More About Chye-Ching Huang

Chye-Ching Huang

Chye-Ching Huang is a tax policy analyst with the Center’s Federal Fiscal Policy Team, where she focuses on the fiscal and economic effects of federal tax policy. You can follow her on Twitter @dashching.

Full bio and recent public appearances | Research archive at CBPP.org


What Would Congress’s Inaction Cost Working Families? Find Out.

October 8, 2014 at 2:05 pm

Unless Congress acts, key Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provisions will expire at the end of 2017, pushing 17 million people — including 8 million children — into or deeper into poverty.  As we’ve noted here and here, making these provisions permanent should be a key priority for Congress.

Our new interactive calculator, below, allows you to explore what’s at stake for low- and moderate-income families if three important provisions expire at the end of 2017:

CTC refundability threshold

Current provision:  The CTC is worth up to $1,000 per child, and families have to work to qualify for it.  A family needs to earn at least $3,000 before beginning to earn the portion of the CTC that can be received as a tax refund.  The refundable CTC gradually phases in as earnings rise above that level. A family with two children cannot qualify for the full CTC unless their earnings reach $16,330.

In 2018, without action:  The $3,000 earnings threshold will more than quadruple to $14,700, so families with earnings between $3,000 and $14,700 will lose their entire CTC.  As the interactive below shows, a single mother who works full time at the minimum wage (earning $14,500) would see her CTC fall by $1,725, to $0 — a real hit to her ability to afford the basics.  To qualify for the full CTC, a married couple with two children will need earnings of at least $28,030, so many families that will still qualify will see their credits cut substantially.  About 3.7 million families, including 5.8 million children, will lose their entire CTC, and an additional 5.2 million families, including 10.6 million children, will lose part of their CTC, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) estimates.

EITC marriage penalty relief

Current provision:  The EITC now begins to phase down at an income level that’s $5,000 higher for married couples than for single filers.

In 2018, without action:  The EITC for married couples will begin to phase out only $3,000 above single filers’ phase-out level, cutting the EITC for many low-income married filers and increasing the EITC’s marriage penalty for two-earner families.

EITC boost for larger families

Current provision:  Families with three or more children can qualify for a maximum EITC that’s about $650 larger than for families with two children.

In 2018, without action:  The maximum EITC for families with three or more children will be cut to the same maximum EITC as families with two children.

With the loss of these two key EITC provisions, 6.5 million families, including 15.9 million children, would lose some or all of their EITC, CTJ estimates.

This calculator does not show the impact of the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a credit to defray the costs of college, which is also set to expire at the end of 2017 under current law.  Its expiration would mean the loss of tax credits for college for about 11 million families with students.

Considering Tax Reform? Here’s a Must-Read

October 2, 2014 at 1:49 pm

With leading members of both parties placing tax reform high on the agenda for next year, a  new paper by William B. Gale, Co-Director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), and Andrew Samwick, a Dartmouth College professor and former Chief Economist for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, is a must read.  They review the evidence about how income taxes affect economic growth and explain:

The argument that income tax cuts raise growth is repeated so often that it is sometimes taken as gospel.  However, theory, evidence, and simulation studies tell a different and more complicated story.

Gale and Samwick highlight some often-overlooked factors about how tax changes affect growth, including:

Tax changes affect the budget.  As Gale and Samwick note, research shows that large, unfinanced tax cuts can hurt growth because the increase in deficits creates a drag on national savings and investment that outweighs any positive incentive effects.  Conversely, in the face of increasing long-run deficits, revenue increases could boost growth.

Scaling back inefficient tax subsidies can promote growth.  Howard Gleckman, a TPC fellow and moderator of a discussion at the TPC event releasing Gale and Samwick’s paper in which I participated, noted that our panel:

[G]enerally agreed that the real benefit [of tax reform] likely comes from scaling back or even eliminating inefficient tax preferences, rather than reducing rates. Those changes make it more likely that people will allocate resources to maximize their economic benefit, rather than to maximize their tax savings.  If that shift is big enough, it could increase the overall size of the economy.

We could use the revenues generated by such base broadening to reduce long-run deficits, which would boost growth over the long run. (As we repeatedly emphasize, however, getting the economy back to full employment should be a greater priority than deficit reduction.)

The EITC’s Far-Reaching Benefits

September 4, 2014 at 12:17 pm

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) “may ultimately be judged one of the most successful labor market innovations in U.S. history,” says the University of California’s Hilary Hoynes in a new article, explaining that the EITC not only encourages work and reduces poverty but produces gains that extend into the next generation:

The effects of EITC extend well beyond simple income support and poverty reduction.  By increasing the income of poor families, it generates additional spending and hence “downstream” economic effects.  It leads to various improvements in the mental and physical health of mothers.  It brings about a reduction in low birth weight among infants. And it improves the performance of children on cognitive tests.  This burgeoning body of work suggests, then, that income support programs have benefits that extend well beyond an increase in cash flow for families in poverty.

We’ve highlighted findings by Hoynes, a leading researcher, and others on the benefits of the EITC and related income support, including a study suggesting that more adequate income during early childhood can lead to greater work effort later in life (see chart).

Policymakers can build on this proven success by expanding the tiny EITC for childless workers, as both President Obama and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan favor, and by making permanent key EITC and Child Tax Credit improvements set to expire in 2018.

Kleinbard: “Competitiveness” Argument for Moving Firms’ Headquarters Overseas Is a Canard

August 12, 2014 at 10:10 am

The claim that many U.S. companies are moving their headquarters overseas because U.S. corporate tax rates make them uncompetitive is “largely fact-free,” USC law professor and former Joint Tax Committee staff director Edward Kleinbard concludes in a new paper.

While many firms and their lobbyists highlight the 35 percent top U.S. corporate rate, that’s not what companies actually pay, Kleinbard explains.  The effective tax rate that U.S. multinationals face on their worldwide income — that is, the share of this income that they pay in taxes — is well below this statutory rate.  A big reason is that multinationals report vast amounts of their income as coming from tax havens where they pay little or no tax, even if they have few staff and do little business there.

Kleinbard also explains that the 2004 repatriation tax holiday, which allowed multinationals to bring profits held overseas back to the United States at a temporary, vastly reduced tax rate, gave them a big incentive to stockpile billions more in tax havens and await another tax holiday.  These large stashes of profits in tax havens are an important reason — Kleinbard thinks the key reason — why many companies are considering moving their headquarters overseas.  By “inverting,” these companies can basically declare their own, permanent tax holiday and avoid ever paying U.S. taxes on foreign-held profits.  And once inverted, they can use legal avoidance schemes to effectively get those profits to their U.S. shareholders.

In other words, multinationals are already using tax havens to achieve zero or extremely low tax rates.  Firms considering inversions are searching not for a “competitive” tax rate but a zero tax rate by ensuring that those profits remain “stateless” — that is, taxed nowhere at all. (Echoing a famous line from Mae West, Kleinbard’s paper is titled “‘Competitiveness’ Has Nothing to Do With It.”)

Kleinbard’s solution has three parts:

  1. Make it harder for a U.S. multinational to invert.
  2. Prevent companies that do invert from effectively distributing their “foreign profits” to U.S. shareholders without paying U.S. tax.
  3. Make it harder for all U.S. multinationals to claim that U.S.-earned profits were actually earned in tax havens and low-tax countries.

IMF and OECD Call for Stronger EITC and Minimum Wage

July 30, 2014 at 11:42 am

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which have previously recommended expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raising the federal minimum wage, both issued recent reports underscoring that these measures should be viewed as complements, not competing alternatives.

The reminder that a higher minimum wage can make a stronger EITC more effective at reducing poverty and encouraging work is especially timely given House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s new poverty plan.  Ryan commendably recommended expanding the EITC for childless workers and non-custodial parents, but presented this as an alternative to a minimum wage increase.

The IMF report recommends:

An expansion of the EITC (including making permanent the various extensions that are due to expire in 2017) would also raise living standards for the very poor.  Finally, given its current low level, the minimum wage should be increased.  This would help raise incomes for millions of working poor and would have strong complementarities with the suggested improvements in the EITC, working in tandem to ensure a meaningful increase in after-tax earnings for the nation’s poorest households.

The OECD working paper reiterates the OECD’s previous finding that “the EITC is a large and successful antipoverty program” and recommends strengthening the EITC for childless workers and non-custodial adults, along with raising the minimum wage.  Because the EITC is a proven work incentive, it expands the number of people seeking jobs in the low-wage sector, which can put some downward pressure on the wages that employers offer potential workers — meaning that some EITC dollars would effectively flow to employers, not workers.  A higher minimum wage helps offset that effect.  As the OECD explains:

Setting the federal minimum wage at a reasonable level can also help to make the EITC more effective at raising incomes. Although hard to quantify, employers could be capturing part of the credit by paying lower wages than they would in the absence of the EITC (OECD, 2009). Increasing the federal minimum wage would counteract this dead-weight loss by supporting wage levels.

For policymakers of either party striving to expand opportunity and raise the living standards of working-poor families, the policy roadmap is clear:  extend the recent improvements in the EITC and Child Tax Credit, expand the EITC for childless workers, and raise the minimum wage.