Secure Our Children Act¶
Constituency Impact Analysis¶
Published February 2026¶
Based on Rev 2.5 of the Secure Our Children Act
Impact Overview¶
SOCA creates a straightforward distributional pattern: families with children receive substantial cash benefits; all income earners contribute a modest percentage of income through the Child Security Contribution. The result is a progressive transfer from higher-income individuals (particularly those without children or with children past age 18) to families with minor children across the income spectrum.
Primary beneficiaries: Approximately 35 million families with 70 million children under 18 receive child tax credit benefits. Approximately 3.6 million families annually receive Birth Support Payments (based on approximately 3.6 million births per year). Under the Act's universal benefit structure, all families with qualifying children receive full benefits regardless of income.
Primary cost-bearers: All individuals with adjusted gross income, approximately 150 million tax filers. Net impact depends on whether benefits received exceed contributions paid.
Break-even analysis: A married couple with two school-age children would roughly break even on the contribution/benefit exchange at approximately $400,000 income (where the $6,000 benefit equals the 1.50% contribution of $6,000). Families earning below this threshold are net beneficiaries; families earning above (or without qualifying children) are net contributors. At typical middle-class incomes, families with children receive benefits substantially exceeding their contribution.
The benefit structure is strongly progressive through the contribution side. All children receive equal benefits regardless of parental income. Lower-income families receive benefits that far exceed their contribution; higher-income families (especially those without children) contribute substantially more than they receive, with high earners becoming massive net contributors through the kicker rate.
Beneficiaries¶
Families with Children Under Age 6¶
Who they are: Approximately 20 million families with one or more children under 6
What they receive: - $3,600 per child annually ($300/month) - Birth Support Payment of $2,000 for newborns - Full refundability regardless of earned income - Monthly payment smoothing - Full benefit regardless of income (no phase-out)
Magnitude: For a single parent with one young child earning $25,000, the annual benefit ($3,600) represents a 14.4 percent increase in household resources. The $25,000 earner contributes approximately $375 (1.50%) for net benefit of approximately $3,225.
Timing: Monthly payments provide immediate cash flow improvement; Birth Support Payment available within 15 business days of verified birth (or 60 days in advance).
Organization: This constituency includes diverse advocacy organizations including child welfare groups, early childhood advocates, maternal health organizations, and anti-poverty coalitions. Moderately organized and vocal.
Families with Children Ages 6-17¶
Who they are: Approximately 25 million families with one or more children ages 6-17
What they receive: - $3,000 per child annually ($250/month) - Full refundability regardless of earned income - Monthly payment smoothing - Full benefit regardless of income (no phase-out)
Magnitude: For a married couple with two school-age children earning $50,000, the annual benefit ($6,000) represents 12 percent of household income. Contribution is approximately $750 (1.50%), for net benefit of approximately $5,250.
Timing: Monthly payments provide consistent support throughout childhood.
Organization: Parent-teacher organizations, family advocacy groups, and education-adjacent organizations may support. Diffuse and less organized than early childhood advocates.
Families Without Earned Income¶
Who they are: Approximately 2-3 million families with children where no adult had wage income in the tax year
What they receive: - Full child tax credit benefits (unlike current law, which requires earned income) - Birth Support Payment access through non-filer portal - No contribution obligation (1.50% of $0 = $0)
Magnitude: For families with zero income, SOCA provides pure transfer of up to $3,600 per young child or $3,000 per older child -- potentially the largest income source for the household.
Timing: Immediate access through non-filer portal; no requirement to wait for tax filing season.
Organization: Anti-poverty advocates, homeless services organizations, and social service agencies are highly motivated supporters. Recipient families themselves are largely unorganized and politically invisible.
Expectant and New Parents¶
Who they are: Approximately 3.6 million families annually expecting or welcoming new children
What they receive: - $2,000 Birth Support Payment (one-time) - Advance payment option up to 60 days before due date - Automatic payment when systems permit - Stillbirth/loss protections
Magnitude: The $2,000 payment partially offsets income shock documented at 10-31 percent of earnings during birth period.
Timing: Critical timing during the income-expense squeeze surrounding birth.
Organization: Maternal health organizations, doula associations, pediatric organizations, and family planning groups are natural supporters. Moderately organized.
Low- and Middle-Income Working Families¶
Who they are: Families with children earning below approximately $400,000
What they receive: - Full child tax credit benefits - Benefits exceeding contribution (net beneficiaries) - Monthly payment reducing reliance on high-cost credit - Safe harbor protecting against overpayment liability
Magnitude: Working families at median income ($75,000) with two children receive $6,000-$7,200 in benefits while contributing approximately $1,125 -- net benefit of approximately $4,875-$6,075.
Timing: Monthly payments align with monthly expense obligations.
Organization: Labor unions, worker advocacy groups, and economic justice organizations are natural allies. Moderately organized.
High-Income Families with Children¶
Who they are: Families with children earning above approximately $400,000
What they receive: - Full child tax credit benefits (no phase-out) - Contribution exceeds benefits (net contributors) - Same monthly payment structure as all families
Magnitude: A household earning $500,000 with two school-age children receives $6,000 in benefits while contributing $7,500 -- net contribution of $1,500. At $1,000,000 (joint), the household receives $6,000 while contributing $15,000 -- net contribution of $9,000.
Significance: Under the Act's universal design, high-income families receive benefits for their children while remaining substantial net contributors to the program. This design achieves progressivity through the contribution side rather than benefit reduction.
Child Welfare and Family Services Sector¶
Who they are: Approximately 500,000 child welfare workers, social workers, case managers, and family services professionals
What they receive: - Reduced child poverty rates easing caseloads - Additional resources for client families - Alignment with professional mission
Magnitude: Indirect benefits through improved client outcomes and reduced crisis interventions.
Timing: Benefits materialize as poverty reduction affects client populations.
Organization: Professional associations (NASW), child welfare organizations (CWLA), and advocacy coalitions are organized and politically active.
Cost-Bearers¶
All Income Earners¶
Who they are: Approximately 150 million individual tax filers with positive AGI
What cost they face: - 1.50% of AGI base rate - 3.00% additional on AGI above $500,000 (single) / $1,000,000 (joint)
Magnitude by income level:
| AGI | Base Contribution (1.50%) | Kicker (3.00%) | Total | As % of Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $30,000 | $450 | $0 | $450 | 1.50% |
| $75,000 | $1,125 | $0 | $1,125 | 1.50% |
| $150,000 | $2,250 | $0 | $2,250 | 1.50% |
| $500,000 | $7,500 | $0 | $7,500 | 1.50% |
| $750,000 | $11,250 | $7,500 | $18,750 | 2.50% |
| $1,000,000 (single) | $15,000 | $15,000 | $30,000 | 3.00% |
| $1,000,000 (joint) | $15,000 | $0 | $15,000 | 1.50% |
| $1,500,000 (joint) | $22,500 | $15,000 | $37,500 | 2.50% |
| $2,000,000 (joint) | $30,000 | $30,000 | $60,000 | 3.00% |
Timing: Contribution begins for taxable years after enactment; first payments due April 15 following first applicable tax year.
Mitigation: Families with children offset contribution through benefits. Threshold indexing prevents bracket creep over time.
High-Income Individuals Without Minor Children¶
Who they are: Approximately 10-15 million tax filers with AGI above $200,000 without qualifying children
What cost they face: Full contribution with no offsetting benefit
Magnitude: An individual earning $500,000 with no children contributes $7,500 annually with no direct return. Above the kicker threshold, contributions increase further.
Timing: Permanent cost for duration of earning period.
Mitigation: None direct. Indirect benefits include broader economic stability and potential future benefits if circumstances change (grandchildren, adoption, etc.).
Organization: High-income individuals are politically influential, well-represented by professional associations, and have access to legislative advocacy. This is the most organized opposition constituency.
Childless Individuals and Couples¶
Who they are: Approximately 50-60 million households without minor children
What cost they face: Contribution with no direct offsetting benefit
Magnitude: At median household income ($75,000), approximately $1,125 annually.
Timing: Permanent for duration of childless period; those who later have children begin receiving benefits.
Mitigation: Those who once had children benefited during child-rearing years. Those who will have children will benefit in the future. Those who never have children bear net cost.
Organization: Not organized as a constituency. No advocacy organizations represent "childless people against child benefits."
Tax Preparation and Compliance Industry¶
Who they are: Approximately 80,000 paid tax preparers and associated compliance professionals
What cost they face: Additional complexity in tax returns during transition period
Magnitude: Marginal increase in preparation complexity. The Child Security Contribution is a single-line calculation (AGI x rate), adding minimal burden. The elimination of phase-out calculations actually simplifies child tax credit administration.
Timing: Transitional; complexity stabilizes after first full implementation year.
Mitigation: Simple calculation formula; IRS guidance materials; integration into tax software.
Organization: Professional associations (NATP, NSA) may raise concerns but unlikely to organize significant opposition given minimal burden.
Perceived vs. Actual Impacts¶
Middle-Income Families: Perceived as Cost-Bearers, Actually Net Beneficiaries¶
Middle-income families may perceive SOCA primarily as a new tax, focusing on the Child Security Contribution line on their return. In reality, families with children are net beneficiaries at all typical middle-class incomes -- the break-even point (approximately $400,000 for married couple with two children) is well above median household income.
Correction approach: Emphasize total package rather than contribution alone. Sample calculations showing net benefit help counter "new tax" framing.
Working Families: Perceived as Losing "Earned" Status, Actually Unaffected¶
Some working families may perceive the removal of earned income requirements as diminishing the "reward" for work -- that they now receive the same benefit as non-working families.
Correction approach: Benefits are unchanged for working families. Removal of earnings requirement adds beneficiaries without removing benefits from anyone. The policy treats children as deserving support regardless of parental employment status.
Small Business Owners: Perceived Compliance Burden, Actually Minimal Impact¶
Business owners may anticipate significant compliance burden from "a new tax." In practice, the Child Security Contribution applies to individual AGI reported on personal returns, not business operations. Pass-through business income flows to personal returns through existing mechanisms.
Correction approach: Clarify that no new business-level reporting or compliance is required. Contribution is collected through existing individual income tax infrastructure.
Non-Filers: Perceived as Excluded, Actually Primary Beneficiaries¶
Families outside the tax system may not realize they qualify for benefits. The non-filer population includes some of the lowest-income families who would benefit most.
Correction approach: Aggressive outreach through programs non-filers already use (SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, SSI). Simple non-filer portal with minimal documentation requirements. Community organization partnerships for in-person assistance.
Retirees: Perceived Cost Without Benefit, Actually Indirect Beneficiaries¶
Retirees may perceive the contribution as a cost with no benefit since their children are adults. However, retirees benefit indirectly through grandchildren's support and reduced family requests for financial assistance.
Correction approach: Emphasize intergenerational benefit -- supporting grandchildren supports family stability. Social Security analogy: retirees contributed during working years and now others contribute.
High-Income Families: Perceived as Excluded, Actually Included as Net Contributors¶
Under the Act's universal design, high-income families might wonder why they receive benefits "they don't need." The design is intentional: progressivity is achieved through the contribution side. Their children receive support because all children deserve support; the family remains a net contributor to the program.
Correction approach: Emphasize that the credit is for children, not parents. High earners contribute far more than they receive -- a family earning $1,000,000 contributes $15,000-$30,000 while receiving $6,000 for two children.
Geographic and Political Distribution¶
Urban vs. Rural Distribution¶
Urban areas: Higher population density means more children in absolute terms. Urban poverty concentrations benefit substantially from enhanced credit and Birth Support Payments. Non-filer portal access is generally easier with internet availability.
Rural areas: Lower population density but higher poverty rates in some regions. Non-filer outreach more challenging -- community organization partnerships and in-person assistance more important. Rural families with children benefit equally on per-child basis.
Net assessment: No significant urban/rural skew in per-capita benefit. Rural outreach requires additional investment to ensure equal access.
Regional Distribution¶
South: Higher child poverty rates mean greater per-capita benefit. Higher birth rates in some states mean more Birth Support Payments. States with larger populations of families without earned income (caregivers, families in deep poverty) benefit disproportionately from full refundability.
Midwest: Mixed distribution. Rural Midwest faces same access challenges as rural areas generally. Midwestern cities follow urban patterns.
Northeast: Lower poverty rates but high cost of living means benefits stretch less far. Universal benefit design means all families receive full credit regardless of higher regional incomes.
West: High variation between coastal high-cost areas and interior rural areas. Universal design ensures coastal families receive full benefits even at higher income levels.
State-Level Variation¶
States with higher child poverty rates see proportionally greater benefit flow:
Higher benefit states (by child poverty rate): Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia Lower benefit states (by child poverty rate): New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Utah, Minnesota, Connecticut
The Child Security Contribution draws from all states based on income. Net transfers flow from higher-income states to lower-income states with more child poverty.
Partisan Coalition Implications¶
SOCA combines elements appealing to different political coalitions:
Appeals to progressive priorities: - Full refundability benefits lowest-income families - Removal of earned income requirement - Birth Support Payment addressing maternal/infant health - Anti-poverty impact - Universal benefit for all children
Appeals to conservative priorities: - Family support without expanding government bureaucracy - Tax system administration (not new agency) - Work-neutral design does not penalize employment - Dedicated funding avoids deficit concerns - State top-on flexibility preserves federalism - Universal design treats all families equally
Potential cross-partisan framing: SOCA as "investment in American children" -- pro-family messaging that transcends partisan divides. The shared contribution model ("everyone invests in the next generation") has social insurance appeal similar to Social Security. The universal benefit ("every child deserves support") resonates across political perspectives.
Potential opposition coalitions: - Anti-tax groups: Oppose any new revenue mechanism - Fiscal hawks: Concerned about new spending program despite dedicated funding - Earnings-requirement advocates: Oppose removing work incentive (perceived) - High-income advocacy: Oppose progressive contribution structure
Addressing Concerns¶
For Middle-Income Skeptics¶
Concern: "This is just another tax on working families."
Response framework: "Calculate your net position. If you have children and earn under approximately $400,000, you receive more in benefits than you pay in contribution. You're not funding someone else's benefits -- you're receiving a net transfer."
Supporting evidence: Sample calculations by income level and family size demonstrating break-even points.
For High-Income Opposition¶
Concern: "Why should I pay for other people's children?"
Response framework: "You benefit from those children growing up healthy, educated, and productive. They'll be your doctors, your employees, your customers, the workers funding your Social Security. Investment in children is investment in the society you depend on."
Mitigation: The contribution rate is modest even at high incomes. A $500,000 earner contributes $7,500 -- 1.50% of income. This is not a confiscatory rate.
For Earned Income Requirement Advocates¶
Concern: "Removing work requirements subsidizes non-work and undermines the dignity of work."
Response framework: "The benefit goes to children, not parents. Children don't choose their parents' employment status. And empirical evidence shows child allowances don't reduce work -- the 2021 expansion showed no measurable employment effect."
Supporting evidence: Research on international child allowances and 2021 US experience showing minimal labor supply effects.
For Fiscal Conservatives¶
Concern: "This is a new entitlement program that will grow out of control."
Response framework: "SOCA includes built-in fiscal guardrails that general-revenue programs lack. The automatic rate adjustment mechanism prevents deficits from accumulating. The graduated implementation provisions prevent spending from exceeding revenue. This is fiscally disciplined design, not open-ended spending."
Supporting evidence: Detail automatic adjustment mechanism, solvency ratio triggers, and bounded rate ranges (base rate 1.10%-1.90%; kicker rate 2.20%-3.80%).
For State Sovereignty Advocates¶
Concern: "This expands federal involvement in family policy."
Response framework: "SOCA explicitly preserves and enables state action. Section 8 authorizes state top-on programs with federal data sharing and optional administration. States retain flexibility to supplement federal benefits. This is cooperative federalism, not federal preemption."
Supporting evidence: Section 8 provisions for state coordination and supplementary programs.
For "Why Do Rich Kids Get Benefits" Critics¶
Concern: "Why should millionaires' children receive the same benefit as poor children?"
Response framework: "The credit is for the child, not the parent. A child born to billionaires didn't choose those circumstances any more than a child born into poverty. But here's the key: wealthy families are massive net contributors. A family earning $1,000,000 contributes $15,000-$30,000 while receiving $6,000 for two children. They're not 'getting' benefits -- they're funding the program for everyone else while their children receive the same support all children deserve."
Supporting evidence: Net contribution calculations showing high earners as substantial funders of the program.
Revision History¶
Revision 2.5 (Current) - Brought into compliance with APAI Document Production Standards Rev 1.6 - Updated header structure, footer, and revision history placement
Revision 2.4 - Updated to reflect universal benefit design (no income-based phase-out) - Revised break-even analysis and net contribution calculations for recalibrated rates - Added "High-Income Families with Children" as distinct beneficiary category - Updated perceived vs. actual impacts for universal design
Revision 2.0 - Initial publication
📄 Download this document (opens on GitHub -- click the ⬇ download button)
Prepared by Albert Ramos for The American Policy Architecture Institute