The Trump/GOP Tax Plan Is Bad For Women

The Tax Plan Would No Longer Allow Alimony Payments To Be Tax-Deductible for The Payor Or Counted As Taxable Income by The Recipient

The GOP Tax Plan Would Eliminate What The Authors Called A “Divorce Subsidy,” By No Longer Allowing Alimony Payments To Be Tax-Deductible For The Payor Or Counted As Taxable Income By The Recipient. According to the House Ways and Means committee’s Section-by-Section Summary of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, “Current law: Under current law, alimony payments generally are an above-the line deduction for the payor and included in the income of the payee. However, alimony payments are not deductible by the payor or includible in the income of the payee if designated as such by the divorce decree or separation agreement. Provision: Under the provision, alimony payments would not be deductible by the payor or includible in the income of the payee. The provision would be effective for any divorce decree or separation agreement executed after 2017 and to any modification after 2017 of any such instrument executed before such date if expressly provided for by such modification. Considerations: • The provision would eliminate what is effectively a ‘divorce subsidy’ under current law, in that a divorced couple can often achieve a better tax result for payments between them than a married couple can.” [House Ways and Means Committee, 11/2/17]

• CNBC: “Alimony, Also Known As Spousal Support, Is Often Part Of Divorce Agreements When There’s A Big Discrepancy In Earnings Between The Two Parties And The Marriage Has Endured For More Than A Few Years.” According to CNBC, “If the deduction disappears, it would affect divorce agreements — where the amount and duration of alimony is codified — entered into after 2017. Child support, which is separate from alimony, already offers no deduction. Alimony, also known as spousal support, is often part of divorce agreements when there’s a big discrepancy in earnings between the two parties and the marriage has endured for more than a few years.” [CNBC, 11/4/17]

The Change Would Result In Payors Having Less Money To Give Their Ex-Spouses, And Ex-Spouses Receiving Less Support In Return

Experts Said The Spousal Support Recipients Would End Up Being Hurt More By The New Arrangement Because The Spouse Making The Payments Would Have Less Money To Pay. According to CNBC, “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, unveiled on Thursday, includes a provision to kill the deduction that taxpayers get for making such payments to an ex-spouse. Although it’s just one of the many tax breaks eliminated under the legislation, experts say it will end up most hurting the person receiving the money. ‘Alimony payers won’t be able to afford to give as much because they’ll have to give it to Uncle Sam instead,’ said Nancy Hetrick, a certified divorce financial analyst and senior advisor at Better Money Decisions in Phoenix, Arizona. ‘There will be less money to go around to support the two households.’” [CNBC, 11/4/17]

• For Example, An Ex-Husband Who Was Taxed At 33% And Made After-Deduction Alimony Payments Of $2,000 Would Have To Pay $2,550 Monthly To Provide His Ex-Wife In The 15% Tax Bracket With The Same Level Of Support Under The GOP Bill. According to CNBC, “For illustrative purposes: Say the ex-husband is paying $3,000 in monthly alimony and is taxed at 33%. In effect, the deduction at tax time reduces each of those payments to $2,000. On the receiving end, say the ex-wife is in the 15% bracket. The $3,000 she receives is reduced by $450, which goes to taxes, leaving her with $2,550. Under the proposed change, providing the ex-wife with the same level of support would cost the ex-husband $2,550 instead of $2,000.” [CNBC, 11/4/17]

• Divorce Attorney Malcom Taub Said Lower Alimony Payments Would Result In Less Alimony Paid Out: “I Don’t Think Courts Could Award The Same Amount, Given That It Wouldn’t Be Deductible. There’s Only A Limited Amount Of Dollars In The Pot.” According to CNBC, “‘Due to the disparity in tax rates that exist in these cases, this would have a negative effect on the payee. That’s the bottom line,’ said Malcolm Taub, co-chair of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron’s Divorce & Family Law Group in New York. […] ‘I don’t think courts could award the same amount, given that it wouldn’t be deductible,’ Taub said. ‘There’s only a limited amount of dollars in the pot.’” [CNBC, 11/4/17]

• Divorce Attorney Malcom Taub: “By Eliminating The Alimony Deduction, You Are Going To Be Hurting The Payee Spouse.” According to Investment News, “As the person who pays the alimony is likely to be in a higher tax-bracket, the deductibility of payments to a former spouse makes paying alimony more palatable. Take away that deduction and future divorce negotiations could be very difficult, warned Malcom Taub, a high-profile divorce attorney with decades of experience. […] ‘If you eliminate the deduction, the payor will still want to pay the net number of $5,000, but the payee would only receive $5,000, not a net $7,000 as under current law,’ Mr. Taub explained. ‘By eliminating the alimony deduction, you are going to be hurting the payee spouse.’” [Investment News, 11/6/17]

• Former American Bar Association Family Law Section Chair Randall Kessler: “The Real Losers Will Be The Dependent, Non-Monied Spouses Who Could Really Use The Support. […] Let’s Not Forego This Unique Incentive For The Higher Wage Earner To Help.” According to an opinion by former American Bar Association Family Law Section chair Randall Kessler in The Daily Report, “So while America may save a few dollars this way (not a lot, because taxes are already being paid on these amounts, but now they will be paid at a higher rate), the real losers will be the dependent, non-monied spouses who could really use the support. In fact, those folks may now need more government help if they lose alimony. Wouldn’t we prefer that the support came from their former spouse? And with 50 percent of all marriages ending in divorce, that may be a heck of a lot of people losing much needed support. Let’s not forego this unique incentive for the higher wage earner to help.” [Randall – Daily Report, 11/3/17]

The GOP Plan Ignores That Divorced Couples Tend To Have Greater Financial Burdens Than Married Ones

The GOP Plan Would Subject Divorced People’s Incomes To Tax Brackets Designed For A Single Person, So In Cases Where An Ex-Spouse’s Income Was Used To Support The Other Ex-Spouse, Income Which Was Still Supporting Two People Would Be Taxed Before It Was Paid Out. According to a Business Insider analysis by Josh Barro, “The tax bill released Thursday would change the tax treatment of alimony. Currently, alimony is tax-deductible for the paying spouse and taxable to the receiving spouse. But if you get divorced after the plan is enacted, that would change: Alimony would be paid out of after-tax dollars and would be tax-free to the recipient. […] The whole reason the tax code offers higher tax-bracket thresholds to married couples than to single people is that a married couple’s income has to support at least two people. If you’re divorced, and one ex-spouse’s income is being used to support the other ex-spouse, that’s an income that’s still supporting two people. But this plan would subject that income to tax brackets designed for a single person.” [Josh Barro – Business Insider, 11/3/17]

• Tax Attorney Stuart Levine: “For 75 Years There Has Been A Recognition That A Divorced Couple Has Financial Burdens That Are Greater Than A Married Couple And The GOP Is Simply Going To Ignore Those Financial Burdens.” According to a column by Michael Hiltzik in The Los Angeles Times, “Drum points us to a painstaking analysis by Stuart Levine, a Baltimore tax attorney who writes at the Reality-Based Community blog. […] The Ways and Means Committee Republicans further denigrate the current treatment of alimony as ‘effectively a ‘divorce subsidy’… in that a divorced couple can often achieve a better tax result for payments between them than a married couple can.’ As Levine writes, ‘in other words, for 75 years there has been a recognition that a divorced couple has financial burdens that are greater than a married couple and the GOP is simply going to ignore those financial burdens.’” [Michael Hiltzik – Los Angeles Times, 11/4/17]

The Change Is Likely To “Change The Landscape” Of Divorce Negotiations

Divorce Attorney Malcom Taub: Divorce Negotiations Could Become More Difficult As A Result Of Removing The An Incentive For Higher Alimony Payments. According to Investment News, “As the person who pays the alimony is likely to be in a higher tax-bracket, the deductibility of payments to a former spouse makes paying alimony more palatable. Take away that deduction and future divorce negotiations could be very difficult, warned Malcom Taub, a high-profile divorce attorney with decades of experience. For example, assume the ex-husband is a high earner with a combined federal and state tax rate of 50%. […] Under the GOP tax plan, if the high-earning ex-spouse pays $10,000 in alimony, the recipient would receive $10,000 tax free. But the only reason the first spouse would agree to pay $10,000 is that, after tax deductions, it would only cost him $5,000. Without the tax break, he would be reluctant to agree to pay $10,000 in the first place. ‘If you eliminate the deduction, the payor will still want to pay the net number of $5,000, but the payee would only receive $5,000, not a net $7,000 as under current law,’ Mr. Taub explained. ‘By eliminating the alimony deduction, you are going to be hurting the payee spouse.’” [Investment News, 11/6/17]

• Tax Attorney Stuart Levine: “This Loss Will Be Incurred At Exactly The Moment When The Former Husband And Wife Are Most Economically Fragile.” According to a column by Michael Hiltzik in The Los Angeles Times, “Levine quotes a colleague’s observation that ‘this loss will be incurred at exactly the moment when the former husband and wife are most economically fragile. This is such awful public policy that it is hard to believe that the people who proposed it understand the consequences of what they propose.’ Well, the proposers plainly understand the bottom-line consequences: They acknowledge that the change would generate $8.3 billion in revenue over 10 years.” [Michael Hiltzik – Los Angeles Times, 11/4/17]

• Divorce Attorney Michael Beyda: “This Will Change The Landscape” Of Divorce Negotiations. According to CNN Money, “Michael Beyda, a divorce attorney based in New York, agreed with Taub’s assessment. ‘Spousal support is a very common aspect of any divorce negotiation,’ Beyda said. ‘This will change the landscape.’’ [CNN Money, 11/3/17]

A Whopping 97% Of Alimony Recipients Are Women

The Majority Of Spousal Support Recipients Were Women, Who Were Typically In A Lower Tax Bracket Than Their Former Spouses. According to CNBC, “Because the ex-spouse receiving the alimony typically is in a lower tax bracket, the amount of tax paid by the recipients — the majority of which are women — on the spousal support is less. And it’s something that courts, attorneys and divorce planners take into consideration when divvying up assets.” [CNBC, 11/4/17]

• Only 3 Percent Of Spousal Support Recipients Were Men. According to Reuters, “According to 2010 Census records, of the 400,000 people receiving spousal support, only 3 percent were men.” [Reuters, 12/24/13]

The Change Could Force Women To Stay In Bad Marriages Due To Economic Realities

Josh Barro In Business Insider: Imposing A Substantial Tax Penalty On Divorce Could Financially Trap People In Unhappy Marriages. According to a Business Insider analysis by Josh Barro, “The bill summary for the tax plan offers this argument: ‘The provision would eliminate what is effectively a ‘divorce subsidy’ under current law, in that a divorced couple can often achieve a better tax result for payments between them than a married couple can.’ […] Arguably, imposing such a substantial tax penalty on divorce could encourage people to stick it out and make their marriages work. But it could also financially trap people in unhappy marriages.” [Josh Barro – Business Insider, 11/3/17]

• Financial And Relationship Experts Tim Sobolewski And Wendy Pegan: “In An Age Where We No Longer Need To Depend On Our Partner For Money Regarding Our Basic Needs, We Strike Out On Our Own, Choosing Freedom Rather Than A Life Where Our Emotional Needs Aren’t Met.” According to an opinion by Financial Planning Center president Tim Sobolewski and Creative Relationship Center founder and director Wendy B. Pegan for CNBC, “So what happens when people divorce at an older age? Many of the same things that occur at younger ages: emotional upset, change of residence, loss of savings and property, etc. Although men may be responsible for making the phone call to the therapist or mediator, it is often the wife who is calling it quits. In an age where we no longer need to depend on our partner for money regarding our basic needs, we strike out on our own, choosing freedom rather than a life where our emotional needs aren’t met.” [Sobolewski, Tim; Pegan, Wendy – CNBC, 6/21/17]

Economic Realities Already Incentivize Marriage For Many Women

University Of Connecticut Economics Professor Kenneth Couch: Women Have Greater Economic Security When They Stay Married Or Remarry After Divorce. According to Women’s eNews, “In the long run, staying married or remarrying after divorce translates into greater economic security for women, notes Kenneth Couch, professor of economics at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.” [Women’s eNews, 9/3/15]

Economic Pressure Forced Many Divorced Women Into The Job Market, Where Their Retirement Asset Accumulation Was Restrained By Lower-Paying Jobs. According to Women’s eNews, “Economic pressure forced many divorced women into the job market, Couch told a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco conference on unexpected life cycle events and economic well-being in 2010. Initially, their personal income skyrocketed because many of them had worked part time or given up their jobs during marriage to raise children. But their retirement assets were still restrained for a variety of reasons: their jobs paid less than those of male counterparts, they had less money to put away in retirement funds, they tended to work at jobs that did not offer pensions and lacked either the time or funds to pursue more education and enter lucrative paying fields like investment banking.” [Women’s eNews, 9/3/15]

Older Women Were Getting Divorced More Frequently And Were Especially Vulnerable

The Divorce Rate For U.S. Adults Over 50 Roughly Doubled After 1990 And The Rate For Adults Over 60 Nearly Tripled. According to an opinion by Financial Planning Center president Tim Sobolewski and Creative Relationship Center founder and director Wendy B. Pegan for CNBC, “Among U.S. adults ages 50 and up, the divorce rate has roughly doubled since the 1990s. In 2015, for every 1,000 married persons in that age category, 10 divorced — up from five in 1990, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. Among those ages 65 and older, the divorce rate has roughly tripled since 1990, reaching six people per 1,000 married persons in 2015.” [Sobolewski, Tim; Pegan, Wendy – CNBC, 6/21/17]

Divorced Women Over 65 Were At Especially High Risk For Ending Up In Poverty. According to Women’s eNews, “While economic hardship is steadily worsening for all American seniors, divorced women over 65 are at especially high risk for ending up in poverty. Divorce creates financial inequalities that many women never overcome. A wife’s standard of living decreases by as much as 25 percent in the first year after a divorce while the husband’s rises because courts often overlook the couple’s careers when dividing the marital property, notes Carol Ann Wilson, a certified financial divorce specialist in Longmont, Colo.” [Women’s eNews, 9/3/15]

Brandeis University Heller School Of Social Policy Research Director Tatjana Meschede: 60% Of Senior Single Women Faced Burdensome Housing Costs And Most “Were Forced To Make Daily Tradeoffs For Paying Bills, Foregoing Home Maintenance Or Medical Needs.” According to Women’s eNews, “Sixty percent of senior single women faced burdensome housing costs in 2008, up 80 percent from 2004, found a study co-authored by [Brandeis University Heller School of Social Policy Institute on Assets and Social Policy of the research director Tatjana] Meschede. (The study did not separate single women into categories such as divorced or widowed; nor did it compare single women to married women.) ‘Most single senior women were forced to make daily tradeoffs for paying bills, foregoing home maintenance or medical needs,’ Meschede says. ‘As a result, 45 percent had a zero or negative budget balance after paying their basic needs.’” [Women’s eNews, 9/3/15]

Ivanka Trump’s Months Of Hyping A Child Tax Credit As “Relief For Working Families” Was A Main Selling POint Of The Republican Plan

Ivanka Trump Toured The Country Touting A “Significant Expansion Of The Child Tax Credit” Which Would Provide “Relief For Working Families”

Headline: “Ivanka Trump Pushes Child Tax Credit As Key To Supporting American Workers, Families.” [FOX News, 10/23/17]

In The Run-Up To The Introduction Of The GOP Tax Bill, Trump Pitched The Prospect Of A Bigger Child Tax Credit At Meetings And Forums Across The Country. According to The Washington Times, “In the run-up to the introduction last week of the Republican tax reform bill, Ms. Trump joined Treasurer Jovita Carranza at a town-hall-style forum in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and then teamed with Senate and House members at the Capitol to highlight the urgency of giving working families a bigger child tax credit. […] She has made similar pitches at meetings and forums around Washington, including with a bipartisan group of senators at a dinner two weeks ago at her home in the city’s upscale Kalorama neighborhood. Her husband, White House adviser Jared Kushner, and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin also helped make the case for tax reform at the dinner. […] The effort got underway Sunday with Ms. Trump and Mr. Mnuchin discussing the importance of tax reform at a forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. On Monday, Ms. Trump and Mr. Mnuchin were drumming up support for the bill at a business roundtable in Newport Beach, California.” [Washington Times, 11/6/17]

• Ivanka Trump Promoted The GOP Tax Plan As “Relief For Working Families.” According to Newsweek, “Ivanka Trump tweeted Sunday night about a ‘great discussion’ she had with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on how the GOP tax plan would ‘offer relief for working families & create economic opportunity for all Americans.’” [Newsweek, 11/6/17]

• Ivanka Trump In October 2017: “A Significant Expansion Of The Child Tax Credit Will Help Parents Have More Money At A Time In Their Lives When They Need It The Most.” According to Business Insider, “‘A significant expansion of the Child Tax Credit will help parents have more money at a time in their lives when they need it the most and give them the flexibility to make the best choices regarding their families’ care,’ Ivanka said in a statement late last month. ‘We’ve been deeply committed to helping parents afford the costs of raising and caring for their children since the early days of the administration and will continue to advocate for relief for American families in the coming weeks.’” [Business Insider, 11/2/17]

The Child Tax Credit Increase Was A “Big Selling Point” And Considered “Make Or Break” For Convincing Lower- And Middle-Class Families To Support The Plan

Vox: The Child Tax Credit Was Seen As The Part Of The Republican Tax Plan “To Watch In The Months To Come” Because, In Order To Pass Their Tax Reform Plan, It Was Thought That Republicans Would Need To Include At Least One Real Benefit For Working Families. According to Vox, “‘We’re targeting relief to working families,’ President Trump said last week of the just-announced Republican tax plan. ‘We will make sure benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners.’ But the plan, at least as it stands now, looks like it would benefit the wealthy far more than the poor or middle class. That could be a deal breaker for some members of Congress, not to mention a problem for a president who prides himself on his ability to speak to a working-class base. Enter the child tax credit. It hasn’t gotten much attention yet, but this part of the Republican tax plan is one to watch in the months to come. That’s because in order to pass their tax reform plan, Republicans will probably need to include a real benefit for working families, not just corporations and high earners.” [Vox, 10/3/17]

• Associated Press: The Child Tax Credit Increase Was A “Big Selling Point.” According to The Associated Press, “Another big selling point is that the plan increases the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,600, which taxpayers can claim for children under the age of 17. The House says this increase was intended to help parents with the cost of raising children. More people will be eligible to claim the credit because the income level at which it phases out is being raised. However, the first $1,000 is refundable but the extra $600 is not. If it’s refundable, once your tax liability hits zero, you get a check for the balance. So that increase does little for low-income families because they have little to no tax liability.” [Associated Press, 11/3/17]

• Endicott College Taxation Specialist Joshua McCabe: “I Think The Child Tax Credit Will Make Or Break” The Republican Tax Plan. According to Vox, “They are likely to push for greater refundability in congressional negotiations, said Joshua McCabe, a sociologist at Endicott College who specializes in taxation. […] ‘I think the child tax credit will make or break’ the Republican tax plan, McCabe said.” [Vox, 10/3/17]

USA Today: “Even The Most Conservative Republicans Have Pushed To Include A Child Tax Credit Because It Appeals To Middle- And Lower-Income Families While Much Of The Rest Of The Tax Plan Appeals To The Wealthy.” According to USA Today, “Fiscal conservatives generally are opposed to more spending and an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation said that the increased tax credit will cost $640 billion over the next 10 years, one of the most expensive provisions of the bill. But even the most conservative Republicans have pushed to include a child tax credit because it appeals to middle- and lower-income families while much of the rest of the tax plan appeals to the wealthy.” [USA Today, 11/3/17]

• The Average Immediate 2018 GOP Tax Increase For Middle-Class Families— Particularly Those With Children— Would Be About $2,000. According to The New York Times, “President Trump and congressional Republicans have pitched the plan unveiled last week as a tax cut for most Americans. But millions of middle-class families — particularly those with children — would see an immediate tax increase, averaging about $2,000.” [New York Times, 11/6/17]

• Fewer Than 40 Percent Of Middle-Class Families With At Least Three Children Would Receive A Tax Cut Under The Plan, Compared With Nearly 80 Percent Of Families Without Children. According to The New York Times, “The Republican proposal would also be costly for many large families. That’s because, in addition to raising the standard deduction, the plan would eliminate the so-called personal exemption, which lets most taxpayers deduct about $4,000 for every person in their household. The plan would replace the exemption with an expanded child tax credit, but that would fill only part of the gap for many families. Fewer than 40 percent of middle-class families with at least three children would receive a tax cut under the plan, compared with nearly 80 percent of families without children.” [New York Times, 11/6/17]

The Credit Ended Up Being Disappointingly Small

Business Insider: The GOP Plan Included A Child Tax Credit That Was “Much More Modest” Than What Ivanka Pushed For. According to Business Insider, “Over the past several months, Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and a top White House adviser, has been working largely behind the scenes to shepherd an expanded Child Tax Credit into the GOP’s tax reform plan. But she has met resistance from the Republican Party, which, as part of the House’s tax overhaul plan unveiled on Thursday morning, proposed a much more modest expansion of the credit than that Ivanka has been pushing for.” [Business Insider, 11/2/17]

The House GOP Bill Did Not Reflect Any Push By Ivanka Trump To Double The Child Tax Credit, And Maintained The Maximum Refundable Portion Of The Credit While Linking It To Inflation. According to The Washington Times, “However, the House bill fell short of Ms. Trump’s push for doubling the child tax credit. It also kept the maximum refundable portion of the credit at the $1,000 level, adjusted with the chained consumer price index to rise with prices over time until reaching $1,600.” [Washington Times, 11/6/17]

Senator Marco Rubio Criticized The Credit, Tweeting That A New Baby Could Turn From A Tax Cut Into A Tax Hike

Rubio Rebuffed The Idea That The House Proposal Qualified As A Significant Expansion Of The Child Tax Credit, Saying The Expansion Did Not Go Far Enough And Did Not Satisfy The “Goal Of Helping Working Families.” According to Business Insider, “On Thursday morning, Rubio responded to the House proposal, tweeting that the expanded child tax credit doesn’t go far enough. ‘House #TaxReform plan is only starting point. But $600 #ChildTaxCredit increase doesn’t achieve our & @potus goal of helping working families,’ the senator wrote.” [Business Insider, 11/2/17]

• Rubio: The House Bill Would Turn A Family Of Four’s New Baby Into A Tax Hike. According to Sen. Marco Rubio on Twitter, “House bill a good start.BUT w/o larger #ChildTaxCredit a new baby turns $1.2k tax cut for family of 4 into tax hike!” [Marco Rubio – Twitter, 11/3/17]

• Rubio Had Advocated For Doubling The Credit To $2,000 And Making It Refundable For Low-Income Families Who Do Not Earn Enough To Pay Federal Taxes. According to Business Insider, “In the months and weeks leading up to the congressional debate, she’s met with dozens of lawmakers, conservative advocacy organizations, and business groups to build consensus and support for a plan that adopts parts of a 2015 proposal by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. Rubio has long supported an expansion of the child tax credit, and wants to double the credit to $2,000 and make it refundable for low-income families to who don’t earn enough to pay federal taxes, and thus don’t qualify for any credit.” [Business Insider, 11/2/17]

The Trump/GOP Version Of The Child Tax Credit Would Create A New Benefit For Wealthier Families And Do Nothing At All For Millions of Families In Need

The House Plan Proposed A $1,600 Tax Credit Per Child And A $300 Credit Per Parent Or Non-Child Dependent Until 2023. According to Business Insider, “The policy as it stands today provides relief to working parents by giving them a non-refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 annually, and it has had bipartisan support since it became law in 1997. But Democrats and some Republicans, including Ivanka, agree that an expansion is key to helping middle and working class families whose wages have stagnated and child-care costs have spiked in recent years. The House plan, which proposes a $1,600 tax credit per child and a $300 credit per parent or non-child dependent until 2023, falls short of Ivanka’s goal and doesn’t come close to satisfying Democrats.” [Business Insider, 11/2/17]

The GOP Bill Would Raise The Upper Income Limits Of Eligibility From $150,000 To $294,000 For A Married Family With Two Children

The GOP Bill Would Raise The Upper Income Limits Of Eligibility From $150,000 To $294,000 For A Married Family With Two Children. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Congress and President Clinton created the CTC in 1997; it has since been modified several times on a bipartisan basis. Currently, the maximum per-child credit is $1,000, and the credit is available only to parents who work and earn income within certain ranges. The CTC is partially refundable, meaning that it is partly, but not entirely, available to families with earnings too low to owe federal income tax. Specifically, the refundable portion of the CTC is limited to 15 percent of a family’s earnings over $3,000. At the upper end, the CTC begins to phase out (at a rate of 5 cents per additional dollar of income) for married couples making over $110,000. It phases out entirely for a married family with two children when the family’s income reaches $150,000. The House GOP bill would increase the maximum credit from $1,000 per child to $1,600 — but only for some households. It also would sharply increase the upper income limits of eligibility, so the credit wouldn’t begin to phase out for married filers until their income reached $230,000, and wouldn’t phase out completely until income reached $294,000 for a married couple with two children.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/4/17]

The CTC Expansion Would Do Nothing For Over 10 Million Low-Income Children, Do Little For An Additional 13 Million, But Provide An Additional Thousands Of Dollars To Wealthy Families

CBPP: “More Than 10 Million Children In Low-Income Working Families Would Be Excluded Entirely” From Expansion Of The Child Tax Credit. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “At the lower end of the income scale, the bill would deny most or all of the CTC expansion to millions of children whose parents work for low wages. More than 10 million children in low-income working families would be excluded entirely.  A family with two children that makes less than $16,333 would get no help from the House GOP CTC proposal.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/4/17]

CBPP: Another 13 Million Children In Low- And Modest-Income Families Would Receive Less Than The Full $600-Per-Child Increase. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “In addition to the 10 million children in low-wage working families who would be left out altogether, another roughly 13 million children in low- and modest-income working families would receive something but less than the full $600 per-child increase, with most of these families benefiting by less than $200 per child. The bill imposes a very restrictive limit on the amount of increase in the CTC that most poor and near-poor working families can receive, causing most such families to receive either no or only a small, partial CTC increase.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/4/17]

CBPP: A Woman With Two Children Earning $14,500 Would Be Excluded From The Expanded Child Tax Credit, But A Couple With Two Children Earning $200,000 Would Be Newly Eligible And Receive A $3,200 Credit. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Consider a single mother of two children who works full-time at the minimum wage as a home health aide, earning $14,500. She and her children would be entirely excluded under the House Republican plan. Yet a couple with two children that makes $200,000, and thus doesn’t qualify for the CTC today, would receive a $3,200 CTC under the House plan.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/4/17]

The GOP Tax Plan Attempted To Use The Tax Code To Define When Human Life Begins

The GOP Tax Plan Would Allow Contributions To The 529 Education Savings Account In The Year Prior To Birth, Building Recognition Of “Unborn” Children Into The Tax Code

The GOP Tax Plan Would Allow Contributions To The 529 Education Savings Account In The Year Prior To Birth, Building Recognition Of “Unborn” Children Into The Tax Code. According to Politico, “The GOP tax plan would allow parents to contribute to their child’s 529 education savings account in the year prior to birth, seemingly the first time an ‘unborn child’ is recognized in the tax code. Anti-abortion groups praised the inclusion of the language.” [Politico, 11/3/17]

The Legislation’s Explicit Reference To Fetuses As “Unborn Children” Was Viewed As Opening A New Front In The Push To Grant Legal Rights To A Fetus. According to Politico, “The legislation includes language that would open up tax-advantaged college savings accounts known as 529s to what the legislation calls ‘unborn children’ as designated beneficiaries. And a bill summary specifically defines that as ‘a child in utero. A child in utero means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. Groups on both sides of the abortion debate squared off over the provision, opening a new front in the push to grant legal rights to a fetus.” [Politico, 11/3/17]

• Kevin Griffs, Vice President Of Communications For Planned Parenthood: “It Is Absurd That House Republican Leaders Would Use A Tax Bill To Try To Advance Their Relentless Agenda To Undermine Access To Safe, Legal Abortion.” According to NBC News, “‘It is absurd that House Republican leaders would use a tax bill to try to advance their relentless agenda to undermine access to safe, legal abortion,’ said Kevin Griffis, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood. ‘Denying women access to safe, legal abortion is wildly out of touch with the majority of Americans. Politicians in Washington, D.C., have no place inserting themselves in decisions about women’s health and lives, not on this bill and not on any bill.’” [NBC News, 11/2/17]

• NARAL Spokesperson: “The GOP’s Relentless Obsession With Advancing Its Dangerous Anti-Choice Ideology Knows No Boundaries And No Common Sense.” According to Politico, “But a spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, which supports abortion rights, said, ‘The GOP’s relentless obsession with advancing its dangerous anti-choice ideology knows no boundaries and no common sense. Inserting ‘personhood’ language into their tax bill is just the latest example of how they’re trying to turn back the clock on this country.’” [Politico, 11/2/17]

• March For Life President Jeanne Mancini: “A Child In The Womb Is Just As Human As You Or I Yet, Until Now, The U.S. Tax Code Has Failed To Acknowledge The Unborn Child — All While Granting Tax Breaks For Those Seeking An Abortion Under The Pretense Of ‘Healthcare.’” According to Politico, “‘A child in the womb is just as human as you or I yet, until now, the U.S. tax code has failed to acknowledge the unborn child — all while granting tax breaks for those seeking an abortion under the pretense of ‘healthcare,’’ said Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life. Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America criticized the language, arguing that adults can already save for a 529 tax plan before a child is born.” [Politico, 11/3/17]

Parents Could Already Use 529 Accounts To Save For Future Children, So Injecting The Abortion Debate Into Tax Policy Was A Purely Ideological Move

The Provision Stating Unborn Children Were Eligible For 529 College Savings Plans Made No Actual Change In Policy As Parents Were Already Allowed To Open Such Plans For Future Children. According to NBC News, “Anti-abortion advocates are cheering a provision in the new House GOP tax bill that explicitly states unborn children are eligible for tax-advantaged 529 college savings plans. The language doesn’t represent a change to existing law, as prospective parents can already open the accounts even before they conceive. But abortion opponents say the provision strengthens the argument that unborn children should be treated as people and given equal protection under the law — a key element in their battle to overturn or nullify the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.” [NBC News, 11/2/17]

Bankrate.Com Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride: A Parent Could Open An Account In His Or Her Own Name And Change The Account Beneficiary After The Birth Of A Child, So The Most The Provision Did Was Allow Parents To Skip The Step Of Naming A New Beneficiary. According to The Huffington Post, “There’s nothing in current law stopping parents from opening a 529 savings account before a child is born, explained Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com, a personal finance site. A parent opens the account in his or her own name, and once the baby is born, changes the account beneficiary, he explained. McBride said he did this for one of his sons. ‘I don’t know how this makes it different,’ he said. McBride said at most, the tax reform provision would allow parents to skip the step of naming a new beneficiary. ‘Taking a nonstop flight instead of changing planes,’ he said.” [Huffington Post, 11/3/17]

One Month Prior To The TAx Plan’s Release, The Department Of Health and Human Services Incorporated “Personhood” language In Its New Strategic Draft Plan

An October 2017 Draft Strategic Plan For The Department Of Health And Human Services Used Personhood Language, Declaring Life Began At Conception. According to The Huffington Post, “So-called personhood language also made an appearance in a draft strategic plan for the Department of Health and Human Services released last month. In a note about the department’s organizational structure, HHS said its mission was to protect ‘Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception.’” [Huffington Post, 11/3/17]

• Huffington Post: “The Move Is Part Of An Effort By The Trump Administration And House Republicans To Define Life As Beginning At Conception, With An Eye To Rolling Back Roe V. Wade.” According to The Huffington Post, “Republicans slipped anti-abortion language into the draft of the tax reform bill they released on Thursday. The move is part of an effort by the Trump administration and House Republicans to define life as beginning at conception, with an eye to rolling back Roe v. Wade.” [Huffington Post, 11/3/17]

Americans United For Life On The Draft HHS Plan: “By Recognizing That Life Begins At Conception, HHS Is Aligning Itself With Many Laws Across The Nation — That Recognize The Sanctity Of Life From Conception.” According to Politico, “Americans United for Life applauds draft HHS plan. In a letter to HHS, the anti-abortion-rights group says that the agency’s new strategic plan gets it right when it comes to abortion issues. ‘By recognizing that life begins at conception, HHS is aligning itself with many laws across the nation — that recognize the sanctity of life from conception,’ a spokesperson said.” [Politico, 10/30/17]