Congressman Jared Golden has shared a new idea to change the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and make it better for families. The fundamentals of his plan, called the Family Income Security Credit (FISC), are solid. It would give families more money to help care for their children, particularly the youngest children. It would also change how the money is given, moving from one big payment each year to smaller payments each month. These changes could help many children in Maine move out of poverty. However, the plan contains a number of additional provisions that reduce its effectiveness and raise potential problems.
Right now, the CTC gives families up to $2,000 per child each year. However, not all families get the full amount. If a family does not make enough money to owe taxes, they only get a smaller portion of the credit. For example, a parent who earns $5,000 a year with one child only gets $375. A single parent earning $15,000 with two kids would get $1,875. Meanwhile, a family making $150,000 with two kids would receive the full $4,000. This means the families who need the most help often get the least.
Golden’s new FISC plan would be much more generous. Instead of one yearly payment, families would receive monthly payments. The amount would depend on the child’s age:
- $250 per month for children over 6 years old
- $400 per month for children from birth to 6 years old
- $800 per month for pregnant womeni after the 20th week of pregnancy
- Children with two married caregivers receive a 20% bonus to these amounts
This means the base benefit for families would be between $3,000 (for an older child with unmarried parents) and $8,160 per year (for an infant with married parents), ii with the exact amounts varying by the age of the child and the parents’ marital status and incomes.
Golden’s plan gives more money to the youngest children. This is important because studies show that extra money helps young kids the most. One study found that when families with low income got an extra $3,000 a year ($4,300 a year in 2025 dollars) while their kids were under six, those children earned 17% more as adults. This means they had better jobs and brighter futures. The FISC would give families more money at this critical time.
The new proposal also improves how much money families with low income can get. Right now, families who don’t owe taxes get less money. Under the FISC plan, families would still have a limit based on their income from the past 12 months, but it would be higher than before. For example, a family that earned $5,000 last year could get up to $5,000 in FISC payments instead of just $375 under the current CTC. This would be a huge improvement for struggling caregivers.
The FISC plan would not help the very lowest-earning families as much as the expanded CTC under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) did, but it would still be better than the current CTC. Most families, except the very poorest and the very richest, would get more money under FISC than they did under the American Rescue Plan.
For example:
- A single parent with a 3-year-old working part-time at minimum wage currently gets $1,339 from the CTC. Under ARPA, they got $3,600. With FISC, they would get $4,800.
- A married couple with two kids, earning $40,000 a year, currently gets $3,400. Under ARPA, they got $6,000. With FISC, they would receive $7,200.
To help pay for this plan, Golden suggests reducing the amount of money families with higher income can get. Right now, single filers making up to $200,000 and joint filers making up to $400,000 can still receive the full CTC. Under the new plan, these limits would drop to $125,000 and $250,000. Golden says that the extra cost of the FISC would be covered by raising additional taxes on wealthy households, though this is not included in the bill’s text.
The FISC plan could make a big difference in reducing child poverty. Studies show that when the CTC was expanded in 2021 under ARPA, nearly 3 million children were lifted out of poverty. In Maine, child poverty was cut by more than half. Since the FISC payments are larger, they would likely have a similar or even greater impact.
However, there are some problems:
- The poorest families would not get enough help. Families with the lowest income would not receive as much money as middle-class families because their payments are still based on past earnings. The FISC would be better than the current system but would still leave out some of the most vulnerable kids.
- Single parents would receive less money than married couples. The 20% marriage bonus means married couples would get more money than unmarried parents. But unmarried parents are more likely to struggle financially and need extra help as many are single parents who have less earning potential than two-parent families and struggle to balance caregiving responsibilities with full-time work. In Maine, only 4% of children in married families live in poverty, compared to 30% of kids in other households. Giving more money to married couples and less to single parents misses an opportunity to comprehensively tackle child poverty.
- Some immigrant children could be left out. Right now, only children with Social Security numbers can get the CTC. Golden’s plan allows children with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to qualify but adds a new rule: only US citizens or green card holders can receive the credit. This means some legally present immigrant children, like those granted asylum, could be left out.
- The pregnancy benefit could impact laws and privacy. While some government programs already help pregnant people, this credit could create legal problems. Some groups worry it might lead to laws that limit reproductive rights. There are also privacy concerns because parents would have to share personal medical information with the government. There are questions about whether families could still get the credit if a pregnancy is lost or if a baby is born early. A better idea might be allowing parents to claim the credit after the baby is born, rather than during pregnancy.
Overall, Golden’s plan to replace the CTC would give more money to most families, helping to reduce child poverty. As Congress debates renewing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it will need to address the expiring provisions of the current CTC. Golden’s plan provides a number of good ideas for them to consider as they do so, as well as some examples of bad ideas that undermine the fundamentals of the program. Lawmakers should take the best ideas and jettison the others, to ensure that all children have the financial support they need for a stable and healthy future.
