Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

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.

"would contribute to deficit reduction" <-- you mean "would see their taxes rise"

Is there any reason why we're using the euphemistic and weaselly phrasing "would contribute to deficit reduction" rather than stating in plain English "would see their taxes increase"? Volunteer Marek 00:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Many of them would not pay higher taxes, rather they would not receive a subsidy to help purchase health insurance because they chose not to buy insurance after the penalty of the individual mandate was repealed. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Technically, a subsidy is a negative tax, so "higher taxes" would still be correct, but I see what you mean. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've wrestled with that language too. Would "incur a net cost" and "receive a net benefit" be an effective replacement?Farcaster (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be better. The key aspect here is the tax/subsidy to the individual, not the effect on government finances (which are important but that's a separate topic). Volunteer Marek 18:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the low income group which is portrayed as paying a cost or having their taxes raised, no such thing will happen to them. The only way they could lose is if (1) they choose to drop health insurance only because the penalty (of the individual mandate) has been repealed, and (2) they experience unexpectedly high medical expenses, so that they regret their choice. If #2 does not occur, then the loss of the subsidy is no true loss for them because the subsidy was entirely eaten up by the insurance premiums which they have avoided paying and only paid out of fear of the penalty. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The CBO explains their rationale in their study. Millions will lose coverage (either leaving the exchanges or Medicaid), so the subsidies will be reduced. That is a cost to that group, as they no longer have affordable healthcare. A typical male age 40 non-smoker can get health insurance for around $200/month after subsidy. I don't think the impact of everyone else paying higher premiums because of those freeloaders going to emergency rooms without the ability to pay is included in the CBO study.Farcaster (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Actual final law location?

Can someone point me at the final version of the actual law? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.226.225 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Spoon! (talk · contribs) (see above) for this link to the final text. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2017 (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)

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)