Low Income Assistance
Since the War on Poverty in the 1960s, one of the most polarizing issues in the American political discourse has been the question of how much the federal government should invest in efforts to mitigate poverty.
While the American economy has grown 400% over the last 50 years, the percentage of the population living under the poverty line has barely budged and is currently around 12% with 38 million individuals living under the poverty line, including about 12 million children. Various pieces of Congressional legislation and other proposals have called for both expanding and for cutting back Federal poverty programs.
|
MEDICAID |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 Asked whether federal spending on Medicaid should be reduced, kept the same, or increased, a bipartisan majority of 81% favored increasing or keeping it the same (Republicans 75%, Democrats 86%). A modest majority (55%) favored increasing spending on Medicaid, which respondents were informed would allow Medicaid to enroll more people or cover more services. A majority of Democrats (65%) want to increase spending, as do nearly half of Republicans (49%).
More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that Medicaid is the government health insurance program that covers low-income households: those earning at most 138% of the Federal poverty line in most states (with a slightly higher income cutoff for children, people over 65 and people with disabilities). Medicaid covers about 71 million people, or around one-fifth of the US population, including about four in ten children. They were also informed that the Federal government covers about two-thirds of the cost of Medicaid – $608 billion last year or about ten percent of the federal budget – and state governments cover the other third. Arguments Respondents evaluated one pair of arguments for and against reducing spending on Medicaid, and another pair for and against increasing spending, which they were informed would allow Medicaid to cover more people and/or more services. The arguments against reducing spending and in favor of increasing spending did very well (81 and 82%), including among both Republicans and Democrats. The arguments in favor of reducing spending and against increasing spending did much worse (55 and 56%), with less than half of Democrats finding them convincing but a majority of Republicans.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked, “when it comes to Federal spending on Medicaid, which option do you recommend,” and given a 7-point scale from “reduce a lot” to “increase a lot”, with “keep the same” in the middle. A bipartisan majority of 81% favored federal spending on Medicaid being increased or kept the same, including 75% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats. A modest majority (55%) favored increasing spending on Medicaid, which respondents were informed would allow Medicaid to enroll more people or cover more services. This included a majority of Democrats (65%) and nearly half of Republicans (49%).
Demographics
Standard Polling Standard polling has consistently, over the last several decades, found very large majority support for spending on Medicaid to be increased or kept the same:
When respondents are asked whether they agree or disagree with cutting Medicaid, without being given an option to increase spending, a smaller but still very large and bipartisan majority disagree with cutting Medicaid: Asked whether they agree or disagree with the following, “Medicaid funding should be cut to reduce government spending,” a bipartisan majority of 71% disagreed, including 55% of Republicans. (Ipsos, March 2025) |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 Having their state be part of the Medicaid expansion program is favored by a large bipartisan majority of 83%, including 79% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats. In the ten states that have not expanded Medicaid, 75% favor their state government opting in to the program and paying the required ten percent of extra costs (Republicans 69%, Democrats 82%). In the states that have already expanded Medicaid, 87% favor their state government continuing to be part of the program (Republicans 83%, Democrats 94%).
Demographics
Briefing Respondents were informed how the Medicaid expansion program works: As you may know, the Federal government has a program to help states pay for expanding Medicaid to more people – those earning a little above the Federal poverty line – but only if states agree. Here is how this works: For states that choose to expand Medicaid, the Federal government pays 90% of the cost, and the state government pays for the other 10%. So far, 40 states have agreed to this expansion. Depending on their size, states pay an additional few hundred thousand to a few million extra dollars a year. As a result, 20 million more people have been getting Medicaid coverage in those states, or about 8% of their populations on average. Ten states have declined the option to expand Medicaid. Past PPC Findings A 2017 PPC Survey on the Affordable Care Act found only a slightly lower level of support for the Medicaid expansion program in general. At the time, the federal government would cover the entire cost of a state expanding Medicaid. Currently, the federal government covers 90 percent. Asked how acceptable they find the program, a bipartisan majority of 74% said acceptable or tolerable, including 76% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats. Related Standard Polling Standard polling has found bipartisan majority support for expanding Medicaid in their state, including among residents in states that have not expanded Medicaid:
|
|
FOOD ASSISTANCE |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 Told what the average SNAP benefits are for two groups of recipients, and asked what they should be, bipartisan majorities chose a benefit level higher than the current one. Told that single mothers receive about $530 in SNAP benefits a month, on average, and given the option to choose how much monthly food stamps should be, a bipartisan majority (70%) increased the benefits (Republicans 68%, Democrats 76%). The median respondent increased the monthly food stamp benefits for single mothers from $530 to $600 (Republicans $600, Democrats $650). Told that individuals living alone receive about $170 a month in SNAP benefits a month, on average, and given the option to choose how much monthly food stamps should be, a bipartisan majority (86%) chose to increase benefits. (Republicans 82%, Democrats 92%). The median respondent increased the monthly food stamp benefits for individuals without children from $170 to $250 (Republicans $250, Democrats $270).
More Info Briefing Respondents were informed that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides food stamps for low-income households (up to 130% of the poverty line), provided they meet certain eligibility requirements, including work requirements, income cutoffs, and savings limits. They were informed that this program covers about 23 million households, at a cost of about $94 billion a year. They were told that the Federal guidelines for SNAP eligibility were:
Respondents were told “Benefits vary on a sliding scale depending on household income. As income goes up, benefits go down, and then stop entirely when income is a bit above the poverty line.” They were then given two examples of average SNAP benefits as follows.
Arguments Respondents evaluated arguments for and against raising benefits. The argument in favor of raising benefits did very well with more than eight in ten finding it convincing nationally. The argument against raising benefits was much less convincing. A small majority found it convincing. Among Republicans, though, two thirds found it convincing.
Final Recommendation Coming back to the two specific cases of benefit levels--individuals living alone and single mothers--respondents were asked to select what they thought the level should be and were able to give any number. Told that, “For a single mother earning the average of $1,150 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $530 a month,” a bipartisan majority (70%) increased the benefits (Republicans 68%, Democrats 76%). The median respondent increased the monthly food stamp benefits for single mothers from $530 to $600 (Republicans $600, Democrats $650).
Told that, “for people living alone and earning the average of $860 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $170 a month,” a bipartisan majority (86%) chose to increase benefits. (Republicans 82%, Democrats 92%). The median respondent increased the monthly food stamp benefits for individuals without children from $170 to $250 (Republicans $250, Democrats $270).
Past PPC Findings A 2017 PPC survey also found bipartisan majorities in favor of raising benefits for single mothers and individuals living alone. For the case of “recipients living alone and earning on average $542 a month” with current SNAP benefits of about $140, 81% raised the benefits, as did 66% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. Overall the majority raised benefits 43% or more (from $140 to $200 or more) while majorities of Republicans raised them 25% or more and Democrats 50% or more. For the case of “a single mother with one child and earning on average $760 a month” with current SNAP benefits of about $253, 78% increased benefits as did 62% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats. In this case, the amount of the increase was less, with the overall majority increasing it 19% or more (from $253 to $300 or more), Republicans 13% or more, and Democrats 38% or more. Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the 2017 survey, 63% agreed to raise the average SNAP benefits for a single person living alone from $140 to $200 a month, including 84% of Democrats, but only four in ten Republicans. Seventy one percent agreed to raise average SNAP benefits for single mothers with one child from $253 to $300 a month, including 91% of Democrats and half of Republicans. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls When the actual levels of SNAP benefits have not been presented, there has not been overall majority support for increases or decreases to benefit levels. However, a majority of Democrats has favored increases:
Even in the context of reducing the federal deficit, a majority has been opposed to cutting food stamps:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 Asked whether, “SNAP benefits (food stamps) should be allowed or not allowed for the following items,” majorities favored continuing to allow them – bipartisan in all but one case:
For candy, a bare majority of 53% favored allowing them to be bought with food stamps, including 59% of Democrats, but just 48% of Republicans (with 52% choosing not allowed).
More Details Briefing Respondents were told: As you may know, there has been a debate over whether some kinds of food people can buy with SNAP benefits should be restricted. Currently, SNAP cannot be used for alcoholic beverages, and usually not for hot ready-to-eat food. One proposal is to extend these limits to other food items with little nutritional value, such as sweetened sodas, candy, cookies, cakes, ice cream and chips. Arguments Both the pro and con argument were found convincing by bipartisan majorities of around seven in ten.
Final Recommendation In the end, asked whether, “SNAP benefits (food stamps) should be allowed or not allowed for the following items,” majorities favored continuing to allow them – bipartisan in all but one case:
Demographics
Past PPC Findings A 2017 PPC survey found significantly higher support for prohibiting the use of food stamps to buy sodas, snacks and desserts. Large bipartisan majorities favored disallowing candy (73%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 68%) and sweetened sodas (76%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 67%). Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the 2017 survey, a bipartisan majority agreed with the majority position of:
Related Standard Polls In 2018, when presented a reason in favor of the proposal, bipartisan majorities have favored prohibiting soda and candy from being purchased with SNAP benefits:
Interestingly, a 2017 poll which provided no argument in favor of the proposal to restrict SNAP benefits, support was lower, with a bare majority opposed to prohibiting soda from being purchased with SNAP benefits:
Status of Legislation The proposal to restrict the use of SNAP benefits to purchase sodas, snacks or desserts has been in numerous pieces of federal and state legislation over the last decade. None have made it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 A bipartisan majority of 90% favored the government subsidizing a program for groceries, “offering discounts on fruits and vegetables bought using SNAP credits,” including 86% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats.
Briefing As a follow-on to the above discussion of making SNAP benefits contingent on foods being nutritious, an additional dimension was presented as follows: Another idea that has been considered for the SNAP program is to try to encourage people to eat more healthy food like fruits and vegetables. Research shows that if SNAP recipients are given a discount on fruits and vegetables they are more likely to buy them, as it helps their food stamps go further. On the one hand, these discounts would be an extra cost for the program. On the other hand, they are likely to have positive health effects, which might produce some savings for government spending on healthcare benefits for SNAP beneficiaries, who are also on Medicaid. Past PPC Finding A 2017 PPC survey found a nearly identical level of support, with 88% in favor, including 81% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 90% agreed with the majority position, including 85% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Status of Legislation The proposal to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables among SNAP beneficiaries, by providing discounts on those foods to those using SNAP benefits has been in numerous pieces of legislation over the last decade. None have made it out of committee. |
|
CHILD POVERTY |
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were presented the following proposal:
A bipartisan majority of 72% were in favor, including 52% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Members of Congress have introduced legislation by which the Federal government would work with state governments to expand access to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten for low income families. Respondents were introduced to the proposal as follows: Another major proposal for helping families in poverty is to expand access to early childhood education. This has two benefits for families in poverty:
Currently, only a small number of 4-year-old children in low-income families attend pre-kindergarten programs. The federal government could provide funds to help states build or expand programs, so that more 4-year-old children from low-income families have access to such programs. Currently, only a small number of children age 3 and under in low-income families have access to the Early Head Start program, which helps some states provide care and early education to infants and toddlers from low-income households. The proposal for the federal government to help states build, or expand and upgrade, their early childhood education programs would:
This proposal would cost the federal government about $8 billion per year. Surrounding this proposal is a controversy about the long-term effectiveness of such preschool programs for poor children. Research indicates that poor children who go through such programs do better when they enter school, but this advantage fades after the first one to two years. However, there is also some evidence, though not as strong, that in high school some of these advantages reappear. Also, proponents of the proposal emphasize that with more research improvements can be made to increase long-term effectiveness. Arguments Presented arguments for and against expanding access to early childhood education, the argument in favor did substantially better (81% to 49%). The pro argument was found convincing by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. The con argument was found convincing only by a majority of Republicans, with just one third of Democrats feeling the same. Final Recommendation Respondents were then asked whether they would favor or oppose a proposal that would:
Over seven in ten supported the proposal. A large majority of Democrats favored the proposal (90%) as did a bare majority of Republicans (52%). Demographics
In a question that framed the issue of pre-kindergarten in terms of local taxpayer support versus parents paying for their own children, two thirds favored local taxpayers supporting pre-kindergarten, with Republicans divided.
In a question that asked respondents to choose between federal funding for programs for all children or letting the states decide, attitudes broke sharply along party lines.
When placed in the context of the federal deficit, a majority found unacceptable the idea of reducing spending on the Head Start pre-kindergarten program, but a majority of Republicans found it acceptable:
Status of Legislation In the 117th Congress, a proposal to provide universal access to preschool was in the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act, sponsored by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D) (H.R. 2886) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) (S. 1398), which did not make it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were presented the following proposal: Congress setting up a commission to develop a plan to reduce child poverty by half in 10 years and as close to zero as possible in 20 years. A large bipartisan majority of 75% were in favor, including 59% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Respondents were introduced to a proposal to create a commission to develop a plan for eliminating childhood poverty, as follows: Some lawmakers have called for specifically targeting child poverty. One proposal before Congress would set the goal of reducing child poverty by half and ultimately eliminating it. A commission that would develop a national plan, working with the National Academy of Sciences to reduce within 10 years the number of children living in poverty by half. Over the following 10 years the number would be reduced as close to zero as possible. Congress would still have to pass legislation enacting the plan, and the president would still need to sign the legislation into law. Arguments When asked to evaluate arguments pro and con, the argument in favor did substantially better (82% to 57%). The pro arguments were found convincing by large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. Responses to the con argument were much more partisan, with a majority of Republicans convinced, but just four in ten Democrats. Final Recommendation In the end, a large bipartisan majority of three in four favored Congress setting up a commission to develop a plan to reduce child poverty by half in 10 years and as close to zero as possible in 20 years. This included a substantial majority of Democrats (89%) as well as nearly six in ten Republicans. Demographics
Status of Legislation In 2019, the National Academies of Science was commissioned to study child poverty in the US, and solutions for addressing it. Their report, “A Roadmap to Reduce Child Poverty”, included policy recommendations that could reduce child poverty by half. |
Related Standard Polls
Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
|
HELPING THE WORKING POOR |
|
Survey: PPC, February 2023 Respondents were presented first presented a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and then asked to specify what they believe it should be. The $15 minimum wage proposal was presented as follows: Right now, the primary proposal in Congress is to gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over a five-year period. For a full-time worker, this would be an annual income of about $30,000 before taxes. This would put them above the federal poverty line, even if they were the only worker in a three-person household. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by 2028, this proposal would:
Nationally, 65% favored this proposal, including 90% of Democrats and 64% of independents, but just 40% of Republicans. Respondents were then given the opportunity to specify exactly what they thought the minimum wage should be three years from now. Overall, the majority said it should be $15 an hour. Among Republicans, the majority recommended $12, and among Democrats, $17. Overall, 74% nationally favored raising the minimum wage to $12, including 53% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats and 73% of independents. More Details Briefing Respondents were first presented the following information about the federal minimum wage. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. For a full-time worker, this is an annual income of about $14,500 before taxes. A single person earning this minimum wage and working full-time earns slightly above the federal poverty line. However, a worker earning minimum wage who has one or more children, or a spouse who is unemployed, earns less than the federal poverty line. As you may know, states cannot have a minimum wage that is below the federal one. But they can raise it higher. Most states have passed laws to raise their state’s minimum wage above the federal level:
Nineteen states do not have a minimum wage higher than the federal one. They were also told that, because of inflation, the value of the minimum wage has changed over time, and were presented the following chart: Arguments They evaluated two pairs of arguments in favor of and against raising the minimum wage. The first argument in favor was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of 78%. The first argument against was found convincing by just over half (53%), including a majority of Republicans but less than half of Democrats. The second argument in favor was found convincing by 67%, including a majority of Democrats but just half of Republicans. The second argument against was found convincing 62%, including a majority of Republicans but less than half of Democrats. Final Recommendation They were then presented a proposal for raising the minimum wage to $15, which was analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for their potential effect on the number of households under the poverty line, and employment. The first was presented as follows: Right now, the primary proposal in Congress is to gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over a five-year period. For a full-time worker, this would be an annual income of about $30,000 before taxes. This would put them above the federal poverty line, even if they were the only worker in a three-person household. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by 2028, this proposal would:
Nationally, 65% favored this proposal, including 90% of Democrats and 64% of independents, but just 40% of Republicans. Respondents were then given the opportunity to specify exactly what they thought the minimum wage should be three years from now. Overall, the majority said it should be $15 an hour. Among Republicans, the majority recommended $12, and among Democrats, $17. Overall, 74% nationally favored raising the minimum wage to $12, including 53% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats and 73% of independents. Results from CDD’s Survey Before receiving any briefing materials or engaging in the deliberation process respondents were given the same poll question as those asked afterwards. Support decreased from the pre-deliberation poll to the post-deliberation poll, overall (54% to 39%), and among Republicans (21% to 16%) and Democrats (83% to 59%). Those who were not opposed to the proposal (5-10) also decreased overall (69% to 54%), and among Republicans (37% to 29%) and Democrats (91% to 78%). Related Standard Polls When asked whether the minimum wage should be increased at all, bipartisan majorities have favored increasing it:
When the question has been not only what the minimum wage should be, but includes the option of not having a minimum wage, a majority have still favored increasing it. However, given the option, a substantial number of Republicans have elected to not have a minimum wage, and support for increasing has dropped below half.
When asked about raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour, a large majority has favored it, but not among Republicans:
When asked about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, majorities favor it, but less than half of Republicans:
Status of Legislation The Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 582, S. 150), sponsored by Rep. Bobby Scott (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) would have raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2025, and then tie it to a measure based on median wages. It passed the House, with 228 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting in favor, and 6 Democrats, 192 Republicans and 1 independent voting against. It was not taken up by the Senate. |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 A bipartisan majority of 69% favor increasing the maximum EITC credit for workers without children from $630 to $1,300, including 63% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing Respondents were presented the following briefing on EITC: EITC supplements the income of low-wage workers by giving them a credit that reduces their taxes. If they do not owe any Federal taxes, they can get the credit directly. Currently, nearly all of EITC goes to workers with children. For example, a low-wage household with two children can have their earnings supplemented by a maximum of $7,000 a year. Currently workers without children receive a maximum of $630 a year, and unlike workers with children, it is limited to people who are 25 years or older. The income limit is $18,500 for single people and $25,500 for married couples, which is also much lower than the limit for people with children (for workers with two children the income limit is $63,000). The EITC raises a few million people above the poverty line every year, but many people who get EITC are still under the poverty line. Arguments Respondents evaluated general arguments for and against increasing and expanding the EITC for workers without children. The argument in favor was found convincing by a very large bipartisan majority of over eight in ten. The argument against did not do as well, but was still found convincing by a bipartisan majority of around six in ten.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked: Do you recommend the maximum EITC credit for workers without children:
A bipartisan majority of 69% favor increasing the maximum EITC credit for workers without children from $630 to $1,300, including 63% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats. Demographics
Past PPC Finding A 2017 PPC survey found significantly lower level of support for raising the maximum EITC for workers without children, with just 44% in support, including just 35% of Republicans and a bare majority of Democrats (53%). The format of the 2017 question differed from the 2025 survey. In the 2017 survey, respondents were presented three policy proposals, and asked to, “select which steps, if any, you would recommend.” In the 2025 survey, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose each policy proposal. Status of Legislation The proposals to reform the Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) for people without children, by increasing the credits, expanding the age of eligibility, and increasing the amount of money a person can make and still be eligible for credits was in H.R.4946 by Rep. Mike Coffman (R) and S.2327 by Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D) in the 114th Congress. These bills did not make it out of committee. Similar provisions have been in the Foster Opportunity EITC Act by Rep. Davis (D) (H.R. 4954) and Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D) (S. 2790) in the 116th Congress, which would increase credits for individuals with no children, extend the age limit for credits from 65 to 68, and lower the credit eligibility age for individuals with no children. These bills have not made it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 A bipartisan majority of 66% favor increasing the maximum earnings that workers without children can make and be eligible for EITC from about $18,500 for individuals and $25,500 for married couples to $24,000 and $33,000, respectively (Republicans 61%, Democrats 72%).
More Details Briefing Respondents were presented the following briefing on EITC: EITC supplements the income of low-wage workers by giving them a credit that reduces their taxes. If they do not owe any Federal taxes, they can get the credit directly. Currently, nearly all of EITC goes to workers with children. For example, a low-wage household with two children can have their earnings supplemented by a maximum of $7,000 a year. Currently workers without children receive a maximum of $630 a year, and unlike workers with children, it is limited to people who are 25 years or older. The income limit is $18,500 for single people and $25,500 for married couples, which is also much lower than the limit for people with children (for workers with two children the income limit is $63,000). The EITC raises a few million people above the poverty line every year, but many people who get EITC are still under the poverty line. Arguments Respondents evaluated general arguments for and against increasing and expanding the EITC for workers without children. The argument in favor was found convincing by a very large bipartisan majority of over eight in ten. The argument against did not do as well, but was still found convincing by a bipartisan majority of around six in ten.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked: Do you recommend the maximum amount that workers without children can make and still be eligible for ETIC:
A bipartisan majority of 66% favored increasing the income cutoff, including 61% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats.
Demographics
Past PPC Finding A 2017 PPC survey asked whether the income cutoff for workers without children should be raised from $14,820 to $18,000 and found a smaller bipartisan majority of six in ten in favor, including two thirds of Democrats. Among Republicans 51% were in favor. The format of the 2017 question differed from the 2025 survey. In the 2017 survey, respondents were presented three policy proposals, and asked to, “select which steps, if any, you would recommend.” In the 2025 survey, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose each policy proposal. Status of Legislation The proposals to reform the Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) for people without children, by increasing the credits, expanding the age of eligibility, and increasing the amount of money a person can make and still be eligible for credits was in H.R.4946 by Rep. Mike Coffman (R) and S.2327 by Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D) in the 114th Congress. These bills did not make it out of committee. Similar provisions have been in the Foster Opportunity EITC Act by Rep. Davis (D) (H.R. 4954) and Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D) (S. 2790) in the 116th Congress, which would increase credits for individuals with no children, extend the age limit for credits from 65 to 68, and lower the credit eligibility age for individuals with no children. These bills have not made it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, April 2025 A bipartisan majority of 66% favor lowering the age of eligibility for EITC, for workers without children, from its current 25, to at least 21 (Republicans 59%, Democrats 73%).
More Details Briefing Respondents were presented the following briefing on EITC: EITC supplements the income of low-wage workers by giving them a credit that reduces their taxes. If they do not owe any Federal taxes, they can get the credit directly. Currently, nearly all of EITC goes to workers with children. For example, a low-wage household with two children can have their earnings supplemented by a maximum of $7,000 a year. Currently workers without children receive a maximum of $630 a year, and unlike workers with children, it is limited to people who are 25 years or older. The income limit is $18,500 for single people and $25,500 for married couples, which is also much lower than the limit for people with children (for workers with two children the income limit is $63,000). The EITC raises a few million people above the poverty line every year, but many people who get EITC are still under the poverty line. Arguments Respondents evaluated general arguments for and against increasing and expanding the EITC for workers without children. The argument in favor was found convincing by a very large bipartisan majority of over eight in ten. The argument against did not do as well, but was still found convincing by a bipartisan majority of around six in ten.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked: Do you recommend the minimum age for eligibility for EITC
A bipartisan majority of 66% favored lowering the age of eligibility to either 21 (35%) or 18 (31%), including 59% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats.
Demographics
Past PPC Finding A 2017 PPC survey found significantly less support for lowering the age of eligibility to 21, with just 32% nationally in support, including just 26% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats. The format of the 2017 question differed from the 2025 survey. In the 2017 survey, respondents were presented three policy proposals, and asked to, “select which steps, if any, you would recommend.” In the 2025 survey, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose each policy proposal. Status of Legislation The proposals to reform the Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) for people without children, by increasing the credits, expanding the age of eligibility, and increasing the amount of money a person can make and still be eligible for credits was in H.R.4946 by Rep. Mike Coffman (R) and S.2327 by Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D) in the 114th Congress. These bills did not make it out of committee. Similar provisions have been in the Foster Opportunity EITC Act by Rep. Davis (D) (H.R. 4954) and Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D) (S. 2790) in the 116th Congress, which would increase credits for individuals with no children, extend the age limit for credits from 65 to 68, and lower the credit eligibility age for individuals with no children. These bills have not made it out of committee. |
|
Survey: DDL, 2019 Respondents were presented the following proposal: Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which provides a benefit to low-income workers, to more middle-class workers. After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposals in-person. Finally, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal, using a 0-10 scale, 82% favored the proposal (6-10), including 71% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats.
Respondents were presented with the following briefing material as part of an in-person deliberation by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019: Another proposal is to increase the generosity of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits low income workers, especially those with children. For those with no children, the maximum income a person can earn and still be eligible is $15,270. This eligibility level rises to $40,320 for people with one child and to $49,194 for people with three or more children. Those with no children can receive up to $519 under the EITC; those with three or more can receive up to $6,431. Some think that the EITC should be made more generous, either by permitting those who make more money to be eligible for the subsidies or by allocating more money to those who already qualify (or both). Supporters argue that the EITC is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs because it encourages work. The credit grows as work and wages increase, encouraging people to work more. It also injects much-needed resources into low-income families, who may help the economy by spending that money. Critics say that there are more effective ways to grow the economy, such as by encouraging investment in new businesses and ideas. They believe that the tax system already treats the poor generously enough — nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, in most cases because they don’t earn enough money, and there are a large number of programs and grants to assist the poor. These Americans still pay state taxes, property taxes, sales and other taxes. Some add that the government should not subsidize people for having children and that the EITC does this by giving greater benefits to those with more children. They were presented with a proposal and arguments for and against it, as follows: Proposal: Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which provides a benefit to low-income workers, to more middle-class workers. Argument in Favor: The EITC is among the nation’s most effective anti-poverty programs. It also increases female work participation, and it has bipartisan support. But it phases out at low levels of income, especially for those without children. Expanding it would provide these benefits to more taxpayers. Argument Against: Federal revenue is not unlimited. Expanding the EITC to middle-class workers would require either trimming benefits from the working poor or raising taxes to finance the new benefits. Thus, keeping the EITC’s focus on the working poor makes better sense. Final Recommendation After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposals in-person. Finally, they were asked for their final recommendation. On a 0-10 scale, with 5 being “in the middle”, 82% favored the proposal (6-10), including 71% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Status of Legislation There are also provisions in the WRCR Act (H.R. 5271) by Rep. Gwen Moore (D) in the 116th Congress that would reform EITC by increasing the maximum credit to $4,000, counting family caregiving as work, making credits available to certain low-income students, decreasing the eligibility age for workers without children from 25 to 18, and increasing eligibility to over 65. Neither of these bills have made it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were presented the following proposal: If a company under a government contract is found guilty of not paying wages, the company will lose the right to bid on government contracts A bipartisan majority of 90% were in favor, including 88% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing There has been concern that many workers, especially low-wage workers, are not receiving their full wages from their employers, something referred to as ‘wage theft. Before learning about the specific proposal, respondents were introduced to the topic of wage theft: Another problem for the working poor is that they are not always fully paid for the hours they have worked. Research shows that in some industries—especially farming, construction, and restaurants--this is a problem that significantly reduces the pay of low-income workers. When a worker is not paid, there is a system in place to deal with it. He or she can make a complaint to the local office of the Labor Department. However, this system is not entirely effective, as there are still many cases of unpaid wages, largely because:
They were then introduced to a proposal for addressing wage theft: A proposal in Congress would put greater pressure on companies to pay wages in full, by making it more costly if they are found responsible for unpaid wages while under a government contract. Currently, if an employer is found guilty of not paying wages under a government contract, the company has to pay those wages plus some interest, but can still make bids to get future government contracts. The proposal is that if such a company is found guilty, they will also lose the right to make bids to get future government contracts. Arguments The argument in favor of this proposal was found convincing by overwhelming majorities of over 85% in both parties, while the argument against did quite poorly, with a bipartisan majority finding it unconvincing. Final Recommendation Asked for their final recommendation, an overwhelming majority of nine in ten were in favor, with similar numbers in both parties Demographics
Status of Legislation and Executive Order In 2016, the Obama administration issued the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, which prevented companies that engaged in wage theft from bidding on government contracts. However, in 2017, H.J. Res 37 sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R) and S.J. Res 12 by Sen. Ron Johnson (R) in the 115th Congress were passed, which repealed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulations. It passed the House with 233 Republicans and 3 Democrats voting in favor, and 1 Republican and 186 Democrats voting against. It then passed the Senate, with 49 Republicans voting in favor, and 48 Democrats voting against. |
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Briefing To understand the idea of job creation programs, respondents were presented the following about unemployment: According to the Census Bureau, about 4 million adults are living under the poverty line, are unemployed or underemployed, and are actively seeking work. They were then introduced to the idea of government job creation as a potential solution to unemployment: One possibility is for the federal government to invest funds to create jobs that would employ people who have been unemployed for a period. This would include many who live under or close to the poverty line. Such jobs can be created by directing extra funds to a federal, state, or local program so that it can hire additional employees. Four examples of possible job creation programs were discussed. Arguments Respondents then evaluated two pairs of arguments. The first pair of arguments concerned the government investing to create jobs. The argument in favor did far better than the argument against, except among Republicans who found both arguments convincing at similar rates. For each program, respondents could choose between three options:
Status of Legislation Currently, the Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act (H.R. 4278, S. 2457), sponsored by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D) and Sen. Cory Booker (D) in the 116th Congress, would create a three-year pilot program at the Department of Labor to establish a federally funded jobs guarantee program in up to 15 high-unemployment communities. These programs would be run by local officials and jobs would be tailored to the communities’ needs, including infrastructure and clean energy. They would guarantee a job to any adult that wants one. The bill has not yet made it out of committee. There are also proposals in the Green New Deal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), which would guarantee full employment by federally funding local job creation programs that aid in the transition to a clean-energy economy. The Green New Deal has not yet been introduced as legislation. The Build Back Better Act in the 117th Congress included similar levels of investments for child care workers, early education teachers, clean energy transition, and school infrastructure. The bill passed the House but did not get a vote in the Senate. A proposal to invest $50 billion in school repair and infrastructure was introduced in the 118th Congress in Rebuild America's School Act of 2023 by Rep. Bobby Scott (D) (H.R. 5049) and by Sen. Jack Reed (D) (S. 2608). The bill did not pass out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against Federal jobs programs. They were then presented the following proposal: The U.S. Forest Service runs many conservation projects to help preserve public lands that employ young people ages 16 to 25, for a few months—up to eight months. Increasing the number of these projects would require $250 million a year for two years in new funding and create 100,000 jobs preserving public lands, as well as the value of the preservation. They were then asked whether they:
A majority of 57% favored this program in current conditions, including 67% of Democrats, and a plurality of Republicans (47%). Combining these with those who favor having a program ready for when economic conditions get worse, support is 82% nationally, 89% among Democrats and 73% among Republicans.
Demographics
Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation Related Standard Polls
|
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against Federal jobs programs. They were then presented the following proposal: The federal government could hire more child-care workers and early education teachers to expand Head Start and similar state-run programs. This would require $3 billion a year for two years in new spending and create about 100,000 jobs, as well as the value of the services provided. They were then asked whether they:
A bipartisan majority of 75% favored at least having this program ready for when economic conditions get worse (in current conditions 54%), including 91% of Democrats (in current conditions 72%) and 58% of Republicans (in current conditions 36%).
Demographics
Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation Related Standard Polls
|
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against Federal jobs programs. They were then presented the following proposal: The federal government would offer federal grants to states for repairing and renovating elementary and high school buildings. This would require $50 billion a year for two years, and create 650,000 construction and maintenance jobs, as well as the value of the improvements. They were then asked whether they:
A bipartisan majority of 80% supported at least having this program ready for when economic conditions get worse (in current conditions 48%), including 93% of Democrats (in current conditions 61%), and 69% of Republicans (in current conditions 35%). Demographics
Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation Related Standard Polls
|
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against Federal jobs programs. They were then presented the following proposal: The federal government would offer grants to states and local governments for community projects such as reclaiming land affected by pollution, improving energy efficiency in a neighborhood, or renovating older public buildings. This would require $30 billion a year for two years and create 750,000 new jobs in construction and unskilled labor, as well as the value of the improvements. They were then asked whether they:
A bipartisan majority of 80% supported at least having this program ready for when economic conditions get worse (in current conditions 49%), including 92% of Democrats (in current conditions 63%) and 69% of Republicans (in current conditions 35%).
Demographics
Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation Related Standard Polls
|
Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
The second pair of arguments concerned the idea that the government should not generally seek to create jobs, but should do so in difficult times. Again, the argument in favor did better than the argument against, except among Republicans who found both arguments convincing at similar rates.
Respondents were then told they would be evaluating four proposals for job creation with costs and the number of jobs they would likely produce. They were told that “For all these proposals, people who have been unemployed for a period--and are qualified to do the work--would be first to be hired.”
|
OTHER POSITIONS |
|
Survey: PPC, August 2021 Respondents were presented the following proposal regarding Pell Grants, which are financial aid for low-income college students: Increase the amount of the Pell grant, so that the maximum amount would increase from around $6,500 to around $8,300 a year. This would cover much of the cost of tuition for a typical in-state public university and in some cases a bit more or less. Students would still need to cover other costs, such as books, housing and food, with other financial aid, loans or their own money. This proposal is estimated to cost about $8.5 billion a year. A bipartisan majority of 70% favored the proposal, including 53% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. More Details Briefing There has been a concern that higher education has been getting more out of reach for low-income students due to the rising costs of tuition, room and board. Respondents were first briefed on the rising costs of higher education and current federal financial aid programs: A reason that these proposals have been put forward is that the cost of getting a higher education has increased much faster than families ’income. Since 1980, the price of attending a public university, including tuition and other necessary expenses such as books, housing and food, has increased by around 170% (after inflation), while the typical family’s income has increased by around 38%. In order to help cover the costs of higher education, students and their families can get grants and scholarships from the federal government, a state government, their university or college, or private organizations. These may be based on a student’s family income, academic performance, or other characteristics such as athletic performance. The majority of students, about three in four, receive some financial aid, such as grants and scholarships. That aid tends to cover some but not all of their tuition, and rarely covers other necessary expenses, such as books, housing and food. Over time, the price of higher education has increased more than the amount of financial aid students receive. For example, federal grants to low-income students used to cover almost all of the cost of attending an in-state public university, including all of tuition and most of the other necessary expenses. Now, it covers less than the price of tuition, and none of the other expenses. As a result, students have had to get more loans. Currently, about 43 million people have student debt. For students with a 4-year degree, the average amount of debt is about $30,000. For many students, especially those from low-income families, concerns about the cost of college and the amount of debt they will have to take on, can prevent them from enrolling. And studies show that, when enrolled in college, the high cost prevents some students from graduating. There is evidence that reducing the cost of attending college increases both enrollment and graduation rates. They then evaluated several proposals for reducing the price of attending college, including arguments for and against each, before being introduced to the Pell Grant program, as follows: Pell grants are provided to low-income students to help cover the costs of tuition, fees, university housing and any other necessary expenses such as books, a laptop, or childcare, at public or private colleges and universities. Pell grants are only provided to students whose families would have substantial difficulty paying for college or university. The majority of Pell Grants are given to students from households making $40,000 or less a year. The amount a student receives depends on:
In the past, Pell grants covered almost all of the cost of attending a public university, including all of tuition and most of housing, books and other necessary expenses. As tuition has gone up, Pell grants now only cover about two thirds of tuition on average, and do not cover any of the other expenses. There is evidence that increasing the amount of the Pell Grant increases students’ likelihood of graduating. The proposal was then presented, as follows: Increase the amount of the Pell grant, so that the maximum amount would increase from around $6,500 to around $8,300 a year. This would cover much of the cost of tuition for a typical in-state public university and in some cases a bit more or less. Students would still need to cover other costs, such as books, housing and food, with other financial aid, loans or their own money. This proposal is estimated to cost about $8.5 billion a year. Final Recommendation In the end, seven in ten favored the proposal, including 53% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Demographics
Status of Proposal |
|
Survey: PPC, January 2017 Respondents were asked whether they favor the following: Combining the funding for various federal programs that deal with poverty into a single block grant that would go to states? Participating sttaes would then develop their own poverty-related programs. A bipartisan majority of 60% were in favor, including 67% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing Respondents were introduced to this debate over how much control states should have over Federal poverty programs, as follows: Another debate about poverty programs is how much they should be administered by the federal government and how much by the states. They were then introduced to a proposal which would give states greater control over money for poverty programs: Advocates for having the states administer poverty programs call for the federal government to transfer program funds to the states as “block grants.” Here is how a block grant works. For states that want it, the federal government provides them with a specified amount of money to address some broad purpose. The federal government sets the basic rules, but states get more flexibility in using the funds. Funding for various federal poverty programs could be combined into a single block grant. Funding for food stamps, housing vouchers, public housing, assistance to the poor for energy bills and weatherizing homes, and services that help unemployed workers find work could all be combined into a block grant for states. Arguments Both arguments for and against were found convincing by a majority overall, but the argument in favor did better. The pro argument was found convincing by a similar majority of Democrats and Republicans, while the con argument was found convincing by a large majority of Democrats, but only a bare majority of Republicans. Final Recommendation Six in ten overall, including 54% of Democrats and two thirds of Republicans, approved of the idea of states having the option of receiving Federal poverty program funds in the form of block grants for some programs, which the states would then administer.
Demographics
|
|
Survey: DDL, 2019
Respondents were presented the following proposal:
The government should give cash grants of $1,000/month to all adults at least 18-years-old.
After receiving the briefing material and deliberating on the proposal in-person, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal, using a 0-10 scale. A bipartisan majority of 82% opposed the proposal (0-4), including 98% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats.
 More Details
Briefing
Respondents were presented with the following briefing material as part of an in-person deliberation conducted by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019:
For decades, as worker productivity rose, wages typically increased along with it. But starting around 1970, even as workers continued to grow more productive, their wages became stuck in the same place. Some people point out that total compensation packages, including health insurance, pension contributions, and similar benefits, have kept closer pace with productivity. Still, the middle class has stagnated economically. What policies might fix this problem? Another proposal is to provide a Universal Basic Income that would give all working-age adults a cash grant, perhaps $1,000 monthly, whether they work or not, and no matter how much money they make. Supporters argue that it provides an important safety net against poverty, and, more importantly, allows people to make long-term investments in themselves. The certainty of receiving the UBI would allow people to invest in their education, develop their own business ideas, build wealth for retirement, or just keep out of debt from medical bills and other expenses. Not only would a UBI help people stay out of poverty, but it could grow the economy. Opponents complain that it would be quite expensive, though perhaps it could replace other welfare programs. Some of the debate about UBI centers on whether it would be a supplement to current welfare programs or a replacement. Critics of current programs argue it is more efficient to just give people cash to spend as they need it, rather than allocate some government welfare dollars to food, others to health care, some to education, etc. If the UBI does replace existing welfare programs, it could result in reducing federal assistance to the very neediest, who may currently receive more than $1,000 per month in government support through various programs. Opponents also argue that a UBI provides an incentive not to work because people will be paid whether they work or not, which will mean that many able-bodied adults might simply choose not to work or to work much less. The proposal taxes those who work in order to give money to everyone. Also, say critics, some people might not spend the money wisely: instead of investing in education, they might engage in recreational activities or buy illicit drugs. They were presented with a proposal and arguments for and against it, as follows: Proposal: The government should give cash grants of $1,000/month to all adults at least 18-years-old. Argument in Favor: This program might be more effective than other anti-poverty initiatives because it lets people decide how their money is best spent. It may also reduce the government’s administrative costs because it would not need to determine and keep track of who is eligible. And it could permit people to make longer-term investments, such as in their education, because they are less desperate to take low-paying jobs to make ends meet. Argument Against: Such cash grants would need to be funded somehow, either by the federal government raising taxes or borrowing more money. Cash grants also may reduce people’s incentive to work because they will receive the money whether they work or not. And, there is a risk that people will not spend the money to make long-term investments in themselves, but on frivolous or impulsive things. Final Recommendation After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposals in-person. Finally, they were asked for their final recommendation. On a 0-10 scale, 82% opposed (0-4) the proposal, including 98% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats.
Related Standard Polls
When the $1,000 monthly check is funded by tax increases on high incomes, the public has been divided, with a majority of Republicans opposed and a modest majority of Democrats in favor. A large number chose the middle option or were not sure, suggesting significant ambivalence :
|
|
Survey: DDL, 2019 Respondents were presented the following proposal: The government should fund a bond for each child born that will accumulate in value until the child turns 18. At that time, they could use it for higher education or something else to help start up their lives. After deliberating on the proposal in-person, respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal, using a 0-10 scale. A bipartisan majority of 73% opposed the proposal (0-4), including 88% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Respondents were presented the following briefing material as part of an in-person deliberation conducted by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019: For decades, as worker productivity rose, wages typically increased along with it. But starting around 1970, even as workers continued to grow more productive, their wages became stuck in the same place. Some people point out that total compensation packages, including health insurance, pension contributions, and similar benefits, have kept closer pace with productivity. Still, the middle class has stagnated economically. What policies might fix this problem? The “baby bonds” proposal would provide each child born in America with a US treasury bond. The government would make further yearly contributions to this fund for lower-income Americans, so it would grow into a substantial sum of money — nearly $50,000, according to politicians who support the proposal — by the time the bonds mature and the children reach adulthood. This proposal is based on the idea that the most prosperous members of the older generation have a responsibility to give younger Americans a fair start in the free market. Baby bonds would ensure that every child, no matter his or her race, region, or family income, would enter adulthood with some wealth already built up. In addition to narrowing the wealth gap between classes and races, baby bonds could be used to fund education or to prevent people from going into debt to cover essential costs such as medical bills or child care. Easing the burden of paying for these services could boost female workforce participation and the security and wealth of many single-parent families. Those who use bonds to fund further education can delay their entry into the workforce until they are more skilled and more mature, potentially leading to better job prospects and higher lifelong earnings. Opponents of this proposal argue that it would be costly and require a funding source, such as higher income taxes. Also, people may not spend the wealth in productive ways. Some supporters favor restricting how people spend these bonds. For example, the proposal in the U.S. Senate limits uses of the fund to purposes such as education, home ownership, and retirement. Others would give a financial incentive to convert baby bonds into an individual retirement account (IRA). They were presented a proposal and arguments for and against it, as follows: Proposal: The government should fund a bond for each child born that will accumulate in value until the child turns 18. At that time, they could use it for higher education or something else to help start up their lives. Argument in Favor: Inequality has accelerated in the last generation, and many young people lack funds to pay for education, find the right job, start a family, or begin saving for retirement. Only the top 10% of young people can rely on adequate family support. Baby bonds would dramatically lessen the racial wealth gap and other inequalities by ensuring all Americans a fair start in adult life. Argument Against: The payments to children would have to be paid for, likely with higher income taxes. The government would have to ensure that children do not simply “take the money and run,” rather than investing it in a societal good like education. The proposal may also discourage parents from paying for their children’s needs, as the government will do so. Final Recommendation After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposals in-person. Finally, they were asked for their final recommendation. On a 0-10 scale, 73% opposed (0-4) the proposal, including 88% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats. Pre-Deliberation Poll Related Standard Polls
Status of Legislation |
Status of Proposal
