Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act/Archive 1

Making this article easier to search
If I were searching for this article on Google, I'd input "trump tax plan". Is there a way (re-direct?) to make this article more likely to show up that way? It does show up near the top if you input the title as-is. Thanks.Farcaster (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Assessments by experts should be in the "impact" section, not "reaction" section
While I agree that the impact section should prioritize economic analyses, the section should also include assessments by individual economists of what the impact will be and/or if various economic analyses are credible or not. The "reaction" section should primarily be non-expert opinions of the legislation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you conceptually. I was worried that the sections would get huge, so I defaulted to a separate commentary section. Perhaps integrate a few and see how it goes. I won't interfere, as I'm wearing myself out building this beast!Farcaster (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Cloud section
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

Source Attribution
All opinions which are not explicitly news reports, but opinions or investigative journalism should be properly attributed. There is a difference between saying "X will benefit from Y", versus "A wrote that X will benefit from Y", because 1) it is also likely that someone else will have a differing opinion and 2) this opinion only appears from a single source. This is unlike the statement "X was charged in court of Y crime", which 1) is unlikely to be disagreed with and 2) multiple sources will report this. A simple test is to see where the article appears - in the news section or the opinion/analysis section of the paper itself.

Refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on when to use in-text citations for attribution for opinions. --219.75.113.186 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Impact on Budget Deficit and Debt
I have removed the part about economic growth under the budget deficit and debt section again. Its presence there is irrelevant. There is already a section on the impact on economic growth, and this should be under the economic growth section instead, although that section itself is already very comprehensive and is not needed. --219.75.113.186 (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The text on the letter by 137 economists was removed without explanation
In this edit. Does the IP number who removed it want to justify why? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The economists who signed that WSJ letter have also backed off their claims about the bill now. This should also be added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we remove individual polls from the 'Polls' section?
For the sake of readability and clarity, I think we should drop individual polls. At least the text that notes simply opposition/support. We can perhaps keep text from individual polls on why voters oppose/support the bill. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Tax Benefits" is a deceptive POV phrase
Tax money flows from tax payers to governments. This is indisputable.

The phrase "tax benefits" is a deliberate misrepresentation of what is actually happening, trying to make it look like money is flowing the other way, so that demagogues can complain about how much "the government is giving to the rich". As such it introduces a deliberate bias into the discussion, intended to favor the politically partisan view that all money rightfully belongs to the government. This perspective would argue that when the government takes less it is some kind of handout to the undeserving, while the government (they claim) should be giving away these "benefits" to people who are more deserving and more needy.

I understand why some people want to spin the discussion that way. I just don't feel Wikipedia should be favoring one side like this. I'd change the wording, but I'm sure it would be quickly reverted. So, anticipating objections, I'm opening the topic for discussion here. I hope we can agree on NPOV phrasing. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point in general. However, some government giveaways are actually implemented via the tax system. They are called refundable tax credits. If a tax credit is refundable and exceeds what the taxpayer's liability would otherwise be, then the taxpayer may receive more money back than what he paid in. For example, the earned income tax credit. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I would support referring to "refundable tax credits" as tax benefits or some other phrase that accurately describes the direction of money flow. But that's not what's being discussed (for the most part at least) in the article.
 * So are there any other opinions about rewording phrases like "individuals would receive $200 billion in net tax benefits"? 72.208.150.248 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

POV problems in Objections section
My recent edit trying to fix POV problems with the Objections section was reverted, apparently because experts always make accurate and definitive predictions. Needless to say, that isn't always the case, and expert predictions almost always have a level of uncertainty, like in the recent U.S. presidential election. Treating predictions as something that "will" happen also violates WP:CRYSTAL. FallingGravity 08:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The objections are that the bill "will" do something bad in that expert's judgment, not that it "may" do something bad. That's the overwhelming consensus of the experts and history. Tax cuts increase deficits, tax cuts don't stimulate much growth when the economy is booming, etc. Let's keep this a false equivalence free zone. Please remove the template. Farcaster (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "false equivalence" when it comes to WP:CRYSTAL. Since I see those problems have now been mostly addressed I'm removing the template. FallingGravity 19:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To Farcaster: It would be better to accompany the tax cuts with spending cuts, but tax cuts (especially reductions in the top marginal rate) are beneficial even without spending cuts. This is because they reduce irrational (counter productive) decisions by taxpayers and thus avoid wasted effort (or idleness) motivated by tax avoidance. This is true even if the economy is allegedly booming already. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the lede?
I don't follow this page regularly, but the lede must be a more comprehensive summary than that. The lede looked alright to me a few days ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Stick to the facts, please
Can we separate the actual changes in the bill from "potential" effects that are speculated. People come to wiki to get facts, not educated guess. Andru nl (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also want to see what educated opinions from scholarly sources might speculate upon. Perfectly suitable for Wiki.50.111.62.5 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Conference version
This really needs an update for what's now in the conference version. And whether the first paragraph of the lead should still say "reform" is a bit dubious, since a number of sources say with all the compromises, halfway measures, and backoffs, a lot of the reform points have been dropped. 2600:1001:B10E:976E:342F:A22D:16E8:ACE7 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Good overview of final version.
We might want to base an overview of the final bill on this https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/15/us/politics/final-republican-tax-bill-cuts.html Casprings (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Just the facts ma'am
This article has a lot of good factual information, unfortunate is leads off with a lot of speculation about impact. I recommend deleting much of the intro or moving the speculation to the bottom of the article. I come to Wiki for facts.

This article should answer the question: "What is changing?", not what speculative impact it might have on some group.

2601:500:C380:41A4:65DE:690D:1670:3307 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Partially agree. The emphasis should be on the facts of the changes. But anticipated impact must be discussed somewhere too, since that the basis of debate. 2600:1001:B10E:976E:342F:A22D:16E8:ACE7 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't speculation, its the analysis of the CBO, the JCT, and the TPC.Farcaster (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is not an official government body; neither is it truly non-partisan since its funding comes from leftist foundations. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The point of legislation is to have impact, political, economic and budgetary. There is a detailed section on the components of the bill which I've summarized in the lead. I also summarized the impact a bit in the lead.08:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actual name of the bill
The actual name of the bill, in all its iterations through about November 30, does not include the phrase "of 2017." I removed that phrase from the body of the article. If it turns out that the Congress does eventually finalize the bill under the name "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," and send it to the President for signature, we may want to change the name of this article as well. Famspear (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Because the name of the bill was subject to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, the law should not be referred to as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" at all. That was a proposed name that did not pass Congress.  Furthermore, it is a politicized term, the kind typically associated with Republican pollster and consultant Frank Luntz.  What the law is, in traditional nomenclature, used to be referred to as a Revenue Act.  It does not simply provide for tax cuts, and predominantly only offers people (not corporation "people", but actual people) temporary tax cuts.  It does not provide for jobs, i.e. it is not an appropriations bill that funds government to hire public workers.


 * By Wikipedia referring to the new tax law by its partisan description, which was promoted in the same fashion that the estate transfer tax was misnamed the "death tax", Wikipedia is endorsing a partisan agenda. Ideally, the tax and legal community needs to be out front, in calling the bill the 2017 tax act, for lack of a better shorthand name.   Even "TCJA" is an inaccurate reference back to an unapproved name.Hoofin (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The act begins with "TITLE I 2 SEC. 11000. SHORT TITLE, ETC. 3 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This title may be cited as the 4 ‘‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’’.". So it is quite appropriate to call it that. Also this title is less misleading than the titles of many other acts, e.g. the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" which only makes health care less affordable. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Hoofin. Editor JRSpriggs is correct. The Act actually has two official names: the long name mentioned in the article, and also "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (as also mentioned in the article). The Act that passed Congress on December 20, 2017 is indeed officially called the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". Period. Further, whether that official name is "politicized" is or "partisan" is irrelevant for purposes of Wikipedia. We understand that you're upset, but this talk page is not the proper place to discuss whether the bill creates jobs, etc. Let's stick to Wikipedia rules and guidelines -- and let's stick with reliable sources. Famspear (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. You must be looking at an old version of the bill. The text of the final bill that passed both houses does not contain any short title in Section 11000. Senate Amendment 1863 removed subsection (a) from section 11000 and the House adopted the Senate's amendment. The title of the bill as listed on Congress's website is An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. --Spoon! (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Spoon!: You're right; thanks. I was looking at the December 15 conference committee draft. I didn't see the text of the actual enrolled bill passed by the House and Senate until yesterday, December 21. And, see my other comments on this talk page. Famspear (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The correct title of the tax bill is the one that does not include the short title. The bill was originally introduced as "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", but an obvious objection to such a title was made in the Senate, and the parliamentarian ruled that that the title required the special 60-vote margin. So when the bill is signed into law, there will have to be another nomenclature adopted by people who discuss the law. The bill contains tax hikes. The bill contains reforms, but generally all revenue acts do. I would prefer that Wikipedia move to a neutral term like 2017 revenue act, with reference to any previous or sloganeered title put in parenthesis.

As to the commenter above referring to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that act was also modified in a related law the Congress passed the same month, and that related law is given its own heading in Wikipedia: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Both short and long titles were in that enacted bill and appear in the Wikipedia entry. Both the original PPACA and this related amendment were, and continue to be, referred to as "Obamacare", which was never the title of either law. "Obamacare", as a search term in Wikipedia, leads people to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act entry.

Words matter. I have not even broached the matter in the descriptive paragraph that the changes to individual taxes are temporary, and the ones for corporations are permanent. Users of Wikipedia should not be made to adopt terminology that is simply inaccurate. Again, ideally, Congress should just go back to identifying these things as Revenue Acts, like was overwhelmingly the practice up to about Nixon or Reagan. Wikipedia should adopt a neutral top identifier such as "2017 Congressional Tax Act", unless the President signs in early January 2018 to avoid the PAYGO Medicare cuts for the current year.Hoofin (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Hoofin: I discovered that the short title provision was indeed stripped out of the bill at almost the last minute (on December 19, apparently). I didn't know that until the final text of the enrolled bill was published yesterday (Dec. 21). That was done apparently to comply with the Byrd Rule, as you noted (see also my comment elsewhere in this thread). That's sloppy work on the part of Congress, considering the point that the short title ("Tax Cuts and Jobs Act") still appears in nine separate places in the enrolled bill approved by the House and Senate. A rush job on the part of Congress.


 * To your main point, though: Whether you feel that Congress "should just go back to identifying these things as Revenue Acts" is not material for purposes of Wikipedia. And no, Wikipedia should not adopt what you call its own "neutral top identifier" for the article title, such as "2017 Congressional Tax Act."


 * And, no, once the bill is signed into law, there will not have to be another nomenclature adopted by "people who discuss the law" -- which is a separate issue from the issue of what this article should be entitled. People may or may not continue to refer to the law as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act." Indeed, as you noted, people routinely refer the health care law as "Obamacare," even though that term is not its official title.


 * The rest of the world is not necessarily going to comply with your desire about what any of these laws should be called. Yes, "word matter." But, it is not properly the job of Wikipedia editors to try to fix what you apparently believe is a problem Wikipedia should fix. Famspear (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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 (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; in the section Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017; and the section Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. 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 << >>. 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)

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)

"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)

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 26.6% 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)

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)

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)

Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

 * 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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 . 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.

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 &mdash; 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. Neutralitytalk 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." Neutralitytalk 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? Neutralitytalk 04:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we can say "...based on forecasts of its adverse impact".Farcaster (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Neutralitytalk 03:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I propose the following: "Some critics in the media, think tanks and academia criticized the law based on forecasts of its adverse impact (e.g. 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 contended that the bill's provisions were misrepresented by its advocates." SunCrow (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)