The Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018,[2] Pub. L. 115–97 (text) (PDF), is a congressional revenue act of the United States originally introduced in Congress as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA),[3][4] that amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The legislation is commonly referred to in media as the Trump tax cuts. Major elements of the changes include reducing tax rates for corporations and individuals, increasing the standard deduction and family tax credits, eliminating personal exemptions and making it less beneficial to itemize deductions, limiting deductions for state and local income taxes and property taxes, further limiting the mortgage interest deduction, reducing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and eliminating it for corporations, doubling the estate tax exemption, and reducing the penalty for violating the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to $0.[5][6] The New York Times has described the TCJA as "the most sweeping tax overhaul in decades".[7]
Most of the changes introduced by the bill went into effect on January 1, 2018, and did not affect 2017 taxes.[8] Many tax cut provisions contained in the TCJA, notably including individual income tax cuts, such as the changes to the standard deduction in §63 of the IRC, are scheduled to expire in 2025; while many of the business tax cuts expire in 2028.[9][10] Extending the cuts have caused economists across the political spectrum to worry it would boost inflationary pressures[11][12] and worsen America's fiscal trajectory.[13] The Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending the expiring provisions would add $4.6 trillion in deficits over 10 years.[14]
Studies show the TCJA increased the federal debt as well as after-tax incomes disproportionately for the most affluent.[15] It led to an estimated 11% increase in corporate investment, but its effects on economic growth and median wages were smaller than expected and modest at best.[16]
Under the law, there are numerous changes to the individual income tax, including changing the income level of individual tax brackets, lowering tax rates, and increasing the standard deductions and family tax credits while itemized deductions are reduced and the personal exemptions are eliminated.
Most individual income taxes are reduced, until 2025. The number of income tax brackets remain at seven, but the income ranges in several brackets have been changed and most brackets have lower rates. These are marginal rates that apply to income in the indicated range as under current law (i.e., prior Public Law 115-97 or the Act), so a higher income taxpayer will have income taxed at several different rates.[17][18] A different inflation measure (Chained CPI or C-CPI) will be applied to the brackets instead of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), so the brackets increase more slowly. This is effectively a tax increase over time, as people move more quickly into higher brackets as their income rises; this element is permanent.[19][20]
The standard deduction nearly doubles, from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples. For single filers, the standard deduction will increase from $6,350 to $12,000. About 70% of families choose the standard deduction rather than itemized deductions; this could rise to over 84% if doubled. The personal exemption is eliminated—this was a deduction of $4,050 per taxpayer and dependent, unless it is in an estate or trust.[19][20][21]
The child tax credit (CTC) is doubled from $1,000 to $2,000, $1,400 of which will be refundable. There is also a $500 credit for other dependents, versus zero under current law. The lower threshold for the high-income phaseout for the CTC changes from $110,000 AGI to $400,000 for married filers.[22]
Mortgage interest deduction for newly purchased homes (and second homes) was lowered from total loan balances of $1 million under current law to $750,000. Interest from home equity loans (aka second mortgages) is no longer deductible, unless the money is used for home improvements.
The deduction for state and local income tax, sales tax, and property taxes ("SALT deduction") will be capped at $10,000. This has more impact on taxpayers with more expensive property, generally those who live in higher-income areas, or people in states with higher rates for state tax.[23]
The act zeroed out the federal tax penalty for violating the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2019. (In order to pass the Senate under reconciliation rules with only 50 votes, the requirement itself is still in effect).[24] This is estimated to save the government over $300 billion, because up to an estimated 13 million fewer people will have insurance coverage, resulting in the government giving fewer tax subsidies. It is estimated to increase premiums on the health insurance exchanges by up to 10%.[25] It also expands the amount of out-of-pocket medical expenses that may be deducted by lowering threshold from 10% of adjusted gross income to 7.5%, but only for 2017 (retroactively) and 2018. Effective January 1, 2019, the threshold will increase to 10%.[26]
No changes are made to major education deductions and credits, or to the teacher deduction for unreimbursed classroom expenses, which remains at $250. The bill initially expanded usage of 529 college savings accounts for both K–12 private school tuition and homeschools, but the provision regarding homeschools was overruled by the Senate parliamentarian and removed. The 529 savings accounts for K-12 private school tuition provision was left intact.[27]
Taxpayers will only be able to deduct a casualty loss if it occurs in a federally declared disaster area.[28]
Alimony paid to a former spouse will no longer be deductible by the payer, and alimony payments will no longer be included in the recipient's gross income. This effectively shifts the tax burden of alimony from the recipient to the payer, increases the amount of tax collected on the income transferred as alimony, and simplifies the audit trail for the IRS.[citation needed] This provision is effective for divorce and separation agreements signed after December 31, 2018.[29]
Employment-related moving expenses will no longer be deductible, except for moves related to active-duty military service.[30]
The miscellaneous itemized deduction, including tax-deductions for tax-preparation fees, investment expenses, union dues, and unreimbursed employee expenses, are eliminated.[31]
Fewer people will pay the Alternative minimum tax because the act increases the exemption level from $84,500 to $109,400 for married taxpayers filing jointly and from $54,300 to $70,300 for single taxpayers.[32]
The act repeals the ability to recharacterize Roth conversions.[33][34]
The act exempts the discharge of certain student loans due to the death or total permanent disability of the borrower from taxable income. This provision applies only to debt discharged during tax years 2018 through 2025.[35][36]
The act now taxes survivors benefits that were allocated to the children of a deceased military service member as if they were for a trust or estate, which can subject them to an income tax rate of up to 37%.[37]
For deaths occurring between 2018 and 2025, estates that exceed $11.2 million are subject to a 40% estate tax at time of death, increased from $5.6 million previously. For a married couple aggregating their exemptions, an estate exceeding $22.4 million is subject to a 40% estate tax at time of death.[38]
The corporate tax rate was changed from a tiered tax rate ranging from 15% to as high as 39% depending on taxable income[39] to a flat 21%, while some related business deductions and credits were reduced or eliminated. The Act also changed the U.S. from a global to a territorial tax system with respect to corporate income tax. Instead of a corporation paying the U.S. tax rate for income earned in any country (less a credit for taxes paid to that country), each subsidiary pays the tax rate of the country in which it is legally established. In other words, under a territorial tax system, the corporation saves the difference between the generally higher U.S. tax rate and the lower rate of the country in which the subsidiary is legally established. Bloomberg journalist Matt Levine explained the concept, "If we're incorporated in the U.S. [under the old global tax regime], we'll pay 35 percent taxes on our income in the U.S. and Canada and Mexico and Ireland and Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, but if we're incorporated in Canada [under a territorial tax regime, proposed by the Act], we'll pay 35 percent on our income in the U.S. but 15 percent in Canada and 30 percent in Mexico and 12.5 percent in Ireland and zero percent in Bermuda and zero percent in the Cayman Islands."[40] In theory, the law would reduce the incentive for tax inversion, which is used today to obtain the benefits of a territorial tax system by moving U.S. corporate headquarters to other countries.[41]
One-time repatriation tax of profits in overseas subsidiaries is taxed at 8%, 15.5% for cash. U.S. multinationals have accumulated nearly $3 trillion offshore, much of it subsidiaries in tax-haven countries. The Act may encourage companies to bring the money back to the U.S. at these much lower rates.[42][43]
The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax was eliminated.[41]
The law also eliminated the net operating loss carryback, a procedure by which a company with significant losses could receive a tax refund by counting the losses as part of the previous year's tax return. They were considered important in providing liquidity during a recession. The provision was cut in order to finance the tax cuts in the act, and was one of the largest offsets in the law.[44]
Additionally, the domestic production activities deduction was eliminated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.[45]
There is a 25% excise tax on compensation paid to certain employees of churches and other tax-exempt organizations.[46] The excise tax applies to any organization that is tax-exempt under 501(c) or 501(d), a Section 521(b)(1) farmer's cooperative, Section 527 political organizations, and organizations that have Section 115(1) income that is earned by performing essential government functions.[47]
The excise tax applies to compensation paid to certain employees in excess of $1,000,000 during the year. The employees covered under this rule are the organization's five highest-compensated employees and any employees who previous had this status after 2016.[47] Compensation is exempt from the excise tax if the compensation is paid to medical doctors, dentists, veterinarians, nurse practitioners, and other licensed professionals providing medical or veterinary services. Compensation includes all current compensation, qualifying deferred compensation, non-qualifying deferred compensation without substantial risk of forfeiture, income under Section 457(f), and severance payments, but excluding Roth retirement contributions.[48][49][50]
An organization may also be subject to the 21% excise tax if an organization has a deferred compensation plan in which benefits are spread over several years and then vest all at once.[51] Severance payments exceeding triple an employee's average salary during the last five years may also be subject to the 21% excise tax.[51]
There is a 1.4% excise tax on investment income of certain private tax-exempt colleges and universities. The excise tax applies only if the institution has at least 500 tuition-paying students and more than half the students are located in the United States. The excise tax applies if the institution and its related organizations have an endowment with an aggregate fair-market value at the end of the preceding tax year of at least $500,000 per full-time student, excluding assets used directly in carrying out institution's tax-exempt purpose.[52][49]
This provision has been referred to as an endowment tax, and it has been estimated that it applies to around 32 universities.
Some provisions from the earlier House bill were dropped that would have taxed graduate student tuition waivers, tuition benefits for children and spouses of employees, and student loan interest.[53] A Senate Parliamentarian ruling on December 19 changed the exemption threshold from 500 tuition-paying students to 500 total students.[54] Endowment funds used to carry out a college's tax-exempt purpose are excluded from the asset threshold, but Internal Revenue Service has not issued regulations specifically defining this term.[55]
In addition, a tax deduction is now disallowed entirely for charitable contributions if the donor receives rights to receive seats to college athletic events.[49] Formerly, 80% of the charitable contribution was considered to be a tax-deductible charitable contribution.[49]
Unrelated business income is now increased by the amount a church or other tax-exempt organization pays or incurs for qualifying parking or qualifying transportation benefits for its employees. This type of unrelated business income includes only tax-free transportation benefits provided to employees, not transportation benefits that are included in the employee's taxable wages.[56]
Unrelated business income does not result if the employer provides free parking for employees, the majority of the parking spaces are available to the general public during the organization's normal business hours, and none of the parking spots reserved for its employees.[56] If some parking spots are reserved for employees, then unrelated business income results from a portion of the total parking expenses, based on the percentage of parking spots that are reserved for its employees.[56]
The Internal Revenue Service has clarified that the employer should use a reasonable method to determine the value of parking benefits provided to its employees.[56] The value of the parking spaces should include repairs, maintenance, utility costs, insurance, property taxes, interest, snow and ice removal, leaf removal, trash removal, cleaning, landscape costs, parking attendant expenses, security, and rent or lease payments, but not depreciation expense.[56]
A church or other tax-exempt organization would need to file Form 990-T and pay unrelated business income tax if its total unrelated business income exceeds $1,000 during the fiscal year.[56][57] Netting the unrelated business income from transportation with other unrelated business income in order to reduce or eliminate the amount of tax due is allowed.[56]
Some states and jurisdictions require all employers to provide these benefits to their employees, which may result in an organization being required to choose between paying unrelated business income tax to the federal government or being in noncompliance with state and local laws.[49]
Unrelated business income is now separately computed for each trade or business activity of the church or other tax-exempt organization. Losses on one trade or business can no longer be used to offset gains on another trade or business for unrelated business income purposes. Net operating losses generated before January 1, 2018, and carried forward to other tax years are not affected and can be used to offset gains from any trade or business activity. Some affected organizations are considering incorporating for-profit subsidiaries and then moving all unrelated business income to the for-profit subsidiaries, which might make all the unrelated business income count as the same category of trade or business activity, namely "income from for-profit subsidiaries".[58][49] Unrelated business taxable income from transportation benefits is not considered a trade or business activity and will be applied after totaling all of the organization's unrelated business income overall.[59][60][61]
Net operating losses are now limited to 80% of taxable income for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.[59] Unrelated business income tax is now assessed at the flat rate of 21%, rather than at a graduated tax rate, except for unrelated business income earned on or before December 31, 2017.[62][49] Net operating losses for tax years ending after December 31, 2017 may now be carried forward to future tax years indefinitely.[59]
More individuals will choose to take the standard deduction rather than itemize their tax deductions because of the increase in standard deduction and limitation on itemized deduction for state and local taxes. As a result, these individuals will not see a tax savings from donations to churches or other eligible nonprofit organizations, and churches and other organizations may receive fewer charitable contributions.[49][63][64][65]
The indexed estate tax exemption was doubled, which means that people may not need to include charitable contributions being written into their will in order to reduce the estate tax paid, which is expected to reduce the amount of charitable contributions given to churches and nonprofit organizations overall.[49]
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 allows a tax credit for employers that provide paid family and medical leave to employees. A 501(c)(3) organization is not eligible for the tax credit.[66]
The Act contains a variety of miscellaneous tax provisions, many advantaging particular special interests.[67] Miscellaneous provisions include:
The Act contains provisions that would open 1.5 million acres (6,100 km2) in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.[76][77] This major push to include this provision in the tax bill came from Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.[78][79][80] The move is part of the long-running Arctic Refuge drilling controversy; Republicans had attempted to allow drilling in ANWR almost 50 times.[79] Opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling "unleashed a torrent of opposition from conservationists and scientists."[80] Democrats[78][79] and environmentalist groups such as the Wilderness Society criticized the Republican effort.[79]
The bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 2, 2017 by Congressman Kevin Brady, Republican representative from Texas. On November 9, 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee passed the bill on a party-line vote, advancing the bill to the House floor.[81] The House passed the bill on November 16, 2017, on a mostly-party line vote of 227–205. No Democrat voted for the bill, while 13 Republicans voted against it.[82][83] On the same day, companion legislation passed the Senate Finance Committee, again on a party-line vote, 14–12.[84] On November 28, the legislation passed the Senate Budget Committee, again on a party-line vote.[85] In the early morning hours of December 2, 2017, the Senate passed its version of the bill by a 51–49 vote. Bob Corker (R–TN) was the only Republican senator to vote against this version of the bill and it received no Democratic Party support.[86]
Differences between the House and Senate bills were reconciled in a conference committee that signed the final version on December 15, 2017. The final version contained relatively minor changes from the Senate version.[87] The House passed the penultimate version of the bill on December 19, 2017.[88] In the December 19 vote, the same Republicans who voted against the original House bill still voted against it (with the exception of Tom McClintock, who voted in favor on December 19 after having voted against the original House bill).[89] However, several provisions of the bill violated the Senate's procedural rules, which meant that the House of Representatives needed to re-vote with the objectionable provisions removed.[90] The Senate passed the final bill, 51–48, on December 20, 2017; all Senate Republicans voted for the bill except Sen. John McCain, who was absent for health reasons.[91] On the same day, a re-vote was held in the House; the bill passed, 224–201.[92][93] President Trump then signed the bill into law on December 22, 2017.[94]
There were important differences between the House and Senate versions of the bills, due in part to the Senate reconciliation rules, which required that the bill impact the deficit by less than $1.5 trillion over ten years and have minimal deficit impact thereafter. (The Byrd Rule allows senators to block legislation if it would increase the deficit significantly beyond a ten-year period.[95][96]) For example:
In final changes prior to approval of the Senate bill on December 2, additional changes were made (among others) that were reconciled with the House bill in a conference committee, prior to providing a final bill to the President for signature.[102] The Conference Committee version was published on December 15, 2017. It had relatively minor differences compared to the Senate bill. Individual and pass-through tax cuts expire after ten years, while the corporate tax changes are permanent.[87]
A 2024 study on the impact of the TCJA found that "the TCJA clearly raised federal debt and increased after-tax incomes, disproportionately increasing incomes for the most affluent. Its effects on GDP and median wages seem modest at best, although clear counterfactuals are difficult to identify. The impact on investment is less certain".[15] Another 2024 study, which analyzed the corporate tax cut in the TCJA which was the biggest in US history, found that the tax cut reduced corporate tax revenue by 40 percent and increased corporate investment by 11 percent, but that it "increased economic growth and wages by less than advertised by the Act's proponents."[16]
According to a 2017 report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the TCJA was expected to lower taxes by an average of $1,600 in 2018 and 2025. The top 20% of Americans by income were projected to receive roughly 65% of the tax savings.[108] The TPC estimated that the bottom 80% of taxpayers (income under $149,400) would receive 35% of the benefit in 2018, 34% in 2025 and none of the benefit in 2027, with some groups incurring costs.[109] TPC also estimated 72% of taxpayers would be adversely impacted in 2019 and beyond, if the tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts separate from the legislation, as most spending cuts would impact lower- to middle-income taxpayers and outweigh the benefits from the tax cuts.[110]
The tax cuts contained in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were expected to increase deficits thereby stimulating the economy, increasing GDP and employment, relative to a forecast without those tax cuts. CBO reported on December 21, 2017: "Overall, the combined effect of the change in net federal revenue and spending is to decrease deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in spending) allocated to lower-income tax filing units and to increase deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in taxes) allocated to higher-income tax filing units".[114]
The Tax Policy Center (TPC) reported its macroeconomic analysis of the November 16 Senate version of the Act on December 1, 2017:
The Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) estimated relative to a prior law baseline that by 2027:
CBO forecast in January 2017 (just prior to Trump's inauguration) that revenues in fiscal year 2018 would be $3.60 trillion if laws in place as of January 2017 continued.[118]
CBO reported on December 21, 2017, that: "Overall, the combined effect of the change in net federal revenue and spending is to decrease deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in spending) allocated to lower-income tax filing units and to increase deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in taxes) allocated to higher-income tax filing units."[114]
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Act would add $1,456 billion total to the annual deficits (debt) over ten years.[119]
On December 21, 2017, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its distribution estimate of the Act:
The Tax Policy Center (TPC) reported its distributional estimates for the Act. This analysis excludes the impact of zeroing out the ACA individual mandate, which would apply significant costs primarily to income groups below $40,000. It also assumes the Act is deficit financed and thus excludes the impact of any spending cuts used to finance the Act, which also would fall disproportionally on lower income families as a percentage of their income.[109]
The TCJA affected healthcare by setting at $0 the ACA individual mandate, resulting in projections of up to 13 million fewer persons covered by health insurance as some younger, healthier persons will likely choose not to obtain coverage.[25][123] The CBO later revised this estimate in 2018 to 7 million fewer insured by 2026.[122]
According to Bloomberg, the TCJA has simplified the tax code for some, but not others; has lowered corporate debt; has led investment to temporarily increase before declining; and has brought money back from overseas without bringing back business activity.[124] The TCJA also cut taxes for most U.S. taxpayers.[125][126]
In the spring of 2019, both The New York Times[125] and the Washington Post[126] stated that most American taxpayers had received tax cuts under the TCJA.
The Tax Policy Center stated in 2019 that the TCJA had lowered individual income taxes for approximately 65% of U.S. households, had raised individual income taxes for approximately 6% of American households, and had left taxes about the same for the remainder of U.S. households.[127]
In October 2017, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the corporate tax cut contained within the TCJA would increase real median household income by $3,000 to $7,000 annually.[128] However, during the first year following enactment of the TCJA, real median household income increased by $553; the Census Bureau characterized this increase as statistically insignificant.[129]
In 2018, companies spent a record-setting $1.1 trillion to buy back their own stock, and a majority of major firms (84%, as polled by the National Association for Business Economics) did not alter their hiring practice or their investment in their business in response to the tax cuts they received. This pattern was evident even in early 2018, when Bloomberg reported (based on an analysis of 51 S&P 500 companies) that an estimated 60% of corporate tax savings was going to shareholders, while 15% was going to employees.[130] A Bloomberg Economics analysis found that, while business investment did increase in 2018, relatively little of that activity could be attributed to lower taxes.[131] A study by the Federal Reserve Bank similarly found that corporations bought-back stock and paid down debt, rather than undertake either new capital expenditure or investment in research & development.[132]
Bloomberg News reported in January 2020 that the top six American banks saved more than $32 billion in taxes during the two years after enactment of the tax cut, while they reduced lending, cut jobs and increased distributions to shareholders.[133]
In the two years since the Act was passed, it failed to pay for itself through increased economic growth as initially claimed, according to Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.[134]
Federal corporate tax receipts fell from an annualized level of $409 billion in Q1 2017 to $269 billion in Q1 2018, a direct result of the Trump tax cuts.[135][136] Corporate tax receipts for the full fiscal year ended September 2018 were down 31% from the prior fiscal year, the largest decline since records began in 1934, except for during the Great Recession when corporate profits, and hence corporate tax receipts, plummeted. Analysts attributed the fiscal 2018 decline to the tax cut.[137][138][139][140]
The New York Times reported in August 2019 that: "The increasing levels of red ink stem from a steep falloff in federal revenue after Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which lowered individual and corporate tax rates, resulting in far fewer tax dollars flowing to the Treasury Department. Tax revenues for 2018 and 2019 have fallen more than $430 billion short of what the budget office predicted they would be in June 2017, before the tax law was approved that December."[141]
An Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis indicated the Act has more of a tax increase impact on "upper-middle-class families in major metropolitan areas, particularly in Democratic-leaning states where taxes, and usually property values, are higher. While only about one-in-five families between the 80th and 95th income percentiles in most red states would face higher taxes by 2027 under the House GOP bill, that number rises to about one-third in Colorado and Illinois, around two-fifths or more in Oregon, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, and half or more in New Jersey, California and Maryland..."[142]
Leading Republicans supported the bill, including President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, and Republicans in Congress, such as:[143]
In the Senate, Republicans "eager for a major legislative achievement after the Affordable Care Act debacle ... have generally been enthusiastic about the tax overhaul."[145]
A number of Republican senators who initially expressed trepidation over the bill, including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Susan Collins of Maine, and Steve Daines of Montana, ultimately voted for the Senate bill.[146][147]
The Trump Administration's Council of Economic Advisors supported the bill, claiming it would have significant economic benefits.[148][149] President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin claimed that the law's tax cuts would pay for themselves.[150] Many Republican supporters of the tax bill characterized it as a simplification of the tax code.[151][124]
Democrats opposed the legislation, viewing it as a giveaway to corporations and high earners at the expense of middle class communities.[152] Every House Democrat voted against the bill when it came to the House floor, and 13 Republicans joined them in doing so.[82]
The top congressional Democrats—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—strongly oppose the bill. Schumer said of the bill that "The more it's in sunlight, the more it stinks."[153] Pelosi said the legislation was "designed to plunder the middle class to put into the pockets of the wealthiest 1 percent more money".[154]
The 13 House Republicans who voted against the bill were mostly from New York, New Jersey, and California, and several were opposed to the $10,000 cap on the state and local income tax deduction.[155]
Billionaire and former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg called this tax bill an "economically indefensible blunder", arguing that companies would not invest more because of the tax cuts.[156]
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett also thought that Trump's tax cut would not help businesses.[157] In a CNBC interview, Buffett even said: "I don't need a tax cut in a society with so much inequality".[158]
In a letter made public on the November 12, 2017, more than 400 millionaires and billionaires (which include George Soros and Steven Rockefeller) asked Congress to reject the Republican tax plan. They stated that it would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while adding at least $1.5 trillion to the national debt.[159][160][161]
The Economist was also critical of the tax cut: "The expiry of tax cuts for individuals is a ticking time-bomb in the tax code. It will explode just as America approaches a budget crisis, driven by rising spending on health care and pensions for the elderly. This gap will probably eventually be plugged by a combination of tax rises and spending cuts. But by cutting taxes now, Republicans have moved the starting point for any future negotiations".[162]
The Financial Times argued that this bill was "built for plutocrats" as it would mainly benefit very high income households ("45 per cent of the tax reductions in 2027 would go to households with incomes above $500,000 – fewer than 1 per cent of filers").[163]
The Editorial Board of The New York Times vigorously opposed the bill: "This bill is bad enough. No less revolting is the dishonest and sneaky way it was written."[164]
Editorial Boards of major US newspapers including USA Today,[165] The Washington Post,[166] the Los Angeles Times,[167] the San Francisco Chronicle[168] and The Boston Globe[169] also opposed the bill.
Paul Krugman disputed the Administration's primary argument that tax cuts for businesses will stimulate investment and higher wages:[170]
In November 2017, the University of Chicago asked over 40 economists if U.S. GDP would be substantially higher a decade from now, if either the House or Senate bills were enacted, with the following results: 52% either disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 36% were uncertain and only 2% agreed.[173]
The Tax Policy Center estimated that GDP would be 0.3% higher in 2027 under the House bill versus current law, while the University of Pennsylvania Penn Wharton budget model estimates approximately 0.3–0.9% for both the House and Senate bills. The very limited effect estimated is due to the expectation of higher interest rates and trade deficits. These estimates are both contrary to the Administration's claims of 10% increase by 2027 (about 1% per year) and Senator Mitch McConnell's estimate of a 4.1% increase.[174]
Federal Reserve Bank of NY President and CEO William C. Dudley stated in January 2018: "While this legislation will reduce federal revenues by about 1 percent of GDP in both 2018 and 2019, I anticipate the boost to economic growth will be less than that. Most importantly, most of the tax cuts accrue to the corporate sector and to higher-income households that have a relatively low marginal propensity to consume. This suggests that a significant portion of the tax cuts will be saved, not spent."[175]
The Trump administration predicted the tax cut would spur corporate capital investment and hiring. One year after enactment of the tax cut, a National Association for Business Economics survey of corporate economists found that 84% reported their firms had not changed their investment or hiring plans due to the tax cut.[176] Later in 2019, the Economic Policy Institute analyzed the data on business investment from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis and concluded that, "if the TCJA’s corporate rate cuts were working, we would be seeing a permanent rise in investment. Instead, investment growth is cratering."[177] Analysis conducted by The New York Times in November 2019 found that average business investment was lower after the tax cut than before, and that firms receiving larger tax relief increased investment less than firms receiving smaller tax relief. The analysis also found that since the tax cut firms increased dividends and stock buybacks by nearly three times as much as they increased capital investments.[178]
Corporate executives indicated that raising wages and investment were not priorities should they have additional funds due to a tax cut. A survey conducted by Bank of America-Merrill Lynch of 300 executives of major U.S. corporations asked what they would do with a corporate tax cut. The top three responses were that they would pay down debt, conduct stock buybacks, and conduct mergers. An informal survey of CEOs by Trump advisor Gary Cohn resulted in a similar response, with few hands raised in response to his request for them to do so if their company would invest more.[181]
Former Clinton cabinet Treasury Secretary Larry Summers referred to the analysis provided by the Trump administration of its tax proposal as "...some combination of dishonest, incompetent, and absurd." Summers wrote that the Trump administration's "central claim that cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent would raise wages by $4,000 per worker" lacked peer-reviewed support and was "absurd on its face."[182]
On December 20, 2017, the day the final bill was passed by the House, Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bancorp and Western Alliance Bancorp announced they would raise the minimum wage of its workers to $15 an hour upon signing of the bill. A number of companies announced bonuses for workers, including AT&T which said it will give a $1,000 bonus to every single one of its 200,000 employees as a result of the Tax Cut bill. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer stated that these were the exception to the rule and that AT&T was in litigation with the government over a pending merger. He stated: "There is a reason so few executives have said the tax bill will lead to more jobs, investments, and higher wages—because it will actually lead to share buybacks, corporate bonuses, and dividends."[183]
In the immediate aftermath of the passage of the Act, a relatively small number of corporations—many of them involved in mergers disputed by the government or regulatory difficulties—announced pay raises or bonuses to employees, although it is not clear they would not have done so without the tax cut (many companies award raises and bonuses early each year in the normal course of business, after their prior year earnings are known and their new budgets are put in place). About 18 companies in the S&P did so; when companies paid awards to employees, these were usually a small percentage of corporate savings from the Act.[184] A January 2018 study from the firm Willis Towers Watson found that 80% of companies were not "considering giving raises at all."[185] Bloomberg reported in March 2018 that an estimated 60% of corporate tax savings were going to shareholders, while 15% was going to employees, based on analysis of 51 S&P 500 companies.[130] In July 2018, Bloomberg reported that real wages have actually fallen in the first quarter after the tax bill went into effect.[186]
Overall, the combined effect of the change in net federal revenue and spending is to decrease deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in spending) allocated to lower-income tax filing units and to increase deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in taxes) allocated to higher-income tax filing units.
The New York Times editorial board explained the tax bill as both consequence and cause of income and wealth inequality: "Most Americans know that the Republican tax bill will widen economic inequality by lavishing breaks on corporations and the wealthy while taking benefits away from the poor and the middle class. What many may not realize is that growing inequality helped create the bill in the first place. As a smaller and smaller group of people cornered an ever-larger share of the nation's wealth, so too did they gain an ever-larger share of political power. They became, in effect, kingmakers; the tax bill is a natural consequence of their long effort to bend American politics to serve their interests." The corporate tax rate was 48% in the 1970s and is 21% under the Act. The top individual rate was 70% in the 1970s and is 37% under the Act. Despite these large cuts, incomes for the working class have stagnated and workers now pay a larger share of the pre-tax income in payroll taxes.[187]
The share of income going to the top 1% has doubled, from 10% to 20%, since the pre-1980 period, while the share of wealth owned by the top 1% has risen from around 25% to 42%.[188][189] Despite President Trump promising to address those left behind, the House and Senate bills would increase economic inequality:
In 2027, if the tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts borne evenly by all families, after-tax income would be 3.0% higher for the top 0.1%, 1.5% higher for the top 10%, −0.6% for the middle 40% (30th to 70th percentile) and −2.0% for the bottom 50%.[193]
In November 2017, the OECD reported that the U.S. tax burden was lower in 2016 than the OECD country average, measured as a percentage of GDP:
Journalist Justin Fox wrote in Bloomberg that Americans may feel financial pressure due to healthcare and college tuition costs, which are much higher than other OECD countries measured as a share of GDP, offsetting the benefit of the already lower tax structure.[197]
A potential consequence of the proposed tax reform, specifically lowering business taxes, is that (in theory) the U.S. would be a more attractive place for foreign capital (investment money). This inflow of foreign capital would help fund the surge in investment by corporations, one of the stated goals of the legislation. However, a large inflow of foreign capital would drive up the price of the dollar, making U.S. exports more expensive, thus increasing the trade deficit. Paul Krugman estimated this could adversely impact up to 2.5 million U.S. jobs.[172]
According to The New York Times, "wide range of experts agree that cutting taxes is likely to increase the trade deficit" with other countries, which conflicts with the stated priority of the White House to reduce the trade deficit.[198] However, economists widely reject that reducing the trade deficit is necessarily good for the U.S. economy.[198]
The finance ministers of the five largest European economies (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) wrote a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, expressing concern that the tax reforms could trigger a trade war, as they would violate World Trade Organization rules and distort international trade.[199] Similar concerns were voiced by China.[200] In response to the Act, German economists called for the German government to enact tax reform and additional subsidies to prevent a loss of jobs and investments to the United States.[196]
Fact-checkers such as FactCheck.Org, PolitiFact and The Washington Post's fact-checker have found that Trump's claims that his economic proposal and tax plan would not benefit wealthy persons like himself were likely false.[201] An analysis by The New York Times found that if Trump's tax plan had been in place in 2005 (the one recent year in which his tax returns were leaked), he would have saved $11 million in taxes.[202] The analysis also found that Trump would save $4.4 million on his eventual estate tax bill.[202] Experts say that the financial windfall for the President and his family from this bill is "virtually unprecedented in American political history".[203]
A number of Republican congressmen also stood to benefit personally from the pass-through deduction.[204][205][206] Most notably, retiring Tennessee Senator Bob Corker was for some time the sole Republican Senator to oppose the tax plan. Corker stated that he would not support a tax plan that would increase the deficit. However, after Arizona Senator John McCain, who was unable to vote while receiving treatment for brain cancer,[205] endorsed the bill,[207] Corker changed his vote to "yes" on the final version of the bill after it was confirmed that the pass-through deduction provision from which he stood to benefit was included in it.[204][205] Corker rejected the claim that he traded his vote for provisions that benefited him and said that he had no idea that there were provisions in the bill from which he stood to personally benefit.[208]
According to The New York Times, "economists and tax experts across the political spectrum warn that the proposed system would invite tax avoidance. The more the tax code distinguishes among types of earnings, personal characteristics or economic activities, the greater the incentive to label income artificially, restructure or switch categories in a hunt for lower rates."[209] According to The Wall Street Journal, the bill's changes to "business and individual taxation could lead to a new era of business reorganization and tax-code gamesmanship with unknown consequences for the economy and federal revenue collection."[210]
Republicans justified the tax reform initially as an effort to simplify the tax code. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Speaker Paul Ryan said in November 2017 that they would simplify the tax code so much that 9 in 10 Americans would be able to file their taxes on a postcard.[211] President Donald Trump said on December 13, 2017, that people would be able to file their taxes "on a single, little, beautiful sheet of paper".[211] However, when the final version of the tax legislation passed through houses of Congress, the legislation kept most loopholes intact and did not simplify the tax code.[211][212] The announcements by the House leaders hurt the stock prices of tax preparers, but upon the release of the actual bill, the stock prices of tax preparers sharply increased.[211]
The legislation was passed by Congress with little debate regarding the comprehensive reforming nature of the Act.[213][214] The 400-page House bill was passed two weeks after the legislation was first released, "without a single hearing" held.[215] In the Senate, the final version of the bill did not receive a public hearing, "was largely crafted behind closed doors, and was released just ahead of the final vote."[216] Republicans rewrote major portions of tax bill just hours before the floor vote, making major changes in order to win the votes of several Republican holdouts.[217] Many last-minute changes were handwritten on earlier drafts of the bill.[216][214] The revisions appeared "first in the lobbying shops of K Street, which sent back copies to some Senate Democrats, who were left to take to social media in protest regarding being asked to vote in a matter of hours on a massive bill that had yet to be shared with them directly."[214]
The rushed approval of the legislation prompted an outcry from Democrats.[214][216][217][218] Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) proposed giving senators more time to read the legislation, but this motion failed after every Republican voted no.[218] Requests to wait until incoming Democratic Senator Doug Jones of Alabama could vote on the bill were also denied. Some commentators also criticized the process. The New York Times editorial board wrote that the Senate's move to rapidly approve the bill "is not how lawmakers are supposed to pass enormous pieces of legislation" and contrasted the bill to the 1986 tax bill, in which "Congress and the Reagan administration worked across party lines, produced numerous drafts, held many hearings and struck countless compromises."[219] Bloomberg columnist Al Hunt classified the legislation as a "slipshod product, legislated with minimal transparency" that was "rushed so fast through a short-circuited lawmaking process" in which many members of Congress who voted in favor of the bill did not fully understand what they had done.[220]
The clause establishing the bill's short title was dropped after Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) filed an objection under the Byrd Rule to the Senate Parliamentarian, claiming the section was extraneous.[3][221] As a result, the name "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", though widely used, is not contained in the bill, which is officially referred to by its long title, or as Public Law 115-97.
Federal Reserve officials had indicated earlier in 2017 that aggressive tax cuts could increase the pace of interest rate increases already planned. Higher interest rates make borrowing more expensive, slowing economic growth (GDP), other things equal. The Fed also raises interest rates to help offset the risk of inflation in a growing economy near full employment. However, as the tax plan became clearer and its impact on the economy was judged to be relatively minor, the Fed indicated that a plan to raise interest rates incrementally as many as three times in 2018 would not be changed.[222][223]
While there was no clear consensus among academic economists as to whether the tax plan would benefit the economy to the degree that Trump administration predicted, there was a consensus that it would widen public deficits and economic inequality.[224][225][226]
In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets, 37 out of 38 economists interviewed stated that they thought the Act would cause a rapid increase in the national debt. The one dissenting economist later changed his mind.[227] Conversely, only one economist (Stanford's Darrell Duffie) out of the 38 agreed with the statement: "If the US enacts a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate—and assuming no other changes in tax or spending policy—US GDP will be substantially higher a decade from now than under the status quo".[228]
Four winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics have spoken out against the legislation: Joseph Stiglitz,[229] Paul Krugman,[170][230] Richard Thaler,[231] and Angus Deaton.[232]
Princeton economist Alan Blinder, who served as Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve System from 1994 to 1996, argued, in an article published by The Wall Street Journal, that "almost everything was wrong" with the Trump Tax Cut and that "it blew a large hole in the federal deficit".[233]
A group of 137 economists signed an open letter expressing support for the bill; the letter was touted by President Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan and the Senate Finance Committee as support for the legislation among economists;[234] the letter was criticized by left-liberal publications that cited independent research which contradicted some of its claims and alleged that it contained signatories who did not exist.[235] A group of nine economists (largely from the Reagan and Bush administrations) wrote a letter which estimated 3 percent growth from the reduction in the corporate tax rate within a decade; the letter was challenged by Harvard economists Larry Summers and Jason Furman (both of whom served in the Obama administration), and the nine economists appeared to back off from their original claims.[236]
According to The Guardian, thirteen tax law professors from around the US, in a 68-page study, called the law's process "rushed and secretive" that resulted "in deeply flawed legislation".[237][238]
In November 2017, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that "financial contributions will stop" flowing to the Republican Party if tax reform is unable to be enacted.[239] This echoed comments by Representative Chris Collins (R-NY), who said, "My donors are basically saying 'get it done or don't ever call me again.'"[240]
Some provisions were initially proposed for inclusion in the bill, but were excluded before final passage.
The bill that passed the House had been criticized for its significant negative impact on graduate students. Graduate students in private universities could have seen their effective tax rate go above 41.9%, a rate higher than what even the richest of Americans typically pay.[241] The change was due to a provision in the bill that would have repealed the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses, meaning that graduate students' waived tuition would be viewed as taxable income. Given that their stipends are significantly less than the waived tuition, this would typically increase their taxes by 30–60% for public universities and hundreds of percent for private ones.[242][243] The Senate version of the bill did not contain these provisions.[244]
The House bill's disadvantageous treatment of graduate students was criticized because of its projected negative effect on the training of U.S. scientists.[244] The bill's impact on U.S. science and innovation had been criticized by Stanford professor emeritus Burton Richter, a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and the National Medal of Science, who critiqued the bill's negative impact on Americans seeking advanced degrees and wrote that the budget impact of the tax cuts would force a dramatic reduction in federal funding for scientific research.[245]
The final version of the Act reflected the Senate's language in this area, maintaining the prior law's tax exemption for tuition waivers.[246]
Under the Statutory Pay-as-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO), laws that increase the federal deficit will trigger automatic spending cuts unless Congress votes to waive them. Because the Act adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit, automatic cuts of $150 billion per year over ten years would have applied, including a $25 billion annual cut to Medicare. Because the PAYGO waiver is not allowed in a reconciliation bill, it requires separate legislation which requires 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster.[247][248] If Congress had not passed the waiver, it would have been the first time that statutory PAYGO sequestration would have occurred.[249] However, the PAYGO waiver was included in the continuing resolution passed by Congress on December 22 and signed by President Trump.[250][251]
Analysis by FiveThirtyEight in November 2017 found the pending tax law to be the least-popular major tax bill in at least 36 years, including the tax increases of 1990 and 1993.[252] Apart from February 12, 2018, the RealClearPolitics composite of polls has indicated that at least a plurality of Americans has disliked the law from October 2017 through December 2018.[253]
House Republicans have written follow-on bills that would extend the individual tax cuts beyond their current expiration date, simplify the rules for Individual Retirement Accounts, and add new tax deductions for small businesses.[287]
The follow-on bills were written as three separate bills, named the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 (H.R. 6760), the Family Savings Act (H.R. 6757), and the American Innovation Act of 2018 (H.R. 6756).[288]
On September 27, the House of Representatives passed the Family Savings Act by a vote of a 240–177, and then it passed the American Innovation Act by a vote of 260–156.[289][290][291]
On September 28, the House of Representatives passed the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act by a vote of 220–191.[291][292] Several Republicans in the House voted against the bill to make permanent the $10,000 annual limit on federal tax deductions for state and local taxes because they represent states where residents tend to pay higher state and local taxes.[291]
The Build Back Better Act, in the version passed by the House in November 2021 (to be reconciled with the Senate),[293] repeals or partially reverses various provisions of the 2017 act, according to the summary given by House speaker Nancy Pelosi in her speech on the morning of passage.[294]
The zeroing out of the individual mandate, through this Act led to several states led by Texas to challenge the constitutionality of the entire ACA based on the Supreme Court's prior decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) which justified the individual mandate as an allowable tax. In December 2018, Judge Reed O'Connor of the District Court of Northern Texas issued his opinion in agreement with the states that without the individual mandate, the whole of the ACA had no standing. California and several other states led the appeal of the case to the Fifth Circuit Court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part with O'Connor's opinion on the unconstitutionality of the ACA without the individual mandate in December 2019. The case was raised to the Supreme Court to be heard as California v. Texas during the court's 2020–21 term; in a 7–2 decision issued on June 17, 2021, the Court ruled that Texas and other states that initially challenged the individual mandate did not have standing, as they had not shown past or future injury related to the provision. The Supreme Court otherwise did not rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in this case.[295][296][297]
In May 2024, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the provisions expiring in 2025 would add $4.6 trillion in deficits over 10 years.[14]
In July 2024, the Associated Press cited leading economists who estimated it would add over $5 trillion to the debt.[298]
Economists across the political spectrum have expressed concern that an extension would boost inflationary pressures.[11][12]
The Economist said extending the 2017 tax cuts would worsen America's dire fiscal trajectory, which would see growing inflation without significant tax increases or cuts to spending.[13]
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated that the top 5% of earners would get 45% of the benefits if extended.[299]
Harris wants to focus the cuts for working and middle class Americans such as by extending the Child Tax Credit and cutting taxes on tips.[300] She wants to raise taxes on Americans making more than $400,000 such as through capital gains and tightening the estate tax as well as raising the corporate tax rate half of the way up to its pre-2017 level.[300]
Trump wants to extend all of the tax cuts and add additional cuts including on corporations, tips, and social security payments.[300]
However, key Republican leaders have said that if they regain power in Congress, one of their favored policy solutions will be to cut taxes, by permanently extending tax cuts signed by former President Donald Trump. Economists across the ideological spectrum have warned that would boost inflationary pressures.
The biggest economic decision facing the next president is how generously to renew Donald Trump's tax cuts of 2017, a step that will only worsen America's dire fiscal trajectory.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help){{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)