Between Congress’s one-time stimulus payments and the most recent stimulus bill’s reform of the child tax credit, the federal government is already giving money to people on a regular basis. President Biden’s expanded child tax credit, in particular, is being touted as a small-scale win for universal basic income.
That should worry everyone, especially since policies such as the child tax credit offer neither universal benefits nor a reduction in welfare spending, both of which have been huge selling points, particularly for those on the Right.
Biden’s child tax credit, part of the recently passed $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, offers families $3,600 annually for each child they have under the age of 6 and $3,000 annually for each child between the ages of 6 and 17. Most radically, this refund is paid on a monthly basis rather than as a lump sum received by families around the time tax refunds go out.
Biden and other members of his party have touted this as a revolutionary new approach to how the U.S. addresses poverty. Switching to monthly payments guarantees impoverished families have some form of basic income to fall back on.
If that sounds like UBI, it’s because essentially, it is, just selectively applied. And liberal members of Congress have celebrated the expanded child tax credit as such. According to Rep. Jimmy Gomez, a California Democrat, “The child tax credit is basically a universal basic, guaranteed income for children that’s been advocated for years, but we were able to do it now with hardly ever a peep.”
That the government sees sneaking controversial policy changes under the nose of the public as something to celebrate is alarming in and of itself. But what’s worse is how the expanded child tax credit will undoubtedly be a model for expanding UBI moving forward because of the relative ease with which it was passed.
As a poverty-fighting measure, the appeal of UBI is its simplicity. It sidesteps some of the arguments about whether redistribution of wealth through taxation is fair or appropriate by giving an equal amount of money to citizens. And its proponents argue it helps remove some of the stigma that has long surrounded welfare programs that give “handouts” to the poor and, as critics have argued, incentivize irresponsible behaviors in order to meet qualifications for various programs.
But these arguments all depend on the universality of UBI payments, a trait Biden’s tax credit lacks. When it’s all said and done, the expanded child tax credit still ties rewards to behavior, just like the traditional welfare model. The more children one has, the more a family benefits. And while that’s likely not an incentive to have children just to collect a few thousand dollars a year, it does mean UBI payments are conditional.
Another major selling point of UBI has been the suggestion that it would replace other federal welfare programs. As of 2019, 61.5% of mandatory federal spending went toward Medicare and Social Security. Replacing federal welfare programs with a single office dedicated to sending monthly checks to citizens promises to save money and slim down bureaucracy. Like that’ll ever happen.
If UBI is going to look like the child tax credit, then hopes of cutting down on spending and red tape are wishful thinking. Biden’s tax credit is an expansion of a preexisting program, and the new benefits it offers aren’t tied to reductions in eligibility for any other federal welfare program. The Biden administration has also talked to Humanity Forward, a pro-UBI group founded by Andrew Yang. The group does not advocate for any reduction in other welfare programs. Again, there’s no indication here that UBI under the Biden administration would reduce spending or bureaucracy.
Biden’s expanded tax credit is being touted as an experiment in UBI. If that’s the case, and its success and lack of controversy becomes the basis for implementing UBI at a larger scale, the policy will have none of the benefits its proponents advertise. The child tax credit is not universal and does not try to reduce government spending on welfare. It relies on the same methods of implementation as past welfare programs, which have failed in their stated goals of alleviating poverty. This is not a radical new approach to welfare. It’s simply a rehashing of the failed policies of the past.
Katherine Revello has degrees in political science and journalism from the University of Maine. Her work has appeared in HuffPost, the Providence Journal, and HumanProgress. Follow her on Twitter at @subversive_pub.
CORRECTION: In a previous version of this story, the Washington Examiner reported that Humanity Forward proposes $10,000-a-month payments to adults. This is not the case. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.
