Creating tax reform that is both pro-work and pro-family
The Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the largest sources of support for low-income families, but it could be streamlined and paired with changes to the Child Tax Credit so that the two credits are better structured to accomplish the dual goals of rewarding work and providing income support to families with children.
The Earned Income Tax Credit currently provides a maximum of $7,830 a year for qualifying families with three children. Families receive no money from the program if they have no earnings. The credit then increases at low levels of earnings to encourage work. It also increases as the number of children in the family goes from one to two to three. An unintended, undesirable feature of this design is that the 'pro-work' incentives of the Earned Income Tax Credit are stronger for families with more kids — exactly opposite to common sense ideas of family wellbeing.
Families with more kids likely benefit from more parental time at home. In addition, because the earnings eligibility limits do not double for married couples, the Earned Income Tax Credit discourages marriage among working low-income parents and makes it harder for married couples to get ahead by adding a second earner.
Such 'marriage penalties' are found throughout the tax code. Since the progressive U.S. tax code is applied to combined household income, couples who marry can be subject to a higher overall tax rate and potentially reduced government benefits.
The Department of the Treasury estimates that in 2023, 37 percent of married couples filing jointly faced a marriage penalty. Although couples can legally file separately, they rarely do, as it also almost always leads to a higher tax burden and it precludes the claiming of many tax credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit.
According to research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and Boston University, over 7 percent more low-income women with children would marry by age 35 without this marriage penalty.
But it doesn't have to be this way. As Congress is poised to implement major changes to the U.S. tax system, we urge lawmakers to adopt a more coherent, pro-family approach to tax policy. The current tax debate presents a golden opportunity to address and modernize some of the system's most outdated features.
We propose modifications to the two main federal tax credits affecting low-income families. Specifically, we propose a unified Earned Income Tax Credit that applies to any family with children. We scale the credit size and income eligibility for married couples so that fewer families see their benefits reduced when they marry or a spouse starts to work.
To ensure that low-income families with children are not left worse off under these changes, we pair these Earned Income Tax Credit reforms with an expansion of the Child Tax Credit. The enhanced Child Tax Credit would provide greater support to families raising young children and help offset the rising costs of caregiving and childrearing.
To ensure even the lowest-income children have access to support, families with no earnings are eligible for half of the proposed Child Tax Credit. Our proposal increases Child Tax Credit benefits quickly as parental earnings increase, providing an incentive for parents to enter the workforce.
Our proposed changes prioritize low- and middle-income American families, with 58 percent of the increases in transfer payments going to families in the bottom two-thirds of the income distribution. These changes would update the U.S. tax code to be both pro-family and pro-work, supporting working parents, reducing marriage penalties, and providing impactful support to children in low-income households.
At a time when there is growing bipartisan interest in better supporting children and working parents, these changes offer a clear path forward. With modest adjustments, we can create a tax system that promotes family stability, encourages workforce participation and helps more families build secure, thriving futures.
Melissa S. Kearney director of The Aspen Economic Strategy Group and Luke Pardue is policy director of The Aspen Economic Strategy Group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Off-duty border agent shot in a Manhattan park in apparent botched robbery, police say
NEW YORK — An off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer was shot in a Manhattan park after an apparent robbery gone wrong, New York City police and federal officials said Sunday. The 42-year-old officer was in stable condition after the Saturday attack and is expected to survive. A spokesperson for the New York Police Department said there was no indication the shooting was politically motivated. The agent, who was not in uniform, was sitting in a park beneath the George Washington Bridge when he was approached by a man riding on the back of a moped, who shot him in the face and arm, police said. The off-duty officer returned fire as the moped sped off. No arrests had been made as of Sunday afternoon, according to a police spokesperson. The Department of Homeland Security shared video online of the two men on a moped, alleging the shooter was caught entering the country illegally in 2023 but released. The NYPD spokesperson said they had no information about the source of that claim. In a social media post Sunday afternoon, President Trump seized on the shooting, alleging it was evidence of Democrats' failures to secure the border. 'The CBP Officer bravely fought off his attacker, despite his wounds, demonstrating enormous Skill and Courage,' he wrote. The shooting comes as federal officials say there has been a surge of attacks on agents carrying out Trump's mass deportation agenda. Enforcement officers involved in the crackdown often cover their faces, which critics say spreads fear and panic across communities and imperils citizens as well as immigrants without legal status. The Trump administration defends masking, which it says is needed to avoid harassment of agents in public and online. On Sunday, the acting director of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, said he would allow agents to continue covering their faces, which he called a safety measure 'If that's a tool that the men and women of ICE that keeps themselves and their families safe, then I will allow it,' he said.
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Commerce chief Lutnick insists Aug. 1 is ‘hard deadline' for EU and tariffs: ‘They're going to start paying'
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was adamant Sunday that the Aug. 1 date President Trump gave Europe to negotiate new trade arrangements is a 'hard deadline.'' 'So on Aug. 1, the new tariff rates will come in. But nothing stops countries from talking to us after Aug. 1, but they're going to start paying the tariffs on Aug. 1,' Lutnick told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' when asked the European Union, whose representatives he was on the phone with before the interview. 'That's a hard deadline,' the Trump official said. Advertisement The president has shifted his deadline several times. On April 2, 'Liberation Day,' he debuted his customized rates, which were supposed to go into effect April 9. They it got pushed 90 days and then to Aug. 1. Trump has threatened to slap a 30% tariff rate against the EU and a flurry of customized tariff rates on other countries that fail to cut a new deal with him. Those tariffs come on top of the 10% baseline tax against virtually all countries. 3 President Trump moved his tariff deadline several times, but Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stressed Aug. 1 is now a firm cut-off. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement 3 Trump has made recalibrating US trade policy a top priority of his second term. AP Despite the fast-approaching deadline, Lutnick conveyed confidence that the US and EU will come to some sort of arrangement. 'There's plenty of room. Look, the president and the European Union, these are the two biggest trading partners in the world talking to each other. We'll get a deal done. I am confident we'll get a deal done,' the commerce secretary said. 'You are going to see the best set of trade deals you've ever seen for America and for the American people.' Advertisement Lutnick also stressed that the 10% baseline tariff rate is 'definitely going to stay' amid negotiations. So far, the Trump administration has announced tariff deals with the United Kingdom and Vietnam as well as a tariff truce with China, which Trump claims is subject to a 55% rate. 'The next two weeks are going to be weeks for the record books. President Trump is going to deliver for the American people,' he said. In addition to the baseline tariffs and levies on imports from China, the Trump administration has imposed 25% tariffs on automobiles, aluminum, steel and imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Advertisement 3 Lutnick urged US trading partners to finish negotiating deals with the Trump administration by the deadline. REUTERS Trump has threatened to raise that to 35% against Canada and 30% for Mexico. This month, he has been blasting out letters to smaller US trading partners urging them to get a deal done or face the 'Liberation Day' tariffs. But Lutnick indicated that many of the smaller countries may simply face the 10% baseline rate while the Trump administration focuses on retooling trade with larger nations. 'I think what you've got is you should assume that the small countries, you know, the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa, they will have a baseline tariff of 10%,' Lutnick said. 'Then the bigger economies will either open themselves up or they'll pay a fair tariff to America for not opening themselves up and [for] treating America unfairly.'
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
What a GOP bill banning central digital currency means for consumer banking
A proposed GOP ban on a central bank digital currency (CBDC) could pump the brakes on grand visions to reshape electronic payment access around the Federal Reserve. Republican lawmakers pushed the ban through the House on Thursday over concerns the government could use a CBDC to surveil Americans' financial transactions. The banking industry has also lobbied against the currency, arguing the public already has sufficient access to easily usable and safe digital money. 'Nobody yet knows whether a CBDC is a good idea or not,' Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who has pushed for the government to explore a CBDC, said following the House's vote. 'There is potential for abuse and corruption, but also for extraordinary modernization that could serve unbanked communities, support the primacy of the U.S. dollar, and much more,' he added. Fed floated idea in 2022 white paper In 2022, the Federal Reserve issued a study of CBDCs that outlined their risks and benefits. 'All options for private digital money, including stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, require mechanisms to reduce liquidity risk and credit risk. But all these mechanisms are imperfect,' the report notes. A traditional bank account is backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees individual deposits up to $250,000 in the event a bank fails. But there are also riskier forms of digital financial services. In 2024, a financial technology company called Synapse collapsed and left customers unable to access some $265 million in deposits. A CBDC, backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, would be the safest possible digital asset. The Fed paper said that a CBDC could make cross-border payments easier and potentially improve access to banking for low-income households. A 2022 study by Himes, the Connecticut Democrat, proposed that CBDCs could be used for depositing paychecks or even be integrated into federal programs like Social Security. A more ambitious version of a CBDC could allow Americans to hold digital dollars at a bank account with the Fed, enabling them to make digital payments without an account at a traditional bank. That could, as the Fed paper noted, 'fundamentally change the structure of the U.S. financial system, altering the roles and responsibilities of the private sector and the central bank.' A government-backed digital dollar — especially one that could bear interest — could also drive consumers away from traditional commercial bank accounts. A CBDC still would require significant study, from the impacts on the banking system to the technology that it would run on. A hypothetical CBDC could use existing technology, or it could be distributed on a blockchain, similar to how Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are issued. In 2022, former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Lael Brainard estimated that it would take ' a long time ' — at least five years, she said — to launch a digital currency if Congress decided to do so. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in February that the bank would not develop a CBDC under his tenure. His term expires in May 2026. The bill, which now heads to the Senate, would bar the Fed from directly or indirectly issuing a CBDC or studying the issue. Other federal agencies are already barred from studying a CBDC due to a January executive order from President Trump. Republicans cite privacy concerns Privacy is the biggest concern about CBDCs aired by Republican lawmakers. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), who led the CBDC ban through the House, said on the floor that a digital dollar would be tantamount to government surveillance. 'It is government-controlled programmable money that, if designed without the privacy protections of cash, this could give the federal government the ability to surveil and restrict Americans' transactions and monitor every aspect of our daily lives,' he said. In contrast to cash, which is essentially untraceable, a CBDC would likely leave a digital record of some form. If the government pursued a CBDC, it would have to balance concerns about privacy with safeguards to curb its use in money laundering or other illegal activities. Many lawmakers have cited China's digital yuan as a worrying example. Tech and China experts, as reported by WIRED, have raised concerns that the Chinese government could use its digital currency to track individual transactions or otherwise scoop up tranches of consumer data. Other Republicans have issued starker warnings about CBDCs. 'CBDC is an existential threat to Western civilization,' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) wrote on the social platform X. Banking, crypto lobbies strongly oppose Banking and cryptocurrency lobbying groups are staunchly against a centrally issued digital currency. In a letter to Emmer in April, the American Banking Association argued that Americans already had sufficient access to digital payments. Alongside other digital transfer systems pioneered in the private sector, the Fed launched FedNow, an instant payment system that can operate 24/7, in 2023. Banks have to opt in to using the service, whose major clients include JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo. More broadly, the bank lobby argued that a CBDC would undercut the role banks play in the country's economic system. 'For example, a CBDC would be an advantaged competitor to retail bank deposits that would move money away from banks and into accounts at the Federal Reserve, severely limiting the ability of commercial banks to make loans that power economic growth in communities across the country,' the group wrote. A CBDC could also dampen hopes that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or privately developed stablecoins — cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a reference asset like the U.S. dollar — could become the primary form of digital money. 'You wouldn't need stablecoins; you wouldn't need cryptocurrencies, if you had a digital U.S. currency,' Powell said at a congressional hearing in 2021. 'I think that's one of the stronger arguments in its favor.'
