RECOMMENDED READING
Oren Cass and Wells King have added their proposal, a parenting supplement they call the Fisc, to a list of ideas designed to reduce the fiscal burden on parents relative to non-parents.
One of the most hotly debated features of the Fisc is a āwork requirement,ā in that the annual allowance cannot exceed prior year earnings. Iāll let others quibble over the details on the formula. And Iām also sympathetic to the idea that parents need extra resources whether theyāre working or not, particularly in the case of a single-mother.
However, by tying the payment to earnings, the Cass-King proposal may encourage marriage because theyād entice single workers to marry single parents. Letās say an unmarried couple has a child and the mother intends to be a full-time homemaker while the father works. Un-married, they donāt get the Fisc; married, they do. In this case, the āwork requirementā is a marriage incentive in disguise.
Now a quibble that I do care about: the income thresholds for phasing out the Fisc start at $100,000 for singles, $200,000 for married couples. Iād suggest lifting the threshold to $142,800 for singles, which is the amount of the taxable Social Security wage base in 2021, with a threshold of $285,600 for married couples. In addition, I think those thresholds should rise each year at the same pace as the taxable wage base, which is generally faster than inflation.
Why lift the thresholds to the maximum wage base potentially faced by each kind of household? Because one of the points of helping parents is to offset the disincentive for parenting built into the Social Security system. The Social Security system taxes earned income (wages and salaries), forcing workers to use a portion of earnings up to those thresholds to purchase government retirement obligations. Future Social Security benefits then relate to those tax payments, crowding-out the natural incentive to raise children to provide for old-age security.
Why not make the Fisc available to all parents, even those with very high incomes? Because workers who expect to consistently earn more than the taxable wage base face different incentives. For them, the Social Security tax is essentially a ālump-sumā payment to the government, which doesnāt affect them at the margin and shouldnāt generate the same distortions in their parenting behavior.
One other change Iād make is to specify that the only earnings that matter for purposes of deciding eligibility for the Fisc should be those taxed as part of the Social Security wage base. That means no capital gains, no dividends, no interest. All irrelevant! Keep the Fisc a benefit tied to labor earnings; parents who only clip coupons need not apply.
[Note: This comment is from a series of responses to the proposal for a Family Income Supplemental Credit.]
Recommended Reading
Trade Deals in the Time of Tariffs
The reciprocal levies aimed at allies have been paused for 90 days, now what?
Trumpās tariffs aim to reset global trade ā and boost Americaās workers
President Trump ushered in a new era of US trade policy Tuesday ā a national course correction after decades of unfair trade practices
Stop Freaking Out. Trumpās Tariffs Can Still Work.
Last week’s āLiberation Dayā marked a kind of D-Day in the effort to reorder the international economic system.