'Family Fairness Tax Reform' is hard on poor families

The "Economic Growth and Family Fair Tax" plan from Senators Rubio and Lee  is ambitious and expensive, but it may hurt many low-income families with children, according to new estimates. 

|
J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., right, accompanied by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, outline their ideas for a new tax plan during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington

Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a big splash with their “Economic Growth and Family Fairness Tax Plan” last month, which among other things would create a new partially refundable $2,500 per child tax credit (CTC).  The plan is ambitious and expensive, but it may hurt many low-income families with children, according to new Tax Policy Center estimates.

The Tax Foundation projects that Lee and Rubio’s tax plan would increase the deficit by about 1.5 percent of GDP—about $300 billion—in 2018, and that assumes extremely optimistic revenue feedbacks from additional economic growth.  Conventional revenue estimates would show an even bigger gap.

The year 2018 is significant because that’s when several current law provisions aimed at helping low-income families are scheduled to expire. The most important allows families to claim a refundable child tax credit of 15 percent of earnings in excess of $3,000. But in 2018 that threshold will increase to about $15,000, meaning a family with two children and earnings under that amount could lose $1,800 of their credits (15% of the difference between $15,000 and $3,000).

Lee and Rubio would let the more generous child credit provisions expire. Their $2,500 increase in the CTC would be partially refundable, but only up to the amount by which individual income tax plus payroll taxes (including the portion assessed on employers) exceeds the earned income tax credit.

For most low-income households with children, that amount is small or even zero.  Middle-income families would actually benefit more from the new refundable credit.

Tax Policy Center
How the 'Family Fairness tax' would affect families of different incomes.

TPC has not modeled the new plan, but examined a precursor offered by Senator Lee in 2013 that would have treated low-income families the same as the new proposal.  Compared with the much less costly option of simply extending the current-law refundability provisions, the Lee proposal would reduce after-tax incomes for most households with children whose annual incomes are below $30,000 in 2018. Families with kids and annual incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 (in 2013 dollars) would lose more than $700 in refundable tax credits on average.  Fully 80 percent would pay higher taxes or get smaller refunds. After-tax incomes for the poorest households would decline by an average of about 4 percent.

In contrast, higher-income households with children would get a significant tax cut. Some would qualify for child tax credits of $3,500 per child—the existing $1,000 credit plus the additional $2,500. They’d also benefit from the cut in top tax rates and other provisions.

Rubio and Lee argue that their plan would help families. When it comes to lower-income households, extending the current-law child credit provisions would help them much more. In the short run, higher-income households with kids might like the plan—at least as long as they don’t think too much about how higher deficits will affect their children’s future.

Follow me on twitter.

The post “Family Fairness Tax Reform” is Hard on Poor Families appeared first on TaxVox.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Family Fairness Tax Reform' is hard on poor families
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2015/0319/Family-Fairness-Tax-Reform-is-hard-on-poor-families
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe