Child tax benefit increase leaves out millions of kids, analysis says
Why it matters: The bill now making its way to the Senate provides more tax breaks to higher earners than those at the bottom.
By the numbers: The Republican bill raises the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child from $2,000 for three years.
20 million children would not fully benefit from the increase, according to an analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), since their parents don't earn enough income to get the maximum amount.
"A majority of those children get nothing from the proposed expansion," says Kris Cox, director of federal tax policy at the CBPP.
17 million children as of now do not receive the full benefit from this tax credit, per the CBPP. None of them will get anything from the expansion.
How it works: Under current law, families need upward of $30,000 a year to receive the full tax credit amount, explains Joe Hughes, senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Parents who are poor and don't owe income taxes can only claim up to $1,700 per child, known as the "refundability cap." It's a number which adjusts annually for inflation.
The new bill didn't raise the refundability cap. Instead, it only increases the maximum that parents, earning less $400,000 a year, can claim.
A married couple filing jointly would need to earn $48,550 to receive the full tax credit under the new bill, per CBPP estimates. Under current law, a married couple has to earn $36,800.
Zoom out: The new bill widens the gap between what's available to kids in higher income families and those who need help most.
For example: A married couple with two children earning $400,000 a year, the max income allowed to claim the credit, would get an additional $1,000 tax credit.
A single parent with two children, earning $24,000 a year, would get nothing, Cox explains in a recent Bluesky post.
The parents who miss out on the full benefit are those working in low-paying jobs like cashiers, home health aids and housekeepers.
Presumably a few of these parents are tipped employees who could benefit from the no-tax-on-tips provision of the bill. However, just as with this the child tax credit, many earn too small an income to benefit.
The other side: The standard defense here is that low-income Americans don't pay very much in taxes. Their tax burden is low, so they shouldn't get the full credit because they don't need the tax relief.
White House spokesman Kush Desai says wealth inequality decreased after the 2017 tax bill, and the new bill would lock that success in place.
He adds that it builds on that success "by eliminating taxes on tips and overtime in addition to rewarding American manufacturing with full equipment and factory expensing to turbocharge America's economic resurgence."
Between the lines: This big bill faces big hurdles ahead in the Senate — and the bond market — and it's not clear what will eventually make it through.
The intrigue: The legislation also blocks another 4.5 million children from benefiting from the child tax credit because now to claim it, both parents, if they are filing jointly, must have their own Social Security numbers.
Under current law, parents who don't have Social Security numbers can claim the credit if their child has one. So, for instance, a parent who is a non-citizen immigrant and files taxes with an ITIN number can claim it.
Before 2017, any parent filing taxes could claim the credit. But when Congress changed the law in the first Trump tax bill, 1 million citizen children lost out, Cox says.
State of play: The child tax credit provisions are a stark 180 for the House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans are driving to Canada than Canadians to the U.S., report finds
More American travellers drove to Canada in July than Canadians did to the United States, according to a new report by Statistics Canada. This is the first time such a reversal has taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic decline of Canadians travelling to the U.S. was sparked last year, with U.S. President Donald Trump's heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state that led to an ongoing trade war and lingering tension between the two countries. The data for last month shows that 1.8 million American residents drove to Canada, compared to the 1.7 million Canadian residents who made a return trip from the U.S. by car. Canadian road trips to U.S. plunge for seventh month as boycott continues Both countries saw a decline at land border crossings last month. For Americans driving to Canada, there was a slight dip of 7.4 per cent compared to the same month last year. It was also the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. However, the decline was much steeper for Canadians returning from the U.S. this July compared to the previous year, at nearly 37 per cent. Last month marked the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines, StatCan said. 'In 2024, Canadian-resident trips to the United States totalled 39 million, representing 75 per cent of all Canadian-resident travel abroad,' according to another StatCan report published earlier this summer about travel to the U.S. 'However, recent data on foreign travel suggest that Canadians' travel sentiment toward their southern neighbour has been shifting in early 2025.' Although the data reflects a 'notable change in travel patterns,' StatCan said it is 'unclear whether the change is temporary or part of a more permanent shift.' As for air travel, the number of non-resident visitors who flew to Canada increased in July. There were 1.4 million of them — up by just over 3 per cent since the same time last year. While the bump was largely due to residents who came from overseas (up 5.6 per cent this year), American travellers were also up by just under 1 per cent. The highest number of U.S.-resident arrivals by air was 31,600 Americans on July 3, before the Independence Day long weekend in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians returning home from abroad by air last month was down by 5.3 per cent compared to the previous year. In particular, Canadians flying back from the U.S. also decreased by nearly 26 per cent since the same time last year. Canadian permanent residents will now have to pay 'visa integrity fee' to enter U.S. Here's what it is An American sent to Canada was shocked by how furious Canadians are at the U.S. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
