Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/AdamCarasso

Kids' Share 2008, a second annual report, looks comprehensively at trends in federal spending and tax expenditures on children. Key findings suggest that historically children have not been a budget priority. In 2007, this trend continued, as children's spending did not keep pace with GDP growth. Absent a policy change, children's spending will continue to be squeezed in the next decade.

Key Facts: Kids' Share 2008 summarizes findings from the Kids' Share 2008 report, which looks comprehensively at trends in federal spending and tax expenditures on children. Key findings suggest that historically children have not been a budget priority. In 2007, this trend continued, as children's spending did not keep pace with GDP growth. Absent a policy change, children's spending will continue to be squeezed in the next decade.

One way to achieve an ownership society is to endow all children with savings accounts starting at birth. This report shows that specific design features of a children's savings account program will impact the distribution of wealth. For example, non-taxability of account earnings distributes significantly more benefits to higher-income groups than to lower-income groups. Also, because many families experience mobility over their lifetimes, a significant portion of benefits conditioned on low annual income will accrue to middle- and higher-income families. Regardless, these accounts could be important in getting children banked and teaching them the value of saving and compound interest.

Nearly one quarter of low-income families do not have a checking or savings account, more than one-third do not own cars, 60 percent do not own a home, and 90 percent have no retirement account. In contrast, the typical middle-income family has checking or savings accounts, retirement accounts, owns a car and a home. This brief synthesizes current research on the assets and liabilities of low-income families into a variety of portraits and provides suggestions for future research and policy.

This report tallies all federal spending and tax subsidies aimed at promoting the economic mobility of Americans for 1980, 2006, and 2012. This first effort at defining a mobility budget--$746 billion in 2006--reaches two major conclusions: (1) poor and lower-income households owe little or no tax and so are excluded from the bulk of economic mobility programs, which are often delivered in the form of tax subsidies; and (2) while these households do benefit from many other federal programs, those programs generally are not aimed at promoting mobility--and sometimes even discourage it. Furthermore, under current law, mobility enhancing programs targeted to toward lower income households would decline as a share of GDP from 2006 to 2012, while those targeted to the better off would increase over the same period.

This report synthesizes current research and other available information on the assets and liabilities of low-income households into a variety of portraits. These data allow practitioners and researchers to begin to form a comprehensive representation of the balance sheets of low-income households and sets the stage for future research and policy discussion around the finances of low-income households.

The inadequacy of the current U.S. public and private pension systems may warrant the establishment of a universal pension system (UPS), which would cover all workers—full-time and part-time—and require them to contribute at a level that can help provide them with adequate incomes when they retire. This paper develops options for a system of individual accounts to which, starting in 2007, each employee or self-employed worker would be required to contribute 3 percent of covered payroll (i.e., 3 percent of up to $97,500 in 2007). The UPS we describe would raise the total "replacement rate" for average wage men to 49.0 percent of final wages—provided Social Security is fixed—or 39.8 percent if not

We chart U.S. federal spending on investment in total and for children from 1965 to 2017. Five major categories can be considered -- some more so than others -- to be investment or to have investment components: education and research, work supports, social supports, physical capital, and defense investment. Relative to domestic spending, the most direct investment -- education and research -- for the nation as a whole, and crucially for children, fell over the 1970-2006 period though with some recent rebounds. More important, projections of current policies show that overall government investment and especially investment in children are threatened to decline in relative and sometimes absolute importance, squeezed out mainly by faster, automatically growing programs that tend to favor consumption. These data raise the question of what relative priority the government should place on investment, and particularly investment in children.

"Investing in Children" tracks trends in federal investment from 1965 to 2017 for children as compared against the nation as a whole. This appendix details our data sources, the programs we include, and the methodology used to estimate the percentage of all expenditures that went to children.

This brief charts U.S. federal spending on investment in total and for children from 1965 to 2017. Relative to GDP or domestic spending, total investment and investment in children—under almost any definition—fell over the 1965–2006 period, though with some recent rebounds. More important, projections of current policies show that overall government investment and especially investment in children are threatened to decline in relative and sometimes absolute importance, squeezed out mainly by faster, automatically growing programs that tend to favor consumption. These data raise the question of what relative priority the government should place on investment, and particularly investment in children.

Return to list of authors