Yougov and morning consult: making child tax credit permanent is surprisingly not too popular

[Matty]

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1417924844419751940

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1419676872393232390

[OSR stands with Israel]

Wait Republican voters disapprove of this program even on a temporary basis .

[7,052,770]

Wait Republican voters disapprove of this program even on a temporary basis .

Biden Derangement Syndrome is a tragic disease

[StateBoiler]

A lot of people count on having this big bonus payment to spend/blow on ____ come April or May. I don't really get it personally, but they do. My wife was telling me how kids at her middle school talk about knowing tax time is coming, because their parents have money to spend and they can go get new shoes. There's businesses that advertise "use your tax bonus here and get this extra or in return".

Throw on top of it that it was automatic unless you had BOTH parents in a joint-file household opt out to not get it (I don't understand that at all, it just makes it more difficult for people to opt out), a lot of people don't pay attention to and ignore items such as this, come spring they're going to be shocked about it and instead of a big refund they could potentially owe back, and a lot of people are going to be angry come spring 2022. I get the idea behind it and what they were trying to do, I just think they're out-of-touch with the saving and spending habits of lower-class Americans regardless of their political leanings. Some people would rather get $300 once than $50 6 times.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The increase in the CTC would likely be a popular policy, but the direct early payments are both convoluted and for most people unnecessary. It was already the case that tax withholding tables for earned income took into account the CTC and it's a lot simpler to change your W-4 with your employer if your situation changes than the convoluted mess that is the IRS website with its cumbersome and problematic verification procedures.

I'd been counting on using the CTC to cover my wife's self-employment taxes rather than having to make estimated tax payments.

The only people these direct payments of the CTC help are those near the bottom of the income ladder and the cybercrooks who will be taking advantage of this scheme to scam the government, likely at the expense of people who actually would be eligible for the CTC.

[Blue3]

Let’s have people actually experience it for 6 months first.

[Bootes Void]

Wait Republican voters disapprove of this program even on a temporary basis .

yes giving any money to middle class people goes against republican dogma.

[GP270watch]

And next year at tax time they'll still get January-June tax credit, which is increased from 2020.

So $1500 per child 6-17 and $1800 for 5 and under.

[Ferguson97]

Wait Republican voters disapprove of this program even on a temporary basis .

Yeah. Opposing social programs is kind of the GOP's bread and butter.

[Badger]

A lot of people count on having this big bonus payment to spend/blow on ____ come April or May. I don't really get it personally, but they do. My wife was telling me how kids at her middle school talk about knowing tax time is coming, because their parents have money to spend and they can go get new shoes. There's businesses that advertise "use your tax bonus here and get this extra or in return".

Throw on top of it that it was automatic unless you had BOTH parents in a joint-file household opt out to not get it (I don't understand that at all, it just makes it more difficult for people to opt out), a lot of people don't pay attention to and ignore items such as this, come spring they're going to be shocked about it and instead of a big refund they could potentially owe back, and a lot of people are going to be angry come spring 2022. I get the idea behind it and what they were trying to do, I just think they're out-of-touch with the saving and spending habits of lower-class Americans regardless of their political leanings. Some people would rather get $300 once than $50 6 times.

Yes, those freewheeling Gangsta kids rejoicing they can get new clothes, including even shoes, because their family may not be broke as s*** after they get their tax refund. Horror upon horrors. If only those poor people knew how to manage their money and scrape by rather than buying expensive flashy sneakers for their kids. But hey, that's why they're poor in the first place, amarite?

[Joe Republic]

The pro-family party is supportive of it.  That's what matters.

[DaleCooper]

A lot of people count on having this big bonus payment to spend/blow on ____ come April or May. I don't really get it personally, but they do. My wife was telling me how kids at her middle school talk about knowing tax time is coming, because their parents have money to spend and they can go get new shoes. There's businesses that advertise "use your tax bonus here and get this extra or in return".

Throw on top of it that it was automatic unless you had BOTH parents in a joint-file household opt out to not get it (I don't understand that at all, it just makes it more difficult for people to opt out), a lot of people don't pay attention to and ignore items such as this, come spring they're going to be shocked about it and instead of a big refund they could potentially owe back, and a lot of people are going to be angry come spring 2022. I get the idea behind it and what they were trying to do, I just think they're out-of-touch with the saving and spending habits of lower-class Americans regardless of their political leanings. Some people would rather get $300 once than $50 6 times.

Yes, those freewheeling Gangsta kids rejoicing they can get new clothes, including even shoes, because their family may not be broke as s*** after they get their tax refund. Horror upon horrors. If only those poor people knew how to manage their money and scrape by rather than buying expensive flashy sneakers for their kids. But hey, that's why they're poor in the first place, amarite?

That's not what he said. He said that people will not understand the changes that this convoluted and arcane policy actually brings. I tried to make a similar point in another thread about this and similar comments were made towards me. To be fair, I was being much more antagonistic than I usually am, but I feel that my point still stands, which is that arbitrary direct deposits of money to people regardless of need is not going to be anywhere near as popular as Democrats think it will for a couple of reasons.

The first issue is that due to both ignorance of the policy itself and resentments that run deeper than people realize, a lot of people both with children and without are only going to see that people who need this money less than they do are getting monthly payments of what appears to be "free money". Again, I never got an answer for this, but monthly payments exacerbates an existing problem with child tax credits which is that it isn't necessarily targeted towards people in need. Karen in the suburbs will potentially get more money than a single mom of one, even though the former potentially has a household income of over 100k. At tax time, this phenomenon is noticed far less because everyone is getting their refund at once. As others have (rightly) pointed out to me, this isn't a welfare program, but the problem is that Biden and the Democrats are presenting it as such, and that discrepancy will probably bother people.

The second big problem, which is what StateBoiler brought up, is that liberals and progressives are out of touch with how people actually save and spend money in this country. People rely on their annual tax refund, which they now may not get, and they often spend it on items that are nonessential but still nice to have. (I don't want to speak for him, so I'll emphasize that what I'm about to say is simply my perspective, not anyone else's.) To put it simply, when people receive money they don't need––emphasis on need––they tend to spend it on stuff they want rather than need, which is unsurprising. This isn't a judgement at all, as it's important to improve one's quality of life in any way you can, but it's not realistic to pretend that everyone getting these deposits will put it all towards rent. The most destitute people will probably buy food, rent, and make car or medical bill payments with it, but the people who are able to meet their needs without the tax credit will likely use it for nonessential items, and this will be more obvious the higher the income goes. Working class people may spend the money on new shoes or home appliances, but the suburbanites will be more likely to put this towards new cars and vacations so, to put it bluntly, it doesn't surprise me that a plurality of voters don't want their tax dollars paying for that.

I'm not an expert on tax policy and I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances of this policy, so please correct me where I'm wrong, but in terms of how this will be perceived by the public, I think there are many completely fair reasons for voters to be skeptical or opposed to this.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Pro-life until birth

[StateBoiler]

Pro-life until birth

This comment illustrates the level of intelligence prevalent on this board.

A lot of people count on having this big bonus payment to spend/blow on ____ come April or May. I don't really get it personally, but they do. My wife was telling me how kids at her middle school talk about knowing tax time is coming, because their parents have money to spend and they can go get new shoes. There's businesses that advertise "use your tax bonus here and get this extra or in return".

Throw on top of it that it was automatic unless you had BOTH parents in a joint-file household opt out to not get it (I don't understand that at all, it just makes it more difficult for people to opt out), a lot of people don't pay attention to and ignore items such as this, come spring they're going to be shocked about it and instead of a big refund they could potentially owe back, and a lot of people are going to be angry come spring 2022. I get the idea behind it and what they were trying to do, I just think they're out-of-touch with the saving and spending habits of lower-class Americans regardless of their political leanings. Some people would rather get $300 once than $50 6 times.

Yes, those freewheeling Gangsta kids rejoicing they can get new clothes, including even shoes, because their family may not be broke as s*** after they get their tax refund. Horror upon horrors. If only those poor people knew how to manage their money and scrape by rather than buying expensive flashy sneakers for their kids. But hey, that's why they're poor in the first place, amarite?

That's not what he said. He said that people will not understand the changes that this convoluted and arcane policy actually brings. I tried to make a similar point in another thread about this and similar comments were made towards me. To be fair, I was being much more antagonistic than I usually am, but I feel that my point still stands, which is that arbitrary direct deposits of money to people regardless of need is not going to be anywhere near as popular as Democrats think it will for a couple of reasons.

The first issue is that due to both ignorance of the policy itself and resentments that run deeper than people realize, a lot of people both with children and without are only going to see that people who need this money less than they do are getting monthly payments of what appears to be "free money". Again, I never got an answer for this, but monthly payments exacerbates an existing problem with child tax credits which is that it isn't necessarily targeted towards people in need. Karen in the suburbs will potentially get more money than a single mom of one, even though the former potentially has a household income of over 100k. At tax time, this phenomenon is noticed far less because everyone is getting their refund at once. As others have (rightly) pointed out to me, this isn't a welfare program, but the problem is that Biden and the Democrats are presenting it as such, and that discrepancy will probably bother people.

Pretty much. I'm getting $300 monthly payments for the next 6 months. If it was need-based, I would be getting much less of a child tax credit, however changing that would be a vote-loser come election time. Having kids I went from modest refund to huge refund every year, and my withholdings for dependents are correct.

The second big problem, which is what StateBoiler brought up, is that liberals and progressives are out of touch with how people actually save and spend money in this country. People rely on their annual tax refund, which they now may not get, and they often spend it on items that are nonessential but still nice to have. (I don't want to speak for him, so I'll emphasize that what I'm about to say is simply my perspective, not anyone else's.) To put it simply, when people receive money they don't need––emphasis on need––they tend to spend it on stuff they want rather than need, which is unsurprising. This isn't a judgement at all, as it's important to improve one's quality of life in any way you can, but it's not realistic to pretend that everyone getting these deposits will put it all towards rent. The most destitute people will probably buy food, rent, and make car or medical bill payments with it, but the people who are able to meet their needs without the tax credit will likely use it for nonessential items, and this will be more obvious the higher the income goes. Working class people may spend the money on new shoes or home appliances, but the suburbanites will be more likely to put this towards new cars and vacations so, to put it bluntly, it doesn't surprise me that a plurality of voters don't want their tax dollars paying for that.

I'm not an expert on tax policy and I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances of this policy, so please correct me where I'm wrong, but in terms of how this will be perceived by the public, I think there are many completely fair reasons for voters to be skeptical or opposed to this.

Pretty much this. A tax refund is a waste frankly. It's a big lump sum of money that is delayed in receipt and pays zero in return versus receiving it incrementally throughout the year. Yet, and why people love them so much, is whatever people receive net every week, 2 weeks, monthly, etc., they learn to live on. The annual tax refund is a "bonus" they live beyond what they spend regularly. My refunds I just put in the bank account, I never earmark for them anything, but I'm a minority. I know people in well-off circumstances that use the refund as a bonus to get something extra. This frame of mind, I'm from Eastern N.C., this is no different than how the commercial fishermen worked. Boat comes in to shore, they get paid, and they spend spend spend. In the days before it starts to leave again, they've used all their last paycheck and it's pretty lean.

Considering both parties in government operate under "if it's not broke, don't fix it", I'm curious what the bureaucrats' unspoken motive was. They could've done it in reverse of leave the system the same but you could file to receive advance payments in lieu of a big tax refund. They instead applied the change to everyone and you had to file to not get advanced payments, knowing most people wouldn't. I guess there's some cost savings there that only some government actuaries fully understand.

[West_Midlander]

Concern about the deficit is real

[Joe Republic]

Concern about the deficit is real

Sure, now that the Democrats are in charge.

Ten-year forecasts

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in April 2018 that implementing the Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[8] or about $1.891 trillion after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt.[9]

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Act would add $1,456 billion total to the annual deficits (debt) over ten years and described the deficit effects of particular elements of the Act on December 18, 2017.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm, obviously, usually not much of an optimist but I think people aren't entirely informed about what the tax credit even is yet. I actually think they'll change their minds about it once they notice and experience it. It's Obamacare syndrome as I see it. This is an extremely tangible positive economic change, and it will probably be noticed and appreciated down the line...unless you're a Republican hack.

[H. Ross Peron]

I agree with the consensus of waiting a few months. Also I suspect that the beneficiaries of the programs is more likely to prioritize the program when voting than opponents of the CTC are.

[Tintrlvr]

A lot of people count on having this big bonus payment to spend/blow on ____ come April or May. I don't really get it personally, but they do. My wife was telling me how kids at her middle school talk about knowing tax time is coming, because their parents have money to spend and they can go get new shoes. There's businesses that advertise "use your tax bonus here and get this extra or in return".

Throw on top of it that it was automatic unless you had BOTH parents in a joint-file household opt out to not get it (I don't understand that at all, it just makes it more difficult for people to opt out), a lot of people don't pay attention to and ignore items such as this, come spring they're going to be shocked about it and instead of a big refund they could potentially owe back, and a lot of people are going to be angry come spring 2022. I get the idea behind it and what they were trying to do, I just think they're out-of-touch with the saving and spending habits of lower-class Americans regardless of their political leanings. Some people would rather get $300 once than $50 6 times.

Many people would rather get $200 once than $50 6 times, honestly.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Wait Republican voters disapprove of this program even on a temporary basis .

Yeah. Opposing social programs is kind of the GOP's bread and butter.

I mean George W  Bush and Trump  doubled the child tax credit during their presidencies . The latest time  was thanks to Marco Rubio

[7,052,770]

Wait Republican voters disapprove of this program even on a temporary basis .

Yeah. Opposing social programs is kind of the GOP's bread and butter.

I mean George W  Bush and Trump  doubled the child tax credit during their presidencies . The latest time  was thanks to Marco Rubio

Like everything else, it's only bad when Democrats do it.