Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for additional recovery rebates to taxpayers.
Description: This bill allows individual taxpayers a 2022 refundable rebate amount equal to $12,000 ($24,000 for joint returns). The rebate amount is reduced if taxpayer modified adjusted gross income exceeds a certain threshold. To be eligible for the rebate, taxpayers must provide a Social Security account number on their tax returns. Rebate amounts are exempt from certain reductions or offsets, including garnishments.
Sponsors: Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20]
Target Audience
Population: Individual taxpayers (US citizens and residents)
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill targets individual taxpayers, meaning anyone who files taxes in the United States could potentially be affected.
- Specifics around income limits and reductions suggest higher-income individuals may be less impacted or unaffected due to phase-outs based on modified adjusted gross income.
- Providing Social Security account numbers as a requirement implies that only legitimate tax filers with legal work status would be directly affected.
- Rebate amounts being exempt from reductions means they are shielded from certain debts or collection actions, which influences financial wellbeing.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets tax filers in the U.S., which includes individual and joint taxpayers. With the rebate being phased out at higher income levels, it maximizes benefits for low to middle-income individuals or families.
- The budget constraint limits the rebate to approximately 150 million tax returns in the first year, considering an average rebate of $12,000 per return. This requires careful targeting and calculation of income thresholds.
- The requirement of a Social Security number indicates a focus on legally documented individuals, which excludes undocumented immigrants despite their contributions to the tax system.
- Exemption from garnishments could be significant for individuals facing financial distress, offering them relief from debt collection, which can improve their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect to receive the rebate due to my income level.
- It sounds like a great initiative for lower income families.
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 |
Construction Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This rebate could really help us pay off some debt and maybe even save a bit.
- I hope it doesn't get cut down for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Freelancer (Portland, OR)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often struggle with financial stability, so this rebate could give me some room to breathe.
- A lot depends on whether I meet all the eligibility requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even a small boost like this rebate can secure some extra savings for emergencies.
- I hope it is calculated fairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being a student and working part-time, this rebate could help me avoid additional student loans.
- I'm excited about the potential impacts if I qualify.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Farmer (Rural Utah)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A rebate like this can greatly reduce financial stress during bad harvest years.
- It could also help with investments in farm equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
PR Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I probably won't be eligible, but it's nice to see efforts to support those who need it most.
- I think it will have a positive impact on those it reaches.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This rebate would allow me to save for a down payment on a home faster.
- It feels quite empowering to have this kind of financial security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This rebate would help maintain a decent standard of living without worrying too much about unexpected expenses.
- I'm glad it's not subject to garnishment, which means I can actually keep what I receive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Manufacturing Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A rebate could help us bridge some gaps after facing job loss recently.
- It's a relief knowing there's some financial aid accessible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1800000000000 (Low: $1500000000000, High: $2100000000000)
Year 2: $1800000000000 (Low: $1500000000000, High: $2100000000000)
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
- Significant one-time federal expenditure to finance the rebates.
- Potential uptick in consumer demand could mitigate some economic downturns.
- Important consideration of income phase-out thresholds which affect eligibility and actual cost.
- Potential for inflationary pressures due to increased consumer spending.