What's in the Big Beautiful bill (1 Viewer)

[gbg3]

Info is starting to roll out on the early draft of the House version. This will be likely to change in some ways, but we can get a pretty good idea of what to expect from this fairly informative Bloomberg piece this morning.

How about a more old-fashioned political forum discussion where we actually simply discuss what you like and don't like in the bill and keep that the topic?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/salt-tips-auto-loans-guide-211810280.html

 

[BirdinHand]

Sounds like it’s going to balloon the deficit.

What are those estimations? I don’t see them mentioned in my first read through.

 

[gbg3]

The millionaire tax (for those making over 2.5 million) talked about in recent weeks, is not included. That group will stay at 37%.

The SALT deduction would be increased and limited to $30,000 and be phased out for couples making more than $400,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. We can expect this will get a lot more attention and debate.

No tax on tips and overtime will be included and would phase out in 2029. The no tax on SS didn't work within reconciliation, so, instead, seniors will get an additions $4000 standard deduction for those who don't itemize. This would not apply to couples making more than $150,000 or individuals making more than $75,000.

More in later posts.

 

[gbg3]

Child tax credit increasing from $2000 to $2500 through the end of 2028.

New MAGA accounts. Kind of interesting:

"The bill would create new tax-exempt investment accounts to benefit children, dubbed “MAGA” accounts, referring to his Make America Great Again campaign slogan. The accounts would allow $5,000 in contributions per year and adult children would be able to use the funds for purchasing homes or starting small businesses, in addition to educational expenses. The bill would authorize one-time $1,000 government payments into accounts for children born from 2025 through 2028."

 

[j brown's body]

This seems bad:

"Business lobbyists notched many of the top tax breaks they were seeking, while avoiding levy increases that were instead targeted at renewable energy projects, immigrants, foundations and colleges. The bill is officially scored as losing $3.7 trillion in revenue, within the $4.5 trillion limit lawmakers set for themselves."

 

[j brown's body]

This seems foolish:

"A popular consumer tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle would be fully eliminated by the end of 2026, and only manufactures that have sold fewer than 200,000 electric vehicles by the end of this year would would be eligible to receive it in 2026. Tax incentives for the purchase of commercial electric vehicles and used electric vehicles would also be repealed."

 

[gbg3]

Interest on auto loans deductible through 2028.

University endowment investment income taxes would go up substantially, up to as high as 21%.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Info is starting to roll out on the early draft of the House version. This will be likely to change in some ways, but we can get a pretty good idea of what to expect from this fairly informative Bloomberg piece this morning.

How about a more old-fashioned political forum discussion where we actually simply discuss what you like and don't like in the bill and keep that the topic?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/salt-tips-auto-loans-guide-211810280.html

I don't like this.
We already have too much corporate welfare. I keep waiting for DOGE to do something about it.

Business lobbyists notched many of the top tax breaks they were seeking, while avoiding levy increases that were instead targeted at renewable energy projects, immigrants, foundations and colleges.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0

 

[BirdinHand]

As expected - EXPENSIVE.

House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Donald Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans

House GOP reveals Trump's tax breaks for tips, overtime and car loans, but costs run high

House Republicans have revealed the sweeping tax provisions for President Donald Trump’s big bill. It tallies at $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with reductions to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

apnews.com

Big expensive tax breaks - “paid for” by slashing programs that largely benefit poor, working class and middle class American families.

And phenomenally increasing our current deficit.

As anticipated.

 

[gbg3]

My initial thoughts are this is not a bill catering to the rich. Quite the contrary. Some of these "tax breaks" are phased out for people making over $200,000 (SALT deductions) and seniors making more than $75,000 (elderly bonus deduction).

 

[j brown's body]

This seems bad:

"A preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate requested by Democrats found that more than 8.6 million people would go uninsured if the health portions of the GOP’s party-line package become law."

Link

 

[Airyaman]

Interest on auto loans deductible through 2028.

~10% of people itemize deductions, so this is just another tax break for rich people.

 

[Ikari]

Corporate welfare and trillions added to the deficit.

 

[j brown's body]

Link

 

[BirdinHand]

My initial thoughts are this is not a bill catering to the rich. Quite the contrary. Some of these "tax breaks" are phased out for people making over $200,000 (SALT deductions) and seniors making more than $75,000 (elderly bonus deduction).

Your initial thoughts would be demonstrably wrong.

 

[Mr Person]

Info is starting to roll out on the early draft of the House version. This will be likely to change in some ways, but we can get a pretty good idea of what to expect from this fairly informative Bloomberg piece this morning.

How about a more old-fashioned political forum discussion where we actually simply discuss what you like and don't like in the bill and keep that the topic?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/salt-tips-auto-loans-guide-211810280.html

So in other words, the same group of people who always lie about how they care about deficits yet again sent Republicans into D.C. to slash taxes, obliterate revenue, and massively increase the yearly deficit.

Reagan, Bush jr, Trump, Trump 2.0. You just keep slashing taxes, obliterating revenue, and massively increasing yearly deficits. We would not have this debt if it were not for all the tax cuts.



I couldn't look in the mirror if I lied as much as a right winger. There's nothing true, nothing real with them.

Other than their myriad hatreds, I guess.

 

[gbg3]

"To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once."

This is from the link in comment 9. I think this is so important. Medicaid has strayed so far from its original intent with Medicaid expansion. There is simply no reason for unemployed, able bodied, working age individuals (without dependents) to qualify while they choose to sit home and not work. Furthermore, state reimbursement for those "expansion" people is significantly higher than it is for the original Medicaid group - and, unfortunately, that will likely NOT be addressed in this bill.

 

[Ikari]

So in other words, the same group of people who always lie about how they care about deficits yet again sent Republicans into D.C. to slash taxes, obliterate revenue, and massively increase the yearly deficit.

Reagan, Bush jr, Trump, Trump 2.0. You just keep slashing taxes, obliterating revenue, and massively increasing yearly deficits. We would not have this debt if it were not for all the tax cuts.



I couldn't look in the mirror if I lied as much as a right winger. There's nothing true, nothing real with them.

Other than their myriad hatreds, I guess.

Yes, but this time they'll slash Medicaid too.

 

[Ikari]

"To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once."

This is from the link in comment 9. I think this is so important. Medicaid has strayed so far from its original intent with Medicaid expansion. There is simply no reason for unemployed, able bodied, working age individuals (without dependents) to qualify while they choose to sit home and not work. Furthermore, state reimbursement for those "expansion" people is significantly higher than it is for the original Medicaid group - and, unfortunately, that will likely NOT be addressed in this bill.

So yes to corporate welfare, no for medical support for Americans.

Seems about right.

 

[gbg3]

Yes, but this time they'll slash Medicare too.

In what way will Medicare be slashed "this time"? I've seen nothing to back that up.

 

[j brown's body]

In what way will Medicare be slashed "this time"? I've seen nothing to back that up.

CBO says that 8 million could lose coverage.

 

[BabaVoss]

As expected - EXPENSIVE.

House GOP reveals Trump's tax breaks for tips, overtime and car loans, but costs run high

House Republicans have revealed the sweeping tax provisions for President Donald Trump’s big bill. It tallies at $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with reductions to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

apnews.com

Big expensive tax breaks - “paid for” by slashing programs that largely benefit poor, working class and middle class American families.

And phenomenally increasing our current deficit.

As anticipated.

This kind of thing is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
Our economy is largely based on consumerism.
This means that people spending money helps the economy.
Who spends all their money? The people at the bottom.
They have very little so they spend all or most of what they make in order to live.
As we take things away from. Them, we have less to spend, and so will spend less.
But they will need more help.
Instead, we should focus more on lifting up those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
If things are better for them they will spend more, become more productive.
That benefits everyone.
Reducing services to these people hurts everyone.
The people at or near the top don’t need help.

 

[BabaVoss]

Getting rid of the SALT deduction was a bad idea of Trumps.
Now he wast to put it back.
Good idea. It should undo a mistake he made.

 

[j brown's body]

"To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once."

This is from the link in comment 9. I think this is so important. Medicaid has strayed so far from its original intent with Medicaid expansion. There is simply no reason for unemployed, able bodied, working age individuals (without dependents) to qualify while they choose to sit home and not work. Furthermore, state reimbursement for those "expansion" people is significantly higher than it is for the original Medicaid group - and, unfortunately, that will likely NOT be addressed in this bill.

Yeah, the work requirement will knock a lot of people off Medicaid. And cost more money to run the program. It creates barriers that people find difficult to overcome.

It's interesting to me that you all hobble the IRS from collecting billions in unpaid taxes by the rich, but go all out to knock people off Medicaid when it actually costs us more money.

Screwed up priorities.

 

[Queen Margo]

This kind of thing is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
Our economy is largely based on consumerism.
This means that people spending money helps the economy.
Who spends all their money? The people at the bottom.
They have very little so they spend all or most of what they make in order to live.
As we take things away from. Them, we have less to spend, and so will spend less.
But they will need more help.
Instead, we should focus more on lifting up those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
If things are better for them they will spend more, become more productive.
That benefits everyone.
Reducing services to these people hurts everyone.
The people at or near the top don’t need help.

This is over simplistic.
What do they spend their money on to live? How much is spent on drugs, alcohol, gambling, smoking/vaping and technology?
There is so much fraud out there that the left just wants go turn a blind eye.