logo
Family caregivers spend $7,200 a year. This proposed federal tax credit could help

Family caregivers spend $7,200 a year. This proposed federal tax credit could help

USA Today11-03-2025

Family caregivers spend $7,200 a year. This proposed federal tax credit could help
Show Caption
Hide Caption
How to talk to your parents about death and money
Talking to your loved ones about death and money can be an uncomfortable conversation, but experts say it's necessary to prevent future stress.
Ana Tris had to retire early from her lucrative corporate job because as an only child, the care for her mother required her full attention.
But it also requires two hired caregivers to help Tris, 66, and her husband, care for her 91-year-old mother, who has Alzheimer's disease at their Miami home. The out-of-pocket cost for the caregivers alone was $80,000 last year, said Tris.
Tris is among an estimated 48 million caregivers in the U.S. who provide support to a parent, spouse or loved one, according to the AARP. Family caregivers shoulder roughly $600 billion worth of unpaid labor yearly, the organization said.
Sixty-one percent of those caregivers also have a part-time or full-time job, on top of their caregiving responsibilities. The average caregiver in the U.S. spent $7,242 in out-of-pocket costs in 2021, according to the AARP.
New caregiver tax credit introduced in Congress
On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives re-introduced a piece of legislation that if passed, would provide help in the form of a federal tax credit for eligible working family caregivers.
The Credit for Caring Act, if passed, would provide up to a $5,000 nonrefundable federal tax credit for eligible working family caregivers, that would cover 30% of qualified expenses they incurred above $2,000.
The bill would help cover some of the more than $7,200 that families spend on average each year on out-of-pocket caring costs, such as home care aides, adult day care, respite care, transportation, home modifications, or other supports.
The family member does not need to be living in the same house, but the costs would need to be incurred by the caregiver seeking the tax credit, not expenses paid for by the loved one being cared for, AARP said.
The personal financial toll on families is big enough, said Nancy LeaMond, chief advocacy and engagement officer for AARP. But it is also taking a toll on caregivers' work life, she said.
"This has huge impacts on employers because these family caregivers are taking time off for work, they're not accepting promotions and they may not be able to travel or do that part of a job," LeaMond said in an exclusive interview with USA TODAY.
"This legislation is an attempt to give some relief to hard-working individuals who are trying to provide care for their loved ones and trying, at the same time, to continue to work and do what they need to do for themselves and their families," LeaMond said.
Who is sponsoring the bill?
AARP has been working with legislators for 10 years on previous versions of the bill. But LeaMond said she believes the time is finally right for it to become law – and bring relief to many caregivers.
The most recent version of the bill was introduced Tuesday in both chambers. In the Senate, the lead sponsors are Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia) and Michael Bennet (D-Colorado). In the House of Representatives, the lead sponsors are Reps. Mike Carey (R-Ohio) and Linda Sanchez (D-California).
At least two of the co-sponsors of the bill have personal experience as family caregivers.
'The Credit for Caring Act is a great tool to help ease the financial burden caregivers face, and I am proud to join with my colleagues in reintroducing this bill that aims to accomplish that,' said Capito, who is chairman of the Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee.
'Like so many Americans, I helped care for both of my parents as they battled Alzheimer's at the end of their lives, and therefore, I understand the emotional and physical toll it can take on individuals and families," she said. "By passing this bill, we can help caregivers focus more on their loved ones and less on how much it will cost them.'
Sanchez also has personal experience.
'Caring for both of my parents after they were diagnosed with Alzheimer's has given me a personal understanding of the emotional, physical, and financial challenges families face when caring for a loved one," said Sanchez. "Family caregivers – two-thirds of whom are women – often juggle work, family responsibilities, and the time and financial demands of caregiving. The Credit for Caring Act will ease some of these challenges by providing much-needed financial relief through a tax credit for home care and adult day care.'
A version of the bill introduced last year, with 98 co-sponsors, did not make it out of committee.
But LeaMond said momentum has risen over time. In the last few years, more elected officials have seen and heard from caregivers, including their own families, she said.
During the presidential campaign, both candidates recognized the importance of family caregivers. President Trump talked about the fact that there should be a tax credit to help hard-working family caregivers and supported a tax credit, said LeaMond.
Having that backing and bi-partisan support from members of Congress, hopefully will make the tax credit law. she said.
Additionally, more than 102 organizations signed a letter of support for the Credit for Caring Act, AARP said.
Voters in a poll support need for a caregiver tax credit
Results of a national poll of 4,000 voters were released by AARP in February, showing 84% said they supported a caregiver tax credit.
Here's some other highlights from the poll:
Support for the caregiving tax credit spans party lines, with strong majorities of Republicans (84%), Independents (82%), and Democrats (87%) in favor.
76% of voters agree that "Before Congress extends any tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, it should support working Americans with a tax credit to help cover the expenses of taking care of a loved one."
Family caregiving crosses party lines, with nearly two-thirds of voters (63%) serving as family caregivers at some point in their lives—many of them struggling financially.
Most voters (63%) say they are worried about their personal financial situation.
More men are becoming family caregivers
Men face a unique set of challenges when it comes to stepping into the role of a caregiver.
Tax credit could be helpful
Tris' mother, Elvira Tris, has been living with Tris and her husband for nine years. Ana Tris originally retired from her job with a luxury retailer to care for her mother and handled the care exclusively for two years. But she quickly found out that she needed more help.
Caregiving, especially without assistance, is very hard, Tris said.
"Basically, no life, no sleeping because she was in tremendous duress initially," Tris said.
Her mom's original brain atrophy diagnosis has since developed into Alzheimer's, she said.
Even with paid caregivers – one of whom stays with the family over the weekend – there are still stresses, said Tris. On Monday, the caregiver called in sick and Tris needed to go to a doctor's appointment for herself. So her husband, who is still working, had to stay home and care for his mother-in-law.
Work-life balance: Family caregivers are struggling at work, need support from employers to stay, AARP finds
A Caregiver Tax Credit would be a welcome relief, said Tris.
"I do feel like it's a beginning," said Tris. Anything is helpful, she said.
In order to qualify for the tax credit, the person needs to be a working caregiver with earned income of more than $7,500 a year, said Megan O'Reilly, AARP's vice president for government affairs for health care and family issues.
The credit also phases out for caregivers at higher incomes, fully phasing out at $125,000 for an individual and $200,000 for joint filers.
Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@USATODAY.com or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher and @blinfisher.bsky.social on Bluesky. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which will include consumer news on Fridays, here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Can Trump unilaterally abolish 2 controversial monuments in Utah?
Can Trump unilaterally abolish 2 controversial monuments in Utah?

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Can Trump unilaterally abolish 2 controversial monuments in Utah?

An advisory opinion issued Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Justice says protections for land designated as monuments can be abolished by a sitting president because it is not expressly forbidden in law. The 1906 Antiquities Act — long a thorn in the side of Utah and other Western states — gives the U.S. president the authority to create a monument to protect cultural artifacts, precious landscapes and more. But the act was clear in that it has to be 'right sized' for the area it is meant to protect, which is where the controversy comes in. The law was passed and put into motion by President Theodore Roosevelt, who designated Yellowstone as a protected and cherished space. The first of its kind. Utah has five national parks — 'mighty' attractions for the state. The parks would not be affected by this order. It also has land designated as national monuments. Zion National Park, the state's first, comprises 146,597 acres. It was a monument first but to become a national park it had to go through Congress, which is what happened. Arches National Park, with the world's most intense concentration of more than 2,000 sandstone arches, is just over 76,000 acres. So when the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and its 1.7 million acres was designated by President Bill Clinton in 1996, it felt like a slap in the face to many Utah politicians and rural families. When President Donald Trump was in his first term in office, he sent an envoy to survey Grand Staircase and Bears Ears National Monument, another controversial designation. The Interior Department secretary at the time, Ryan Zinke, rode through portions of the monument on horseback. He also did a flyover. All he could simply say: 'It is big.' Bears Ears, a 1.35 million-acre monument was created by President Barack Obama, reduced in size by Trump then restored by President Joe Biden. This advisory opinion says there is nothing in the law, or sitting precedent, to preclude a presidential action to completely reverse or alter previous monument designations. It cites a variety of actions taken over the years. In 1911, President William Taft reduced the size of the 60,776-acre Petrified Forest National Monument by 25,625 acres, stating only that a geological survey allowed the relevant land to be 'more particularly located and described.' In another instance, President John F. Kennedy acted to 'exclude(d) from the detached Otowi section of the' Bandelier National Monument 'approximately 3,925 acres of land' that he concluded 'contain(ed) limited archeological values which had been fully researched,' as well as because the land was 'not needed to complete the interpretive story' of the monument. The question that has been stirred by this advisory opinion centers on the balance between public lands protection and the vitality of industries that include ranching, mining, and even harvesting fish off the East Coast. Environmental groups were quick to call the advisory opinion an assault. 'This legal opinion is (Pam) Bondi's desperate attempt to re-write a century of caselaw in order to feed America's national monuments into the ravenous maw of the fracking and mining industries,' said Taylor McKinnon at the Center for Biological Diversity. 'The MAGA fixation on enriching polluting extractive industries at the expense of our natural heritage is a national embarrassment and an insult to every single American. These monuments protect some of our most iconic landscapes and cultural treasures. We'll fight like hell to safeguard their future.'

Paul says Senate panel will trim border security funding in ‘big, beautiful bill'
Paul says Senate panel will trim border security funding in ‘big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Paul says Senate panel will trim border security funding in ‘big, beautiful bill'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told reporters Tuesday that his panel will unveil changes to the House-passed bill to enact President Trump's agenda that will be more 'conservative' and propose dramatically less money for border security. Paul has argued for weeks that Congress doesn't need to spend $150 billion to secure the border and beef up immigration enforcement since border crossings plunged after Trump took office in January. 'It will actually be the conservative version of how much money we spend' on the border, Paul told reporters. He said the Senate's text under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would propose about 'half as much money' as the $150 billion passed by the House. 'The wall, if you look at the [Customs and Border Protection (CBP)] website — until they removed it yesterday — they said it would cost $6.5 million per mile' to build the border wall, Paul said. 'If you add that up for about 1,000 miles that's $6.5 billion. They asked for $46.5 billion, so they got a math problem,' he added. 'Instead of addressing the math problem, CBP took that off their website two days ago.' Paul posted on social media Monday that Congress doesn't need to spend $150 billion to secure the border and enforce immigration law through deportations and other actions, arguing that the Trump administration could get the job done for half the cost. 'We don't need $150 billion to secure the border. We can do it for half that — $75 billion — and still protect the American people,' he wrote. 'The math backs it up.' Paul said he would submit the text of his revisions to the House-passed Homeland Security chapter of the bill to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday. 'We will be giving that to Sen. Thune later today,' he told reporters. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Big Fans Of State Sovereignty Except When California Does It
Big Fans Of State Sovereignty Except When California Does It

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Big Fans Of State Sovereignty Except When California Does It

As I mentioned in yesterday's edition of Where Things Stand, there is an element of campaign-promise fulfillment intertwined in the Trump administration's aggro deployment of National Guard troops to inflame an already tense standoff between LA protesters and local law enforcement. Trump's spent much of his political career vowing to punish his perceived enemies (in this case, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and, more generally, a state that won't give Trump its Electoral College votes). Before he was even back in office this year, he was already formulating a plan to punish states and municipalities that dare to be led by Dems. The dangerous standoff he's created in LA between civilians and the military is the real-life manifestation of a running bit in Trump's psyche, a feud between himself and blue-voting municipalities that, up until this point, he largely stoked via Truth Social posts and, starting in January, executive orders attacking sanctuary cities and those who govern them. In order to justify the deployment of the military against civilian protesters as anything bigger than him finding an opening for his blue city retribution, it appears he's enlisted some of his allies in the administration, and in Congress, to perform a bit of shameless spin when it comes to state sovereignty. When Trump first ordered the federalization of the California National Guard, Newsom surfaced an old tweet from Trump's DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which she posted while governor of South Dakota in 2024. The tweet is a clip from an interview Noem did with Fox News' resident MAGA man Sean Hannity during which she argued that if President Biden 'federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states' rights.' (They were expressing disapproval of a theoretical move Biden could take to order the Texas National Guard to stand down when Texas Governor Greg Abbott mobilized it for border enforcement.) Newsom reposted the tweet on Sunday. Noem is, of course, now living and dying by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard without consulting a state governor, going so far, per a document obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, as to suggest that Guard members go beyond their current unprecedented deployment and extra-legally join ICE in conducting immigration arrests. Trump's pals in Congress, meanwhile, are having to twist themselves a bit more to make the hypocrisy stick. Take libertarian-in-chief Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the man who is constantly lamenting federal overreach and professing his strong desire to shrink the size of the federal government. In response to questions about Trump's decision to federalize National Guard troops and send them into LA, Paul said he supported the decision. He also gave the game away: that the true point of deploying troops was not about mitigating protests but about forcing California, a sanctuary state, to bend to the President's will. 'I've always preferred local law enforcement to federal but this is a time in which it looks as though the state government is resisting enforcing federal law,' he said. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) — the world's biggest fan of states' rights when it comes to their ability to impose draconian abortion bans in Roe's wake — was all in on the deployment when speaking to reporters on Tuesday. 'President Trump has put his hand on the table and said 'Not on my watch,' and we applaud that so we're standing with him,' Johnson said. 'Look, that's not my lane. I'm not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested, but he ought to be tarred and feathered,' he continued. Some vulnerable House Republicans have reportedly been vocalizing their lack of enthusiasm for a White House-created, Mike Johnson-supported plan that would see Congress green-light a handful of DOGE cuts in the form of a rescissions package. Turns out some of the devastating cuts to foreign aid programs are not just hard to stomach, but rubber stamping them might prove problematic for these representatives' reelection prospects. Specifically, at least a dozen House Republicans have expressed concerns about cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a George W. Bush-era program. Per Politico: In recent days, White House officials have conveyed to GOP leaders that they will not only maintain life-saving treatments under PEPFAR but will also — in response to concerns from more than a dozen House Republicans — preserve some prevention programs as well, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the private assurances. After a recent visit to Hiroshima, Japan, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard put out a video on Twitter Tuesday warning that the world is closer to nuclear war than ever before. In it she accused 'political elites' who can hide in 'shelters' of trying to stoke conflict between world powers with access to nuclear weapons. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,' Gabbard said in the video. 'Perhaps it's because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won't have access to,' she said. 'It's up to us, the people, to speak up and demand an end to this madness.' A judge granted the Trump administration's motion for summary judgment Tuesday evening, finding that the President's removal power allowed him (via DOGE) to axe the U.S. African Development Foundation's board, and that the board members had already been removed when they voted to appoint a new president. We had covered this saga a bit in March as Trump was early on his aggressive push to remake the executive branch, demolishing many agencies in the process. The USADF had managed to hold off DOGE — at least for awhile. Judge Richard Leon had telegraphed Tuesday's decision in recent court hearings. This is not one of the independent agencies that had removal protections and is unlikely to end in a showdown over agency power. — Kate Riga Stephen Miller Demanded ICE Target Home Depots Punishing Blue Cities Was Always On The Agenda Trump Admin Calls In National Guard Against LA Protestors White House Pushes Texas to Redistrict, Hoping to Blunt Democratic Gains Fake Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests GOP senator on Trump's military parade: 'I wouldn't have done it'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store