Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Credits Family Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Robbins’ bill expands child tax credit but cuts working family credit for childless workers; critics say it raises taxes on low‑income Minnesotans
Summary
House File 2197 would expand the child tax credit phase‑out for married filers to extend benefits to more families but would offset the cost by eliminating the working family credit for taxpayers without dependent children; proponents framed it as middle‑class relief, opponents said it would raise taxes on low‑income workers and young adults.
Representative Robbins presented House File 2197 as a targeted way to reduce a marriage penalty and expand the child tax credit to more families while offsetting costs. She described the working family credit adjustments as a mechanism to make the proposal revenue‑neutral. “What my bill does is eliminate the marriage penalty not on the standard deduction just on the working family credit portion,” Robbins said.
Robbins said the bill increases the married filing joint phase‑out from the current threshold to $75,000 (for the married filing joint example she described) and raises single/other thresholds so more families with children qualify. She told the committee the change would be paid for by reducing the working family credit for filers without dependent children; she characterized the measure as an attempt to deliver promised middle‑class relief within the state’s fiscal constraints.
Nan Madden, director of the Minnesota Budget Project, testified in strong opposition to eliminating the working family credit for households without dependent children. Madden said the credit is a small but important benefit for low‑income workers without children and that removing it would harm people across the same communities the child‑credit expansion is meant to help.
Alexander Fitzsimmons of Children’s Defense Fund Minnesota also opposed removing the working family credit for childless households, citing high poverty rates among 18–24 year olds and arguing the working family credit helps young people transitioning into adulthood meet basic needs and stabilize employment.
Committee debate highlighted the political and policy tradeoffs. Chair Stevenson and others objected to reducing a refundable credit for low‑income people and called the change a de facto tax increase: committee materials and the revenue estimate show many low‑income filers would see reduced refunds. Robbins said she is open to alternate pay‑fors and characterized her approach as pragmatic given the state’s budget outlook and previous tax changes in 2023.
Representative Robbins renewed her motion to lay the bill over; the committee laid House File 2197 over for further consideration. Members requested further modeling and discussion of alternatives to the chosen offsets.
