State Earned Income Tax Credit
Priority Policy Overview
The EITC is one of the largest and most effective wage support programs for low- and moderate-income families. It supplements the earnings of workers by reducing their tax burden. When the EITC is greater than the amount of taxes owned, the taxpayer receives a refund. Every year millions of Americans use these refunds to get out of debt and start saving for the future. States should enact their own EITCs that build on the federal credit.
For more information, see either the State Earned Income Tax Credit Policy Brief or State Earned Income Tax Credit Resource Guide.
Elements of a Strong Policy
CFED considers a state’s EITC policy strong if it meets the following criteria:
- Has the state enacted an EITC policy? A first step that states should take to is to get a state EITC—no matter how small—on the books. Even a relatively small credit will benefit low-income families and can lay the groundwork for subsequent expansion.
- Is the credit refundable? Refundability is the single most important component of the EITC. Because families with low earnings are likely to have little or no state income tax liability, only a refundable credit reaches them, giving them an added incentive to work and helping to offset the other state taxes they pay.
- Is the credit at least 15% of federal EITC? Credit levels should be large enough to ensure that working poor families receive adequate support to benefit from the program. Primary considerations in setting a state credit level include the affordability of the program for the state, the level of tax relief desired and the size of the desired income boost for poor families.
- Is there a bonus if EITC funds are deposited into a savings or investment account? The majority of EITC refunds are used to meet immediate needs. However, refund checks are often the largest lump-sum, discretionary funds that low-income taxpayers receive all year. Their potential to further long-term asset development is significant. Providing an incentive that encourages savings, either through IDAs or other savings instruments, can improve the asset development prospects of many working families.1
1 Holt. (2006, February). The Earned Income Tax Credit at 30: What We Know. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, p.17. Retrieved November 18, 2006 from www.brook.edu/metro/pubs/20060209_Holt.pdf.
Policy Ratings

For information on the Scorecard's policy rating methodology, click here.
Status of State Earned Income Tax Credits1
| State | Has State EITC? | Refundable Credit? | At Least 15% Of The Federal Credit? | Savings Bonus?2 | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No | ![]() |
|||
| Alaska | No | ![]() |
|||
| Arizona | No | ![]() |
|||
| Arkansas | No | ![]() |
|||
| California | No | ![]() |
|||
| Colorado | Suspended3 | ![]() |
|||
| Connecticut | No | ![]() |
|||
| Delaware | Yes | No | 20% | No | ![]() |
| District of Columbia | Yes | Yes | 40% | No | ![]() |
| Florida | No | ![]() |
|||
| Georgia | No | ![]() |
|||
| Hawaii | No | ![]() |
|||
| Idaho | No | ![]() |
|||
| Illinois | Yes | Yes | 5% | No | ![]() |
| Indiana | Yes | Yes | 9% | No | ![]() |
| Iowa | Yes | Yes | 7% | No | ![]() |
| Kansas | Yes | Yes | 17% | No | ![]() |
| Kentucky | No | ![]() |
|||
| Louisiana | Yes | Yes | 3.5 | No | ![]() |
| Maine | Yes | Yes4 | 5% | No | ![]() |
| Maryland | Yes | Yes5 | 25% | No | ![]() |
| Massachusetts | Yes | Yes | 15% | No | ![]() |
| Michigan | Yes | Yes | 20% | No | ![]() |
| Minnesota | Yes | Yes | Average 33%6 | No | ![]() |
| Mississippi | No | ![]() |
|||
| Missouri | No | ![]() |
|||
| Montana | No | ![]() |
|||
| Nebraska | Yes | Yes | 10% | No | ![]() |
| Nevada | No | ![]() |
|||
| New Hampshire | No | ![]() |
|||
| New Jersey | Yes | Yes | 25% | No | ![]() |
| New Mexico | Yes | Yes | 10% | No | ![]() |
| New York | Yes | Yes | 30% | No | ![]() |
| North Carolina | Yes | Yes | 5% | No | ![]() |
| North Dakota | No | ![]() |
|||
| Ohio | No | ![]() |
|||
| Oklahoma | Yes | Yes | 5% | No | ![]() |
| Oregon | Yes | Yes | 6% | No | ![]() |
| Pennsylvania | No | ![]() |
|||
| Rhode Island | Yes | Yes7 | 25% | No | ![]() |
| South Carolina | No | ![]() |
|||
| South Dakota | No | ![]() |
|||
| Tennessee | No | ![]() |
|||
| Texas | No | ![]() |
|||
| Utah | No | ![]() |
|||
| Vermont | Yes | Yes | 32% | No | ![]() |
| Virginia | Yes | No | 20% | No | ![]() |
| Washington | Yes8 | Yes | 5%9 | No | ![]() |
| West Virginia | No | ![]() |
|||
| Wisconsin | Yes | Yes | Average 16%10 | No | ![]() |
| Wyoming | No | ![]() |
1. www.stateeitc.com
2. CFED research
3. Colorado's state EITC is contingent upon the state having surplus revenue, and there is no surplus revenue in 2009.
4. Maine passed legislation in 2009 that made the state's EITC partially refundable: up to $150 for joint filers and $125 for single filers. The changes will go into effect in TY 2010.
5. Maryland also offers a non-refundable EITC set at 50 percent of the federal credit. Taxpayers in effect may claim either the refundable credit or the non-refundable credit, but not both.
6. Minnesota’s credit for families with children, unlike the other credits shown in this table, is not expressly structured as a percentage of the federal credit. Depending on income level, the credit for families with children may range from 25% to 45% of the federal credit; taxpayers without children may receive a 25% credit.
7. Rhode Island made a very small portion of its EITC refundable effective in TY 2003. In 2006, the refundable portion was increased from 10% to 15% of the nonrefundable credit.
8. Washington supplements the federal EITC refund with its Working Families Credit, even though it does not have a state income tax.
9. Washington’s EITC is worth 5% of the federal EITC or $25, whichever is greater. When the matching rate rises to10% in 2010, the minimum value will rise to $50.
10. Wisconsin's credit is 4% of federal if household has one child, 14% for two children, and 43% for three or more children.


