Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 24 to raise the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000 per qualifying child, remove statutory income limitations and related subsections, and adjust territorial application rules. It also repeals a now-unused administrative provision (section 7527A).
Disagreement over whether benefits should be universal or targeted
Substantive, popular-sounding expansion but large fiscal cost and removal of income limits create intra-chamber resistance.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 24 to raise the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000 per qualifying child, remove statutory income limitations and related subsections, and adjust territorial application rules.
It also repeals a now-unused administrative provision (section 7527A).
The changes apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
Substantial fiscal expansion with few offsetting provisions and no compromise features reduces chances absent major political tradeoffs.
How solid the drafting looks.
Disagreement over whether benefits should be universal or targeted
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Disagreement over whether benefits should be universal or targeted
Likely strongly supportive overall because benefits to low-income families increase substantially.
Concern exists that removing income limits gives benefits to wealthy households and the bill lacks explicit offsets.
Supportive of stronger child support but wary of cost and universality.
Would favor modifications to limit fiscal impact and ensure clear implementation and oversight.
Likely opposed overall because it expands refundable benefits, removes income limits, and increases federal spending materially.
Some conservatives might prefer child tax relief, but not this unfunded universal expansion.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantial fiscal expansion with few offsetting provisions and no compromise features reduces chances absent major political tradeoffs.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Disagreement over whether benefits should be universal or targeted
Substantial fiscal expansion with few offsetting provisions and no compromise features reduces chances absent major political tradeoffs.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.