Brian Kao testifying during a Minnesota House committee in January: “One shouldn’t need luck to afford child care.”
Brian Kao testifying during a Minnesota House committee in January: “One shouldn’t need luck to afford child care.” Credit: Screen shot

To save money, Brian Kao waited to place his daughter in child care until after she was an infant. Now, it’s easy to see why. He said tuition costs for his 1-year-old are roughly $15,000 a year, a price tag that rivals in-state tuition at the University of Minnesota.

“We were lucky to have grandparents who could care for her,” Kao told a Minnesota House committee in January. “But one shouldn’t need luck to afford child care.”

Kao, who is also operations director for the progressive advocacy group ISAIAH,  was testifying in support of a bill that would significantly expand a tax credit that reimburses families for child care costs and the cost of caring for other dependents.

It’s an idea that has won powerful allies in the DFL in recent years, including Gov. Tim Walz, who recently went on a tour to promote the credit in places like Ely and Moorhead. And it’s notable for a few other reasons, too.

One is that it’s meant to reduce costs for families rather than providers. The DFL is planning to funnel cash into Minnesota’s struggling child care industry, but much of the money would be aimed at helping businesses stay afloat. The child care tax credit also has higher income thresholds, making it a rare major DFL tax proposal that could offer a break for a larger slice of the middle class. There was even a little Republican support for the concept during that January hearing.

“The ‘Great Start’ child care tax credit helps to fill a hole for middle class, middle income families that don’t qualify for many of those current public programs,” said Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn, a DFLer from Eden Prairie who sponsored the House bill.

A few months later, however, the proposal was left out of the House’s tax plans. 

That means that even as Democrats coalesce around billions in tax cuts and credits — like reducing the number of people who pay a state tax on Social Security benefits — the child care credit is one of a few significant tax differences the House and Senate will need to reconcile as legislators determine how to spend a $17.5 billion surplus.

Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn, a DFLer from Eden Prairie who sponsored the House bill: “The ‘Great Start’ child care tax credit helps to fill a hole for middle class, middle income families that don’t qualify for many of those current public programs.”
[image_credit]Screen shot[/image_credit][image_caption]Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn, a DFLer from Eden Prairie who sponsored the House bill: “The ‘Great Start’ child care tax credit helps to fill a hole for middle class, middle income families that don’t qualify for many of those current public programs.”[/image_caption]

High child care costs in Minnesota

Kao’s tuition costs living in a St. Paul suburb aren’t unusual in Minnesota. 

Child Care Aware of Minnesota estimated in November that infant care at a center in the Twin Cities metro cost $375 a week, which is more than $19,000 in a year. The estimated prices are somewhat less for smaller in-home providers, and child care is also a bit cheaper in Greater Minnesota, though not by much considering differences in wages and cost of living.

The cost of center-based care for an infant in Greater Minnesota was about $12,100 a year. The number of those cheaper family child care providers has plummeted over the last decade, making centers more prevalent than before across the state.

“You have to be pretty wealthy before you are not slammed with child care costs,” said Rep. Dave Pinto, a St. Paul DFLer who chairs the House’s Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee.

Those prices are part of what Democrats and many in the child care industry say are a broken economic model. Strict limits on child-to-teacher ratios meant to safeguard kids are one reason providers charge expensive tuition that mainly covers worker salaries. At the same time, those workers make measly wages that can often be topped even by the fast food industry.

Generally speaking, Republicans want to slash what they say are onerous regulations on providers in an attempt to make it easier for child care businesses to thrive. And some have questioned if a tax credit like this will really solve the underlying issues plaguing the industry. But a smaller expansion of the credit was included in a compromise tax bill agreed to by both parties last year that fell apart amid other partisan disagreements.

Rep. Dave Pinto, a St. Paul DFLer who chairs the House’s Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee: “You have to be pretty wealthy before you are not slammed with child care costs.”
[image_credit]Screen shot[/image_credit][image_caption]Rep. Dave Pinto, a St. Paul DFLer who chairs the House’s Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee: “You have to be pretty wealthy before you are not slammed with child care costs.”[/image_caption]
This year, with DFLers in control of both the House and Senate, supporters of the tax credit must now win over enough Democrats. The DFL is likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to shore up the industry, including by raising maximum reimbursement rates in the Child Care Assistance Program, the primary subsidy for low-income families. Hiking CCAP rates would bring in more cash for providers and expand options for parents.

Democrats are also likely to invest in scholarships for kids in low-income families that are aimed at connecting parents with high-quality child care. And DFL legislators are poised to take an unprecedented step by using state money to send ongoing payments to the child care industry that would boost worker pay.

But when it comes to the tuition costs for parents, the main DFL plan is that child care tax credit, and it isn’t clear if there’s enough support for it.

What the credit would do

Confusingly, the DFL is expected to approve something they call the Child Tax Credit. That’s a separate refundable credit entirely, which would grant money to families depending on income and the number of children and isn’t tied to reimbursing child care costs. The anti-poverty measure has wide agreement. House and Senate Republicans even proposed a version of it this year.

State Sen. Grant Hauschild
[image_caption]State Sen. Grant Hauschild[/image_caption]
The credit more uncertain to pass, championed by Walz, Kotyza-Witthuhn and Sen. Grant Hauschild, DFL-Hermantown, is an expansion of what is known as the Child and Dependent Care Credit. DFLers have also taken to calling it the “Great Start” tax credit, perhaps to clear up any confusion.

The tax plans made by Walz and the legislators have the same premise. A refundable tax credit to reimburse child care and dependent care costs, with higher amounts for kids under 5 years old, when tuition is more expensive.

Under Walz’s proposal, families would get up to $4,000 a year for each kid under the age of five for child care expenses, up to a maximum of $10,500 for three children. It would begin to phase out at $200,000 in total household income. Parents of older children would get some money as well. The total cost would be $538.6 million in the next two years and another $547 million in the two-year budget that follows.

What House and Senate lawmakers proposed initially was more generous, reaching a potential maximum credit of $25,000 for multiple children and phasing out at higher income levels.

This, Kao said, would “at least make a dent” in the price of child care across Minnesota.

With parents armed with more cash, will child care providers simply hike tuition accordingly?

Clare Sanford
[image_caption]Clare Sanford[/image_caption]
Clare Sanford, government relations chair for the Minnesota Child Care Association representing centers, said tuition may continue to rise even with a tax credit because of increased costs like food and labor, and that providers that don’t raise rates are often struggling more than those who are. And she said child care should be more expensive, because its current costs are subsidized by low compensation of a workforce made up mostly of women. 

But Sanford said higher costs shouldn’t fall on families, and she hopes an influx of state money to help parents and providers will lead to smaller tuition hikes. 

A March survey of more than 1,000 providers by First Children’s Finance and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found 67% of child care centers reported raising tuition this year, along with 40% of in-home providers. Fewer reported tuition increases last year.

About 90% of centers said they raised wages to retain staff but 85% said they’re unsure if they could sustain those increases or know they can’t without additional help from the state.

More than half of family providers and 30% of centers reported financial losses that impacted their own income, and 20% of all providers said they expected to remain in business less than a year.

Clashing House, Senate tax bills

When the House released its tax bill, however, the proposal did not include money to expand the Great Start credit aside from one $3.2 million tweak.

Rep. Aisha Gomez, a Minneapolis DFLer who chairs the House Taxes Committee, told reporters they instead opted for the anti-poverty child tax credit when juggling many priorities. “It’s not because we don’t believe it’s necessary and worthy,” Gomez said of the Great Start credit. “Within our budget reality we made choices and we chose to go with this sort of expanded child tax credit that would cut child poverty by almost one quarter.”

Sanford said the lack of momentum in the House and reactions from Walz officials led her to believe the child care credit could be on the ropes. “The administration seemed to start feeling that it had become kind of a lost cause,” she said.

A week later, however, the Senate released its tax bill that included $450 million for the credit in this two-year budget cycle. Hauschild, from Hermantown, said the bill has lower income thresholds than he initially wanted but a parent making up to $160,000 with three kids under five could get up to $12,500 and couples earning up to $200,000 can get at least a partial credit.

But Hauschild said the tax credit was one of his top priorities because of “a severe child care issue in the Northland.”

There are plenty of similarities between the House and Senate tax bill, including a reduction in the number of people who will pay a state tax on Social Security benefits and the child tax credit. But DFL leaders will have to negotiate over the Great Start credit in the coming weeks before the Legislature is set to adjourn May 22.

“When I’m talking to business leaders, when I’m talking to communities, one of the biggest challenges that they have is trying to recruit businesses or employees to come to our region and the two things that are holding that up most are housing and then child care,” Hauschild said. “I want to make it as easy as possible for people to start families but also to settle in our region and be able to afford the high cost of child care in some of our more rural areas.”

Join the Conversation

29 Comments

  1. “With parents armed with more cash, will child care providers simply hike tuition accordingly?” Yes. If you want to increase the cost of something, have the government subsidize it. See college tuition. Econ 101

    1. I can tell you never made it past Econ 101, because you would’ve learned in Econ 102 that when there is an increase in consumption in a market, other providers of that service will enter the market to get a piece of the pie, which will force providers to keep prices down because they need to compete with each other for consumers.

      1. There’s no increase in consumption. The birthrate is heading down. The same phenomenon has colleges and universities scrambling for customers (students) made more difficult by an over-priced product. The result is budget deficits due to reduced revenue and even more reduction in staffing. Econ 103.

        1. For some reason my previous response to this didn’t make it past the moderator, so I guess I’ll try to be a little more diplomatic this time. Dennis, it sounds like you are changing the subject. I thought we were talking about the current demand for affordable child care, which is currently in very high demand. If this tax credit were to go through, it would definitely increase consumption because more parents would have the ability to seek a child care provider rather than taking on that responsibility themselves or relying on family members. I am talking about the demand right now, but instead you bring up concerns about the future (birth rates) and issues that are technically in the past relative to this conversation (college enrollment rates). I believe that instead of considering that you might be wrong on this issue that you are instead trying to change the subject.

    2. I have news for you, childcare providers (at least the ones in my Greater MN city) HAVE to raise tuition. They’re trying to pay aides$12-14 an hour and the teachers $18-$20. These are staff at a center who have to take multiple classes to be certified (in the case of the teachers a degree) and do continuous Ed as well. These centers are losing staff to Aldi & Target because the pay is higher, let alone professional positions. With the prescribed staff-to-child ratios, daycares will have to pay more or close. State credits like this are a lifeline that might just keep any sense of a childcare market in place. Now do the same for nursing homes and disabled adult programs please.

      1. What you’re describing is a government regulation problem. When governments attempt to regulate and control the market for the good of the people, they end up regulating and controlling the people for the good of the market. Have Grandma watch Junior.

        1. It’s strange how so many conservative solutions rely on the free labor of women.

        2. If the Republicans get there way, Grandma will be working as a greeter at WalMart because her Social Security went away.

  2. Why I think a child care tax credit is a fair and good idea. If you run a business you can deduct expenses that you incur to improve your business and make it more profitable, if it is more profitable, the government gets more tax revenue. So it stands to reason that if you have a working household with kids, the cost to cover the day care should be deductible, as it allows your family to increase its overall revenue stream and theoretically pay more in taxes. Running a family has turned very much into a business whether we like it or not and should be given the same/similar policies as we used for folks with business’s. Seems fair from this perspective.

  3. How could any Democrat oppose this? And Republicans, this is a way to show that you are pro-child and pro-family like you claim to be! Young families are the most financially stressed group out there. If we want young people to have children (and provides their parents with grandchildren), this needs to be passed. That the House did not include it in its tax package – what were they thinking? Sure, costs are going up, but if you want couples to have two incomes needed by almost all of us to support a family, we need to make take care of all of our children.

    1. Why don’t we figure out how to get back to most families able to support themselves on one income instead?

      1. Because that is incompatible with the economic system the country has chosen to embrace.

        1. Fair, but it’s also incompatible with the high-expense lifestyle our country has chosen to declare normal and our countrymen have decided to embrace.
          My family decided to have a stay at home parent on a single good-but-unremarkable professional income, wellll below the $200,000 start-of-phase-out for the Walz proposal mentioned in this article.

          Will my family receive thousands of dollars per year since we’re providing our own childcare? I assume not. That’s fine – the peace and stability of having a stay at home parent is cause enough for this material sacrifice vs a second income in the household. But why are we subsidizing child care for high income earners, incentivizing people to spend hours in the workplace they could instead afford to spend at home with their children?

          1. Because that’s what captialism requires. Growth isn’t a suggestion, it’s a requirement.

          2. And because the worth of “material sacrifice” is subjective. My prime earning years will end in my late 40’s when my body will no longer allow me the ability to continue work. If we spend our kids childhood and my prime working years penny pinching, I’ll simply never have any financial security, and my kids most memorable life experiences will not include their parents. Not everyone has luxury of a fun, healthy retirement to look forward to.

  4. is there any argument for creating not-for-profit private daycare centers, so that staff wages, administrative costs, and compliance issues are all covered by the fees charged by providers, yet they can be lower if no profit is required? it’s complicated…I’m just seeking options here.

    1. Well Bob, same could be said, why as a taxpayer do I have to support other peoples religions? Suspect we can go on and on and on with this.

    2. Because those children will grow up to be members of society, and if they are well cared for in their early years, they will be more productive and pleasant members of society. We are all surrounded by other people’s children and we rely on them.

    3. Because you won’t be able to care for yourself when you’re old, and unless you plan on burdening your children, SOMEONE will have to take care of you.

  5. Even childless citizens benefit immensely when children aged between 1-5 get a good start on life learning routine, socialization, structure and educational stimulation– they start school knowing more about how to get along, how to share attention and how behave in a learning environment.

    Even after those rapid changes in the first years of life, the school-age years can be much more effective because the child was ready to learn in a classroom, already attuned to group, teacher, self-discipline, resulting in a better experience for the child, but also the parents and teachers and classmates.

    There is no other investment that will pay off sooner than the investment in a child. Lack of attention to a kid’s development might even mean a lifetime of trouble for that kid and those who try to live with him. Sometimes the best results come from the earliest efforts to help them acquire a healthy attitude.

    I think the Republican view is that we can’t afford it and they aren’t my kids anyway. That’s cheap and short-sighted.

    1. “There is no other investment that will pay off sooner than the investment in a child.”

      So true, but we don’t do a very good job of measuring it.

      The Atlantic had an article last month on how rural communities trap girls. The problem can be summarized as teen pregnancy trapping people in a cycle of poverty. Basically, if a teenager gets pregnant, they often drop out of high school and almost certainly don’t go to college (community, technical, or otherwise). For one thing, once you have a kid, you need someone to watch the kid while you go to school and study. Since daycare is so expensive, it’s a non-starter for these kids working low skill minimum wage jobs. Grandparents often face their own struggles & might only be in their 30s or 40s themselves, so ‘grandma daycare’ isn’t an option. Meanwhile these kids grow into teenagers, start experimenting & the cycle continues…

      In summary, the notion of lowering the cost of childcare is laudable, but I’m not sure a tax credit will help the people who need it most.

        1. My language was sloppy. We’ve known this for some time; the Mpls Federal Reseve has published data on this too; I believe that comparison was on ROI for early childhood development programs vs publicly funded stadiums. Of course we fund the stadiums & question the need for investing in ourselves.

          1. I did not mean to be critical of your measurement point– in fact, selling this concept requires that people know the value of education, and especially of the outcomes associated with high quality early childhood experiences for our youngest.

            The Post article is from a structured and careful study that shows the high correlation of early-learning and many benefits to both the individual and to society.

            I fully support your comment.

Leave a comment