A recent front-page article by Staff Writer Eric Russell (Dec. 26) describes the benefits of the COVID-related expansion of the child tax credit and the “hard choices” families face as the extra payments come to an end.

It’s impossible not to feel sympathy for the affected families. But if temporary income subsidies are going to become permanent policy, then there should be more transparency about cost, trade-offs and possible adverse consequences, as well as benefits.

The enhanced credit of $3,600 for children under 6 and $3,000 for older children – up from $2,000 – is extended for one year in President Biden’s Build Back Better proposal. But advocates are determined to make the increased amounts permanent, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost over 10 years would be $1.6 trillion. The public should know how much taxes would have to increase to pay for the extended program, or, more likely, if the money would be borrowed and added to the already-huge national debt.

Other adverse consequences are also significant. A study by economists at the University of Chicago concludes that extending the enhanced credit would discourage work, reduce employment by 1.5 million workers and have less effect on poverty reduction than other anti-poverty programs.

If it is extended, the child credit with its enlarged benefit and middle-class eligibility would be a textbook example of how temporary aid can become an entrenched and expensive entitlement that increases dependency on government largesse.

Martin Jones
Freeport

Related Headlines


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: