By Liz Carey for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Big Sky Connection reporting for The Daily Yonder-Public News Service Collaboration

For some rural residents, not filing a tax return this year could cost them more than $6,000.

Changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as part of the Covid-19 pandemic relief efforts mean that more people are eligible for the tax credit, and more money is due back to tax filers as part of the credit.

But to get the money, people have to file a tax return, even if they weren't eligible in previous years. Making Americans aware of the change is the goal of a nationwide campaign called Get It Back.

As part of the American Rescue Plan (ARP), changes to the EITC made some 17 million more Americans eligible for the tax credit. Previously, the EITC was available to families with children and childless individuals age 25 and up. The ARP temporarily extended the eligibility to childless workers age 19 and up, and workers 65 and older. The credit was also extended to homeless young adults 18 and up and to young adults transitioning out of foster care. Additionally, it raised the income limits to qualify from just under $16,000 to $21,000.

The expansion will make a big difference for working young adults. Nearly 5 million young people between 19 and 24 will benefit from the expansion, as well as 21% of workers without children in rural areas, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) report.

That credit, said Roxy Cains, Earned Income Tax Credit Outreach campaign director with the CBPP, can lift people out of poverty.

Previously, she said, the EITC was so small and eligibility so limited that the tax code literally taxed 5.8 million low-wage workers into poverty. This temporary change, she said, does the opposite.

Additionally, because the credit has nearly tripled, it is a bigger incentive for those low-income workers to file their taxes.

The problem is reaching those people.

According to IRS estimates from 2016, only 80 to 85% of the people eligible for the EITC for families with children claim it, and an even smaller percentage of working adults without children (about 65%) ever claim it.

Cains said the "Get It Back" national campaign provides grassroots organizations in rural areas with the tools and funding they need to reach rural residents.

Getting them to file their taxes is the first hurdle, said Dean Williamson, economic development director at Human Resources District Council (HRDC) IX in Bozeman, Montana. Williamson said the HRDC works with residents in his area to assist with their economic stability and self-sufficiency, including financial coaching and tax filing. While his organization sees filing taxes as a part of their clients' financial stability, some of their clients may not think the same way.

"There's maybe just some assumption that they didn't make enough money, and that it isn't worth it," he said. "But around here, anyway, there's some suspicion in all federal programs Are they going to track me? Are they going to be taking more money than they should?"

While reaching people in rural areas is difficult, he said, because his organization has been around for 45 years, it is able to use its reputation to reach them.

"We do have a lot of repeat customers because of our age and mainly, I think it's really because we've built sort of one-on-one relationships," he said.

Jennifer Graybill with the Carroll County Community Action Agency in Carroll County, Maryland, said the money can make the difference between surviving and thriving for families. The EITC credit can mean as much as $6,700 for a family with four children.

"We take for granted our tax returns," she said. "For our working poor families - it gives them an incentive to work. Because the family that is struggling, making barely minimum wage to put a roof over their head, at the end of the year, that return is what lifts them out of poverty. It's what makes it worth working and that bit of money, it's a game-changer for our families."

That return, she said, is the down payment on a car, or catching up on utilities, or school clothes. In some cases, she said, it's the first time these families ever put money in savings or put money aside for their children to go to college.

Liz Carey wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

The chair of the Federal Trade Commission will be in rural Iowa this weekend to hear from farmers and other residents about the proposed sale of Iowa Fertilizer to Koch Industries.

The sale is pending FTC approval. Iowa spent $500 million to build an Iowa Fertilizer factory in Weverly to create competition in an already consolidated industry.

Aaron Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, said he plans to tell FTC Chair Linda Khan a sale to Koch Industries would backtrack on any competitive progress the state has made.

"Our concern is that an industry that already lacks competition and has all sorts of monopoly problems would only get worse if this sale is allowed to go through," Lehman explained.

Koch and other corporate ag conglomerates have said consolidating allows them to provide better products to farmers more efficiently. The hearing is set for Saturday on Main Street in Nevada.

In addition to reducing competition for fertilizer, Lehman argued the sale would increase prices for farmers, and ultimately mean higher food prices for Iowans. He wants Khan to hear stories firsthand, from the people on the ground in Nevada.

"We know that we might not be able to have a dialogue with the people who are investigating this situation, because they need to be impartial," Lehman acknowledged. "But our farmers need to tell their story about how the industry is already in a monopoly state."

Some 18 other ag organizations have joined the Iowa Farmers Union calling on the FTC and the Justice Department to investigate the proposed sale.

A farm group is helping Iowa agriculture producers find ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use on their crops.

Excess nitrates can wind up in ground and surface water, and cause health problems.

Practical Farmers of Iowa is encouraging farmers to find just the right amount of nitrogen they need for their crops - while avoiding applying too much, which the group says is common.

PFI's Field Crops Viability Coordinator - Chelsea Ferrie - said thanks to federal grants and private funding, the group will pay farmers up to $35 for every acre that has a lower than normal yield if they didn't apply enough nitrogen.

"No cost to the farmer, either," said Ferrie. "We're trying to help incentivize them. This is something that farmers want to do - I mean, they want to be good stewards of the land - but also, that they need to have a profitable farm."

The application period for the program is open through the end of April.

To help them reach the right nitrogen balance, Ferrie said PFI will help farmers on the front end of the process, too - so they aren't left guessing how much to apply.

"Talk through what your typical fertilizer plan is, and what your reduction plan would be," said Ferrie. "Then you would implement this year, going into the spring and into the season."

Farmers have relied on nitrogen-based fertilizers for generations - but when applied in excess, nitrates run off into ground and surface water, posing health concerns for animals and people.




get more stories like this via email

Pesticides are still common in agriculture. Organic producers who avoid them have seen ups and downs in pushing for stronger regulations, and they point to a South Dakota example of the harm associated with widespread use among neighboring farms.

At the heart of the regulatory fight is the application of the weed-killing pesticide dicamba, and how it can drift from one farm to another. Last month, a federal court blocked "over the top" spraying of dicamba products, but the EPA followed with an order to allow the spraying of existing supplies.

Glenn Pulse, co-owner of an organic farm in Vermillion, said a 2017 drift incident had a big impact on his operation.

"Our entire farm was covered. We lost a lot of livestock, and thousands of bees were killed," he explained.

It also resulted in health concerns for his family, having to regain his organic farmer certification, and a legal battle over restitution. Groups such as the National Family Farm Coalition have been fighting what they call the deregulation of these chemicals, arguing the drift and runoff effect has damaged millions of crops.

Dicamba-manufacturing companies deny responsibility, instead blaming farmers who apply it for not following guidelines.

The EPA has said there were already millions of gallons of dicamba in circulation prior to the court's ruling, prompting the agency's order. Pulse feels there are farmers who are careful in spraying chemicals, but he wants stronger enforcement against those he describes as "loose cannons."

"The guys that are not following the labels and they're spraying in weather conditions that are not favorable, that is where, I would say, 90% of the problems are happening with drift incidents," Pulse said.

His calls for better responses to these incidents coincide with policy demands to heavily restrict dicamba products. Meanwhile, Rep. Dusty Johnson, D-South Dakota, is the main sponsor of a bill supporters say would assure uniformity in national pesticide labeling under federal law. But opponents argue it would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules.