Bill Overview
Title: Human Trafficking Survivor Tax Relief Act
Description: This bill excludes from gross income, for income tax purposes, any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter) awarded pursuant to an order of mandatory restitution or in a criminal proceeding for peonage, slavery, or human trafficking.
Sponsors: Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10]
Target Audience
Population: Human trafficking survivors receiving monetary awards
Estimated Size: 20000
- The bill targets human trafficking survivors who have received monetary awards, including civil damages, restitution, or other monetary benefits as part of legal proceedings.
- It specifically addresses financial aspects relating to restitution or damages awarded in criminal cases involving peonage, slavery, or human trafficking.
- Human trafficking is a global issue with millions affected worldwide each year; thus, survivors are part of a potentially large global population.
- In the U.S., thousands of human trafficking cases are reported annually, implying there is a significant number of survivors who may be eligible for this form of tax relief.
Reasoning
- Considering the constraints of the budget, the policy focuses on providing tax relief only on the taxable portion of restitution or awards received by survivors within the set budget.
- Human trafficking survivors who have received court-ordered restitution are directly impacted, as this policy lifts a potential tax burden, enhancing their financial recovery.
- The target population is relatively small compared to the overall U.S. population but has high needs given the legal and personal challenges faced.
- With an estimated 20,000 survivors in the U.S., many may not receive such financial awards annually, potentially allowing the budget to cover a significant portion of eligible individuals.
- Inclusion of perspectives not directly affected by the policy ensures an understanding of broader societal views, as human trafficking has a wide range of indirect societal impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This tax relief is a big help. I was worried about how to pay taxes on the money that was meant to help me start a new life.
- It feels like a step in the right direction to not penalize survivors for something they never asked for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thankful that I don't have to worry about taxes on the money I finally received.
- It helps remove one of the many burdens I have to face coming out of my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Unemployed (Miama, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know that once everything is settled, taxes won't eat into the restitution I receive.
- There are still so many legal fights ahead, but this is one less worry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see policies like these that help my clients. They already have enough on their plates without worrying about taxes.
- This will certainly help ease the financial burden on survivors who receive restitutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is beneficial as it means more of the compensation goes directly to the survivors instead of taxes.
- It's a much-needed relief as these compensations are a form of justice and recovery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelancer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing that I won't be taxed on any restitution I might get gives me a little hope.
- It's a good move but we need more initiatives addressing how to support survivors long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Barista (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this is a step forward because I see firsthand how important financial stability is to survivors.
- It might encourage more survivors to come forward and take legal action.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this affects me directly, but I support measures that help those who've suffered.
- I hope more policies like this help reduce trafficking overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's an important policy, and it's great to see recognition of the issue at a federal level.
- It could inspire future lawyers like me to keep pushing for more survivor-centric reforms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Employee (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to see a policy like this pass as it aligns with our efforts to provide holistic support to survivors.
- Tax policies like this strengthen the impact of other support services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $52500000, High: $157500000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $165000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $140000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $210000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Estimating the exact impact is difficult due to variability in the size of monetary awards and the number of eligible recipients.
- The policy targets a vulnerable population, possibly increasing their economic stability and ability to recover from trauma.
- Revenue losses at the federal level may be offset by the positive social benefits accrued to survivors.