Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus for a split to a new page titled Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The lack of consensus was because of the limited participation and because editors later in the discussion began discussing other subjects. There is no prejudice against creating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to discuss this again and hopefully receive more participation and discussion.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support split - Article is over 100 kB and should be split to a new page entitled Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably needs to be summarized, but do not support a split at this time.18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

After it is signed into law and people have had a chance to calm down, I think that some of the details in the article about how it was passed (the various non-final versions and the votes on them) may be deleted as no longer of interest. That should make the article shorter again. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone added the phrase "of 2017" back. As far as I know, that is not in the actual title or text of the bill. Maybe I missed something??? Famspear (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: Eventually, we probably need to change the name of the article to reflect the actual name of the Act, which is "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (there is no "of 2017" in the title). Famspear (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The actual name of the final bill is apparently An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018 (see here. Neutrality^talk 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the proposed Short Title was removed in the Senate and does not appear in the law, it should not be used at all. Not just Wikipedia, but America in general needs to come up with a description that is handier than the full name. Something like, "Budget reconciliation tax act of 2017" or "Congressional tax act of 2017". TCJA was the House bill's Short Title. Better news outlets are simply referring to the new tax law or to tax "reform".Hoofin (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't support a split at this time. Neutrality^talk 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: The phrase "An Act To provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018" is what is called a "long title." It is the long title of the bill.

The phrase "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" is called the "short title." Or, it would be the short title of this bill -- except that in the "enrolled bill" (the version finally approved by both House and Senate, to be sent to the President for signature), it appears that the "short title" provision was actually stripped out of the bill -- possibly some time on Tuesday, December 19, before the final Senate vote (and before the second House vote, which was the final House vote). I didn't realize this until the enrolled bill was published (apparently today, Thursday, December 21).

To make things even more confusing, the phrase "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" remains in nine other places in the text of the enrolled bill. In other words, the Congress officially removed the "short title" from the "short title" clause, but failed to remove it from the rest of the bill.

There is also a drafting error in the provision on alimony income that was identified during mark up in the House, back in November, that was never corrected.

After considering the errors, I believe the best name for the article should nevertheless be "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (but without the "of 2017" verbiage). All bills contain "long titles," and no one -- not even the courts who interpret the statutes -- normally refer to statutes using the long titles. Famspear (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: I suspect that the "short title" provision was stricken from the bill at almost the last minute to make the bill comply with a particular restriction in the Byrd Rule, found in section 313 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. no. 93-344 (July 12, 1974), as amended, and as codified at subsection (a) of 2 U.S.C. § 644. Famspear (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The long title is" An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018." btw, it's in the infobox. I also do not support a split at this time, but I think it does need to be summarized and updated. Some of the details about the differences of the House and Senate bills would be better moved into a background section now that the bill has passed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - Post to prevent archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of the Bill versus Name of the Act. Reading the entry over, the introduction has in recent days correctly identified the Public Law by its real name. However, along the article, there are still references to the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" as if that was the name of the law, NOT the name of the bill. I don't have any objections to referring to the BILL as "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", but the LAW that was enacted is called by its long name. It is really a budget reconciliation tax act with no short name. That is what Congress approved.

There are certified public accounting "continuing professional education" (CPE) companies referring to "Tax Cuts and Jobs" or the useless acronym "TCJA", which refers to a bill not a law. I flag those as companies that aren't really credible to tell me what was in the law---since they didn't even get the update as to the name.

Wikipedia should only refer to proposals in the bill as TCJA, and the actual law as "2017 tax act". It doesn't matter if there is a reference in the final product to TCJA, which is the excuse some people use to still call it TCJA. That is just poor editing.Hoofin (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Hoofin: In professional literature and continuing education courses, neither legal nor accounting professionals generally refer to any law enacted by Congress by its long title -- regardless of whether there is a short title for the law or not. Yes, the short title provision in section 1 of the bill was deleted just before the bill was finally passed by Congress, and yes, that means that the short title provision is not found in the actual law as signed by the President. But there is simply no rule -- in professional accounting literature or here in Wikipedia -- that requires agonizing over what is really an insignificant detail. Famspear (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: As may have been noted elsewhere in this talk page, the phrase "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" is found in nine different places in the text of the law as signed by the President. In relevant part, the only thing that was deleted just before final passage was the "short title" provision (which was in section 1 of the text just before the provision was deleted). Maybe this can be considered sloppy work by Congress (in a last-minute action to comply with the Byrd Rule), but legal professionals know the difference between material errors and immaterial errors in the text of a statute. Famspear (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but again, it's the same problem as with ACA (PPACA) and "Obamacare". There is no "Obamacare" as an Act of Congress. The Byrd Rule was employed in the Senate to require that the name "Tax Cuts and Jobs" meet the 60-vote hurdle in order to pass the Senate. It could not. That means, it was stripped from the bill that actually became law.

The Wikipedia entry pretends that the deliberate removal of the name was somehow a fluke, when, in fact, it was a deliberate measure taken because the title of the bill was misleading. Not everyone receives a tax cut. The bill did not appropriate money for jobs. The bill had a highly politicized name which did not make the final law.

Legal professionals know the difference between something enacted and something proposed. We also understand the difference between people politicking a law by inappropriately referring to a nickname (like "Obamacare" or "Death Tax") and what the plain text, or the legislative history, indicates. It is not a footnote that "Tax Cuts and Jobs" was rejected as a name. It was done using reconciliation rules because it could not be supported by the sixty-vote threshold.Hoofin (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

To Hoofin: The title "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" is not misleading. Most people will receive a tax cut (at least for several years) and the corporations certainly received a large tax cut. That is also why it will allow business to create jobs which they will. The title did not say "government jobs" just "jobs" which includes private sector jobs. In any case, government spending does not create jobs on the whole because it destroys more jobs than it makes. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That last part is nonsense, in that demand creates jobs, not tax cuts, and the demand can be from either the private or public sector. No one talked that nonsense prior to Ronald Reagan. A job is a job, whichever sector creates it. The slanted Short Title was removed in the Senate because of this very real difference of opinion. No one is convinced by one-time bonuses by a handful of companies that are looking for good press that somehow having a raid on the public Treasury is somehow going to create anything but larger money piles in the hands of a few. Certain Americans live off television too much, so a corporate bonus seems like a nice game-show "prize" for letting a corporation raid the public Treasury. But most people understand that they are being given a small piece of Treasury money in exchange for others taking wheelbarrows out.Hoofin (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) "Demand creates jobs" is wrong. A full-time job or equivalent requires at least a certain minimum amount of resources (speaking here of good and services, not money) to provide for the needs of the employee (food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc.) and the work-space, tools, and raw materials consumed by his job. A large part of the output of production in the private sector must be used for that purpose in order to be able to continue or grow production. Diversion of resources to non-productive purposes (such as monument building, war, imposing and complying with taxes and regulations, and extending the lives of dying people) or less than optimally productive purposes will reduce the resources available to provide jobs. If carried too far, this could resulting in a shrinking economy and general impoverishment. Government spending is, in most cases, a means of causing such a diversion.

(2) If you look at ATR's list of benefits of TCJA, you should see that they are not limited to bonuses (some companies have given pay raises or are making investments which will require more workers) nor is the number of companies a mere handful.

(3) A tax cut is not "a raid on the ... Treasury". Rather it is reducing the raids that the Treasury makes on the public. Wealth is created by the private sector, it does not come straight from God (or Congress) to the Treasury.

(4) Corporations will use the money they save to: cut prices to their customers, raise salaries of their workers, expand their operations (which requires hiring more workers), or distribute more to their investors/shareholders. The investors will not stuff the money into a mattress, they will either re-invest it and expand business (growing the economy) or spend to fulfil their own needs. Also notice that many investors are ordinary people acting through their pension funds. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TL;DR table summarizing ALL net effects of the bill by income slice

Need a table of net after-tax, after-premium payment, effects. By income slice and year.

For the TL;DR people is there a table anywhere in any article that summarizes ALL the tax, individual mandate repeal, higher insurance premiums, etc. effects by income slice (quintiles, top 10%, top 1%, etc.)? And additional tables for each year: 2018, 2019, 2020 through 2025, etc..

I see such charts for the tax effects, but not for the combined net effects that incorporate the higher insurance premiums for some middle class and higher income groups due to the ACA Obamacare cost shifting due to the repeal of the individual mandate. I am talking about the increase in ACA subsidies for people with lower incomes having to be made up for by insurance companies who increase premiums for people with higher incomes. Also, some lower income people will get a decrease in premium cost after counting the insurance and subsidy changes. Compared to last year.

I am probably not understanding or explaining that all well. But you get my point. Which is "what is the bottom line?"

We need to find some charts or data in some reliable articles. And create similar charts on Wikipedia by using that data. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The CBO table with the highlight includes the effects of fewer subsidies going to lower income persons as well as the tax cuts but does assume the tax cut is deficit financed (i.e., the deficit goes up). It's as close as you'll get. You can convert the income ranges into approximate quintiles based on the TPC studies that all include their quintile cutoffs. If you want to also factor in the assumption that the tax cuts will be paid for, that's the TPC study in the "If the tax cuts are paid for" section.Farcaster (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

JCT distributional analyses included the number of taxpayers in each of the income ranges included in the CBO studies, which of course can get you the % of people in each income range.Farcaster (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cropping, notating, and highlighting the chart from page 2 of the CBO pdf. What did you use to highlight the chart? The Commons page needs a link to the CBO source for the chart. It is public domain, of course, since it is from the federal government. Of course that means you can put your adapted version as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" as you did.

File:JCT Distribution Table - Conf Version v2.png. Your chart adaptation. I think it should be in the lead section of the article since it best summarizes the net effect of the bill for various income categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There is text in the lead (the bullets) that summarizes the chart. I copied the chart into a Power Point slide then used yellow blocks with the transparency settings around 50% so the underlying text is visible. I'll add the citation to the commons page as well.Farcaster (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the meaning of the current table. I would like a different table that breaks it down to how much the average individual and/or household in each income category gains or loses each year: 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The JCT has a table in their distributional analysis that indicates how many people are in each income range by year. It's in the version cited along with the CBO table data in the lead. You could divide the CBO $ amount by that for an amount per person in each cell.Farcaster (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe someday when I actually learn how to use spreadsheets I could enter the formulas, etc.. I only know how to paste in stuff into Calc. And do a little formatting I have figured out by playing with the menus. Someone skilled in spreadsheets is needed. Or an article where someone has done this. We can't be the only ones curious for this per-person per capita breakdown by income category. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I figured out a way to copy the current table from the PDF and convert it to a wikitext table. See:

Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files#PDF table to LibreOffice Calc to wikitext

In 2008 I created a table image with some background cell coloring. I may have copied it by hand to wikitext:

commons:File:Obama McCain taxes.gif

It is easy to add background color to cells once the table is in wikitext format. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've created the chart, by dividing the CBO estimate of dollar impact overall for the group by the JCT estimate of number of persons in group. Will post shortly. Perhaps a wikitable guru can then create a table in the article for it.Farcaster (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work! commons:File:1-Distribution of Impact per Taxpayer v1.png - Where can I download the spreadsheet? I can convert it to a wikitable. I can paste that below the commons file. That is what I and others do on statistics charts on the Commons. That way people can choose between the image or the wikitable for Wikipedia articles. It also makes it easy to do further work, and adapt the chart, change the format, incorporate into other data charts, copy it off-wiki for use elsewhere, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Since Basic is now using spreadsheets as it’s platform, charts and graphs can be animated. If you have Excel on your computer, a simple math operation to demonstrate this can be downloaded from the cloud. It is necessary to add two spin buttons that rapidly change the variables from your developer’s tab. https://1drv.ms/x/s!AgZuWd3s3NnsgRWpGYQd33cIlE9I

From what I understand, Wikipedia could incorporate Excel into its servers and imbed the spreadsheet into this page.Alesander (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Status of PAYGO waiver

PAYGO (which sequesters entitlement spending if the deficit is too large) is mentioned in four parts of the article: in a paragraph in the lead; in the section Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Automatic spending cuts averted; in the section Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Required spending reductions/PAYGO; and the section Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Healthcare and spending subject to sequester. Only the second of these four says that the waiver was passed as part of the continuing resolution which Trump signed to avert a shutdown after December 22. This is supported by the citation << Edgerton, Anna; Wasson, Erik (2017-12-21). "House GOP Pushes Funding Gambit Day Ahead of Shutdown Deadline". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2017-12-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) >>. The other three do not acknowledge that fact. When CostinRazvan tried to correct the lead, he was reverted by Snooganssnoogans.

Unless someone has reason to believe that the citation mentioned is mistaken or misleading, then the other three mentions of PAYGO should be corrected. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is mistaken. PAYGO has not been waived.Farcaster (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I was mistaken. It was waived. I've updated the article.Farcaster (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"Cloud tables?"

Cloud section @Alesander: I think these kind of comparisons are useful for article, but I think it needs to be presented a little differently than in a external document. What do you think using wikitables directly in the article? Also, are these figures cited somewhere so it's clear where these values come from? I JethroBT drop me a line 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to describe the content of these Cloud tables some more. For example, what do each of the column headers stand for? Fills is a term I've never seen. What are the computations of savings? Can you write one out with text to illustrate how the table works (i.e., pick a row and walk people through it). Thanks.Farcaster (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a bone to pick. I displayed data that was off by a lot until last weekend. I made a mistake and followed a reference from Wikipedia’s main tax page to the prestigious Cornell website. Apparently,Prometheus, son of Iapetus, has some smelly leftover stuffing from the inside of that ox’s intestines. Alesander (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesander (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a long unreferenced section called "Cloud tables." Is this original research? I could not find that term defined in Wikipedia, or even by Googling it. It is not clear what it means, and the explanation is inadequate. "Fills" is not adequately explained. If it cannot be better explained and referenced to a reliable source it does not belong in the article.Edison (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Cloud tables name came about by accident. It was originally a link to a spreadsheet on the cloud. The fills are written into the bills In association with the tax brackets and are listed in the IRS tax tables, but they are not named. They are the amount of tax owed as that bracket is crossed. The reference for the 2017 brackets was taken out. It was in the first senate draft. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4192857-Senate-GOP-tax-plan.html#search/p1/TAX The 2018 brackets are from the new law. This is a spreadsheet and the formula is written from the governments method of taxation. .+IF(B32>ark_6,(IF(B32>ark_7,ark_7,B32)-ark_6)*ax_6,0)+……. Alesander (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems like confusing original research and I think it should be removed. Tables should come directly from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is mechanical. These are not estimates and there is no conclusion. You and your cabal are relegating Wikipedia to just pictures of charts and graphs. Alesander (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Need an "Endorsements" section to balance the "Objections" section

To fix the relentlessly negative tone of this article, we should add a section to balance the "Objections" section. There is a resource which could be used for this, namely Americans for Tax Reform's list of Companies Announcing Bonuses, Wage Hikes, Charitable Donations. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This might not be the way to balance it, as these payouts are tiny fractions of the benefits these corporations are getting. Further, the corporations will be getting these benefits every year, while the bonuses are positioned as one-time.Farcaster (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the many companies listed have announced increases in their minimum or starting wages. I know that the bonuses are one-time, but I believe that that is because the companies need time to experience how the new economic situation will work out before they decide how much to raise their wages and salaries permanently. Some of the larger companies (like AT&T) are giving over $100,000,000 before receiving any benefit to themselves. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we can just add a subsection under the "Impact" section for "Wage and bonus increases". We can summarize the link you included. We should balance it with an example of what share of compensation expense or the reduction in taxes that represents for a large public company where we can use the annual report. We'll be able to evaluate trickle-down in a straightforward empirical way!Farcaster (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

People benefit from the success of other people. Some disparage this as "trickle-down economics", but if it were not for this fact, we would all still be living in caves.

I object to the idea that we should look at the fraction of the benefit, rather than the absolute amount. That is taking a zero-sum view of the world and the world is not zero-sum.

In any case, it will take years before the full effects of the tax change become apparent. And even then, few will be able to see the difference from the hypothetical world that would have been had this tax cut not occurred. If they think about it at all, they will think: "It was always this way.", "God gave us this.", "The government made it possible." or some such baloney. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

JRSpriggs An "endorsements" section sounds like a good way to improve the WP:NPOV and better present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". I'll suggest retitling and expanding the section currently "Claims by the Administration", to add what other supporters such as Congress and Business leaders said. But I'm thinking the pay like WalMart minimum wage and bonuses would perhaps need a later section about actual effects that occurred after passage rather than in the sections about arguments for/against. Might also include how Apple and such are paying $100Billion plus in 2018 for the funds they are repatriating from Ireland. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If we have a "Wages and bonuses" impact section, it will be important to properly balance it. For example, Apple's bonus of $2,500 per employee across its 123,000 employees is about $307.5 million. That is about 0.7% of the $44.8 billion in its stock buybacks and dividends in 2017, completely supporting the Democrats claim that the vast majority of benefits would go to shareholders. Further, Apple is a distributed enterprise with many of the workers who build its products (many in China) contracted to other companies that did not receive any of this. We also have to compare any claims of U.S. investment against the existing rates of investment, to see how much is incremental. Further, we have to point out that Apple was already avoiding paying a massive amount of U.S. taxes and took this opportunity to repatriate at 15%, due in part because it would have to under the revised law anyway at the 21% rate if it delayed doing so (I have to confirm that last part).Farcaster (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Farcaster - if that has significant coverage among the RS, then sure that benefit would also be listed in whatever second section. Or if it's in a speech by Democrats that had sufficient RS coverage, then it gets phrased as something Democrats said. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tariffs?

Does the final version impose tariffs?--Beneficii (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Beneficii (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

While there was some talk early on about taking away the business deduction for the cost of imported inputs (which would be equivalent to imposing a 21% tariff), I think that that was dropped because of an uproar against it. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What I was referring to in my previous comment is the Border-adjustment tax (United States). It was the very early version of the Republican plan for tax reform. Taking away the deduction was supposed to "pay for" the over-all cut in the corporate tax rate. It was also supposed to: reduce out-sourcing, reduce corporate inversions (making US companies into subsidiaries of foreign companies to avoid US taxes on their foreign operations), and make America more tax-competitive with other countries.

However, it did not work out that way. Instead, other changes were found to "pay for" the corporate tax cut. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This Article is Unacceptably Biased

This article has more than a page worth of criticisms without listing the benefits. This is an extremely biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There are entire sections on the impact on the economy and distribution. If you don't consider those benefits, then welcome to the fact-based world. I hope you like it.Farcaster (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

GlobalPoliticalCulture - sure, so go ahead and improve the WP:NPOV by adding whatever benefits have prominent coverage in the RS coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Article title

There is currently a revert war going on over the name of the Act. This needs to be decided through consensus discussion here and not in edit comments. The notice at the head of this page specifically states that "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

This issue also embraces the article title, which needs to reflect the consensus reached. The two current candidate forms of words appear to be 2017 tax act (uncapitalized) and Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (capitalized), the best solution may prove to be something else. It will help any proposed wording if supporting comments are evidence-based, i.e. supported by citations of reliable sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Steelpillow, you are not exactly correct on the revert. The title of the article is "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", but the article is referring to the name of the bill before the law was enacted. That particular name was removed in the Senate before the final vote on the act, and the House went along with excising the proposed name. What Trump signed was not "Tax Cuts and Jobs", only a bill that had previously been called that.

For purposes of the Wikipedia entry, it is probably more likely that people will look up "Tax Cuts and Jobs", but the law is not named that. So in places down-article where the reference is obviously to the law, and not the bill, the reference has to be a generic reference. In places where the bill had been analyzed, there it's probably acceptable to refer to the prior name.

One or two commenters have tried to politicize this into saying that if we don't accept "Tax Cuts and Jobs", then somehow WE (i.e the people who oppose the name) are politicizing. But that's not true. The name was considered inappropriate in the Senate by the minority, and that minority used the same rules that Republicans had used in the minority to get the name changed. There is a reason that was done, and they succeeded at it. It's cute that people would say that if it appears in other parts of the Act, then the Senate really didn't mean to change the name, and it just amounted to some sort of vandalism by the minority of an otherwise accurately-titled bill. The minority in the Senate, using the Byrd Rule, found the proposed Short Title offensive enough that they wanted it off the bill. Along come certain Wikipedia contributors who decide that, no, despite what the Senate did, they want to stick with and promote the cutesy name, taking a page right out of the Frank Luntz book of misnaming laws to achieve political goals.

References to the law should be to a generic description. References to the bill can be to the prior name. Ideally, Wikipedia would want to point a 2017 tax act search to the main page.Hoofin (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. For the record, I am uninterested in the truth per se but only in the encyclopedic process of reaching a stable consensus and I rejected the edit only because the article has been partially protected and it was non-consensual. I opened this discussion to try and fix that.

Anyway, from what you say there appear to be three separate issues to be resolved. For the article title Wikipedia requires the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources subsequent to its name change (subject to disambiguation). We need to reach consensus on whether that should be the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. the 2017 tax act (US) or something else. For the article content, the other common name and the official name when finally passed into law need to be stated at least once (the full name already is). Thirdly, although it is normally down to editorial discretion which name gets repeated where needed, because of the page protection conditions currently in place, we also need to reach consensus on that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) [rewritten 13:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)]

Has there been any progress made on how the different aspects of what became the 2017 tax act will be described here? I still see the same inaccurate content.Hoofin (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, there has only been the ongoing discussion you have been having above this thread. It's a problem with these contentious disagreements and partial protection, until somebody can draw a community consensus out of the arguments, the article stays in its current arbitrary state. WP:CONSENSUS explains some optional ways ahead. Given that the issues have been well aired in those discussions above here, my best suggestion is that you consider soliciting outside opinions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

On top of all that, there still seems to be some confusion about what the original name of the bill was. Unless someone can find a source to the contrary, my understanding is that the official title -- right up almost to the end -- was "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", not "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017." The phrase "of 2017" was created by one or more Wikipedia editors, as far as I know. I have never seen any official preliminary draft of the bill that included the suffix "of 2017". Famspear (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the web site for Congress. The bill was introduced on November 2, 2017. The original text says "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". The verbiage "of 2017" simply is not there. This was an error by the Wikipedia editor who created the article. Famspear (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be weird. People who know better, know that there is no "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", either with a year attached or not. It's not the final law that was signed. Yet I get numerous solicitations from otherwise reputable "continuing professional education" companies that refer to the reconciliation law as "Tax Cuts and Jobs". A number of these companies are just money-grabbers, but some of them I used to really respect. It seems people and media who know, refer to it simply as the "tax act". I have some clients for which there is no tax cut at all--they will receive a tax hike. The Republicans' turning the name of a law into some kind of make-a-wish or mantra has really screwed things up. Wikipedia currently just multiplies it. So much for any authoritativeness here.Hoofin (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on article titles is to use the common name where an obvious one exists, even if it is technically the wrong one (I know, it's a hard one to swallow when you know what is right, but that's policies for you). The correct title of the Act should be given in the article text, which it already appears to be. The above comments would suggest to me that the article should be moved to Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (currently a redirect), as that is what almost everybody appears to call it. There is guidance on how to go about this process at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Hoofin: As someone who is generally pretty strict about getting details right, I understand how you feel. However, I believe we've already been over the point that the detail -- that the short title provision (originally naming various working drafts of the bill as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act") is not found in the bill as actually enacted into law -- is really an insignificant detail.

CCH/Wolters Kluwer is already advertising their guide to the new law, and CCH has entitled the guide as -- get ready.... wait for it.... -- yes, "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Law, Explanation and Analysis" (published January 22, 2018). I'm not trying to advertise for CCH, and I'm not buying their book -- but the argument that CCH would be "no longer reputable" or not "authoritative" merely because CCH refers to this law by a name that admittedly does not appear in any short title provision of the actual text would be a specious argument. Now, I'm not saying that you have made that specific argument.

There are many things about the new law that are important, and which have received little if any exposure. For example, there is a drafting error in the law regarding the attempt to make the receipt of alimony be non-taxable. I don't see anyone agonizing over that mistake -- and the mistake might well go unnoticed by the Internal Revenue Service. (I won't bother everyone with the technical details, but the new law is not properly worded to make the receipt of alimony be non-taxable.)

I agree with another editor who indicated that the title of the article could be changed to omit the phrase "of 2017," which has never been found in any draft of the bill of which I am aware. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• By Google count, "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" seems the WP:COMMONNAME, and it also is the title here at Congress.gov ... Other forms like "Tax Cuts Act" also are fairly common, but the current title with "of 2017" seems OK by me. Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the "of 2017" was a product of wishful thinking — someone was hoping that there would be another "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" in a future year and wanted to distinguish this one from that one. I am OK with either leaving it as it is, given the redirect, or moving it over the redirect. But switching to a less descriptive name would be a mistake. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that a Google search, at this point, is indicative of whether Public Law 115-97 should be referred to, here, as "Tax Cuts and Jobs". "Tax Cuts and Jobs" was simply a proposed short title, which, as I have pointed out, was rejected by the Senate. What the President signed was not a "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", but, rather, something that had been proposed as "Tax Cuts and Jobs". It is like Social Security. The original name suggested was "Economic Security Act". Sometime later in 1935, one of the Houses decided it should be called "Social Security Act". And that is what President Roosevelt signed. He didn't sign the "Economic Security Act". He signed the Social Security Act. What Wikipedia is doing is proclaiming that the rejected Short Title is, in fact, the name of the bill. Better resources (ones that read about or know of the name controversy) are simply referring to it as "tax reform" or the "new tax law". Crappier, lazier, or issue-biased firms are still saying "Tax Cuts and Jobs". Even CCH, apparently. I don't think that makes those references authoritative. I think it makes them suspect, because there were a number of changes in the fast-moving act. If you can't keep up with the changes, how credible are you as an authority on the final product? Shame the Wikipedia still refers to the LAW as "Tax Cuts and Jobs", as opposed to the BILL being given that designation.Hoofin (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

recent edit

I've reverted this edit.

Changing "higher budget deficit" to "critics ... argued that the law would lead to a higher budget deficit" is not right, since it is uncontested that the law will indeed lead to higher budget deficits. Similarly, changing "the misrepresentations made by its advocates" to "some also argued that the bill's provisions were misrepresented by its advocates" is also not right — for one things, the misrepresentations were predominantly about the effects/impact of the law, not its provisions.

I'm not adverse to changing the wording but this is not the way to do it. Neutrality^talk 01:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Before I made my edits, the sentence read:

"Critics in the media, think tanks and academia assailed the law in terms of its adverse impact (e.g. higher budget deficit,[14] higher trade deficit,[15] worse income inequality,[16][17] lower healthcare coverage and higher healthcare costs),[12] disproportionate impact on certain states and professions[18][19] and the misrepresentations made by its advocates.[20][21]"

I proposed that the sentence be edited as follows:

"Some critics in the media, think tanks and academia argued that the law would lead to a higher budget deficit, a higher trade deficit, worse income inequality, lower healthcare coverage, higher healthcare costs, and a disproportionate impact on certain states and professions; some also argued that the bill's provisions were misrepresented by its advocates."

The problem with the sentence as it is currently worded is that it assumes we can see into the future. For example, nobody knows whether the law will lead to higher budget deficits. The consensus prediction is that it will, but that is just a prediction. The law could unleash a period of historic economic growth that would generate enough additional revenue to offset the lower tax rates. I think that's unlikely, but it's not impossible. Nobody has a crystal ball. That is the problem with many of the other criticisms contained in the sentence (greater income inequality, higher healthcare costs, etc.); these are predictions of future events, and thus cannot be stated as if they are facts. Also, the criticism about disproportionate impacts on states is a matter of opinion. As written, the sentence is not encyclopedic. It can't be left this way. I stand by my edits. How would you solve the problem? SunCrow (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As the sources reflect, virtually no economist or other relevant expert thinks that the law will "unleash a period of historic economic growth that would generate enough additional revenue to offset the lower tax rates." Neutrality^talk 01:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

But again, the encyclopedia can't state that criticism (or other criticisms) as factual when it is, essentially, a prediction. How would you rephrase the sentence to correct this problem? SunCrow (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Do any economic sources cast doubt on the statement? Neutrality^talk 04:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding "Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017"

Article Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is over 100 kB and should be split to a new page entitled Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. This article could certainly be shortened. But the solution isn't to split out the "Objections" section. The solution is cut it way, way, way down. It's absurdly long and totally WP:UNDUE. Compare to PPACA#Opposition: PPACA has had over a decade of "objections" and then repeal efforts, and that section is a fraction of the length. The "Polls" section is also undue. These sections together give the article an overall anti-TCJA POV bias. Then we have a whole section called "Cloud tables" without a single source. Wtf is a cloud table and why is it in this article? The whole thing needs a major trim. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not really necessary. We should focus on removing excessive verbiage in the objections section instead. Neutrality^talk 01:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

From my count 41 kB (6819 words) "readable prose size" using the page size tool. According to WP:SIZE, we might still have a bit. PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)