EDIT: I finally got a decent answer to the question, from economics writer Ben Casselman: the advantage of the EITC is that it targets the money just to low income *households*. A significant number of low-wage earners are in the "middle-class kids with summer jobs" category.http://fivethirtyeight.com/datal...That doesn't alter the fact that it's still a subsidy to employers, who get to pay teenagers and grown-ups the same minimum wage without having to make it a living wage for either category. The teenagers earn less money for the same work, a unique form of "means testing" for the laboring class. The EITC is a point of contention among conservatives. Some feel that it's yet another government thumb on the scales. Ever the contributor to nuance and insight, Ron Paul's fans dub The Earned Income Tax Credit - Government THEFT.On the other hand, Milton Friedman approved of it, as being relatively free of government interference. I honestly have zero conception of why he would say such a thing, though it appears to have something to do with the fact that it was a more work = more money approach. Greg Mankiw points out that the EITC is aimed at children, rather than at mere laborers. Again, I'm not sure why he would say such a thing: the EITC is adjusted for more children, though it seems more of a subsidy for families and as such yet another bit of government interference.Honestly, in the end, I'd have to say it's because tax credits = starve the beast, as if that actually made any sense. Yes, it's a subsidy for businesses, who get to have laborers work for sums closer to the subsistence line without having them actually starve. The way EITC is designed it appears to support conservative social goals in a way that minimum wage doesn't, but both are equally government manipulation of the labor market, and the EITC puts more of the burden on the tax filer and away from the business.