Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Proposed Child Tax Credit Changes Could Push Millions of Kids Into or Deeper Into Poverty

News

Proposed Child Tax Credit Changes Could Push Millions of Kids Into or Deeper Into Poverty
girl in white tank top holding brown wooden tray with brown and black ceramic mug
Photo by Jane Maple on Unsplash

WASHINGTON–Changes to the Child Tax Credit in the House reconciliation bill would strip benefits from millions of children in immigrant and mixed-status families, while expanding credits for wealthier households, economists said.

“If you were concerned about children’s well-being, you wouldn’t be looking for excuses to remove children from the Child Tax Credit and push them into poverty,” said Adam Ruben, Director of Economic Security Project Action.


The Child Tax Credit, established by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, was designed to ease the financial burden on low- to moderate-income families with children. Because it is delivered through the tax system, many recipients receive the payments automatically, often as direct deposits into their bank accounts.

This method has proven to be an efficient way to provide unrestricted income support for families in need, according to Kathryn Menefee, senior counsel for income security at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund.

Under the reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, two major changes would be made to the current Child Tax Credit: imposing a new Social Security Number requirement on parents in recipient families and expanding the full credit from $2,000 to $2,500. The Senate has not yet passed the bill.

New Social Security Number requirement targeting immigrants

One major provision in the reconciliation bill would require both parents—or the single parent in a single-parent household—to have a Social Security Number for their child to qualify for the Child Tax Credit. Some studies estimate the change could exclude millions of U.S.-citizen children in immigrant and mixed-status families from receiving the benefit, and advocates said the proposal targets immigrants rather than supporting children.

Provisions targeting immigrants were also included in other sections of the proposed reconciliation bill, such as healthcare coverage and food assistance programs. GOP lawmakers argue that many of these programs should be limited to U.S. citizens.

“These programs were never designed to incentivize those who enter the country illegally,” said Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., during a budget hearing on farm subsidies and SNAP funding.

Currently, a Social Security Number requirement is already in place for the child. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed during Trump’s first term in 2017, introduced the rule that a child must have a valid SSN to be eligible for the credit.

This means the child must be a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or U.S. resident alien. That change at the time excluded about 1 million children in immigrant families from accessing the credit.

Under the 2017 provision, children born in the U.S. could still receive the credit even if their parents lacked SSNs.

The newly proposed requirement would go further. Not only must the child have an SSN, but now all parents must as well. If enacted, the policy would disqualify even U.S.-citizen children in some mixed-status households, such as those where one parent is a legal resident and the other lacks a Social Security number (SSN), from receiving the benefit.

Immigrants without SSNs still pay taxes using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs. But under the proposed changes, their American-born children would no longer be eligible for the tax credit.

“Immigrants with ITINs pay about $100 billion worth of taxes every year using ITINs. They are also contributing to programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs that often they aren't eligible for,” said Menefee.

Under the new SSN requirement, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that 2 million children—the vast majority of them U.S. citizens—would lose the Child Tax Credit because one or both of their parents lack an SSN. Another research from the Center for Migration Studies estimated that more than 4.5 million children would become ineligible for the Child Tax Credit.

Ruben said the Republican stance appears punitive rather than child-focused.

“By Republicans’ own standards, like Americans are the best and immigrants are the worst, these are American children,” he said. “So it really does underscore that they’re looking for a punitive approach, rather than an approach that puts children first.”

“Looking at the bill as a whole, it overwhelmingly targets, villainizes, demonizes immigrant families,” Menefee said. “This Child Tax Credit exclusion feeds into this bigger narrative that we're seeing from the administration and from some congressional Republicans that immigrants need to be excluded from benefits.”

Increased credit amount only benefits wealthier families

Another proposed change to the Child Tax Credit is to raise the full credit amount from $2,000 to $2,500, which would not bring more benefits to the lowest-income working families but would expand benefits for higher-income families.

Today, 17 million children in low-income families receive no Child Tax Credit or only a partial full credit because of the income requirements in the current Child Tax Credit structure. A family with two children must earn just over $29,000 to receive the full credit of $2,000 per child.

“Lifting the credit to $2,500 makes nothing difference for the lowest-income families,” said Menefee. “If you weren’t eligible for the full credit before, you’re still not getting any more under this expansion.”

In contrast, the Tax Policy Center estimated that the top 20% of families with children would see their received credits increase by more than 20%, ten times more than what the lowest-income 20% would receive.

“Raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding the most vulnerable families from the credit is not pro-family,” said Ruben.

Republicans have opposed expanding the Child Tax Credit to the lowest-income families, arguing that the policy should also be pro-worker. They have expressed concern that making the credit another form of “social welfare system” could discourage labor force participation.

Menefee argued that the Child Tax Credit changes Republicans proposed would not function as a meaningful work incentive.

“It’s just not enough money,” she said, noting that the families who would benefit from the proposed $500 increase are already on the higher end of the income scale, who may not even notice the extra amount.

“There’s no real incentive to try to work more for it,” Menefee said.

Moreover, Menefee pointed out that the 2021 expansion of the Child Tax Credit under the American Rescue Plan Act actually helped increase work participation. The law temporarily increased the maximum credit to $3,000 per child, with an additional $600 for children under the age of 6, and made the full amount available to families with no earnings.

“In fact, having this extra income helps low-income families pay for things like child care, transportation — things that actually help them go to work,” Menefee said.

Evidence has shown that the 2021 expansion of Child Tax Credit boosted work participation and cut child poverty nearly in half that year. However, the policy was not extended beyond 2021 due to a lack of support in the Senate.

“The Republicans talk a lot about using the credit to incentivize people to work, but I don't think many of them think about it very clearly,” said Ruben.

He explained that under the current structure of the Child Tax Credit, the benefit phases in at a rate of 15% after a family earns $2,500 annually — meaning families receive 15 cents in credit for every dollar earned beyond that $2,500 threshold.

“If all you cared about was incentivizing people to work, you would start the credit with the very first dollar they earn, and you’d phase it in more quickly,” Ruben said.

But he does not think that’s what Americans want from the Child Tax Credit.

“That’s not our goal,” he added. “Our goal is not to use this as a social policy tool to manipulate people into working more. Our goal is to make sure that children grow up with the basics, and that families have economic stability.”

Huiyan Li is a reporter for Medill News Service covering business & technology. She is a journalism graduate student at Northwestern University specializing in politics, policy, and foreign affairs.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

Please help the Fulcrum's NextGen initiatives by donating HERE!

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less
From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.

Keep ReadingShow less