Senator Lee’s New Reform Plan Focuses on Young Children

By :: September 19th, 2013

At an AEI panel discussion earlier this week, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) unveiled the Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act. The centerpiece is an additional $2,500 tax credit for all children under age 17. The plan retains the $1,000 child tax credit under current law. Unlike the current credit, the new credit would not phase out at higher income levels.

Lee’s idea is straightforward—cut taxes for families with children and raise them for households with high itemized deductions.

He’d eliminate the standard deduction and personal exemption (except for dependents under 17) and replace them with a nonrefundable $2,000 per person credit. He’d also repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and end the taxes associated with the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA).

He would also eliminate all but two itemized deductions, including those for state and local taxes. He’d keep the mortgage interest deduction (capped at $300,000 of debt) and the deduction for charitable giving—and make those available to all taxpayers.

The plan would have just two rates, 15 percent on the first $87,850 for single people (twice that for couples) and 35 percent—higher than the 25 percent top rate in other GOP plans.  (The plan would eliminate most marriage penalties for higher-income households and provide marriage bonuses for many. High-income households with one earner and many children would get a huge tax cut.)

While Lee says he’d like to aim for even lower rates, his current design seems to recognize  that you can’t slash tax rates for all without losing billions (or even trillions) of dollars in tax revenue.  However, the 35 percent rate is significantly lower than the 39.6 percent top rate—plus surtaxes associated with the ACA—that applies to top incomes under current law. We don’t know yet whether the plan is revenue neutral because important details haven't been specified.

Lee would remove many households from the federal income tax rolls. But he sees no special reason why the key feature of his plan—the added $2,500 per-child tax credit—needs to be a tax credit. He’d be willing to use a direct spending program instead (something my colleague Austin Nichols might think was a better idea).

If the new child credit were instead a transfer payment, the plan wouldn’t increase the number of people who don’t pay federal income tax, but it would still provide substantial assistance to families with children, albeit with higher administrative costs. By acknowledging that such a child credit is effectively spending, Lee challenges critics to assess the merits of the plan.

We ought to be talking about whom the federal government should assist and how much aid they ought to get, without turning policy inside out by making every benefit program a tax preference when direct spending might make more sense. I agree with Senator Lee. Spending programs and tax policy can often accomplish the same thing. We should evaluate benefits for families with children and see what form of subsidy makes the most sense. Maybe in the process we could stop obsessing about who does—and does not—pay federal income tax.


  1. Michael Bindner  ::  10:45 am on September 19th, 2013:

    The $2,500 is half of what we need to get to financial self-sufficiency for each child and family. Removing the Obamacare taxes is a non-starter (and it is what anti-Obamacare donors really want). Unless you swap out those taxes with a general payroll or consumption tax, any tax cut is a non-starter. As for the 35% rate, that is only acceptable if the capital gains and dividends is changed to the normal income rate.

  2. CR  ::  12:46 pm on September 19th, 2013:

    This is the same thing the Bush tax cuts did, increase subsidies to patriarchal families. The effect is anti-child (even though the policy has rhetoric about being centered around a child tax credit).

    This type of policy effectively increases taxes on two-earner families*, pays men NOT to take care of their children or function as parents, and places extra unfunded demands on Social Security and Medicare, increasing the federal debt. Is this really what children need?

    This plan also increases taxes on single people. All women, except those who are high earning sole breadwinners with dependent spouses, pay higher taxes under this plan.

    *While it does help with marriage penalties, this also is similar to the Bush tax cuts, which had a superficial cover of this, but actually substantially increased subsidies to patriarchal men. The Bush Tax Cuts helped marriage penalties on couples earning between #30K and $130K; this new Lee plan apparently helps families with earnings above $130K.

  3. Jack B  ::  2:27 pm on September 19th, 2013:

    The description of the “The Parent Tax Penalty” is right up there with explanations of “imputed rent”. People who think this stuff up must be extremely affected by full moons.

  4. Have Seen the Future of the GOP and It Is George W. Bush | limitless life  ::  12:25 am on January 23rd, 2014:

    […] Or else he’d have to break his vow and add to the deficit. Lee’s tax reform likewise has no real numbers, for the same reason: The math does not […]

  5. George W. Bush, Future of Republican Party — Daily Intelligencer  ::  11:02 pm on January 25th, 2014:

    […] children. Or else he’d have to break his vow and add to the deficit. Lee’s tax reform likewise has no real numbers, for the same reason: The math does not […]

  6. 7 ways Mike Lee's push to get the GOP to stop obsessing over tax cuts for the rich matters – Vox  ::  11:10 am on June 20th, 2014:

    […] it's about the merits of an idea endorsed in broad terms by Senator Mike Lee of Utah and spelled out in more detail and with more mathematical rigor by former Bush administration […]

  7. 7 ways Mike Lee’s push to get the GOP to stop obsessing over tax cuts for the … | Mississippi News Feed  ::  4:58 pm on June 20th, 2014:

    […] it’s about a merits of an idea endorsed in extended terms by Senator Mike Lee of Utah and spelled out in some-more fact and with some-more mathematical strictness by former Bush […]

  8. There Will Be No GOP Reform for 2016 | Frankly Curious  ::  4:58 am on January 27th, 2015:

    […] Or else he’d have to break his vow and add to the deficit. Lee’s tax reform likewise has no real numbers, for the same reason: the math does not […]