizarrely, Moscow built a system aimed at deterring a strategic nuclear attack against the Soviet Union — and then didn't communicate its existence to the one country capable of launching such a strike.
There's another enduring mystery to the Dead Hand as well. As Hoffman explains, historians and researchers aren't sure whether the duty officers in the spherical bunker were "automatons" trained to activate the system as soon as all three lights turned green — or if they would have been more circumspect before deciding to escalate an ongoing nuclear war that the Soviets were almost necessarily losing.
Luckily for the Soviet Union and perhaps even the survival of the human race, researchers don't have a test case for how those duty officers would have behaved in this situation. But Hoffman says there's evidence that the Soviets valued the "human factor," even if the Kremlin created a secret system that would have killed millions of people in the course of a nuclear war it would already be losing.
"The Soviets did look briefly at totally computer driven automatic system and they decided against it," he said, opting for "a human firewall in a deep, safe bunker."
(As the podcast notes, there's a scene in the 1664 Stanley Kubrick film "Dr Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" where Peter Sellers' titular character notes that there's no point in having a nuclear doomsday system in place if it's keep secret. Although the Dead Hand shows that one of "Strangelove's" darkest jokes is closer to the truth than the filmmakers could possibly have realized, the scene also shows why it's heinously dangerous to set up a doomsday device that's entirely automated — something the architects of Dead Hand sensibly decided against.


Today we've added several new videos to add to our BTEC Level 3 IT resources. You can revise for your Unit 1 Information Technology Systems exam with the very best tools by subscribing your school to KnowItAll Ninja for just £2 per student for the year.
The new videos added today just provide even greater value, with the videos already available as well as our fantastic presentations, quizzes & written content. Not to mention the gamified e-learning principles that have been shown to increase student engagement in their learning.
Factors affecting the choice of digital technology.
Wireless and wired methods of connecting devices and transmitting data within and between IT systems.
How the features of connection types can meet the needs of individuals and organisations.
The implications of selecting and using different connection types.
The impact of connection types on the performance of an IT system.
The features, use and purpose of different networks.
Factors affecting the choice of network.
How the features of a network and its component parts affect the performance of an IT system.
You can also view this video, as well as the other new BTEC IT Level 3 revision videos, in the matching lessons in the Unit 1 Information Technology Systems course.
These new BTEC IT Level 3 resources are a great way to revise for your Unit 1 Information Technology Systems exam. With all the other fantastic quality content already available on KnowItAll Ninja, it really is the best place to revise for your BTEC National Information Technology course.
We'll be continuing to add new videos every fortnight so keep an eye out to ensure you have the best BTEC IT revision material available. If you're studying a BTEC ICT Level 2 qualification, don't forget we have course for Unit 1 The Online World & Unit 2 Technology Systems for that specification too.
The videos will be arriving very regularly so keep a close eye on BlogItAll Ninja and follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ if you want to know about all of the latest developments in our BTEC IT Level 3 revision course.


Watch Deadpool 2 2018 Full Movie Watch Online Free, Deadpool 2 Online Full Movie Free,Deadpool 2 Full Movie Free Online Putlocker,Watch The Movie Deadpool 2 Free Online,Deadpool 2 Movie Watch Online Free,Deadpool 2 Movie Watch Online Free,Watch Deadpool 2 Free Online No Download,Deadpool 2 Watch Online For Free,Deadpool 2 Full Movie Free Online.
Overview : Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool battles the evil and powerful Cable and other bad guys to save a boy's life.
Watch Deadpool 2 (2018) Full Movie. Deadpool 2 can be playing for free registering. Watch Deadpool 2 with HD Quality.


PointeDVD will be producing DVDs and Blu-ray discs of all five performances of the Metropolitan Ballet Theatre production of The Nutcracker, presented Friday through Sunday, December 19-21, 2014.
All five shows on five discs. Choose DVD or Blu-ray. Includes one full sized case and free shipping. Each disc must be from a different show.


text:
Q: Why is my Erlang application crashing? I'm building a simple erlang application and very new to the enviornment, so I'm having trouble making sense of some errors I'm getting. I'm not sure what the root of my problem is here, so if there's anything relevant that I don't post, please let me know:
Source for module I'm running:
  -module(basilisk_server).
  -author("Oak").

  -export([start_link/2,start/0,start/1,start/2, stop/1]).
  -behaviour(application).
  -record(options,{
    port = 6890,
    server_opts = []
  }).
  -define(LocalIP,"192.168.64.128").
  start()->
    start([]).
  start(Args)->
    #options{port = Port, server_opts = ServerOpts}  = parse_args(Args),
    spawn(
      fun() ->
        start_link(Port, ServerOpts),
        receive after infinity -> ok end
      end)
  .
  start(_StartType, Args) ->
    start(Args).

  parse_args(Args) -> parse_args(Args, #options{}).
  parse_args([], Opts) -> Opts;
  parse_args([Head | Rest], Opts) ->
    NewOpts =
      case catch list_to_integer(Head) of
        Port when is_integer(Port) ->
          Opts#options{port = Port};
        _Else ->
          case Head of
            "framed" ->
              Opts#options{server_opts = [{framed, true} | Opts#options.server_opts]};
            "" ->
              Opts;
            _Else ->
              erlang:error({bad_arg, Head})
          end
      end,
    parse_args(Rest, NewOpts)
  .
  stop(_State) ->
    ok.

  start_link(Port, ServerOpts) ->
    io:format("Starting server on port ~p with args: ~p~n",[Port,ServerOpts]),

    Services =
      [
        {"AuthenticationService",authenticationService_thrift},
        {"UserRegistrationService",userRegistrationService_thrift}
      ]
    ,
    {ok, _} = thrift_socket_server:start([
      {ip, ?LocalIP},

      {port, Port},
      {name, ?MODULE},
      {service, Services},
      {handler,[
        {"error_handler",  thrift_error_handler},
        {"AuthenticationService",authentication_service},
        {"UserRegistrationService",user_registration_service}
      ]},
      {socket_opts, [{recv_timeout, infinity}]}
    ]++
    ServerOpts).

I run application:start(basilisk_server). and get these messages in this order:
   {error,{bad_return,{{basilisk_server,start,[normal,[]]},
                      <0.38.0>}}}

  =INFO REPORT==== 29-Jul-2014::03:11:06 ===
      application: basilisk_server
      exited: {bad_return,{{basilisk_server,start,[normal,[]]},<0.38.0>}}
      type: temporary

  =ERROR REPORT==== 29-Jul-2014::03:11:06 ===
  Error in process <0.38.0> with exit value: {terminated,[{io,format,
 [<0.36.0>,"Starting server on port ~p with args: ~p~n",[6890,[]]],[]},
 {basilisk_server,start_link,2,[{file,"src/basilisk_server.erl"},{line,55}]},
 {basilisk_server,'-start/1-fun-0-',2,[{file,"src/basilisk_serve...

The main problem I'm having is identifying the actual source of the error. I was under the impression that io:format was the problem for a short while, but I believe that was a "red herring" and that bad_result is the root of my problem. I ran the program in an almost identical state and it was working, and suddenly started getting this error. I rolled back most of the changes and it hasn't stopped. I also tried rebooting, in case it was a problem with a background process.

A: You're using application:start, which expects your module to adhere to the application behaviour.
That is: it will call foo:start/2, to tell you that your application is starting. You are expected to return {ok, Pid}. This is documented in the "Applications" chapter of the OTP Design Principles.
However, your start function immediately calls spawn, and uses the result of that. Since spawn returns Pid, rather than {ok, Pid}, application:start is complaining about a mismatch in the expected result.
Which is why you're seeing bad_return:
{error,{bad_return,{{basilisk_server,start,[normal,[]]},
                  <0.38.0>}}}

This is telling you that you got an error, of type bad_return. It happened when calling basilisk_server:start(normal, []), and it got a return value of <0.38.0> (a pid).
Oh, and the other error is because you used start_link, which means that your two processes are linked. When one dies, the other will be killed. This is what you're seeing with the terminated. In this case, it happened to be killed in the middle of io:format; it might make it further before being killed in other runs.
Moreover, an application is assumed to start a root supervisor (this is what the returned pid is for).
At this point, you don't need the application behaviour. In fact, I'm not convinced that you need most of your code at all. Just call thrift_socket_server:start and be done with it. It'll continue to run in the background.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Good at mobile games? You could win a cow in Tunisia
By Lulu Chang	 May 9, 2016
Who says playing video games doesn't have any real world payoff? In Tunisia, the winners of a game called Bagra, which means "cow," received — you guessed it — a cow for their accomplishments. According to local media, the winning couple managed to outsmart all other competitors in keeping a virtual cow safe and alive, all while using strategy to steal from other players and their digital livestock.
The developers of the game, Digital Mania, had a few options on the table when it came to awarding the winners their prize — the victors could choose to claim the cow for themselves, or have it butchered and its meat distributed to help the needy. As it turns out, the winners elected to keep Pamela the cow for themselves, relieving the Digital Mania headquarters of its responsibility of caring for the bovine (it lived in the office for about two weeks).
While mobile games are rarely touted as benefiting society as a whole, Bagra is truly a pretty special app. Players were able to make in-game purchases that would help them advance their goals, and because all purchases were made in Tunisian dinar rather than U.S. dollars, players were indirectly helping the national economy, simply by caring for a virtual cow herd.
And it wasn't just the winning couple that left the gaming arena with prizes — others who finished near the top were awarded home phones and tablets, and there are plans to host another competition with a similar setup. And yes, in the upcoming tournament, first place will, once again, be a cow. This one's name is Brigitte.
So sure, you may have your name at the top of a leaderboard for your own prowess at Tetris or MazeRunner, but somehow, that pales in comparison to being awarded a cow for your gaming abilities.
The best iPad Pro games
The best Jackbox games
The Game Awards could have its own Parasite moment tonight if Hades wins big
Cortana vs. Siri vs. Google Assistant vs. Alexa
Android vs. iOS: Which smartphone platform is the best?