fbpx
Articles

Explainer: New federal efforts could reduce poverty in America

/
March 17, 2021

Two recent congressional programs—one proposed and one already passed—may have a significant effect on poverty in the United States.

The recent $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill, called the American Rescue Plan, includes a number of benefits that will affect low-income individuals and families. Although this relief only makes changes for 2021, it could be extended or used as a model for other poverty-reducing programs in the future.

Another program proposed in February by Sen. Mitt Romney, called the Family Security Act, would also give monthly cash payments to parents and reform federal aid for low-income Americans that would lead to reductions in poverty.

Here is what you should know about these efforts.

What is the poverty reducing feature of the American Rescue Plan?

A primary feature of the relief bill is direct payments to taxpayers of $1,400, or $2,800 for a married couple filing their taxes jointly, plus $1,400 per dependent. A married couple with two children would receive $5,600 in direct payments. 

The bill also significantly expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for 2021 by making it available to people without children. The credit for low and moderate-income adults would be worth $543 to $1,502, depending on income and filing status.

For families with children, the legislation expands the benefit of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from $2,000 annually to $3,600 for each child under 6 and $3,000 for each child between 6 to 17 years old (the credit previously excluded children age 17). Those amounts will also be available to all low-income families even if it exceeds the amount they paid in taxes

In previous years, the CTC was claimed when a person filed their tax returns. But starting in July, the CTC will be paid out on a monthly basis at a maximum rate of $300 per child. For example, a family with two children under 6 would qualify for $600 a month in CTC payments until December. (The other half of the CTC, for January to June 2021, will be paid when people file their tax returns.)

These payments are expected to have an immediate effect on the level of poverty in the U.S.

The poverty threshold for a one-person household is $12,880 a year (for comparison, a person working full time (2,080 hours per year) at the federal minimum wage ($7.25) would earn $15,080 a year). The threshold for a two-person family is $17,420, and $26,500 for a family of four.

The average relief benefit to the individual (i.e., $1,400 for the direct payment and roughly $1,000 for the EITC) would give them an additional $2,400, about 18.6% of the annual income needed to cross the poverty threshold (the equivalent to 331 hours—8.3 weeks—of minimum wage pay). For a family of two, it would provide 31% of the necessary annual income.

The benefit is most helpful, though, to a family with children. A two-parent family with two children under the age of 6 would receive $5,600 immediately, about $1,500 for the EITC, and  $7,200 in child tax credits—a total of $14,300, or 54% of the poverty threshold. 

How would the American Rescue Plan affect overall poverty?

An analysis by the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University found the legislation could cut the overall poverty rate in the U.S. from 12.3% to 8.2%, and reduce the level of poverty for children under 18 from 13.5% to 5.7%.

What is the Family Security Act?

The change in the CTC under the American Rescue Act is similar to the Family Security Act, a proposal offered last month by Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah. The proposal would create a child allowance of $4,200 per child under age 6 (to be distributed at $350 per month) and $3,000 per child ages 6 to 17 (to be distributed at $250 per month). The maximum allowance per family would be $15,000 per year, or $1,250 per month. Unlike the change in the relief bill, which put no cap on the number of children, Romney’s plan would limit the benefit for families that have four or more children under the age of 6 or six or more children from the age of 6 to 17 to $15,000 a year. 

Eligibility would be available to parents four months before the child’s due date. The child allowance would also be available to families with no income and would only phase out for the highest-earning households (single filers making more than $200,000 and joint filers making more than $400,000).

This plan would repeal the current Child Tax Credit (CTC), which is currently administered through the tax code and is worth a maximum of $2,000 per child. The CTC is subject to a $2,500 minimum-income requirement, a phase-in rate, and a maximum refundability of $1,400 for workers with no tax liability to offset.

Romney’s plan would also reform the EITC by eliminating marriage penalties, reducing improper payments and IRS audits, making it easier for families to claim the correct credit, and maintaining the adult dependent component of the EITC separately to ensure no family earns less than the EITC in its current form.

A two-parent family with two children under the age of 6 would receive about $1,500 for the EITC and $8,400 in child tax credits—a total of $9,900, or 37.3% of the poverty threshold. 

How would the Romney plan affect poverty?

According to the Niskanen Center, Romney’s child allowance would reduce U.S. child poverty by roughly one-third and deep child poverty by half. They estimate the total poverty rate would decrease from 11.67% to 10.06% while the child poverty rate would decrease from 12.41% 8.37%. 

How much would these proposals cost?

The cost in the American Rescue Plan to provide $1,400-per-person stimulus checks to all Americans—not just those in poverty—is $422 billion. To expand the Child Tax Credit, Child Care Tax Credit, and Earned Income Tax Credit for all citizens for one year adds an additional cost of $143 billion. Because there are no offsets to that spending, it adds $565 billion to the federal deficit.

Under the Family Security Act, the estimated cost to expand the child benefit would cost $229.5 billion annually, which is $112.5 billion more than the current CTC. To pay for the expanded child benefit, the plan would make $66 billion in federal tax and spending offsets.

The Romney plan would eliminate head of household filing status, eliminate the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, eliminate the itemized deduction for state and local taxes paid, and eliminate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The plan would also change some eligibility for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. The reformed EITC would cost $24.5 billion annually—about $46.5 billion less than the current EITC.

Joe Carter

Joe Carter is the author of The Life and Faith Field Guide for Parents, the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible, and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. He also serves as an executive pastor at the McLean Bible Church Arlington location in Arlington, Virginia. Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24