WASHINGTON (7News) — A new push in Washington could reshape how millions of Americans pay federal income taxes — but it’s already drawing sharp debate from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (DMd.) and other Democratic backers have unveiled a proposal that would eliminate federal income tax liability for a large share of workers by raising the thresholds at which income tax kicks in. Meanwhile, Republicans such as Rep. Jason Smith (RMo.) argue the idea could shift the tax burden and overlook other priorities.

“If you’re a family of four and you make $73,000 or less, you will pay zero in federal income taxes, that is about affordability. But yet every single Democrat voted against extending the child tax credit,” said Smith.

Under the plan championed by Van Hollen and allied lawmakers, individuals earning below $46,000 and married couples filing jointly earning under $92,000 would owe no federal income tax. Supporters say this would extend a form of relief to roughly half of U.S. workers, ensuring that many households keep more of their earnings without owing federal income tax.

“We play that Americans who are earning just enough to get by to meet their basic living expenses should not have to pay a federal income tax. And those who are in that range should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money,” said Van Hollen.

SEE ALSO | Should taxpayers pay for universal child care?

The proposal is part of a broader effort by some Democrats to address affordability and the rising cost of living by reducing tax burdens for middleincome workers. Supporters argue it would ease financial pressure on households struggling with inflation and stagnant wages.

To offset the revenue losses from such tax cuts, Democratic backers propose funding the plan in part with a surtax on incomes above $1million and other targeted tax changes on higherincome earners, a structure they say would keep the plan progressive and sustainable.

Republicans and policy experts have questioned the plan’s feasibility and longterm effects. Some GOP lawmakers point to tax provisions passed last year under President Donald Trump — such as expanded deductions and changes to how certain income is taxed — as alternatives that already provide relief to families, including seniors and workers who earn tips or overtime.

Rep. Jason Smith, a senior Republican voice on tax policy, has been critical of Democratic tax proposals, arguing they may overlook broader fiscal priorities and fail to extend key benefits for families. He has also highlighted efforts by Republicans to preserve or enhance tax benefits like the Child Tax Credit in past legislative deals.

The debate comes amid ongoing discussions in Congress about how to balance tax relief with funding for government programs such as healthcare, education, and social safety net initiatives. While Van Hollen’s proposal focuses on reducing or eliminating federal income taxes for a large group of taxpayers, critics warn that without careful offsets and broader policy planning, such changes could stress the federal budget or shift the tax burden in ways that benefit some groups more than others.

SEE ALSO | Senate advances housing reform amid affordability crisis

Some analysts also point out that eliminating income taxes for portions of the workforce wouldn’t change other tax obligations like payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare or state and local taxes, meaning realworld savings might be more modest for families once all tax liabilities are considered.

Even if the proposal gains traction among some Democrats, it faces significant hurdles in a closely divided Congress. Republicans controlling the House have advanced alternative tax policies and broader affordability packages that include their own tax priorities. Without bipartisan support or inclusion in a larger budget reconciliation package, the Van Hollen plan may struggle to advance on its own.

As lawmakers continue to negotiate tax and affordability measures ahead of the 2026 elections, the tax debate is likely to remain a central issue.

Supporters said the plan could offer meaningful relief for middleincome families. Opponents caution that its fiscal and economic impacts need careful evaluation before it can be considered viable federal policy.