Law Child Tax Credit Thread: Expansion not included in Omnibus/ will expire for 2022

Jack V Savage said:
I think generally realistic changes in fiscal policy don't noticeably affect growth, but this could mean built-in counter-cyclical policy, which could boost growth in the long term through shortened downturns. I wouldn't sell it on that basis (cuts child poverty in half, affordably, which is why I support it), though.
Click to expand...

I think generally that camp is population growth = economic growth and reducing the cost of raising a child encourages that. I guess maybe it’s more an element of how to make an argument against immigration while still trying to keep the country afloat. The guys I’m thinking about is Hawley and Cotton in that Family / Growth angle. I actually looked and Hawley pitches a plan for a 12k refundable credit. I don’t think it’s anything past a campaign promise page but didn’t this originally. There’s a different element in the GOP with those two that I think we are going to see when 2024 cranks up.
 
Lead said:
Manchin would be for far more spending and taxation than McConnell, just not as much as what's being proposed. There's actually a lot of contrasts between them both ideologically and how they handle their senate seat.



The GOP has backed/ expanded the credit in the past. The main dividing lines I think we are seeing is how much of the credit should be refundable and if there should be offsets to other entitlement spending to fund this expansion. With those two fault lines eliminated however, I think there likely is 60 votes for the expanded credit to continue in one form or another. It's just taken a backseat surprisingly from debate due to the infrastructure and reconciliation having a ton of other things in it. My guess is regardless or what happened by the end of the year, they should narrow focus back to this in 2022 cause it's definitely something achievable.
Click to expand...



not only that but it would help the democrats running for house and senate seats in 2022 as well.

here’s a decent article on the tax credit

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bi...blican-states-popular-with-voters-2021-09-15/
 
Lead said:
I think generally that camp is population growth = economic growth and reducing the cost of raising a child encourages that. I guess maybe it’s more an element of how to make an argument against immigration while still trying to keep the country afloat. The guys I’m thinking about is Hawley and Cotton in that Family / Growth angle. I actually looked and Hawley pitches a plan for a 12k refundable credit. I don’t think it’s anything past a campaign promise page but didn’t this originally. There’s a different element in the GOP with those two that I think we are going to see when 2024 cranks up.
Click to expand...

OK, yeah population growth will lead to economic growth but that's super long-term and a smallish impact from this policy.
 
Jack V Savage said:
OK, yeah population growth will lead to economic growth but that's super long-term and a smallish impact from this policy.
Click to expand...

I’m not really the one pitching it. I just think guys like those I mentioned do it because they need policies to offset being less for immigration. I suppose it could have the same argument as covering child care allows the possibility of both parents to work. Again, it isn’t the camp Id subscribe to out of the three. I’d say I’m mainly the poverty camp and very slightly family.
 
With BBB looking to be done with due to Manchins recent opposition, leaks are claiming he didn’t want the new CTC provisions because he thought parents would use it on drugs. This is trending pretty quick as now that the talks are over with and bridges are burned, there seems to be no reason to protect either side.

Manchin privately raised concerns that parents would use child tax credit checks on drugs by NBC News
Joe Manchin Privately Told Colleagues Parents Use Child Tax Credit Money On Drugs by HuffPost
Manchin Complained That Parents Waste Child Tax Credits on Drugs, Says Report by TheDailyBeast

With that said, unless something retroactively shows up in 2022, this will be the first time the CTC had a phaseout with the expansion not later being extended and/or made permanent. I think next year we will see it narrowed in on more as there are votes in both parties that could keep the expansion in play (see earlier in thread).
 
Lead said:
With BBB looking to be done with due to Manchins recent opposition, leaks are claiming he didn’t want the new CTC provisions because he thought parents would use it on drugs. This is trending pretty quick as now that the talks are over with and bridges are burned, there seems to be no reason to protect either side.

Manchin privately raised concerns that parents would use child tax credit checks on drugs by NBC News
Joe Manchin Privately Told Colleagues Parents Use Child Tax Credit Money On Drugs by HuffPost
Manchin Complained That Parents Waste Child Tax Credits on Drugs, Says Report by TheDailyBeast

With that said, unless something retroactively shows up in 2022, this will be the first time the CTC had a phaseout with the expansion not later being extended and/or made permanent. I think next year we will see it narrowed in on more as there are votes in both parties that could keep the expansion in play (see earlier in thread).
Click to expand...
sources familiar with his comments said
Click to expand...
Sorry, but can't really believe any of this yet. I'm very skeptical at this point.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Sorry, but can't really believe any of this yet. I'm very skeptical at this point.
Click to expand...

Yea, obviously I put allegedly in the title and my post was mainly about how this stuff symbolizes negotiations are done with. I don’t have a opinion at this point whether he said it or not. He has been for keeping the credit tied to work.
 
If true, so what?

What will supporters of the credit like Bernie, Warren, the fraud squad, etc do about it? Nothing.... I answered my own question.

 
Chillin' Nuts said:
Philosophically I can agree that it's a bit sad to promote and encourage people having kids for this reason but from a practical level without that replacement population lots of things go to shit.
Click to expand...

The problem is the extreme wealth concentrations. When so many have so few resources due to insane wealth concentrations, security for raising a family is scarce.

People had more babies when single incomes were enough to raise families. Fast forward 50 years and you have too many dual income households barely scraping by. Housing prices have gone up way too fast for the average increase in wages.

When there isn't enough financial security to raise families for the majority of workers, people will just choose not to have them.

If you want a baby boom, a pandemic isn't going to do it. What is needed if for workers to be paid enough money and have good enough benefits to keep up with the increasing cost of living.

We can't continue the corporatists wealth concentrations and expect the middle-class and poor to still want to have children.
 
skysolo said:
If true, so what?

What will supporters of the credit like Bernie, Warren, the fraud squad, etc do about it? Nothing.... I answered my own question.

Click to expand...

Bernie wants them to vote and force Manchin to actually vote no in front of all his constituents. Bernie also has offered to pay for a poll of WV residents on their feelings of BBB
 
Bobby 3 Sticks said:
Bernie wants them to vote and force Manchin to actually vote no in front of all his constituents. Bernie also has offered to pay for a poll of WV residents on their feelings of BBB
Click to expand...
It's what he wants. What is he going to do about it?
 
Romney has issued a revamp of his original CTC expansion proposal with the Family Security Act 2.0. This has two other GOP co-sponsors Burr (NC) and Daines (MT). Factor in, Rubio and Lee have interest in a credit similar to this idea which is tied to work along with Cotton and Hawley who have their own individual proposals, and you can see how there is some room for possible legislation in the senate since the end of the 2021 one year expansion credit.

Romney, Burr, Daines Announce Family Security Act 2.0
U.S. Senators Mitt Romney (R-UT), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Steve Daines (R-MT) today announced the Family Security Act 2.0, an updated version of Romney’s Family Security Act to create a new national commitment to American families. The pro-family, pro-life, and pro-marriage plan would modernize antiquated federal policies into a fully paid-for, cash benefit for working families starting during pregnancy, amounting to $350 a month for each young child, and $250 a month for each school-aged child.

“Despite being the bedrock of our country, there’s perhaps never been a more challenging time than today to raise a family,” Senator Romney said. “It’s no coincidence that fewer and fewer people are getting married and having children. We must do better to help families meet the challenges they face as they take on the most important work any of us will ever do—raising our society’s children. This proposal proves that we can accomplish this without adding to the deficit or creating another new federal program without any reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to continue improving this plan to best meet the needs of families across the country.”

“Over the last few years, American families have faced unprecedented difficulties that have disrupted their daily lives – from a global pandemic to widespread school closures to historic inflation,” Senator Burr said. “These challenges made it clear that too many parents lack the financial and social support necessary to provide security for their children. Possibly even worse, many Americans want to start a family, but feel they simply can’t afford to. Strong families are not a luxury; they’re essential to a healthy, stable society. We need to update our family support system to reflect the problems parents face today and to encourage more people to start thriving marriages and families. I’m glad to join Senator Romney in this effort, and hope the Senate will consider the timely and important ideas proposed in this framework.”
Click to expand...

This just was released but it looks at first glance:
-Tied to work unlike the CTC expansion in 2021
-Has some changes that benefit jointly filing couples vs single parent filings
-Credit begins at a point in pregnancy rather than after birth
-Monthly payments would be done through SSA rather than the IRS, an administration which is built on processing monthly payments vs the IRS who had to work a process into place last year to get the CTC revision to work
-It's cost is offset by other benefits already in existence like the dependent credit and the remaining portion of the SALT deduction


More details of the structure here:
Analysis of the Family Security Act 2.0
Niskanen Center
Policymakers are looking for ways to break the stalemate over extending temporary enhancements to the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that have now expired. Today, Republican Senators Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, and Steve Daines released a proposal that shows a possible way forward: the Family Security Act 2.0. It’s the latest iteration of a previous Romney proposal aimed at supporting families and simplifying an array of family-related tax benefits. This report provides a preliminary analysis of the reform package.

We find that the new Romney plan would reduce marriage penalties built into several existing family tax benefits and reduce child poverty by 12.6 percent. The proposal also reduces complexity in the tax code by reforming or consolidating five distinct tax benefits — the CTC, EITC, Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, Head of Household filing status, and State and Local Tax deduction — into just two: an enhanced child benefit and simplified EITC.
Click to expand...
 
Lead said:
Romney has issued a revamp of his original CTC expansion proposal with the Family Security Act 2.0. This has two other GOP co-sponsors Burr (NC) and Daines (MT). Factor in, Rubio and Lee have interest in a credit similar to this idea which is tied to work along with Cotton and Hawley who have their own individual proposals, and you can see how there is some room for possible legislation in the senate since the end of the 2021 one year expansion credit.

Romney, Burr, Daines Announce Family Security Act 2.0


This just was released but it looks at first glance:
-Tied to work unlike the CTC expansion in 2021
-Has some changes that benefit jointly filing couples vs single parent filings
-Credit begins at a point in pregnancy rather than after birth
-Monthly payments would be done through SSA rather than the IRS, an administration which is built on processing monthly payments vs the IRS who had to work a process into place last year to get the CTC revision to work
-It's cost is offset by other benefits already in existence like the dependent credit and the remaining portion of the SALT deduction


More details of the structure here:
Analysis of the Family Security Act 2.0
Niskanen Center
Click to expand...
Thankfully I have raging diarrhea today so I have time to sit down and read the bill somewhat.
 
cincymma79 said:
So after session four I have not found what I want to find, just varying degrees of summary. I’ll have to dig more
Click to expand...

What are you trying to find? The draft legislation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lead
Law 2025 Tax Reform: CTC/Business Tax Gap Extension likely to die in Senate
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Lead
Lead

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,005
Messages
55,460,447
Members
174,788
Latest member
Santos FC 1912

Share this page

Back
Top