Bill Overview
Title: Native American Tax Parity and Relief Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes changes to the Internal Revenue Code to treat Indian tribal governments in the same manner as their state counterparts for tax purposes. Among other changes, the bill treats Indian tribes as states for purposes of the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, equalizes the tax treatment of charities funded by Indian tribal governments, enhances the ability of tribal governments to enforce child support orders, expands the special-needs adoption tax credit to apply to adoptions ratified by a tribal court, designates certain Indian areas as difficult development areas for purposes of the low-income housing tax credit, increases the amount of wages and benefits taken into account for purposes of determining the Indian employment tax credit, and creates an annual $175 million New Markets Tax Credit for low-income tribal communities and for projects that serve or employ Tribe members.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: Indigenous people
Estimated Size: 6790000
- The bill affects Indian tribes by treating them as states for tax purposes.
- This includes provisions for tax-exempt bonds and equal tax treatment for charities funded by Indian tribal governments.
- It enhances tribal governments' abilities to enforce child support orders and makes them eligible for certain tax credits.
- The bill is likely to impact individuals living in tribal communities, including through housing and employment tax credits.
- There are about 476 million Indigenous people globally, representing a significant target population for the bill.
Reasoning
- The Native American Tax Parity and Relief Act of 2022 is targeted towards Native American tribes by treating them as state equivalents for specific tax purposes, benefiting from tax exemptions, new credits, and enhanced support mechanisms.
- Given its budget and scope, not every individual or tribal government will receive equal benefits, as the policy's design is to address systemic disparities through empowering tribal governments and offering incentives that indirectly boost community welfare.
- The population impacted the most is those living within tribal communities or working directly for tribal enterprises or governmental institutions.
- We should expect variation in the policy's impact based on individual proximity to tribal governance structures or direct involvement in relevant sectors like adoption services, low-income housing projects, and specific employment roles.
- The general population may not experience direct effects, but an improved understanding of tribal parity can foster greater inclusion and awareness.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Government Employee (Navajo Nation, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help our community access more resources for development.
- We need this to level the playing field in many sectors such as housing and business growth.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Preschool Teacher (Tulalip Reservation, Washington)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy brings more funding into our schools. Education needs...are often overlooked.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy affects me personally, though it seems necessary for Native communities.
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 |
Social Worker (Cherokee, North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill's support for child support enforcement is promising. It could strengthen family support structures here.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Non-profit Manager (Sacramento, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a big win for our projects collaborating with tribes on housing. It should boost our ability to deliver.
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 |
Housing Developer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the boost in low-income housing investments. It's much needed here.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tribal College Student (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it would open up more opportunities for scholarships and community projects here.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Finance Manager (New York City, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected, but any positive change for Native communities is good for the country as a whole.
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 |
Healthcare Provider (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If implemented well, the policy should help reduce healthcare disparities through improved funding and resources.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Business Owner (Sapulpa, Oklahoma)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new credit for businesses could support growth and partnerships in tribal communities.
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: $1350000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 2: $1370000000 (Low: $1130000000, High: $1620000000)
Year 3: $1390000000 (Low: $1150000000, High: $1650000000)
Year 5: $1420000000 (Low: $1180000000, High: $1690000000)
Year 10: $1500000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Key Considerations
- The potential for increased tribal economic independence and development as a result of the bill's tax provisions.
- The distributional effects across various tribal communities and how different demographics within tribes will be impacted.
- Possibility of significant long-term economic development within tribal areas as the tax incentives encourage new business formations.
- The administrative ease or complexity for both tribes and the IRS in transitioning to these new tax provisions.