Bill Overview
Title: End Child Poverty Act
Description: This bill replaces the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit with a universal child assistance program. The program establishes a set monthly assistance payment for each child of a taxpayer less than 19 years of age. The bill establishes an Office of Universal Child Assistance in the Social Security Administration for purposes of administering the assistance program. The bill also allows a $600 refundable tax credit for adult dependents and certain family members.
Sponsors: Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-13]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by End Child Poverty Act
Estimated Size: 80000000
- The bill affects children below the age of 19 by providing a monthly assistance payment for each child. This directly targets households with children, reducing poverty rates among children.
- The bill replaces existing credits with a universal assistance program, implying everyone with a child under 19 receives the payment regardless of income, thus impacting a large portion of the population across various economic segments.
- According to UNICEF, there are approximately 2.2 billion children worldwide. Assuming not all children will be covered due to varying government policies and not all countries adopting similar measures, a reasonable estimate might affect 30% of the global child population considering varied poverty levels and the program's focus on reducing child poverty.
- The additional $600 refundable tax credit for adult dependents will impact families caring for elderly parents or disabled adult children, further widening the net of people affected.
- The potential impact is significant in reducing child poverty, affecting both families directly eligible for the new universal child assistance program and broader society through economic changes.
Reasoning
- The policy will have a significant impact on households with children under the age of 19, as it provides direct financial support on a monthly basis, which might help alleviate child poverty and improve household welfare.
- The universal nature of the policy implies widespread application and trust in immediate benefit, leading to potential increases in well-being scores for eligible families across economic backgrounds.
- Not all American households will be equally affected, as the presence of children under 19 and adult dependents is critical for impact; thus, a segment of the population will not be directly impacted but may see indirect effects through community economic improvements.
- Urban households with higher living costs might feel more relief from the policy than rural households, where the cost of living is lower and existing support structures might already mitigate child poverty differently.
- The policy replaces existing tax credits, which may impact the child poverty statistics regionally and federally by shifting how benefits are distributed, changing the financial landscape for many households.
- Families with adult dependents, such as elderly parents or disabled family members, will receive a bit more relief, though the primary focus is on child assistance.
- Given the US population numbers, with significant segments living below or near the poverty line, this policy holds the potential to make moderate changes over the long term, notably in households with multiple children.
- The budgetary constraints highlight the need for efficient implementation and monitoring to ensure coverage within the financial limits, influencing how broadly and effectively the policy reaches those in need.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers direct financial help which is incredibly important for managing daily expenses as a single mom.
- Replacing the earned income credit simplifies what I have to apply for, hopefully making it easier when tax season comes around.
- The assurance of a consistent monthly amount will give me a bit more relief compared to waiting for tax returns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While we are doing okay financially, this policy makes a real difference as my kids get older and expenses increase.
- I'm glad there is extra money coming in monthly rather than at year-end, easier for budgeting that way.
- Even though we're not in poverty, extra funds mean more opportunities for my kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a lifeline—it means I can start saving for our own place.
- My worry about unexpected expenses is huge, and this helps to lessen that stress a lot.
- Knowing I don't have to navigate the complicated tax credits anymore is relieving.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As costs keep rising for farming supplies and living, this policy means financial breathing room.
- I appreciate the equal distribution; whether you live in rural or urban, kids' needs don't change.
- Retaining the farm is a primary motivation, and this helps cover the kids’ educational needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Office Manager (New York City, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional tax credit for my mother is a positive add-on, reducing out-of-pocket costs significantly.
- Adopting a child was a dream, and knowing there's supportive legislation is heartening.
- New York living is pricey; every bit of financial help is cherished and needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Freelance Designer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have children, so the policy impact is indirect, possibly affecting community childcare prices or education investments.
- Curious to see if this policy alters typical income tax diversity, simplifying or complicating freelancer taxes.
- I think it's commendable as a societal investment, especially in high-cost areas.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My grandchildren’s parents could use the support, offering stability and ease.
- Not much changes personally, but knowing it's there for family is reassuring.
- Programs supporting families can potentially improve community well-being overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This assistance on top of what we have brings us closer to buying our first home.
- Day-to-day expenditures have been a concern, but consistent allowances are a definite uplift.
- I think the streamlined approach in payouts every month makes our savings plan effectual.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Bartender (Chicago, IL)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With erratic working hours, a dependable cash flow is essential for good budgeting.
- This policy significantly eases the pressure off unpredictable tips and gig economy work.
- Anything aiding in steady housing, nutrition, and education expenses is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change seems positive for community welfare; predicts fewer assistance requests.
- Personally unaffected but the community might gain from increased family stability, which is crucial.
- I’ll be keen on seeing the long-term impacts on education and local poverty levels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $110000000000 (Low: $95000000000, High: $125000000000)
Year 2: $112000000000 (Low: $97000000000, High: $127000000000)
Year 3: $115000000000 (Low: $100000000000, High: $130000000000)
Year 5: $120000000000 (Low: $105000000000, High: $135000000000)
Year 10: $130000000000 (Low: $115000000000, High: $145000000000)
Year 100: $150000000000 (Low: $130000000000, High: $165000000000)
Key Considerations
- Economic implications of moving from targeted tax credits to universal child payments require careful balancing to avoid excessive fiscal strain.
- The potential for increased consumer spending needs to be carefully tracked to ensure economic growth offsets initial fiscal outlay.
- Operational efficiency in administering the new program is crucial to minimize fraud and reduce unnecessary costs.
- Long-term cultural and economic shifts expected from significant reductions in child poverty need continuous evaluation.