By Cristina Marie
One of the most painful examples of hypocrisy in the current presidential campaign is the two candidates’ effort to present themselves as the best defenders of working-class families. Although the Democratic and Republican parties are associated with very different notions of “family” and policies on abortion and bodily autonomy – and although they argue about how to finance health care, education and housing – both have placed the Credit Child Tax (CTH) at the center of his promises. An examination of this approach shows its limited nature and calls for a debate on an alternative strategy to emerge from the financial crisis facing working families.
Why do both candidates love the child tax credit?
CTH is a neoliberal approach taken to direct assistance to low-income families due to its minimal association with the “well-being” of the poor. It was expanded during the COVID-era economic crisis to respond to protests from those who lost their income. The expansion distributed to families $3,600 per year for children under six and $3,000 per year for children between six and 18 in tax credits. This expanded plan also changed the neoliberal framework by allowing some families who paid little or no taxes and were previously excluded from such credits to receive money. Because of this latest change, the program has been widely credited with lifting approximately 2 million children out of poverty. However, the CTH provided a drop in the bucket of emergency relief that working families needed.
To understand how modest the impact of the expanded CTH has been, it’s worth noting that a nonprofit called The Bridge, based on a needs assessment and in stark contrast to CTH payments, provides $1,000 per month to low-income new mothers. And according to the Children’s Defense Fund, 11 million children in the United States, not 2 million, live in poverty. This means that during the all-time high poverty reduction attributed to CTH expansion, the circumstances of less than 1/5 of children in need have changed significantly.
But this is not the whole story. While the benefits to the poor have been relatively modest, the Covid-era policy expansion has been extremely popular, especially among middle-class voters. That’s because the credit was made available to couples with incomes up to $400,000. It has provided more to the middle classes than to essential workers, low-income workers and the unemployed.
At the same time, liberal politicians trumpeted it because it allowed them to claim a victory for restoring a type of “welfare” measure long abandoned due to reactionary ideological shifts that deemed the poor unworthy of direct cash payments. It wasn’t a great result, but it was good enough to convince the approach. They could cite numerous authoritative studies from this economic period that demonstrated that cash transfers to low-income families were not wasted, as neoliberal orthodoxy postulated, but were used to improve the well-being of at least 2 million people.
While modest, Congress did not extend the COVID-era CTH expansion. However, debates in Congress about returning to a similar tax-based family support system, with the sensitivity of limiting what should be given to the “undeserving poor,” that is, those who do not work or presumably do not work hard enough, have been discussed. become ideologically acceptable and normalized among elite politicians. A significant number of Democratic and Republican officials believe that talking about improving the CTH is a politically acceptable way to show concern for “family” finances without angering all corporate America.
Thus, today, the Child Tax Credit is at the center of the policy proposals presented by the two major business parties. J.D. Vance, known for his reactionary natalist advocacy of the “traditional family,” has advocated for a CTH of $5,000 per child and wants to extend it to families earning more than $400,000. Kamala Harris, known for a broader vision of the “family” to be rewarded, proposed increasing the credit by another $1,000, up to $6,000 per child in the first year after birth, and providing $3,600 per child each year thereafter. However, neither party spoke out in favor of guaranteeing the full annual amount of CTH to families whose income is too low to pay taxes, which disappointed community advocates who truly care for those most in need.
Social reproduction and production
Not only is the CTH a completely inadequate solution, but the reality is that no proposal from the two major economic parties comes close to addressing the fundamental cause of household financial misery. This should not be surprising because, in fact, the operation of the for-profit system is based on the practice of having workers bear the vast majority of the social costs necessary to keep the capitalist system running. This includes growing and socializing the future workforce, caring for the elderly, and creating circumstances that allow the majority to work for private capitalists for only a small fraction of the value they produce at work.
Socialists speak of these activities, mostly carried out as unpaid work, as a contribution to ”social reproduction”. These activities, for capitalists, are an aspect of “production,” during which owners directly extract as profit most of the value created by those who work in manufacturing, mining, and construction. Imposing the costs of social reproduction on working class families already victimized by the fundamentally exploitative relations of profit production is fundamental to historical capitalism. The benefit could not be achieved without this perspective of how social needs are met.
There has been no capitalism in space and time that did not require the working classes to struggle to secure their well-being through the privatization of the basis of life activity, with families acting as individualized units of unpaid labor and units for consumption of goods. high-priced goods, healthcare, education and basic care.
This is true whatever the level of social welfare adopted by any capitalist state at a specific juncture under the pressure of workers or harbingers of social collapse. The State’s commitments to socialize part of the costs of care work, of life-giving work, are never permanent. Furthermore, they also fail to alleviate the financial emergency workers face. They never really question the whole thing in which the unpaid labor of working-class carers – not to mention the gendered and racialized oppression that is inextricably intertwined – is organized and supported for the needs of big business across myriad of fiscal and spending policies.
Which path to follow?
It is in this context that we must see the outpouring of concern and modest child support reforms proclaimed by Democratic and Republican candidates, all of whom remain committed to this system. Some reform is better than none, and a CTH that provides relief to some of the millions of people left impoverished by the normal functioning of the system will be welcomed. However, the new CTH proposals do not signal a shift towards substantially alleviating the double burden borne by healthcare workers.
Our strategy for solving the crisis facing our class must recognize that the functioning of capitalist society requires this unacceptable cost. The only way to achieve a drastic change to these agreements is independent political action by the parties committed to the system.
Photo: John Froschauer / AP
Interview: Time.news Editor with Economic Expert on Child Tax Credit and Working-Class Families
Time.news Editor: Thank you for joining us today. We’re discussing an important and somewhat controversial topic: the Child Tax Credit (CTH) and its impact on working-class families. As we move deeper into the election season, both presidential candidates claim to be champions for families struggling economically. But how effective is the CTH as a solution for these families?
Expert: Thank you for having me. The Child Tax Credit is indeed a focal point in this campaign, but I would argue that its effectiveness is quite limited. While it was expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic and lifted about 2 million children out of poverty, that’s still a fraction compared to the 11 million children living in poverty in the U.S.
Editor: That’s a significant statistic. You mentioned that while the CTH was popular and seemed beneficial, particularly among middle-class voters, it doesn’t really address the needs of low-income families who truly struggle. Could you elaborate on that?
Expert: Absolutely. The credit has been available to families earning up to $400,000, which means it’s provided more substantial benefits to middle-class families than to those who are low-income or unemployed. This raises critical questions about who the program is really designed to help.
Editor: So, you’re suggesting that the CTH could be viewed more as a political tool rather than a genuine help for working-class families?
Expert: Exactly. Politicians have used the CTH to showcase their concern for family finances without disrupting the established economic order. By framing it in a way that doesn’t question the structural issues or the capitalist system’s reliance on working families to shoulder social reproduction costs, they sidestep the real problems at hand.
Editor: You refer to “social reproduction” and how it plays into the economic framework. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Expert: Certainly. Social reproduction involves all the unpaid work that goes into maintaining households—raising children, caring for the elderly, and providing the social fabric that allows society to function. Unfortunately, many of these responsibilities fall on working-class families who are already exploited under a capitalist system, where they produce value but rarely see their fair share of it.
Editor: It sounds like you’re suggesting that simply increasing the Child Tax Credit isn’t a comprehensive solution. What alternative strategies should we be discussing?
Expert: We need a fundamental shift in the way we think about support for families. Instead of merely tweaking the CTH, we should be exploring broader social safety nets that address the root causes of poverty. This could include universal basic income, access to affordable childcare, and comprehensive healthcare—essentially transforming how we view economic support and welfare.
Editor: Given the political landscape, do you think there’s a chance for these more radical solutions to be realized in the near future?
Expert: While it’s a heavy lift politically, there is a growing conversation around economic justice and systemic change. Activism from the grassroots level and pressure from communities can push these issues onto the political agenda. It’s crucial that we challenge the norms and advocate for policies that genuinely serve working-class families rather than merely paying lip service during elections.
Editor: As we wrap up, what message do you want to leave our readers with regarding the Child Tax Credit and working-class families?
Expert: It’s important for voters to critically assess political promises and recognize the limitations of existing proposals like the CTH. Real change requires us to address the systemic inequalities underlying the financial struggles of working families. Engage with the issue, demand better from your representatives, and advocate for policies that truly support the most vulnerable among us.
Editor: Thank you for sharing your insights today. It’s clear that the dialogue around economic support for families needs to evolve if we truly want to lift people out of poverty.
Expert: Thank you for having me. It’s a critical conversation, and I hope to see more people engaging with it.