# The 2017/2018 Trump/GOP tax plan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442 "2017-09-27T17:47:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/181 "2017-10-26T18:52:51Z")
I think this is it: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/71/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/71/text) But it looks like just a high-level guideline without much detail. But I don’t have much experience plumbing this particular .gov. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/182 "2017-10-26T19:00:37Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I was looking for some details re: amounts budgeted for individual agencies, etc., but I’m not seeing anything. What was passed is an overall blueprint that sets out aggregate levels of government-wide spending and revenues. It doesn’t determine what funding agencies would get for the upcoming year. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/183 "2017-10-26T19:03:10Z")
Well in this case “upcoming” started three and a half weeks ago. I was wondering if this passage meant we’d avoid shenanigans when the CR expires, but it seems not. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/184 "2017-10-26T19:04:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What was passed is an overall blueprint that sets out aggregate levels of government-wide spending and revenues. It doesn’t determine what funding agencies would get for the upcoming year. Is that part of what the presumably up-coming tax reform bill will do? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/185 "2017-10-26T19:18:54Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Is that part of what the presumably up-coming tax reform bill will do? Sort of. What Congress passed basically does a few things: 1. Provide general guidance on things like how much the government expects to spend in broad categories (Social Security, national defense including non-military agencies, etc); and also estimates of revenues and debt/deficits. 2. Directs committees to draft a tax reform measure within certain parameters, which is then protected from filibuster as long as it stays within those parameters. 3. Deals with various budget matters that are more along the line of housekeeping, rather than big policy changes. With this passed, Congress will be positioned to take up a few actual issues: start writing the tax bill, and perhaps engage in budget talks that would take away the threat of sequestration for the next year or two, which then allows Congress to put together the bills that actually fund the government (e.g., how much EPA will get, how many F-35 fighters the Air Force gets, etc). So you can probably see that what Congress passed is, in business parlance, more like a strategic plan than a day-to-day operations plan. > [@Ruken](#): > > Well in this case “upcoming” started three and a half weeks ago. I was wondering if this passage meant we’d avoid shenanigans when the CR expires, but it seems not. Correct. What Congress passed is not an appropriations bill, and the threat of a government shutdown on December 8th is still real. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/186 "2017-10-26T20:04:03Z")
Thank you. Appropriations, that’s what I need to be looking for. ---
**Author:** ![computergeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@computergeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/computergeek)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/187 "2017-10-29T12:54:28Z")
It seems the GOP tax overhaul planners want to severely limit contributions to 401(k)s to maybe $2400 a year or something similar. It seems it’s a scheme to get people to contribute to Roth IRAs so the govt can get their tax money up front to help pay for the tax plan. Trump tweeted that that’s off the table but the GOP seems to want to go ahead anyway, or at least look at it as a strong possibility. I say it’s one of the dumbest and damaging ideas they’ve come up with in a long time. This would greatly damage people’s retirements. There are few pensions anymore and 401(k)s are pretty popular, though mostly for the more well off. Eliminating the tax benefits will likely mean people will put in less money to their retirement fund, even if that’s a Roth. The less well off already don’t save enough, people shouldn’t get more discouragement to save. I hope there’s a lot of push back to this and that people wake up to the damage this can inflict on them. If the GOP tries to push this hard or actually implements it, I hope their electoral losses are huge in the next few elections. People may say Trump is the main threat to the republic, but it’s evident at least some in the GOP are as well. I’m not sure which wing of the GOP to blame this on ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/188 "2017-10-29T12:56:55Z")
They wouldn’t offset with Roth IRAs, but with Roth 401ks. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/189 "2017-10-29T16:20:44Z")
> [@computergeek](#): > > I say it’s one of the dumbest and damaging ideas they’ve come up with in a long time. This would greatly damage people’s retirements. There are few pensions anymore and 401(k)s are pretty popular, though mostly for the more well off. Eliminating the tax benefits will likely mean people will put in less money to their retirement fund, even if that’s a Roth. That’s not actually clear. The main reason it’s completely dumb not to contribute to a 401k is if and to the extent the contribution is matched by the employer. That would still be dumb if the contribution was ‘Roth-ized’, ie not deductible now but the returns on the investment and future withdrawals are tax free. It’s leaving free money on the table not to max out employer match. A lot of people don’t contribute beyond that, and those who do tend to be people determined to save responsibly for retirement so not clear they would any less with just Roth treatment. For IRA’s it’s more of a visible disincentive because the employer match doesn’t enter in (likewise arguably for Self Employed 401k’s, which have a much higher contribution limit than regular ones, but the workers themselves are the ‘employer’ making the matching contribution). Still, politics and ‘whatever Trump supports must be evil’\* aside it’s less than crystal clear what effect if any such a change would have on the savings rate. The underlying truth is that the 401/IRA system has resulted in a lot of people undersaving. It’s not obvious the same basic system with more of a tax incentive would fix that, nor again obvious a moderate reduction in the tax benefit (what’s been mooted apparently is not going from tax benefit to zero benefit, but regular or Roth\>just Roth, and some people choose the Roth route now) would make it worse. That said, the politics of if don’t look very favorable IMO. Perhaps (like most things) if it were just applied to higher incomes etc it would be more palatable. \*this reminds me of how some people on the right were in favor of a medical insurance mandate…until it became Obama’s idea. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/190 "2017-10-29T16:36:03Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > A lot of people don’t contribute beyond that, and those who do tend to be people determined to save responsibly for retirement so not clear they would any less with just Roth treatment. I’m in the category of exceeding my match but not hitting the program maximum, largely based on how much money I want to have leftover going into my checking account. So this actually would decrease how much I contribute. Probably. But I don’t know how many folks are in the same boat. And I don’t _need_ the break, as much as I like it. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/191 "2017-10-30T04:13:46Z")
This article would seem to indicate that the Republican party is planning to simply cut taxes, wholesale. [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/29/house-gop-tax-reform-debate-244282](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/29/house-gop-tax-reform-debate-244282) I thought that legislation needed to be budget neutral in order for it to be passed with a 51% majority? > [@DrDeth](#): > > How the FUCK would cutting corp income tax put $$ into the pockets or ordinary citizens? > > " > The analysis by Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said that the considerably lower rate would spur more investment by companies, which would then boost hiring and worker productivity. …Those figures, however, rely on research arguing that workers — rather than investors — would primarily benefit from the lower corporate rate." Yeah, since when have great profits been plowed into higher paychecks for the workers? Corporation usually run at a deficit, because investors hate stasis. They expect corporations to **grow** and, generally, the only way to do that is to dump all of your profits into growth initiatives. From a governmental perspective, this is quite good. Companies attempting to grow, constantly, is like algae trying to spread and compete for the available resources. They don’t just accept their little place and leave well-enough alone. If any new opportunity opens up, they run into it and take it over. When you consider that the “resources” in this example are workers, you might see why it’s good. You don’t want to see people unemployed. Whichever algae is the one that successfully takes the empty spot is the one that has successfully grown, and those investors and the company heads are rewarded, personally. The ones that failed to grow are punished. If you allow companies to keep a larger percentage of their revenue, they’ll put it into more growth initiatives. They’ll be even more aggressive in trying to make sure that every resource on the planet is being utilized, even if before the cost of entry had been too high. They won’t give more money to their existing employees, they’ll hire more employees, start building a new factory, or try to expand into a new market. In both of the two former cases, the money is creating jobs, (in the third case, it’s still creating jobs, just in foreign countries) and a person who has no job counts as a $0 on the set of data used to compute the “average income” metric. Once you give that person a job, there are fewer zeroes, and the “average income” goes up. It doesn’t raise the average worker’s income. It raises the nation’s average income. That all said, at peak employment, none of this does any good. You can’t use spare resources if there’s no spares. ---
**Author:** ![AI\_Proofreader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@AI\_Proofreader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AI_Proofreader)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/192 "2017-10-30T04:28:56Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If you allow companies to keep a larger percentage of their revenue, they’ll put it into more growth initiatives. **They’ll be even more aggressive in trying to make sure that every resource on the planet is being utilized** , even if before the cost of entry had been too high. Wow. How completely horrific. Yet another reason why trickle-down economic plans should be avoided… this is one bacteria who doesn’t want every available resource in the petri dish completely used up. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/193 "2017-10-30T05:03:01Z")
> [@AI\_Proofreader](#): > > Wow. How completely horrific. Yet another reason why trickle-down economic plans should be avoided… this is one bacteria who doesn’t want every available resource in the petri dish completely used up. I’d recommend that you stop using electricity then. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/194 "2017-10-30T10:56:17Z")
Yep, we can only use all the resources or none of them. Nothing in between. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/195 "2017-10-30T11:01:13Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Yep, we can only use all the resources or none of them. Nothing in between. When you’re talking about coal and oil, I’m reasonably sure that the logic of “Nationally Protected Forest” doesn’t work. There’s no equivalent to setting some aside for posterity. If you’re using it then you’re part of the problem and it’s as simple as that. That all said, I was pretty clear in my post that by ‘resources’ I meant labor, so I don’t feel like I really need to break out the heavy logic against a post that had nothing to do with mine beyond keying off a trigger word and running with it, despite the irrelevance to the topic at hand. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/196 "2017-10-30T16:08:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I will set aside the snarky strawman of “death knell for Kansas” and treat your comment like it was an actual question. Thanks. It was an (admittedly clumsy) attempt to illustrate my opinion that liberals tend to exaggerate the harm caused by Brownback’s tax cuts. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Trump’s tax cut plans are drawing parallels to Brownback’s tax cuts for a few reasons: > > 1. Both politicians are seeking pretty substantial tax cuts > 2. The individuals who benefit most under both plans are the high income type, not the lower or middle income type > 3. Both politicians said that the tax cuts would result in dramatically increased growth > > Kansas’ experiment with large tax cuts resulted in less growth than neighboring states, cuts to programs that most people like (such as education and transportation), Kansas’ bond rating went down, and the Republican-controlled legislature recently had to reverse some of the tax cuts because they just were not delivering anything that was promised. > > If one fairly compares the conservative criticism of Obamacare to the liberal criticism of tax cuts, how accurate is the criticism of each controversial policy? > > It’s pretty clear that some of the promises made for the ACA were generally kept (coverage rates went up by a substantial margin) and others, not so much (if you like your plan…). > > It’s pretty clear that the promises of the Kansas tax cut are pretty much all in the “not so much” camp. I’m not an expert in Kansas fiscal policy, but I have read about it a fair bit, and I can’t name an area where a promise was mostly kept. > > [Kansas’ Experiment With Tax Cutting Failed on Its Own Terms - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-experiment-with-tax-cutting-failed-on-its-own-terms-2017-6) Thanks for your even-handed analysis (such a thing is a bit of a rarity these days, even on the SDMB). I haven’t actually checked the figures, but I’m prepared to accept your word that it was “less growth than neighboring states”. My vague impression is that the repeal was motivated mostly by the pressure put on the state .gov’s budget, and less by concern about the health of the overall economy, but I’d be interested to hear your impressions of it. ---
**Author:** ![chilidoggg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@chilidoggg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chilidoggg)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/197 "2017-11-01T20:26:40Z")
Is it true that tax cuts automatically increase reported GDP? IIRC in High School Economics the GDP calculations add up all the rents of factors of production, and then SUBTRACT taxes collected. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/198 "2017-11-01T21:46:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Thanks for your even-handed analysis (such a thing is a bit of a rarity these days, even on the SDMB). I haven’t actually checked the figures, but I’m prepared to accept your word that it was “less growth than neighboring states”. My vague impression is that the repeal was motivated mostly by the pressure put on the state .gov’s budget, and less by concern about the health of the overall economy, but I’d be interested to hear your impressions of it. First, thank you for the nice words. I agree that sometime the best benefit of the board is learning about new issues and things – which I do frequently – and I hate when people take potshots like, “What?! You don’t know ANYTHING about differential frequency modulation in your iPhone’s camera gonkulator? Why are you even posting in this thread!!!” No, I’m a human, and I’m not omniscient, nor to I pretend to be by doing five seconds worth of regurgitating a wikipedia article. Anyway. I think the tax cuts were probably pushed through as a matter of dogma: it was simply taken as an article of faith that tax cuts lead to all sorts of wonderful things. From cutting social spending to spurring the economy, to making wages go up and new inventions possible, to getting your teeth whiter and your kids to love you more. That’s probably a biased view, but if I thought there was a factual explanation, like “Brownback was informed by a study that showed A, B, and C,” I would admit that. But instead, I just think it was “tax cuts=good for what ails ya!” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/199 "2017-11-01T23:18:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > First, thank you for the nice words. I agree that sometime the best benefit of the board is learning about new issues and things – which I do frequently – and I hate when people take potshots like, “What?! You don’t know ANYTHING about differential frequency modulation in your iPhone’s camera gonkulator? Why are you even posting in this thread!!!” No, I’m a human, and I’m not omniscient, nor to I pretend to be by doing five seconds worth of regurgitating a wikipedia article. > > Anyway. > > I think the tax cuts were probably pushed through as a matter of dogma: it was simply taken as an article of faith that tax cuts lead to all sorts of wonderful things. From cutting social spending to spurring the economy, to making wages go up and new inventions possible, to getting your teeth whiter and your kids to love you more. > > That’s probably a biased view, but if I thought there was a factual explanation, like “Brownback was informed by a study that showed A, B, and C,” I would admit that. But instead, I just think it was “tax cuts=good for what ails ya!” I am not sure if Higher GOP politcos beleive this. They just want their taxes cut and to be able to sell it to the public. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442/200 "2017-11-02T17:12:25Z")
The [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act](https://waysandmeansforms.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_text.pdf) has been released. At a svelte 429 pages, I’m sure we’ll all have it practically memorized in a jiffy. For a more succinct summary, you can check your favorite news source. > **[GOP tax bill: No changes to 401(k), doubles deductions for middle class,...](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-tax-bill-no-changes-to-401k-doubles-deductions-for-middle-class-limits-state-and-local-tax)** > > House Republicans on Thursday unveiled their long-awaited tax bill which preserves the popular 401K retirement account, lowers rates for many individual households but trims deductions for state and local taxes. > **[What's in the House tax bill for people](https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/news/economy/house-tax-reform-bill-individuals/index.html)** > > The House Republican tax bill gives a detailed look at how House Republicans want to reshape the tax code. > **[Details of GOP Tax Plan Revealed](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/details-of-gop-tax-plan-revealed-1087003715980)** > > NBC's Kasie Hunt has news details on the GOP tax plan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2017-2018-trump-gop-tax-plan/797442.md?page=11)