One Big Beautiful Bill Act

[dmallord]

Let's untangle this proposal and check the pros and cons. Below is an overview. I'd appreciate your help in other aspects. Thank you in advance.

---

Positive Tax Changes (Supporters' Perspective)​

1. Extension of 2017 Tax Cuts
   The bill extends the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. This extension is intended to maintain lower tax rates for individuals and corporations.
2. Increased SALT Deduction Cap
   The state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap is raised from $10,000 to $40,000, potentially benefiting taxpayers in high-tax states.
3. Defense Spending Boost
   An additional $150 billion is allocated for defense spending, which supporters argue strengthens national security.

---

Negative Tax Changes (Critics' Perspective)​

1. Potential Increase in National Debt
   The bill is estimated to add several trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability.
2. Reduction in Social Program Funding
   Significant cuts are proposed for programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could affect low-income individuals.
3. Scaling Back Clean Energy Incentives
   The bill reduces many clean-energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act, potentially impacting renewable energy initiatives.
4. Loss of Health Insurance Coverage
   It's projected that nearly 14 million Americans could lose health insurance coverage due to the proposed changes.

 

[AnomalyLady]

Go to sleep.

Assuming you’re in the US

 

[dmallord]

from Kiplinger:

‘Leaving low-income children out’​

While the framework of the House proposed tax package increases the value of the child tax credit above $2,500 per child, tax policy analysts warn that millions of children are left forgotten.

The failure to make changes to the structure of the credit would “largely leave low-income children out,” according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. Some 17 million children, or 1 in 4, would continue to receive less than the full tax credit or no credit at all due to their family's income.

As noted, families who earn less than $2,500 effectively receive no credit under the CTC. That’s because if a family owes little or no federal income tax, the nonrefundable credit might not benefit them. (At that income level, it only reduces tax liability to zero and doesn’t generate a refund.)

The current structure of the credit phases in at a rate of 15 cents for each dollar, regardless of the number of qualifying children in the family.

If approved, the House proposal would increase the full credit amount to $2,500 per child. However, the increase would result in no change at all for millions of children in low-income working families.

• The poorest 20% of families with children would receive just 2% of the new CTC benefits.
• The top 20% of families with children would get nearly 10 times as much in new CTC benefits, according to the Tax Policy Center.

 

[dmallord]

Go to sleep.

Assuming you’re in the US

Yes dear. I see the clock says it's after two in the morning. I'll be there in a minute, someone is asking for attention on Lit, and you know that's important...

 

[AnomalyLady]

Yes dear. I see the clock says it's after two in the morning. I'll be there in a minute, someone is asking for attention on Lit, and you know that's important...

I can accept being called dear. Hurry up, I’m about to get a headache

 

[dmallord]

Good afternoon. Any contributions or thoughts?

 

[Lazaran]

Good afternoon. Any contributions or thoughts?

It is “Tax Cuts For The Rich & Corporations” 2.0

I suspect it will spawn a populist uprising that will only further damage America.

The rollback of climate change mitigation measures / initiatives and massive deregulation will likely damage America beyond repair.

We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Politruk]

It is “Tax Cuts For The Rich & Corporations” 2.0

I suspect it will spawn a populist uprising that will only further damage America.

A left-populist uprising wouldn't.

 

[icanhelp1]

Let's untangle this proposal and check the pros and cons. Below is an overview. I'd appreciate your help in other aspects. Thank you in advance.

---

Positive Tax Changes (Supporters' Perspective)​

1. Extension of 2017 Tax Cuts
   The bill extends the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. This extension is intended to maintain lower tax rates for individuals and corporations.
2. Increased SALT Deduction Cap
   The state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap is raised from $10,000 to $40,000, potentially benefiting taxpayers in high-tax states.
3. Defense Spending Boost
   An additional $150 billion is allocated for defense spending, which supporters argue strengthens national security.

---

Negative Tax Changes (Critics' Perspective)​

1. Potential Increase in National Debt
   The bill is estimated to add several trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability.
2. Reduction in Social Program Funding
   Significant cuts are proposed for programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could affect low-income individuals.
3. Scaling Back Clean Energy Incentives
   The bill reduces many clean-energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act, potentially impacting renewable energy initiatives.
4. Loss of Health Insurance Coverage
   It's projected that nearly 14 million Americans could lose health insurance coverage due to the proposed changes.

Increasing SALT deduction to $40,000 belongs in the negative column. Why should hard working Americans pay for tax and spend democrats.

 

[Politruk]

Increasing SALT deduction to $40,000 belongs in the negative column. Why should hard working Americans pay for tax and spend democrats.

Because they'll be better off than they are now. They always are better off when Dems are in charge.

 

[dmallord]

Increasing SALT deduction to $40,000 belongs in the negative column. Why should hard working Americans pay for tax and spend democrats.

SALT doesn't have anything to do with tax-and-spend democrats or slash-and-destroy Republicans. [This is the republican proposal, eh?]

Increasing SALT deductions benefit some taxpayers who can itemize their deductions instead of taking the standard federal income tax deduction. This primarily helps those in high-tax states with above-average incomes. If they have additional deductions beyond the base level on their federal taxes, they can further reduce the amount owed to the Feds. [Read this as the FEDs get less money to offset the deficit.]

Whether taxpayers benefit from this increase depends on their income, state and local tax burden, and whether itemizing deductions is more advantageous than taking the standard deduction.

On the negative side, it doesn't help the low-income or people who do not itemize.

FYI, the federal tax forms do not differentiate among democrats, republicans, or other political affiliations.

 

[dmallord]

Perhaps I should not have added, "... or thoughts," as that seems to have caused a regurgitation of attack mode responses. So, may we stick to what is in the One Big Beautiful Bill and point out its content that is helpful or a hindrance, rather than swing at one another?

 

[Politruk]

Perhaps I should not have added, "... or thoughts," as that seems to have caused a regurgitation of attack mode responses. So, may we stick to what is in the One Big Beautiful Bill and point out its content that is helpful or a hindrance, rather than swing at one another?

Helpful to the extent it will prevent a shutdown.

 

[dmallord]

My search today found a part about Medicare/Medicaid being cut by 800 billion dollars. Reporters asked Trump about this cut and he said it was only cutting the fraud and corruption that was taking place within Medicare/Medicaid and would not in affect reduce services to those who were legitimately eligible. That seems contrary to the wording of the bill that expands work requirements and imposes additional burndens on those seeking help. It also seems to be cutting out millions that are currently in the system.

I would question cutting that amount and declaring it was all corruption. Not tenable to defend given the amount but that's how Trump is running with the idea of cutting here to expand elsewhere.

These is one political leader regarding the proposed changes:

"Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has strongly criticized the House Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid, arguing that such reductions are“morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

"Hawley said slashing Medicaid to help fund Trump’s budget priorities would strip health insurance from millions of low-income Americans, including over a million Missourians, and could lead to hospital closures across the country."

 

[icanhelp1]

SALT doesn't have anything to do with tax-and-spend democrats or slash-and-destroy Republicans. [This is the republican proposal, eh?]

Increasing SALT deductions benefit some taxpayers who can itemize their deductions instead of taking the standard federal income tax deduction. This primarily helps those in high-tax states with above-average incomes. If they have additional deductions beyond the base level on their federal taxes, they can further reduce the amount owed to the Feds. [Read this as the FEDs get less money to offset the deficit.]

Whether taxpayers benefit from this increase depends on their income, state and local tax burden, and whether itemizing deductions is more advantageous than taking the standard deduction.

On the negative side, it doesn't help the low-income or people who do not itemize.

FYI, the federal tax forms do not differentiate among democrats, republicans, or other political affiliations.

The states that want higher SALT deductions are democrat states with high tax rates.

• Shifting the tax burden: The SALT deduction effectively shifts some of the tax burden from residents of high-tax states to taxpayers nationwide, including those in lower-tax states who don't benefit as much from the deduction.
• Federal revenue reduction: The SALT deduction, particularly without a cap, significantly reduces federal tax revenue, which could impact funding for other federal programs or contribute to the national debt.

 

[ll74]

The states that want higher SALT deductions are democrat states with high tax rates.

• Shifting the tax burden: The SALT deduction effectively shifts some of the tax burden from residents of high-tax states to taxpayers nationwide, including those in lower-tax states who don't benefit as much from the deduction.
• Federal revenue reduction: The SALT deduction, particularly without a cap, significantly reduces federal tax revenue, which could impact funding for other federal programs or contribute to the national debt.

Lol....chatGPT answer

If funding is shifted to the states, then taxpayers should be able to offset that tax.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I would have preferred a clean bill that simply extended the 2017 TCJA individual tax provisions coupled with spending reductions, without all the tax sweeteners that have been added.

- Leave the SALT cap at $10K. Better yet, make it zero.

- Don’t eliminate or reduce taxes on Social Security income. It will only aggravate the rapidly approaching shortfall the program is facing.

- Scrap the no tax on tips, OT as well. Income is income. Don’t use the tax code to cherry pick which forms of income are worthy of taxation and which are not.

- Scrap the car interest loan exemption. It’s just another industrial policy bone being thrown to US auto manufacturers.

Each of these add to the deficit, restore unnecessary complexity to the tax code that had been wisely stripped in the TCJA, and do nothing to grow the economy.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

SALT doesn't have anything to do with tax-and-spend democrats or slash-and-destroy Republicans. [This is the republican proposal, eh?]

Increasing SALT deductions benefit some taxpayers who can itemize their deductions instead of taking the standard federal income tax deduction. This primarily helps those in high-tax states with above-average incomes. If they have additional deductions beyond the base level on their federal taxes, they can further reduce the amount owed to the Feds. [Read this as the FEDs get less money to offset the deficit.]

Whether taxpayers benefit from this increase depends on their income, state and local tax burden, and whether itemizing deductions is more advantageous than taking the standard deduction.

On the negative side, it doesn't help the low-income or people who do not itemize.

FYI, the federal tax forms do not differentiate among democrats, republicans, or other political affiliations.

Also on the negative side, raising the SALT cap significantly reduces tax revenue and adds to the deficit. Before TCJA, about 31% of taxpayers itemized deductions. With the hefty increases in the standard deduction, that’s shrunk to about 9%, mostly high income earners who live in high tax states.

 

[dmallord]

The states that want higher SALT deductions are democrat states with high tax rates.

• Shifting the tax burden: The SALT deduction effectively shifts some of the tax burden from residents of high-tax states to taxpayers nationwide, including those in lower-tax states who don't benefit as much from the deduction.
• Federal revenue reduction: The SALT deduction, particularly without a cap, significantly reduces federal tax revenue, which could impact funding for other federal programs or contribute to the national debt.

Republican states with high tax rates, such as Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and others, favor this change. It's a Republican-sponsored bill.

Overall, an increase in SALT benefits taxpayers regardless of party affiliation. The crafters of this legislation felt it was important. It is not categorized as a bipartisan bill, so, surprisingly, do you think a blue state is undeserving of tax relief for those who can itemize their deductions?

I understand your point that it reduces the overall federal revenue potential. However, other parts of the bill might offset this. I haven't reviewed all of it yet.

 

[Politruk]

Republican states with high tax rates, such as Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and others, favor this change. It's a Republican-sponsored bill.

We have no state income tax in Florida -- sales tax only -- and nobody ever keeps track of how much they pay in a year.

 

[jomar]

Mike Johnson was on Meet the Press this morning lying through his teeth about this bill and could barely keep the smirky grin off his face.

 

[dmallord]

We have no state income tax in Florida -- sales tax only -- and nobody ever keeps track of how much they pay in a year.

That was my point. Neither state mentioned has state income taxes. The comment I addressed said SALT increases should not occur because they benefit democrats. They help everyone who can itemize, and those states mentioned are Red states, which points out a problem with his supposition.

The Fed income tax has increasingly made the standard deduction the one most people default to. If fewer people itemize, it helps the Feds with paperwork reduction and auditing chores.

As noted, the SALT only helps those who can itemize and exceed the SALT level. This gives them added benefits. Those who do keep records are the savers when it comes to reducing their contributions to federal taxes. Again, that's a benefit for the upper-middle class and higher who are more apt to have deductibles. It benefits the wealthy for sure.

 

[dmallord]

Mike Johnson was on Meet the Press this morning lying through his teeth about this bill and could barely keep the smirky grin off his face.

I missed that. What did he declare was big and beautiful about it? Some elaboration, please.

 

[icanhelp1]

Republican states with high tax rates, such as Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and others, favor this change. It's a Republican-sponsored bill.

Overall, an increase in SALT benefits taxpayers regardless of party affiliation. The crafters of this legislation felt it was important. It is not categorized as a bipartisan bill, so, surprisingly, do you think a blue state is undeserving of tax relief for those who can itemize their deductions?

I understand your point that it reduces the overall federal revenue potential. However, other parts of the bill might offset this. I haven't reviewed all of it yet.

I agree, some are republican politicians that reside in blue states and I don't agree with them either. Politicians just do not evaluate the consequences of their votes. We will wake up one morning and the US will be insolvent and these feckless politicians will stomp their feet and point fingers at each other. They had plenty of time to adjust.

 

[jomar]

I missed that. What did he declare was big and beautiful about it? Some elaboration, please.

Basically trying to flip what’s actually in the bill and saying it helps the lower and middle class more than the wealthy and that making the tax cuts permanent will save America and save money. And on Medicaid no one who is eligible or needs it will be denied, they’re just getting those illegal immigrants who shouldn’t be on it anyway and requiring able bodied folk on it to work/volunteer 20 hours a week and is that really so much to ask?

He’s a smooth one. But one should never forget he was a principal architect of the Big Lie.