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: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Survivors of human trafficking receiving monetary awards
Estimated Size: 30000
- The bill specifically benefits individuals who are survivors of human trafficking.
- This includes survivors who have been awarded civil damages or restitution related to peonage, slavery, or human trafficking.
- Globally, human trafficking is estimated to affect millions of individuals across various countries.
- The relief is targeted towards financial awards received by survivors, thus directly impacting their financial wellbeing.
- Many countries have survivors of human trafficking, and international organizations report large numbers, although precise figures are challenging to determine due to the hidden nature of trafficking.
Reasoning
- Survivors of human trafficking form a relatively small, but critically important demographic for this policy.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy is likely to impact a small fraction of the estimated survivors, many of whom may not have received settlements yet.
- The policy is seen as providing necessary financial relief to survivors already navigating complex legal and emotional recoveries.
- It is important to include perspectives of both impacted and non-impacted individuals to gauge the broader perception and effectiveness of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Counselor (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this is a step in the right direction. It offers some financial relief and feels like an acknowledgment from the government.
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 |
Advocate (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is beneficial, but not everyone I work with has received compensation. More comprehensive support is needed.
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 |
Retail Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great for those who won their cases, but what about people like me, still in limbo?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Office Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy, but it doesn’t affect me personally as I was not awarded any restitution.
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 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a positive move because it helps those who are going through a tough recovery process.
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 |
Driver (Portland, OR)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will help my family, as the award we received will now go further.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax relief should bring some peace of mind to survivors I know.
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 |
Waitress (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this law is still around when my case finally resolves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Social Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this must be coupled with other support systems to truly uplift survivors.
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 |
Entrepreneur (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax relief aids us in reinvesting in our lives and businesses post-recovery.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $315000000)
Year 3: $220500000 (Low: $165375000, High: $330750000)
Year 5: $242550000 (Low: $181912500, High: $363825000)
Year 10: $291353838 (Low: $218515379, High: $437030758)
Year 100: $323975275 (Low: $242981456, High: $485962912)
Key Considerations
- The scope of human trafficking and the frequency of civil damage awards.
- Variability in award amounts can cause significant fluctuations in the cost impact.
- Need to support financially vulnerable individuals while balancing government revenue concerns.