Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Full name/common name
User:Politicsfan4 Lead first sentence should be changed to just "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" since that's its widely known name per WP:COMMONNAME. No other wikipedia page uses that long name of the bill for the lead; it's unnecessary and should be taken out. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for 7 days. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  19:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 → Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – Per, both the official short title and common name for this legislation is "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" with no year, and there is no similarly named legislation to confuse it with. Getting rid of the "of 2017" was discussed a few times on the talk page but it seems like it was never formally proposed. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:06, 5 May 2023 (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.

Impact section
The impact section contains a great deal of information about the estimated impact of the TCJA and less information about the actual impact that the law has had. Now that the law is about six years old, the article may not need to include all of the estimates anymore; regardless, it should include more analysis of the actual impact of the law. I have restructured the impact section to separate the information on estimated impact from the information on actual impact. I have also added a little bit of new information about the law's actual impact, but more would be helpful. MonMothma (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to being dated, this data is possibly misleading. It discusses the tax paid for various groups within an AGI, but a more valid analysis would provide a "Taxable Income" baseline for comparison.  Additionally, the root source is from a conservative thinktank (Heritage Foundation) and the data to back up the claims is provided via a dead link to a word document in a sharepoint controlled by said thinktank. Gmcnamer (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Gmcnamer, which source are you referring to?


 * Per my note back in October, I have gone ahead and removed a chunk of excess detail in regard to predictions about the impact of the TCJA. I believe that section could be shortened even more. I also added some data on the actual impact of the law. MonMothma (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph starting: "A 2021 analysis by the Heartland Institute..."
 * I don't believe the analysis was performed in good faith.
 * I find the statement "...filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $40,000 to $50,000 received an average tax cut of 18.2 percent"
 * When combined the following statement "...The number of filers with an adjusted gross income of $1 to $25,000 decreased by more than 2 million in just one year, while the number of households reporting incomes higher than $25,000 increased in every income bracket"
 * to indicate (and I cannot use their links to verify) that on average, taxpayers moved up in AGI without any real wage growth (as evidenced by other analysis), so using before-and-after AGI is an invalid way to analyze the data. Basically you have lower income earners in this AGI bracket.  Perhaps I am wrong on this.
 * The article is correctly sourced, but I do not trust this source, especially given that it comes from a political think-tank. Gmcnamer (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)