Each year millions of low- to moderate-income Americans supplement their income by claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) during tax season. Last year, 1 in 5 taxpayers claimed the credit and earned an average of nearly $2,400.

This tax season, some of those eligible for the EITC may also be able to claim, for the first time, a new credit created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to offset the cost of purchasing health insurance for lower-income Americans. It’s called the ACA premium tax credit.

To qualify for the ACA premium tax credit, filers need first to have an annual income that falls between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line (between $11,670 and $46,680 for a single-person household in 2014). Beyond the income requirements, however, filers must also be ineligible for other public or private insurance options like Medicaid or an employer-provided plan.

Why the tax credit overlap matters

Identifying the Americans eligible for both credits is important because it sheds light on how many still need help paying for health insurance even after the ACA extended coverage options.

In a recent study of the EITC-eligible population, Elizabeth Kneebone, Jane R. Williams, and Natalie Holmes estimated what share of EITC-eligible filers might also qualify for the ACA premium tax credit this year.

Below, see a list of the top 10 states with the largest overlap between filers eligible for the EITC and those estimated to qualify for the ACA premium tax credit.* Notably, none of these states has expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income families after the passage of the ACA.

Nationally, an estimated 7.5 million people (4.2 million “tax units”) are likely eligible for both the ACA premium tax credit and the EITC. Nearly 1.3 million of those tax units are from the following ten states.

1. Florida

Overlap: 22.5 percent / 405,924 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

2. Texas

Overlap: 21.4 percent / 513,061 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

3. South Dakota

Overlap: 20.5 percent / 15,124 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

4. Georgia

Overlap: 19.8 percent / 186,020 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

5. Louisiana

Overlap: 19.6 percent / 86,512 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

6. Idaho

Overlap: 19.3 percent / 28,855 tax units
State-based exchange? Yes Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

7. Montana

Overlap: 18.9 percent / 18,138 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

8. Wyoming

Overlap: 18.4 percent / 7,276 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

9. Utah

Overlap: 18.1 percent / 42,284
State-based exchange? No (Utah runs a small businesses marketplace, but it relies on the federal government for an individual marketplace) Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

10. Oklahoma

Overlap: 18.0% / 63,045 tax units
State-based exchange? No Expanded Medicaid coverage? No

* For the purposes of this list, we measured the overlap in “tax units,” not people. One tax unit equals a single tax return. If a family of four together qualifies for the ACA premium tax credit, they would be counted as one tax unit, not four, since they filed jointly with one tax return.

This originally appeared in “Insight,” a publication of Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families.

For many in the United States, American poverty conjures images of urban blight or remote Appalachian hardship that motivated the War on Poverty in the 1960s. But the geography of poverty in the U.S. has shifted well beyond its historical confines (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). During the first decade of the 2000s, the poor population living in suburbs of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas for the first time outstripped the poor population living in central cities, and poverty continues to grow faster today in the suburbs.¹ This trend has been even more pronounced for those living below twice the federal poverty line—equivalent to $48,500 for a family of four in 2015—which roughly mirrors the population eligible to receive the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Although it was not originally billed as an antipoverty program, in its 40 years, the EITC has become one of the nation’s most effective tools for lifting low-income workers and their families above the poverty line. In 2013 alone, Brookings estimates that the EITC lifted 6.2 million people, including 3.1 million children, out of poverty (Kneebone and Holmes, 2014). What follows is a discussion of the EITC’s growing importance to recipients in light of the new geography of poverty, its role in boosting local economies, and how expanding participation in the program and paying the credit differently could enhance its effectiveness as a local economic stabilizer.

The shifting geography of poverty challenges traditional approaches to combat poverty through investments in place.

When President Johnson declared a War on Poverty in 1964, poverty in the U.S. was primarily urban or rural. This was also the case in 1975 when the EITC was created: Nearly a million more low-income individuals at that time lived in rural areas or big cities than in the suburbs of major metropolitan areas.² Place-based antipoverty interventions dating to the War on Poverty were thus designed with these two geographies—especially cities—in mind. Brookings estimates that today, the federal government spends about $82 billion per year across more than 80 place-focused antipoverty programs, spread across 10 agencies (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). Many are not well-suited to suburban contexts, for several reasons.

First, suburban poverty is more geographically diffuse than urban poverty. Suburban communities tend to be less densely populated than cities and larger in size, and cover more total area. Whereas centralized services might be appropriate in an urban context because they are easily accessible to many in need, it is more difficult to achieve those economies of scale in the suburbs, where residents live farther apart and have limited access to transit. Many competitive federal grant programs allocate points based on population served and population density, implicitly favoring large central cities.

Second, suburban municipalities may lack the experience and administrative capacity needed to sustain services for low-income families and communities. Cities have dealt with poverty longer, and have had more time to develop strategies and structures to support their poor populations. Some of this capacity stemmed explicitly from Community Action Agencies, one of the original War on Poverty programs, which was intended to spur local innovation. Small suburban communities by and large did not have this same experience. Because of their relatively small size, suburban governments may not be able to achieve the administrative scale needed to deliver effective safety-net programs.

Third, many suburban communities lack the economic scale and fiscal structure needed to fund services for low-income residents. Because many small municipalities are limited in how they are permitted to raise revenues—typically through a combination of property and sales taxes—they are especially prone to financial instability caused by the very economic conditions that also generate greater need for services. As poverty suburbanizes, small suburban communities simultaneously face rising demand and falling tax revenues to support those services. Moreover, tax “competition” among many small suburbs within a metro area can further erode the fiscal capacity and political will for these jurisdictions to support people in need.

The new geography of poverty makes direct investments in low-income individuals and families—like the EITC—even more important.

The mismatch between existing place-based antipoverty strategies and the places where poverty is growing fastest heightens the importance of investing directly and effectively in low-income individuals and families through programs such as the EITC. Following its expansion in the mid-1990s, the EITC became the most significant cash transfer program available to low-income working families. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS, 2014) estimates that approximately 79 percent of EITC-eligible taxpayers nationally claim the credit each year—a remarkably strong participation rate among federal safety-net programs.

The high program participation rate and growth over time in EITC expenditures reflects both increases in the credit’s generosity and growing need. In 2000, according to our analysis of IRS Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communities (IRS-SPEC) data, total EITC expenditures topped $42 billion (in 2013 dollars). In 2013, they approached $65 billion, equivalent to approximately 80 percent of the amount spent by the federal government on place-based poverty interventions.³

Analysis of IRS-SPEC data further suggests that the EITC’s geographic incidence closely tracks the shifting geography of need. From 2000 to 2013, the number of suburban filers claiming the EITC rose by 62 percent, compared to 33 percent in cities. Changes in the distribution of EITC claims mirrored changes in the location of poor and near-poor populations, particularly growth in the suburbs.⁴ And because lower-income suburban communities (where at least 40 percent of residents are poor or near-poor) are becoming more diverse, too—60 percent of their residents are non-white or Hispanic—the EITC also effectively reduces growing race-based income gaps in suburbs.⁵

EITC dollars support local economies.

The EITC benefits not only low-income families, but also the wider communities in which they live. Although it is widely regarded today as one of the country’s most successful antipoverty programs, the EITC was originally designed to be a temporary economic stimulus measure, in the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 (Nichols and Rothstein, 2015). During the 2000s, more local and state governments made a concerted push to expand participation in the EITC among eligible filers, in part to inject more federal dollars into their local economies (Berube, 2006a).

There are several mechanisms through which the EITC could benefit local economies. California State University researchers categorize the local economic impact of EITC refunds as the sum of direct effects (EITC recipients spending their refunds), indirect effects (business spending in response to EITC recipient spending), and induced effects (changes in household income and spending patterns caused by direct and indirect effects). Together, these effects represent the local “multiplier” effect (Avalos and Alley, 2010). Their estimates for California counties suggest that, in many cases, the credit creates local economic impacts equivalent to at least twice the amount of EITC dollars received.

Direct economic effects result from EITC recipients spending a portion of their refund locally, supporting local businesses and jobs. Consumer surveys show that low-income families spend a relatively large share of their income on groceries and other necessities, which tend to be purchased locally. Analysis of those surveys links tax refund season to increased likelihood of consumer activity as well as larger purchases (Adams, Einav, and Levin, 2009). People spend more, and more frequently, during tax refund season.

The EITC also supports local communities in less obvious ways. The concept of “tax incidence” reflects that the party being taxed, or receiving a tax credit, may not bear its full costs (or reap its benefits) because others shift their behavior in response to the tax. Along these lines, Jesse Rothstein estimates that as much as 36 cents of every dollar of EITC received flows to employers, because by enabling workers to better make ends meet on low wages, the credit effectively lowers the cost of labor. Those lower labor costs may, in turn, allow local employers to hire more local workers (Nichols and Rothstein, 2015).

Finally, emerging evidence suggests that progressive tax expenditures like the EITC can enhance intergenerational income mobility for local children, possibly by counteracting credit constraints that many low-income families face (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, and Saez, 2015). In areas with larger state EITCs, low-income children are more likely to move up the income ladder over time.

The local impact of the EITC depends on how, and how many, eligible filers claim the credit.

The local impact of the EITC also depends on whether eligible workers and families file tax returns and claim the credit. As noted above, the IRS estimates that 79 percent of those eligible to receive the EITC nationally claim it. Given local variation in characteristics associated with uptake, there is likely also considerable local variation in EITC participation (Berube, 2005). Efforts to increase participation locally can thus increase the level of investment communities receive from the program.

Research has identified several factors associated with EITC participation rates among the eligible population. Eligible filers less likely to claim the credit include those who live in rural areas, are self-employed, do not have qualifying children, do not speak English well, are grandparents, or recently changed their filing status (IRS, 2015). One study suggests that communities with moderately sized immigrant populations may exhibit lower EITC participation rates, due perhaps to less robust social networks or more dispersed/heterogeneous populations that may limit awareness of the credit (Berube, 2006b).

Recent research also suggests that EITC participation is higher in areas with more tax preparers, who may promote greater local awareness of the credit (Chetty, Friedman, and Saez, 2012). While individuals who enlist the help of tax preparers are more likely to receive the EITC, they may face significant fees that blunt the credit’s overall impact (Berube, 2006a). Expanding access to volunteer tax preparation services or simple, free online filing could help preserve more of the credit’s value for low-income families and their communities.

To maximize the EITC’s role as a local economic stabilizer, we should consider periodic payment options.

 The EITC already functions as an important antipoverty tool for low-income workers and families, and a boon to local economic stability. Communities should nonetheless be interested in efforts to connect taxpayers to a portion of their EITC throughout the year, rather than only as a lump-sum refund at tax time.

Debt features significantly on the balance sheets of EITC recipients. Recent research finds that about 95 percent of EITC recipients have debt of some kind, and that large shares of refunds are dedicated to debt payments or deferred expenses (such as car repair). Recipients do not use the majority of EITC refunds to pay for monthly expenses, despite the fact that their wages typically cover only two-thirds of those expenses (Halpern-Meekin, Edin, Tach, and Sykes, 2015).

Paying a portion of filers’ anticipated EITC periodically (and directly, rather than through employers like the defunct Advance EITC program) in smaller amounts over the course of a year could help them cope with these spending constraints and avoid taking on debt (Holt, 2008). By enabling families to better keep up with spending on regular items most often purchased locally—rent, food, vehicle maintenance—periodic payments could also support local economies. And by improving families’ liquidity, such payments could reduce reliance on high-cost financial products such as payday loans.

The EITC continues to gain importance as place-based strategies lag behind poverty’s suburbanization, and communities seek ways to maximize public investment in the face of budget constraints at all levels. The program lifts millions of working individuals and families out of poverty each year regardless of their location, and in doing so also supports community financial stability. An expanded EITC—at the federal, state, or local level—with options for periodic payment and better alternatives to high-cost tax preparation could provide even stronger support to low-income families and the places where they live.

References

Adams, W., Einav, L., and Levin, J. (2009). Liquidity constraints and imperfect information in subprime lending. American Economic Review. 99(1), 49–84. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/Liquidity.pdf

Avalos, A., and Alley, S. (2010). The economic impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in California. California Journal of Politics and Policy. 2(1). Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2jj0s1dn

Berube, A. (2005). Earned income credit participation—What we (don’t) know. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/metro/eitcparticipation.pdf

Berube, A. (2006a). Using the Earned Income Tax Credit to stimulate local economies. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2006/11/childrenfamilies-berube/berube20061101eitc.pdf

Berube, A. (2006b). ¿Tienes EITC? A study of the Earned Income Tax Credit in immigrant communities, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from  http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2005/4/childrenfamilies-berube02/20050412_tieneseitc.pdf

Chetty, R., Friedman, J., and Saez, E. (2012). Using differences in knowledge across neighborhoods to uncover the impacts of the EITC on earnings (NBER Working Paper Series no. 18232). Retrieved from http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/chetty-friedman-saezNBER13EITC.pdf

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., and Saez, E. (2015). The economic impacts of tax expenditures: Evidence from spatial variation across the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14rptaxexpenditures.pdf

Halpern-Meekin, S., Edin, K., Tach, L., and Sykes, J. (2015). It’s not like I’m poor: How working families make ends meet in a post-welfare world, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Holt, S. D. (2008). Periodic payment of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2008/06/0505-metroraise-supplement-holt

Internal Revenue Service. (2014). Statistics for tax returns with EITC. Retrieved from http://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats

Internal Revenue Service. (2015). About EITC. Retrieved from http://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/abouteitc

Kneebone, E., and Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kneebone, E., and Holmes, N. Fighting poverty at tax time through the EITC. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2014/12/16-poverty-tax-eitc-kneebone-holmes

Nichols, A., and Rothstein, J. (2015). The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (NBER Working Paper Series no. 21211). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21211.pdf

From its modest beginnings in 1975, the Earned Income Tax Credit has grown into one of the nation’s most effective anti-poverty programs. Each year, the EITC supplements low-income workers’ earnings, encouraging work and lifting millions of people out of poverty.¹ It has positive lasting effects for parents, who have shown longer-run earnings increases and better health outcomes. At the same time, their children exhibit a host of benefits, from better school performance and higher rates of college enrollment to more hours worked and higher incomes in adulthood.² 

Moreover, the EITC supports economic stability in communities throughout the country where filers collectively receive millions of dollars in earnings supplements annually.³ These successes stem from a series of targeted expansions—supported by both Republicans and Democrats—over the EITC’s 40-year history, transforming it from a small credit into a significant income supplement for low-income working families.⁴

Yet more can be done to preserve and build on the effectiveness of the EITC, and a growing number of elected officials and policy experts have proposed  strengthening the credit. Three main recommendations have emerged from these proposals.

Preserve two key provisions of the EITC that are set to expire in 2017;

Expand the credit for workers without qualifying children; and

Offer filers options to receive a portion of the credit outside of tax time.

In this brief, we consider the first two recommendations, using our MetroTax model and detailed microdata from the 2014 American Community Survey to estimate the impact of these potential changes on workers and on the metropolitan areas and states where they live.⁵ A new analysis by Steve Holt will take an in-depth look at the issue of periodic payment.

If two key EITC provisions expire in 2017, 7.4 million filers would lose part or all of their EITC.

In 2009, Congress and the Obama administration enacted two targeted, but temporary, expansions to the EITC. The legislation reduced the “penalty” for married couples filing jointly by extending their eligibility for the credit $5,000 beyond that for unmarried filers, and it boosted the credit for families with three or more children (who are more likely to be low-income even when working).

If those provisions expire in 2017, the EITC would shrink for 6.7 million taxpayers, while a little under 700,000 filers would lose eligibility altogether. Two-thirds of filers who would be affected are married couples, 1.8 million of whom are also raising more than two kids (meaning they would be subject to both cuts). The remaining third are unmarried workers with at least three children. Most of these taxpayers (58 percent) have a high school diploma or less, and they are most likely to work in manufacturing, construction, and retail. The typical adjusted gross income of these filers is $28,000 a year, just above the poverty line for a family of four (roughly $24,000 in 2014).

States and metro areas in the Midwest and West would see the steepest cuts if these provisions expire. 

Every state stands to lose millions of dollars if these EITC provisions are not made permanent. States and metro areas with higher-than-average shares of married couples and larger families would be hardest hit. In the Intermountain West, Idaho and Utah could see a 10 percent drop in federal EITC dollars coming into the state (Table 1). The major population centers in those states—including metropolitan Provo and Ogden in Utah and Boise, Idaho—top the list of major metro areas that would experience the biggest cuts if these provisions expire.

While larger states like California and Texas would see their EITC claims drop by smaller percentages, the size of the EITC-eligible population in these states mean that the expiration of these two provisions would translate into a loss of more than half a billion dollars in California ($538 million) and over $400 million in Texas. Taxpayers in the Los Angeles metro area stand to lose an estimated $185 million in EITC receipts, while those in Dallas would forfeit nearly $100 million. (For detailed state and metro data see the appendix.)

Expanding the credit for workers without qualifying children would benefit more than 14.4 million filers. 

The EITC for childless workers is significantly smaller than the credit for families with children. In tax year 2013 (the most recent year for which detailed data are available), workers with qualifying dependents received $2,794 on average through the EITC, compared to the meager $281 claimed by the average childless worker.⁶ In fact, low-wage earning childless adults are the only group of taxpayers actually taxed into (or deeper into) poverty by the federal tax system.⁷

Both President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan have proposed expanding the EITC for these workers, as have legislators—including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—and Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush.⁸ (Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich have also called for the EITC to be expanded but have not specified whom that expansion would target.⁹)

The proposals put forward by Obama, Ryan, Lee, and Bush are strikingly similar (although they differ considerably in how they would pay for it). These expansions would double the size of the credit for childless workers and the pace at which the credit phases in and out (Figure 1). They would also lower the minimum age of eligibility from 25 to 21.¹⁰

Together, these changes would boost the value of the credit for 8 million filers and extend eligibility to 6.4 million more taxpayers, increasing EITC dollars for these workers by $6.9 billion.¹¹

The filers who would benefit from these changes are largely unmarried workers (87 percent) who are most likely to be employed in service industries (retail, accommodation and food service, administrative services), health care, and construction. Half of these workers have a high school diploma or less. The typical adjusted gross income for these workers is just $8,300, well below the poverty threshold for individuals and married couples without children (e.g., $12,316 and $15,853, respectively, in 2014).

Several states and large metro areas in the Midwest and Northeast would see the number of childless workers eligible for the EITC more than double if the credit were expanded. 

The District of Columbia and Utah, each of which has above-average shares of the population between 21 and 24, would experience the largest percentage growth in the number of childless workers eligible for the EITC (135 and 134 percent, respectively). However, the bulk of states that would double their pool of eligible filers without qualifying children fall in the Midwest (North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) and Northeast (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont), and tend have higher-than-average shares of one-person households and households without children.

Similarly, while the number of EITC-eligible childless workers in the Provo metro area would more than triple if the credit were expanded, most of the major metro areas that would at least double the number of eligible workers without qualifying children are in the Midwest (e.g., Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and Toledo) and Northeast (e.g., Bridgeport, Boston, and Springfield) (Map 1).

In this era of partisan gridlock in Washington, it is rare to find a policy with the kind of bipartisan support the EITC has received—a testament to its effectiveness in encouraging work, alleviating poverty, and improving outcomes for workers and their children. By preserving key provisions of the EITC for working families and by making the EITC work better for workers without qualifying children, millions of Americans across the country stand to benefit.

Downloads

• State and Metro Data Appendix

Each year, one in five households filing a federal income tax return claims the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Targeted primarily to lower-income workers with children, it is one of many credits and deductions filers take each year on their federal income tax forms. However, unlike typical credits and deductions, the EITC is a refundable credit, meaning that after offsetting what is owed to the government filers receive the remainder of the benefit as a refund.

By supplementing earnings for low- and moderate-income households, the EITC helps bridge the gap between what the labor market provides and what it takes to support a family. It encourages and rewards work and has become one of the nation’s largest and most effective anti-poverty programs. In contrast to other work support and poverty alleviation programs, it achieves this with very little bureaucracy beyond what otherwise exists to administer the tax code.

Although the EITC began in 1975 as a small credit (no more than $400), a number of targeted expansions in subsequent years mean that today the EITC’s assistance can be considerable. In 2015, a single parent with three children working full-time all year at the federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour) is eligible for a credit of $6,242, a boost of more than 40 percent above her earnings of $15,080 (though combined it still leaves her 12 percent below the federal poverty level).

However, the only way to obtain these substantial benefits is to claim the EITC on the annual federal income tax return. While lump-sum payments have perceived benefits (such as being able to pay off debts, make larger purchases, or force savings), the EITC’s single annual disbursement can present a challenge for the working parent trying to make ends meet throughout the year. It can also be problematic for households wanting to stretch out their refund as an emergency savings reserve.

My 2008 paper, “Periodic Payment of the Earned Income Tax Credit,” proposed an option that would allow a family to receive a portion of the EITC outside of tax time, striking a balance between lump-sum delivery and the need for resources throughout the year. Specifically, half of the credit could be claimed in four payments spread out during the year, while the remaining credit would continue to be paid as part of the tax refund.

Since then, several significant developments have occurred. A little-used option for receiving some of the EITC in each paycheck ended in 2010. In 2014, the federal government initiated a new tax credit advance payment process to subsidize health insurance premiums through monthly disbursement of the Affordable Care Act’s Premium Tax Credit. Other countries providing assistance similar to the EITC have continued to innovate and offer access to benefits during the year. Finally, members of Congress and think tanks have proposed alternatives to a single lump-sum disbursement of the EITC, and others have begun to explore and experiment with alternatives, most notably in Chicago, where a 2014 pilot program made quarterly payments to 343 households.

In light of these developments, this paper reviews the author’s original EITC periodic payment proposal, examines emerging alternatives, and addresses the following key questions:

• What is the demand for periodic payment alternatives?
  
  
• What benefits will accrue from the availability of periodic payment?
  
  
• What risks are associated with periodic payment and how can they be managed?
  
  
• What is the administrative feasibility of periodic payment?

The emerging answers point a way forward for identifying different distribution options that would enhance the EITC’s value to low- and moderate-income working families.

Downloads

• Report

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) supports millions of single parents and their children each year. Although the majority of these are single moms, Father’s Day provides a good reminder that single dads are also a significant part of the equation.

Using Brookings’ MetroTax model, we estimate that roughly half (49 percent) of all EITC-eligible tax filers in 2014 filed as head of household—a group that includes many single custodial parents. Of these estimated 13.1 million filers, 8.9 million were women, and 4.2 million were men. These female-headed households included an estimated 14.7 million qualifying children, while their male counterparts included 6 million qualifying children.

Although women head of household filers were more likely to be EITC-eligible (69 percent), male heads of household were not far behind, with an estimated 61 percent eligible to receive the EITC in 2014.

To learn more about the EITC-eligible population, visit Brookings’ EITC data interactive.

It has been hailed as the most significant discovery in biology since polymerase chain reaction allowed for the mass replication of DNA samples. CRISPR-Cas9 is an inexpensive and easy-to-use gene-editing method that promises applications ranging from medicine to industrial agriculture to biofuels. Currently, applications to treat leukemia, HIV, and cancer are under experimental development.¹ However, new technical solutions tend to be fraught with old problems, and in this case, ethical and legal questions loom large over the future.

Disagreements on ethics

The uptake of this method has been so fast that many scientists have started to worry about inadequate regulation of research and its unanticipated consequences.² Consider, for instance, the disagreement on research on human germ cells (eggs, sperm, or embryos) where an edited gene is passed onto offspring. Since the emergence of bioengineering applications in the 1970s, the scientific community has eschewed experiments to alter human germline and some governments have even banned them.³ The regulation regimes are expectedly not uniform: for instance, China bans the implantation of genetically modified embryos in women but not the research with embryos.

Last year, a group of Chinese researchers conducted gene-editing experiments on non-viable human zygotes (fertilized eggs) using CRISPR.⁴ News that these experiments were underway prompted a group of leading U.S. geneticists to meet in March 2015 in Napa, California, to begin a serious consideration of ethical and legal dimensions of CRISPR and called for a moratorium on research editing genes in human germline.⁵ Disregarding that call, the Chinese researchers published their results later in the year largely reporting a failure to precisely edit targeted genes without accidentally editing non-targets. CRISPR is not yet sufficiently precise.

CRISPR reignited an old debate on human germline research that is one of the central motivations (but surely not the only one) for an international summit on gene editing hosted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.'s Royal Society in December 2015. About 500 scientists as well as experts in the legal and ethical aspects of bioengineering attended.⁶ Rather than consensus, the meeting highlighted the significant contrasts among participants about the ethics of inquiry, and more generally, about the governance of science. Illustrative of these contrasts are the views of prominent geneticists Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard. Collins argues that the “balance of the debate leans overwhelmingly against human germline engineering.” In turn, Church, while a signatory of the moratorium called by the Napa group, has nevertheless suggested reasons why CRISPR is shifting the balance in favor of lifting the ban on human germline experiments.⁷

The desire to speed up discovery of cures for heritable diseases is laudable. But tinkering with human germline is truly a human concern and cannot be presumed to be the exclusive jurisdictions of scientists, clinicians, or patients. All members of society have a stake in the evolution of CRISPR and must be part of the conversation about what kind of research should be permitted, what should be discouraged, and what disallowed. To relegate lay citizens to react to CRISPR applications—i.e. to vote with their wallets once applications hit the market—is to reduce their citizenship to consumer rights, and public participation to purchasing power.⁸ Yet, neither the NAS summit nor the earlier Napa meeting sought to solicit the perspectives of citizens, groups, and associations other than those already tuned in the CRISPR debates.⁹

The scientific community has a bond to the larger society in which it operates that in its most basic form is the bond of the scientist to her national community, is the notion that the scientist is a citizen of society before she is a denizen of science. This bond entails liberties and responsibilities that transcend the ethos and telos of science and, consequently, subordinates science to the social compact. It is worth recalling this old lesson from the history of science as we continue the public debate on gene editing. Scientists are free to hold specific moral views and prescriptions about the proper conduct of research and the ethical limits of that conduct, but they are not free to exclude the rest of society from weighing in on the debate with their own values and moral imaginations about what should be permitted and what should be banned in research. The governance of CRISPR is a question of collective choice that must be answered by means of democratic deliberation and, when irreconcilable differences arise, by the due process of democratic institutions.

Patent disputes

More heated than the ethical debate is the legal battle for key CRISPR patents that has embroiled prominent scientists involved in perfecting this method. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated a formal contestation process, called interference, in March 2016 to adjudicate the dispute. The process is likely to take years and appeals are expected to extend further in time. Challenges are also expected to patents filed internationally, including those filed with the European Patent Office.

To put this dispute in perspective, it is instructive to consider the history of CRISPR authored by one of the celebrities in gene science, Eric Lander.¹⁰ This article ignited a controversy because it understated the role of one of the parties to the patent dispute (Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier), while casting the other party as truly culminating the development of this technology (Feng Zhang, who is affiliated to Lander’s Broad Institute). Some gene scientists accused Lander of tendentious inaccuracies and of trying to spin a story in a manner that favors the legal argument (and economic interest) of Zhang.

Ironically, the contentious article could be read as an argument against any particular claim to the CRISPR patents as it implicitly questions the fairness of granting exclusive rights to an invention. Lander tells the genesis of CRISPR that extends through a period of two decades and over various countries, where the protagonists are the many researchers who contributed to the cumulative knowledge in the ongoing development of the method. The very title of Lander’s piece, “The Heroes of CRISPR” highlights that the technology has not one but a plurality of authors.

A patent is a legal instrument that recognizes certain rights of the patent holder (individual, group, or organization) and at the same time denies those rights to everyone else, including those other contributors to the invention. Patent rights are thus arbitrary under the candle of history. I am not suggesting that the bureaucratic rules to grant a patent or to determine its validity are arbitrary; they have logical rationales anchored in practice and precedent. I am suggesting that in principle any exclusive assignation of rights that does not include the entire community responsible for the invention is arbitrary and thus unfair. The history of CRISPR highlights this old lesson from the history of technology: an invention does not belong to its patent holder, except in a court of law.

Some scientists may be willing to accept with resignation the unfair distribution of recognition granted by patents (or prizes like the Nobel) and find consolation in the fact that their contribution to science has real effects on people’s lives as it materializes in things like new therapies and drugs. Yet patents are also instrumental in distributing those real effects quite unevenly. Patents create monopolies that, selling their innovation at high prices, benefit only those who can afford them. The regular refrain to this charge is that without the promise of high profits, there would be no investments in innovation and no advances in life-saving medicine. What’s more, the biotech industry reminds us that start-ups will secure capital injections only if they have exclusive rights to the technologies they are developing. Yet, Editas Medicine, a biotech start-up that seeks to exploit commercial applications of CRISPR (Zhang is a stakeholder), was able to raise $94 million in its February 2016 initial public offering. That some of Editas’ key patents are disputed and were entering interference at USPTO was patently not a deterrent for those investors.

Towards a CRISPR democratic debate

Neither the governance of gene-editing research nor the management of CRISPR patents should be the exclusive responsibility of scientists. Yet, they do enjoy an advantage in public deliberations on gene editing that is derived from their technical competence and from the authority ascribed to them by society. They can use this advantage to close the public debate and monopolize its terms, or they could turn it into stewardship of a truly democratic debate about CRISPR.

The latter choice can benefit from three steps. A first step would be openness: a public willingness to consider and internalize public values that are not easily reconciled with research values. A second step would be self-restraint: publicly affirming a self-imposed ban on research with human germline and discouraging research practices that are contrary to received norms of prudence. A third useful step would be a public service orientation in the use of patents: scientists should pressure their universities, who hold title to their inventions, to preserve some degree of influence over research commercialization so that the dissemination and access to innovations is consonant with the noble aspirations of science and the public service mission of the university. Openness, self-restraint, and an orientation to service from scientists will go a long way to make of CRISPR a true servant of society and an instrument of democracy.

Other reading: See media coverage compiled by the National Academies of Sciences.

¹Nature: an authoritative and accessible primer. A more technical description of applications in Hsu, P. D. et al. 2014. Cell, 157(6): 1262–1278.

³More about ethical concerns on gene editing here: http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711

⁴Liang, P. et al. 2015. Protein & Cell, 6, 363–372

⁵Science: A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification.

⁶Nature: NAS Gene Editing Summit.

⁷While Collins and Church participated in the summit, their views quoted here are from StatNews.com: A debate: Should we edit the human germline. See also Sciencenews.org: Editing human germline cells sparks ethics debate.

⁸Hurlbut, J. B. 2015. Limits of Responsibility, Hastings Center Report, 45(5): 11-14.

⁹This point is forcefully made by Sheila Jasanoff and colleagues: CRISPR Democracy, 2015 Issues in S&T, 22(1).

¹⁰Lander, E. 2016. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1-2): 18-28.

Event Information

On May 14, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings, in partnership with the Council for the United States and Italy, will host Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini for an address on Italy’s foreign policy during a period of geopolitical turmoil. In her remarks, Mogherini will offer perspectives on recent developments on the frontiers of Europe and explore how Italy and the U.S. can work together, along with the European Union and NATO, to address the ongoing challenges in Ukraine, the Mediterranean and beyond.

Federica Mogherini has been minister for foreign affairs since February 2014. She was previously a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committees of the Chamber of Deputies and chair of the Italian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO. She has been active in promoting nuclear disarmament in the Italian parliament, including a successfully adopted resolution supporting the nuclear disarmament visions and plans of President Obama and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Brookings Acting Deputy Director for Foreign Policy Steven Pifer will introduce Minister Mogherini. Michael Calingaert of Brookings and the Council for the U.S. and Italy will moderate a question and answer session at the conclusion of the minister’s remarks.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Mogherini

It has been hailed as the most significant discovery in biology since polymerase chain reaction allowed for the mass replication of DNA samples. CRISPR-Cas9 is an inexpensive and easy-to-use gene-editing method that promises applications ranging from medicine to industrial agriculture to biofuels. Currently, applications to treat leukemia, HIV, and cancer are under experimental development.¹ However, new technical solutions tend to be fraught with old problems, and in this case, ethical and legal questions loom large over the future.

Disagreements on ethics

The uptake of this method has been so fast that many scientists have started to worry about inadequate regulation of research and its unanticipated consequences.² Consider, for instance, the disagreement on research on human germ cells (eggs, sperm, or embryos) where an edited gene is passed onto offspring. Since the emergence of bioengineering applications in the 1970s, the scientific community has eschewed experiments to alter human germline and some governments have even banned them.³ The regulation regimes are expectedly not uniform: for instance, China bans the implantation of genetically modified embryos in women but not the research with embryos.

Last year, a group of Chinese researchers conducted gene-editing experiments on non-viable human zygotes (fertilized eggs) using CRISPR.⁴ News that these experiments were underway prompted a group of leading U.S. geneticists to meet in March 2015 in Napa, California, to begin a serious consideration of ethical and legal dimensions of CRISPR and called for a moratorium on research editing genes in human germline.⁵ Disregarding that call, the Chinese researchers published their results later in the year largely reporting a failure to precisely edit targeted genes without accidentally editing non-targets. CRISPR is not yet sufficiently precise.

CRISPR reignited an old debate on human germline research that is one of the central motivations (but surely not the only one) for an international summit on gene editing hosted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.'s Royal Society in December 2015. About 500 scientists as well as experts in the legal and ethical aspects of bioengineering attended.⁶ Rather than consensus, the meeting highlighted the significant contrasts among participants about the ethics of inquiry, and more generally, about the governance of science. Illustrative of these contrasts are the views of prominent geneticists Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard. Collins argues that the “balance of the debate leans overwhelmingly against human germline engineering.” In turn, Church, while a signatory of the moratorium called by the Napa group, has nevertheless suggested reasons why CRISPR is shifting the balance in favor of lifting the ban on human germline experiments.⁷

The desire to speed up discovery of cures for heritable diseases is laudable. But tinkering with human germline is truly a human concern and cannot be presumed to be the exclusive jurisdictions of scientists, clinicians, or patients. All members of society have a stake in the evolution of CRISPR and must be part of the conversation about what kind of research should be permitted, what should be discouraged, and what disallowed. To relegate lay citizens to react to CRISPR applications—i.e. to vote with their wallets once applications hit the market—is to reduce their citizenship to consumer rights, and public participation to purchasing power.⁸ Yet, neither the NAS summit nor the earlier Napa meeting sought to solicit the perspectives of citizens, groups, and associations other than those already tuned in the CRISPR debates.⁹

The scientific community has a bond to the larger society in which it operates that in its most basic form is the bond of the scientist to her national community, is the notion that the scientist is a citizen of society before she is a denizen of science. This bond entails liberties and responsibilities that transcend the ethos and telos of science and, consequently, subordinates science to the social compact. It is worth recalling this old lesson from the history of science as we continue the public debate on gene editing. Scientists are free to hold specific moral views and prescriptions about the proper conduct of research and the ethical limits of that conduct, but they are not free to exclude the rest of society from weighing in on the debate with their own values and moral imaginations about what should be permitted and what should be banned in research. The governance of CRISPR is a question of collective choice that must be answered by means of democratic deliberation and, when irreconcilable differences arise, by the due process of democratic institutions.

Patent disputes

More heated than the ethical debate is the legal battle for key CRISPR patents that has embroiled prominent scientists involved in perfecting this method. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated a formal contestation process, called interference, in March 2016 to adjudicate the dispute. The process is likely to take years and appeals are expected to extend further in time. Challenges are also expected to patents filed internationally, including those filed with the European Patent Office.

To put this dispute in perspective, it is instructive to consider the history of CRISPR authored by one of the celebrities in gene science, Eric Lander.¹⁰ This article ignited a controversy because it understated the role of one of the parties to the patent dispute (Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier), while casting the other party as truly culminating the development of this technology (Feng Zhang, who is affiliated to Lander’s Broad Institute). Some gene scientists accused Lander of tendentious inaccuracies and of trying to spin a story in a manner that favors the legal argument (and economic interest) of Zhang.

Ironically, the contentious article could be read as an argument against any particular claim to the CRISPR patents as it implicitly questions the fairness of granting exclusive rights to an invention. Lander tells the genesis of CRISPR that extends through a period of two decades and over various countries, where the protagonists are the many researchers who contributed to the cumulative knowledge in the ongoing development of the method. The very title of Lander’s piece, “The Heroes of CRISPR” highlights that the technology has not one but a plurality of authors.

A patent is a legal instrument that recognizes certain rights of the patent holder (individual, group, or organization) and at the same time denies those rights to everyone else, including those other contributors to the invention. Patent rights are thus arbitrary under the candle of history. I am not suggesting that the bureaucratic rules to grant a patent or to determine its validity are arbitrary; they have logical rationales anchored in practice and precedent. I am suggesting that in principle any exclusive assignation of rights that does not include the entire community responsible for the invention is arbitrary and thus unfair. The history of CRISPR highlights this old lesson from the history of technology: an invention does not belong to its patent holder, except in a court of law.

Some scientists may be willing to accept with resignation the unfair distribution of recognition granted by patents (or prizes like the Nobel) and find consolation in the fact that their contribution to science has real effects on people’s lives as it materializes in things like new therapies and drugs. Yet patents are also instrumental in distributing those real effects quite unevenly. Patents create monopolies that, selling their innovation at high prices, benefit only those who can afford them. The regular refrain to this charge is that without the promise of high profits, there would be no investments in innovation and no advances in life-saving medicine. What’s more, the biotech industry reminds us that start-ups will secure capital injections only if they have exclusive rights to the technologies they are developing. Yet, Editas Medicine, a biotech start-up that seeks to exploit commercial applications of CRISPR (Zhang is a stakeholder), was able to raise $94 million in its February 2016 initial public offering. That some of Editas’ key patents are disputed and were entering interference at USPTO was patently not a deterrent for those investors.

Towards a CRISPR democratic debate

Neither the governance of gene-editing research nor the management of CRISPR patents should be the exclusive responsibility of scientists. Yet, they do enjoy an advantage in public deliberations on gene editing that is derived from their technical competence and from the authority ascribed to them by society. They can use this advantage to close the public debate and monopolize its terms, or they could turn it into stewardship of a truly democratic debate about CRISPR.

The latter choice can benefit from three steps. A first step would be openness: a public willingness to consider and internalize public values that are not easily reconciled with research values. A second step would be self-restraint: publicly affirming a self-imposed ban on research with human germline and discouraging research practices that are contrary to received norms of prudence. A third useful step would be a public service orientation in the use of patents: scientists should pressure their universities, who hold title to their inventions, to preserve some degree of influence over research commercialization so that the dissemination and access to innovations is consonant with the noble aspirations of science and the public service mission of the university. Openness, self-restraint, and an orientation to service from scientists will go a long way to make of CRISPR a true servant of society and an instrument of democracy.

Other reading: See media coverage compiled by the National Academies of Sciences.

¹Nature: an authoritative and accessible primer. A more technical description of applications in Hsu, P. D. et al. 2014. Cell, 157(6): 1262–1278.

³More about ethical concerns on gene editing here: http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711

⁴Liang, P. et al. 2015. Protein & Cell, 6, 363–372

⁵Science: A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification.

⁶Nature: NAS Gene Editing Summit.

⁷While Collins and Church participated in the summit, their views quoted here are from StatNews.com: A debate: Should we edit the human germline. See also Sciencenews.org: Editing human germline cells sparks ethics debate.

⁸Hurlbut, J. B. 2015. Limits of Responsibility, Hastings Center Report, 45(5): 11-14.

⁹This point is forcefully made by Sheila Jasanoff and colleagues: CRISPR Democracy, 2015 Issues in S&T, 22(1).

¹⁰Lander, E. 2016. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1-2): 18-28.

A 2010 publication of the U.S. Geological Survey caused major excitement in Cyprus, an island that at the time was suffering from the economic collapse of its neighbor and major trading partner, Greece. According to the publication, the seabed of the Eastern Mediterranean could contain up to 120 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas.3 Three years later, the Cypriot administration has high hopes that natural gas exports may get Cyprus—the third smallest European Union member state—back on its feet, after its own financial collapse in 2012. Unfortunately for the Cypriots, the reality on the ground is sobering, and it is currently unclear whether Cyprus will become a producer, or an exporter, of natural gas. Around Cyprus, other countries hope to benefit from the energy potential as well, including Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. In the Israeli Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), in particular, substantial reserves of natural gas have been found, though the verdict is out whether these will in fact all be produced.

Exploration of Cyprus’s offshore concessions is at an early stage. Energy majors such as ENI and Total are among the first to explore possible gas (and oil) reserves and they expect results not before 2015. To date, only two test wells have been drilled by Houston-based Noble Energy. Proven reserves have been downgraded since and are currently estimated to be between 3 and 5 tcf. At this level of reserves, investing in a natural gas liquefaction terminal, which the Cypriot administration has supported, is not economically viable. A better alternative would be to construct a pipeline to Turkey, which has a large and rapidly growing market for natural gas.

Download the full piece »

Downloads

• Politics Trump Economics in the Complex Game of Eastern Mediterranean Hydrocarbons