A Fully Refundable Credit

Pay the full child tax credit to every eligible child, including those whose parents earn too little to owe income tax.

AI evaluation · not yet reviewed by a human

This evaluation was produced and sourced by an AI model; a human review is still pending. Figures and conclusions may still change. The review log is at the foot of the page.How review works →

The child tax credit is worth up to 2,200 dollars a child, but a family only receives the full amount if it owes enough income tax, and the refundable portion phases in at fifteen cents for each dollar earned above 2,500. A family with no earnings receives nothing; 19 million children live in households that get less than the full credit for this reason. Full refundability removes the earnings test and pays the same amount for every eligible child. Nothing else changes: the same credit, the same age limits, the same income ceiling at the top. This evaluation looks six years ahead.

Balance

Better for the future · 0.73 previous scale

Balance on the previous scale. The Bilanz 2.0 simulation is not yet available for this evaluation. The category comes from the share of the debate on the pro side (r).

For 34 · 73 % Against 12 · 27 %

Size class: large Scale of this evaluation: Normalised Impact — unitless, calibrated to this topic. For comparison: one point here is worth roughly 5 billion euro per year. A euro reaching a family with almost no earnings is valued here at 2.5 times a euro at median income — the highest weight this site uses, and the reason the balance comes out as it does. At 1.5 the two sides are close to level. How we score →

Arguments for

Arguments against

6 arguments evaluated · Scoring v1.3 Δ absolute +22

Arguments — For

3 arguments

Money where there is none

29of 100

Nineteen million children live in families that receive less than the full credit because their parents earn too little. Full refundability sends about 19 billion euro a year to precisely those households. This is the lowest-income group any American tax provision reaches.

Value 5 · Household budgetsImpact 9.5Plausibility 6

▸ Show reasoning & sources ▾ Hide reasoning & sources

The stream is money in household budgets, priced at the middle of the scale like every other euro. What it buys in these households is not a marginal comfort: shoes that fit, a bus fare to a job interview, a month's rent that does not become an eviction. That the recipients are the poorest families in the country does not raise the value here; it raises the weight the euro carries, which is counted in the Impact. Booking their poverty in both places would price the same fact two ways. What the money does to the children over their lives is a separate stream and is counted separately. The value is the middle of the scale, because the stream is a transfer of money and the budgets it lands in are priced in the Impact.

About 19 million children receive less than the full credit because the household's earnings are too low to claim it ^[1]. The credit is worth up to 2,200 dollars a child and the shortfall varies from a few hundred dollars to the whole amount; an average of 1,200 dollars is used, in a range from 700 to 1,800. Across 19 million children that is 22.8 billion dollars a year, or 19.7 billion euro at 1.16 dollars to the euro; 19 billion is used. Where it lands is what makes the argument. Households that owe no income tax on children's account sit in the bottom fifth of American incomes and often at the bottom of that fifth, where this site counts a euro at two and a half times its worth at median income — the highest weight the scale allows. That gives 47.5 billion euro a year. No part of it reaches households above the phase-in, because the measure changes nothing for anyone already receiving the full amount. The Impact is the largest in this debate by a wide margin, and it is large because of where the money goes rather than how much of it there is.

▸ Show calculation ▾ Hide calculation

	Children receiving less than the full credit [1]		19 million children
×	Average shortfall per child Setting, range 700 to 1,800 dollars: the credit is worth up to 2,200 a child and the shortfall runs from a few hundred to the whole amount; take-up among families that do not otherwise file pulls it down [1][3]	1,200 dollars a year	22.8 billion dollars a year
÷	In euro	1.16 dollars to the euro	19 billion euro
×	Weight of a euro at these incomes households that owe no income tax on children's account sit in the bottom fifth of American incomes and often at the bottom of it, where this site counts a euro at 2.5 — the highest weight the scale allows	2.5	47.5 billion euro
÷	Normalised Impact scale of this evaluation	5 billion euro a point	9.5

Score 9.5 Impact × 5 Value × 6 Plausibility ÷ 10 = 29 of 100

The mechanism is a formula: removing an earnings test pays the credit to households that fail it, and who those households are is known from tax and survey data rather than estimated ^[1]. The counterfactual is current law, in which the refundable portion phases in at fifteen cents per dollar of earnings above 2,500 dollars. What is estimated is the average shortfall, and the 2021 expansion supplies a check on it: that year the credit was made fully refundable and the payments that went out are on record, so the order of magnitude is observed rather than modelled ^[2]. Where this measure differs from 2021 is that it does not raise the credit amount, only its reach, so it costs a fraction of what that expansion did. The confounder that matters is take-up: a family that owes no tax may not file, and the 2021 experience showed that reaching the very poorest requires outreach rather than only eligibility. That is unresolved and it works against the figure, which is why the range runs down to 700 dollars. Reverse causation does not arise. The Plausibility is at the top of what a projection can carry: the rule is arithmetic, the 2021 payments are on record, and only take-up is open.

evidence basis: Precedent · P ceiling 6 identification: Definitional · no rung ceiling

Counterfactual: current law, with the refundable portion phasing in at fifteen cents per dollar above 2,500 dollars of earnings. Design: definitional — removing an earnings test pays the credit to households that fail it; the 2021 full-refundability year supplies observed payment data as a check [2]. Confounder: take-up among families that do not otherwise file, which the 2021 experience showed requires outreach; unresolved and reflected in the 700 to 1,800 dollar band. Direction: not applicable. Ceiling: projektion-level 6.0 applies because the average shortfall is estimated; definitional carries no ceiling of its own.

Children who do better later

3.8of 100

Money reaching a household in a child's early years shows up two decades later in school results, health and earnings. This is among the better-established findings in economics, measured across several American programmes with clean comparisons. It is a separate gain from the money itself.

Value 8 · Life chancesImpact 0.9Plausibility 5

▸ Show reasoning & sources ▾ Hide reasoning & sources

The stream is what a child becomes: whether they finish school, whether they are healthy at thirty, what they can earn. This site places that in the class it uses for subsistence and life chances, above economic output and below life and health. It is genuinely separate from the cash in the argument above, which is what the household gains this year; this is what the child gains over a lifetime, and the two are different goods reaching different people. What is priced is the child's own later position, not the tax the adult they become will pay, because counting both would be the same person twice. The value sits in the upper part of the scale, at the level this site uses for subsistence and life chances.

About 19 billion euro a year reaches households with young children who currently receive little or nothing. What that does over a lifetime has been measured for several American income-support programmes, and the returns are consistently large: children in families that received more early income complete more school, report better health as adults and earn more. A return of twenty-five percent of the transfer, expressed as the annual value of the later gains, is used here, in a range from ten to fifty percent — 4.75 billion euro a year. The width of that range is not evasion: the estimates differ by a factor of five depending on the programme, the age at which the money arrives and how long it lasts, and a credit paid every year to every poor family sits at neither end of that literature. What the figure does not include is the effect on the parents, which is counted nowhere in this evaluation. The Impact is a tenth of the cash it accompanies, which is the ordinary proportion once a lifetime of gains is expressed as an annual figure.

▸ Show calculation ▾ Hide calculation

	Money reaching households with young children [1]	from the argument above	19 billion euro
×	Later gains in schooling, health and earnings, as an annual value Setting, range 10 to 50 percent: estimates for American income-support programmes differ by a factor of five depending on the programme, the child's age and how long the support lasts [4]	25 %	4.75 billion euro
÷	Normalised Impact scale of this evaluation	5 billion euro a point	0.95

Score 0.95 Impact × 8 Value × 5 Plausibility ÷ 10 = 3.8 of 100

The direction here is as well established as anything in this field and the size is not. The counterfactual in the studies that carry it is children in comparable families who received less, separated by the staggered introduction of programmes across American counties and states rather than by anything about the families themselves, which is what makes those comparisons usable ^[4]. The confounder that would otherwise dominate — that families receiving more support differ in ways that also affect their children — is what the staggered rollout removes, and reverse causation cannot arise, since a child's later earnings do not cause a county's programme start date. What none of that supplies is the size for this measure. The programmes measured were food assistance, health coverage and cash pensions, each delivering something different from an annual tax credit, and the transfer here is smaller per family than most of them. Carrying a return across that gap is the step this evaluation takes on its own. The Plausibility is at the middle: the finding rests on clean comparisons and the number applied here is carried across from programmes that are not this one.

evidence basis: Converging studies · P ceiling 8 identification: Quasi-experimental · rung ceiling 8

Counterfactual: children in comparable families receiving less, separated by the staggered county-level introduction of American income-support programmes [4]. Design: quasi-experimental — difference-in-differences on staggered rollouts. Confounder: families receiving more support differing in unobserved ways, removed by the rollout timing. Direction: no reverse causation, later earnings cannot cause a programme start date. Ceiling: quasi-experimental 8.0 binds below the converging-studies ceiling of 9.0; a context transfer of 3.0 applies because the measured programmes were food assistance, health coverage and cash pensions rather than an annual tax credit, and were larger per family. The size doubt sits in the ten to fifty percent band.

Enough food in the house

1.5of 100

When the credit was made fully refundable in 2021, food insufficiency among families with children fell within weeks of the first payment. Child poverty fell by about a third. Those are health outcomes, not accounting ones.

Value 9 · HealthImpact 0.3Plausibility 5.5

▸ Show reasoning & sources ▾ Hide reasoning & sources

The stream is the health of children and their parents in the months when money is short: meals skipped so a child can eat, a prescription not filled, the sleeplessness of an eviction notice. This site places that in the class it uses for life and health, one step below the top of it because what is lost here can be regained. It is separate from the later life chances counted above, which are about what the child becomes; this is about what happens to them now. It is also separate from the cash, because a household that goes without food is losing something the money is only the means to. The value sits one step below the maximum: the stream is health, and health that can be regained.

The 2021 expansion made the credit fully refundable and paid it monthly, and the effects appeared within weeks: food insufficiency among families with children fell sharply after the first payment, and child poverty fell by about a third, keeping 3.7 million children out of poverty by the end of that year ^[2]. This measure is a fraction of that one — it removes the earnings test without raising the credit or paying it monthly — so a fraction of the effect is what is claimed. About 1.5 million children lifted above the poverty line is used, in a range from 0.8 to 2.5 million. What that is worth in health is set at 0.025 quality-adjusted years a year per child and parent affected, covering roughly 1.5 million children and their households: 37,500 quality-adjusted years a year, valued at 40,000 euro each. The result is 1.5 billion euro a year. The Impact is small against the cash, which is the honest proportion: most of what money does for a poor household is not measurable as health.

▸ Show calculation ▾ Hide calculation

	Children lifted above the poverty line Setting, range 0.8 to 2.5 million: the 2021 expansion kept 3.7 million children out of poverty, but it also raised the credit and paid it monthly, which this measure does not [2]		1.5 million children
×	Quality-adjusted years gained, children and their households Setting, range 0.01 to 0.06: enough food in the house, a prescription filled, an eviction that does not happen	0.025 a year each	37,500 quality-adjusted years
×	Value of the years the value of a healthy life year used across this site	40,000 euro each	1,500 million euro
÷	Normalised Impact scale of this evaluation	5 billion euro a point	0.3

Score 0.3 Impact × 9 Value × 5.5 Plausibility ÷ 10 = 1.5 of 100

The 2021 expansion is the closest thing to a test this measure will ever have, and it is a good one for direction and a poor one for size. The counterfactual is the months immediately before the first payment, on the same households, measured by a national survey running continuously through the period, and the drop in food insufficiency followed the payment date rather than any trend ^[2]. The confounder that matters is that 2021 contained several other pandemic-era supports, so isolating the credit from the rest requires the timing to do the work, and it largely does — the payments started in July while the other supports did not change that month. Reverse causation does not arise. What does not transfer is the size: the 2021 credit was worth up to 3,600 dollars a child and was paid monthly, and this measure is neither, so the effect here should be considerably smaller than the fraction assumed. The valuation of a year of adequate food as health is a construction of this evaluation rather than anything measured. The Plausibility is above the middle: the effect was observed on the right population at the right moment, and the version of the policy that produced it was much larger than this one.

evidence basis: Precedent · P ceiling 7 identification: Quasi-experimental · rung ceiling 8

Counterfactual: the same households in the months immediately before the first payment, measured continuously by a national survey [2]. Design: quasi-experimental — an event study on the July 2021 payment date, with other pandemic supports unchanged that month. Confounder: the rest of the 2021 support package, addressed by the timing rather than removed. Direction: no reverse causation, the payment date was set federally. Ceiling: einzelner_praezedenzfall 7.0 binds, because one episode carries it; a further deduction applies because the 2021 credit was larger and paid monthly, so the fraction assumed here is itself uncertain. The valuation of adequate food as health is this evaluation's construction.

Arguments — Against

3 arguments

Nineteen billion euro a year

11of 100

The money comes from the federal budget, which is already borrowing 5.8 percent of national output. Full refundability is permanent by nature: there is no year in which the earnings test comes back on its own. The cost grows with the credit as it is indexed.

Value 5 · Public financesImpact 3.8Plausibility 6

▸ Show reasoning & sources ▾ Hide reasoning & sources

The stream is federal money, priced at the middle of the scale. A refundable credit is spending in the shape of a tax provision and this site treats it as such. Public money is not weighted differently from private money; the whole of what makes this measure worth considering is that a euro is worth more where it lands than where it came from, and that difference is counted on the receiving side. The deficit is not a second harm on top of the spending, because borrowing shifts who pays and when and that shift is inside the euro figure. The value is the middle of the scale, the level this site uses for public money whatever it is spent on.

The measure pays out about 19 billion euro a year, the same figure that appears as a gain on the receiving side, weighted here at the standard one for public money rather than at the 2.5 that applies where it lands ^[1]. The range is the same 11 to 28 billion euro as on the receiving side, because the two sides move together: if take-up is lower than assumed, both the cost and the benefit shrink at once, and if the average shortfall is larger, both grow. Over the six years counted here the total is about 114 billion euro. Nothing offsets it inside this argument; what the money buys is counted in the three arguments above. Two things would raise it over time and are not in the figure: the credit is indexed, and the number of children in low-earning households moves with the economy. The Impact is the second largest in this debate and is the mirror of the largest: the same money, seen from the side that pays it.

▸ Show calculation ▾ Hide calculation

	Credit paid to children who currently receive less than the full amount [1]	19 million children × 1,200 dollars	22.8 billion dollars a year
÷	In euro Setting, range 11 to 28 billion euro (the same 700 to 1,800 dollars a child as on the receiving side), moving together with the benefit side	1.16 dollars to the euro	19 billion euro
×	Weight of a euro in the federal budget the standard weight for public money on this site, against 2.5 on the receiving side	1.0	19 billion euro
÷	Normalised Impact scale of this evaluation	5 billion euro a point	3.8

Score 3.8 Impact × 5 Value × 6 Plausibility ÷ 10 = 11 of 100

That paying a credit to households currently excluded costs money is arithmetic on a formula, not a prediction, and the counterfactual is current law ^[1]^[3]. What is estimated is how much is claimed, which depends on take-up among families that may not file a return at all — the same open question that limits the benefit figure, working in the same direction. The 2021 year of full refundability supplies an observed check: the payments that went out are on record, and scaling them down for the smaller credit and the absence of monthly delivery gives an order of magnitude consistent with the figure here ^[2]. The confounder that could push the cost above this figure is improper payments, which have historically been higher for the refundable portion of this credit than for most federal programmes; part of that money reaches households not entitled to it and is counted as a separate argument below rather than added here. Reverse causation does not arise. The Plausibility is at the top of what a budget projection can carry: the rule is certain and only the claiming rate is estimated.

evidence basis: Projection · P ceiling 6 identification: Definitional · no rung ceiling

Counterfactual: current law, with the earnings-based phase-in. Design: definitional — the payout follows from the credit formula; the estimated element is take-up among non-filing families, checked against the observed 2021 payments [2]. Confounder: improper payments raising the cost, booked as con-3 rather than added here. Direction: not applicable. Ceiling: projektion 6.0 binds because take-up is forecast; definitional carries no ceiling of its own. Parameter coupling: the same take-up and shortfall figures drive pro-1, so cost and benefit move together rather than independently.

Parents who stop working

0.5of 100

A credit paid without an earnings test removes the reason to earn the first dollars, which is the standard objection and a serious one. It was simulated at 1.5 million workers leaving the labour force. Then the policy ran for six months in 2021 and the effect was looked for and not found.

Value 6 · OutputImpact 0.4Plausibility 2

▸ Show reasoning & sources ▾ Hide reasoning & sources

The stream is output that does not happen because someone who would have worked does not. It belongs to the class this site uses for economic systems and prosperity. What is counted is the production, net of the time the parent gains back, which for a parent of young children is not worthless — time at home is not idleness, and treating a withdrawal from paid work as a total loss would overstate it. Nothing is counted here for what the parent's absence from work does to the child, in either direction, because the evidence points both ways and pricing it would be guesswork. The value sits in the middle-upper part of the scale, at the level this site uses for economic output.

The simulation that framed this objection put the number at about 1.5 million parents leaving the labour force under a fully refundable credit paid monthly at a higher amount than this measure proposes. What is booked here is not that figure but the expected one, which after the 2021 evidence is much smaller: 200,000 parents, in a range from none to 700,000. That is the upper edge of what the 2021 measurements could not rule out rather than the centre of what they found. Each represents about 25,000 euro of annual earnings, and what society loses is the production behind that net of the time the parent gains back, for which forty percent is used. The result is 2 billion euro a year. This measure removes the earnings test only; it does not raise the credit or pay it monthly, both of which the 2021 version did and both of which would strengthen any withdrawal effect. The Impact is a tenth of the cash it argues against, and it is stated at the expected size rather than the simulated one.

▸ Show calculation ▾ Hide calculation

	Parents leaving the labour force Setting, range 0 to 700,000: the upper edge of what the 2021 measurements could not rule out, against a simulation of 1.5 million for a larger, monthly version of the policy [2][5]		200,000 people
×	Annual earnings each	25,000 euro	5 billion euro
×	Production net of the time the parent gains back time at home with young children is not idleness, so a withdrawal from paid work is not a total loss	40 %	2 billion euro
÷	Normalised Impact scale of this evaluation	5 billion euro a point	0.4

Score 0.4 Impact × 6 Value × 2 Plausibility ÷ 10 = 0.5 of 100

The objection was tested and the test came back empty. From July to December 2021 the credit was fully refundable and paid monthly, and researchers compared employment among families with children against families without, using the fact that only the former received the payments ^[2]. Employment among recipient parents did not fall relative to the comparison group, in the aggregate or at any income level examined. The confounder that matters is that 2021 was an extraordinary labour market with several other supports running, so a real effect could have been masked by conditions that no longer apply; that is a fair objection and it is why this argument is not scored at zero. Reverse causation does not arise, since eligibility followed from having a child rather than from any employment decision. The simulation that predicted a large withdrawal was published before the measurement and has not been reconciled with it. The Plausibility is low because the effect claimed here was looked for under a proper comparison, in the one period the policy actually ran, and did not appear.

evidence basis: Precedent · P ceiling 7 identification: Quasi-experimental · rung ceiling 8 band: Effect did not materialise · P 1.5–2

Counterfactual: families without children, who received no monthly payments, over the same six months of 2021 [2]. Design: quasi-experimental — difference-in-differences on eligibility, which followed from having a child. Confounder: the extraordinary 2021 labour market and concurrent supports, which could mask a real effect; named, unresolved, and the reason the argument is not scored at zero. Direction: no reverse causation, eligibility did not follow from any employment decision. Ceiling: einzelner_praezedenzfall 7.0 binds; the band binds far below it. Finding: the effect did not materialise — the policy ran and the withdrawal did not appear. Quantity first: the figure booked is the expected size after that measurement, not the simulated 1.5 million.

Full refundability ran from July to December 2021 and employment among recipient parents did not fall against families without children [2]. Read back: roughly one time in five, a withdrawal of the size assumed here follows from removing the earnings test; the rest of the time it does not.

Open: A permanent version would allow a longer comparison in a normal labour market, which is what the 2021 test lacked. Two years of employment data for families just above and just below the current phase-in threshold would settle it and could carry P to 6.

Money that reaches the wrong households

0.4of 100

The refundable part of this credit has one of the highest improper payment rates of any federal programme, because eligibility turns on where a child lived and with whom, which no database records. Removing the earnings test removes one of the few checks that exists. What is paid wrongly is not recovered.

Value 6 · Trust in institutionsImpact 0.2Plausibility 4

▸ Show reasoning & sources ▾ Hide reasoning & sources

The stream is the standing of a programme with the people who fund it, which this site places at the level it uses for the working order of public institutions. What is priced is not the money itself: a payment that goes to a household of similar income is close to a wash in welfare terms, and treating it as a total loss would be wrong. What it costs is the programme's defensibility — an error rate that can be quoted is what such measures are attacked with, and repeatedly cut back on. That is a real thing to lose and a modest one. The value sits in the middle of the scale, at the level this site uses for the working order of public institutions.

The refundable portion of the child credit has carried an improper payment rate in the region of fifteen percent, higher than almost any other federal programme, because eligibility depends on which household a child lived in for more than half the year and no administrative record establishes that ^[1]. Applied to 19 billion euro a year that is about 2.7 billion euro reaching households not entitled to it, in a range from 1 to 5 billion. Most of that is not lost in welfare terms — the recipients are usually households of similar income, so the euro is worth about what it would have been worth — and what remains is the cost to the programme's standing. Thirty percent of the wrongly paid amount is used for that, in a range from ten to sixty, giving 0.8 billion euro a year. Removing the earnings test removes one of the few automatic checks on a claim, which is why the rate is assumed to hold rather than fall. The Impact is the smallest in this debate, because what is priced is the programme's defensibility rather than the money.

▸ Show calculation ▾ Hide calculation

	Credit paid under full refundability [1]		19 billion euro
×	Share reaching households not entitled to it Setting, range 5 to 25 percent: eligibility turns on which household a child lived in for more than half the year, which no administrative record establishes [1]	15 %	2.7 billion euro
×	Cost to the programme's standing Setting, range 10 to 60 percent: most of the money reaches households of similar income, so the euro is worth about what it would have been; what is lost is the programme's defensibility	30 %	0.8 billion euro
÷	Normalised Impact scale of this evaluation	5 billion euro a point	0.16

Score 0.16 Impact × 6 Value × 4 Plausibility ÷ 10 = 0.4 of 100

The improper payment rate itself is measured and published annually by the tax administration, so the first link is not in doubt ^[1]. Everything after it is this evaluation's construction. Whether removing the earnings test raises, lowers or leaves the rate unchanged has not been studied — a simpler rule can reduce errors as easily as increase them, and that counter-mechanism is real and unanswered. The counterfactual is the current phase-in, under which the same measurement is made. What a programme's standing is worth, and whether an error rate actually costs it anything, is not measured anywhere: the price used here is set rather than found, and the whole quantity rests on it. Reverse causation does not arise. The Plausibility is below the middle because the step from a measured error rate to a cost is one this evaluation takes on its own, and the possibility that a simpler rule reduces errors is unanswered.

evidence basis: Plausibility · P ceiling 5 identification: Mechanistic · rung ceiling 6 band: Chain closed, unevidenced · P 4–5

Counterfactual: the current earnings-based phase-in, under which the improper payment rate is measured annually [1]. Design: mechanistic — the rate is measured, but the step from it to a cost is this evaluation's construction. Confounder: a simpler rule reducing errors rather than raising them; unanswered. Direction: no reverse causation. Ceiling: plausibilitaet 5.0 binds below the mechanistic ceiling of 6.0, because the quantity rests on a stated price. Finding: the chain is closed but unevidenced — the links are named and the counter-mechanism is stated; only the price has no source.

Nothing measured argues against the claim: the error rate is published and the chain to a cost is short. What is missing is any measurement of what a programme's standing is worth. The counter-mechanism — that a simpler rule may reduce errors — is named and unresolved. Read back: about half the time, a wrongly paid euro costs the programme roughly what is assumed here.

Open: The improper payment rate is published each year. Two years of it after the earnings test is removed would show directly whether a simpler rule raises or lowers errors, and could carry P to 6.

Summary

This measure comes out well ahead and the reason is almost entirely where the money goes: nineteen billion euro a year to households whose earnings are too low to owe income tax, which is the poorest group any American tax provision reaches and the one where this site values a euro highest. Everything else is small beside that — the later gains to the children, the food in the house, the cost of the errors. What would ordinarily count against a measure like this is the labour supply objection, and it is the one part of the debate with a real test behind it: full refundability ran for six months in 2021 and the withdrawal that was simulated at 1.5 million workers was looked for and not found, in an unusual labour market that leaves the question less settled than the measurement alone suggests. Anyone who values a euro at the bottom of the income distribution at less than about one and a half times a euro at the median will read this balance as close rather than clear.

Outlook — effect over time

Better for the future · 0.73 previous scale

Sources

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: To Strengthen Economic Security, Policymakers Should Expand the Child Tax Credit to the 19 Million Children Who Receive Less Than the Full Credit Amount. cbpp.org
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Gains From Expanded Child Tax Credit Outweigh Overstated Employment Worries. cbpp.org
Congressional Research Service: Selected Issues in Tax Policy: The Child Tax Credit. congress.gov
Urban Institute: How a Permanent Expansion of the Child Tax Credit Could Affect Poverty. urban.org
Tax Policy Center: Let the Child Tax Credit Work. taxpolicycenter.org

Last reviewed by Claude Opus 5 · September 6, 2026 · 2× AI, not yet reviewed by a human

September 6, 2026AI reviewClaude Opus 5record updated
i_spanne an allen 6, normalisierung an 5 von 6 (con-3 Programm-Ansehen hat keinen Anker), Transferpaar pro-1 ⇄ con-1 verdrahtet (gleiche Menge, beide P 6, beide definitorisch — kein P-Angleich noetig), massstab_hinweis ohne r. Die beiden Paar-Beine widersprachen sich in der Spanne derselben Summe und sind jetzt exakt proportional. Kategorie steigt von Besser (r 0,73) auf Deutlich besser (P(D>0) 1,00) — allein durch die Paar-Buchung.
September 6, 2026AI reviewClaude Opus 5First evaluation
Created for the English side: the labour supply objection placed on the finding ladder against the 2021 full-refundability episode.

Evaluations are produced with AI support and reviewed on a schedule for new developments; human passes are marked separately.How we review →