Camp Plan Hits Many Working Poor Families Hard, Taking $2,000 From Minimum Wage Mother

February 27, 2014 at 8:13 am

House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp’s tax plan would produce winners and losers — and among the big losers are many families in which parents are struggling to raise their children on poverty wages.  A mother with two children who works full time at the minimum wage would lose about $2,000 a year when the plan is fully in effect in 2018 as compared to how she fares under current policies.

The plan substantially redesigns both the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  To be sure, under the redesign, working poor families with children would receive a higher CTC.  But, the plan cuts the EITC deeply for such families, with the cuts reaching their full dimension in 2018.  And, combined, the CTC and EITC changes would leave many struggling working poor families worse off, pushing them into — or deeper into — poverty.

One can compare Chairman Camp’s proposals for the CTC and EITC to the current tax code in two ways.  Policymakers expanded the CTC and EITC in 2009 and subsequently extended those expansions through 2017.  One can compare the Camp plan to current EITC and CTC policies — or to the EITC and CTC policies that will be in place if these expansions are allowed to expire (unlike many other tax provisions that are regularly extended).  Either way, many working poor families with children would lose out.

  • A mother with two children who works full-time year-round at the minimum wage (earning $14,500 by working 2,000 hours at the $7.25 minimum wage) would lose about $2,000 in 2018 (when the plan’s changes in these credits would take full effect) compared to current policy — that is, compared to the CTC and EITC policies on the books today.
  • That mother would lose nearly $350 compared to current law — that is, even if the CTC and EITC improvements of 2009 were allowed to expire entirely at the end of 2017, which itself would cause a substantial reduction in these families’ incomes.

The $2,000 loss would mean a drop of about $1 an hour compared to what a minimum wage worker receives under current policy from wages and tax credits.  Republicans also have made clear that they would not alleviate the problem by raising the minimum wage.

The Camp plan’s sharp hit on these working poor families is especially stunning given that many Republicans, in opposing any minimum wage increase, have said the EITC is a better way to help people working for low wages to make ends meet. It’s hard to see how Republicans reconcile their criticisms of the poor for not working enough, their opposition to raising the minimum wage, and, now, a proposal to sharply cut the EITC.

A basic test for tax reform should be how it treats working-poor families.  The 1986 Tax Reform Act passed that test with flying colors, easing working-poor families’ tax burdens and increasing the EITC.  For many working-poor families, the Camp plan charts the opposite course.  It fails this test.

Print Friendly

More About Robert Greenstein

Robert Greenstein

Greenstein is the founder and President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. You can follow him on Twitter @GreensteinCBPP.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

3 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. carolyn webb #
    1

    let us cut the wages of David Camp and all other G.O.P. THUGS down to ZERO by kicking them out of office PERMANENTLY in the next election

  2. 2

    Given the analysis by Jonathan Chait, that this package is overall pretty good, my question is – would fixing this problem cost so much that the package should be rejected rather than amended? I have equally strong negative feelings about the treatment of alternative energy suppliers, but I assume that could be fixed without blowing up the whole plan (in fact one could suspect that Camp put his pro-oil, anti-clean energy provision in as a negotiating point with the Dems).

    So while I agree completely that negative impacts on the working poor should be a litmus test, I think it is important to know whether they can be fixed without abandoning the essential elements of the proposal.

  3. 3

    I’ve been trying to understand the distributional effects of Camp’s plan. Isn’t the cut in EITC made up for by the expanded personal exemption? The mother earning $14,500 would not be taxed on 11,000 for her, and an additional 5,500 for a qualifying child (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ways_and_means_section_by_section_summary_final_022614.pdf, p.4). Is it because these exemptions are not refundable that the mother loses money? (Although the expanded child tax credit is partially refundable). I guess what I’m asking is if you could post a more detailed breakdown of the tax reform plan…there’s a lot of moving parts, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates it to be distributionally neutral. https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4563 Are they wrong, or is it just that certain groups within each income bracket are hurt more than others?



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




9 − = three

 characters available