Bill Overview
Title: To provide for energy rebates to individual taxpayers, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill expresses the sense of Congress that energy rebates to individual taxpayers are required due to the global disruptions caused by COVID-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The bill allows an income-based tax credit beginning in 2022 for the sum of monthly energy rebates. The amount of such rebates in any calendar month is the sum of $100 ($200 for married couples filing jointly) plus $100 multiplied by the number of the taxpayer's dependents during 2022.
Sponsors: Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individual taxpayers worldwide impacted by global disruptions
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill provides energy rebates to individual taxpayers in the United States based on income.
- The inclusion of dependents indicates that families with more dependents might receive more benefit from the rebates.
- Since the bill addresses disruptions caused by COVID-19 and international conflicts, it targets taxpayers likely to be impacted financially.
- The bill's language implies it will affect individual taxpayers, which includes wage earners and business owners.
- Considering the structure of the tax credit, all income levels paying taxes in the eligible brackets are targeted.
Reasoning
- The energy rebate policy will likely impact various segments of the population differently based on family structure, income, and vulnerability to economic shocks.
- Families with multiple dependents may benefit more from the policy because they get a larger rebate.
- The total budget ceiling will cap the number of individuals who can receive the rebate, leading to prioritization based on income level or number of dependents.
- Individuals with no dependents will receive the least benefit, which may reflect in modest wellbeing improvements.
- The policy is likely aimed at low to middle-income taxpayers who are more financially vulnerable due to global economic disruptions.
- High-income individuals may not significantly feel the rebate due to their lesser sensitivity to utility costs compared to lower-income groups.
Simulated Interviews
teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebate will help me afford rising energy costs, especially with three kids to care for.
- It's a relief to know that there's some government support during these tough times.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
software developer (Columbus, OH)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebate will be a nice bonus, but we don't rely on it for our monthly budget.
- It's nice to see action on energy costs, but it doesn't change our lifestyle.
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 |
nurse (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have dependents, so the rebate doesn't offer much help.
- Still, every little bit helps with so many increases in prices.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
auto mechanic (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With my current debts and family to support, the rebates will really ease some of the stress each month.
- I hope it's not just a one-time thing; ongoing support would be great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
freelancer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a freelancer, my income is unpredictable; having some consistent support would help stabilize things.
- Utilities are a big expense here, so the rebates will definitely help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- On a fixed income, any extra rebate can go a long way in managing household bills.
- This should have been done sooner, but I'm glad it's happening now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
college student (Burlington, VT)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since my parents support me, I hope this means they'll have more to help with tuition and living costs.
- The cost of everything has gone up, so anything is better than nothing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
librarian (Seattle, WA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything to offset rising costs is welcome.
- I'm glad there is recognition of the struggles people with kids face nowadays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
sales associate (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will be helpful as my income isn't stable, and I often struggle to keep up with monthly expenses.
- I hope this will be extended to cover more costs, not just energy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
construction worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebate is essential for covering some of my costs as I work freelance and payments aren't regular.
- It feels like someone is finally listening to us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $159000000000 (Low: $120000000000, High: $200000000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Economic environment and inflation levels impacting consumer decisions could influence the effectiveness of rebates.
- Administrative and logistical challenges in efficiently distributing rebates could cause delays or increased costs.
- Potential for varied participation rates based on income and financial need.
- Political and public opinion may influence future extensions or modifications of rebate programs.