评估特朗普总统的儿童保育提案

Lily L. Batchelder, Elaine M. Maag, Chye-Ching Huang, E. Horton
{"title":"评估特朗普总统的儿童保育提案","authors":"Lily L. Batchelder, Elaine M. Maag, Chye-Ching Huang, E. Horton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3062318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump proposed three tax benefits for child care: a credit for low-income families, an above-the-line deduction, and tax-subsidized savings accounts. While these proposals laudably bring attention to the heavy burden that child care costs place on many low- and middle-income families, they are a case study in how not to reform child care policy. They are unduly complicated, arbitrarily exclude certain low-income families, deliver support well after child care payments are due, and provide the largest benefits to higher-income families who need the least help.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing President Trump's Child Care Proposals\",\"authors\":\"Lily L. Batchelder, Elaine M. Maag, Chye-Ching Huang, E. Horton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3062318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump proposed three tax benefits for child care: a credit for low-income families, an above-the-line deduction, and tax-subsidized savings accounts. While these proposals laudably bring attention to the heavy burden that child care costs place on many low- and middle-income families, they are a case study in how not to reform child care policy. They are unduly complicated, arbitrarily exclude certain low-income families, deliver support well after child care payments are due, and provide the largest benefits to higher-income families who need the least help.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3062318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3062318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在总统竞选期间,唐纳德·特朗普提出了三项儿童保育税收优惠:低收入家庭的税收抵免、线上扣除和税收补贴储蓄账户。虽然这些建议值得称赞地引起了人们对儿童保育费用给许多低收入和中等收入家庭带来的沉重负担的关注,但它们是如何不改革儿童保育政策的一个案例研究。它们过于复杂,武断地将某些低收入家庭排除在外,在儿童保育费用到期后很长时间才提供支持,并向最不需要帮助的高收入家庭提供最大的福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing President Trump's Child Care Proposals
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump proposed three tax benefits for child care: a credit for low-income families, an above-the-line deduction, and tax-subsidized savings accounts. While these proposals laudably bring attention to the heavy burden that child care costs place on many low- and middle-income families, they are a case study in how not to reform child care policy. They are unduly complicated, arbitrarily exclude certain low-income families, deliver support well after child care payments are due, and provide the largest benefits to higher-income families who need the least help.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1