Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, child advocates urge Connecticut to adopt refundable child tax credit; bill would index income tax and create credit
Summary
Advocates, parents and researchers urged the Finance Committee to adopt a refundable Connecticut child tax credit and to index personal income tax brackets to inflation to reduce child poverty and offset rising living costs.
Hundreds of residents and several advocacy organizations testified before the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee supporting a proposal to create a refundable Connecticut child tax credit and to index the state personal income tax to inflation. Proponents included parents, child‑poverty researchers, community foundations, and statewide advocacy coalitions who said the proposals would provide predictable relief to low‑ and middle‑income families.
Nut graf: Supporters described HB 7272 as a targeted anti‑poverty measure that would give funds directly to households with children and stimulate local spending; many urged a higher per‑child amount than the $150 in the draft bill — coalition advocates recommended a phase‑in to $500–$600 per child to lift more children out of poverty.
Parents and social‑service providers described everyday tradeoffs families make between rent, groceries and childcare. ‘‘When winter months were brutal, it was brutal on my pockets too,’’ testified Jessica Vargas, a New Britain parent, adding that a state credit ‘‘would help give them a chance to breathe.’’ Marielle Smith, a Windsor school employee and parent, said the credit would offset costs including sports and child care and asked the committee to support a larger, refundable amount.
Child‑poverty researchers and policy groups provided modeling to the committee. Connecticut Voices for Children outlined how an indexed income tax and a child credit could reduce poverty rates measured by the supplemental poverty measure; their written analysis modeled impacts at several credit levels and inclusion rules. Proponents argued that indexing tax brackets and exemptions to inflation would stop ‘‘bracket creep’’ that raises tax liability when families’ wages rise only to keep pace with the cost of living.
Coalitions including End Hunger Connecticut and regional community foundations said universal free school meals and a child tax credit are complementary policies: the school meals bill (HB 7273) would reduce student hunger and make school participation simpler, while a refundable credit would help families pay for other essentials and stimulate local economies because families generally spend tax credits in their communities.
Several witnesses urged a fully refundable design and a benefit amount that meaningfully offsets the cost of child‑rearing. ‘‘A well‑designed Connecticut child tax credit can provide either a lifeline or make life more affordable,’’ said Nick Teeling of Connecticut Voices for Children, who presented modeling showing poverty‑reduction effects under several program designs.
Committee members asked for details on eligibility, interaction with SNAP and other benefits, and the budgetary phasing for higher benefit levels. Witnesses acknowledged design tradeoffs: a larger credit increases poverty relief and local stimulus but requires greater state revenue or offsets.
Ending: Lawmakers requested additional fiscal and distribution analysis to understand budget trade‑offs and potential revenue offsets; advocates said they would continue engagement on eligibility, indexation language and refundability to finalize an administrable policy before any committee vote.
