As Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled tax-related bill language on Friday night and scheduled a markup for President Donald Trump’s ”
One, Big, Beautiful Bill,
Economic justice proponents have raised concerns.
The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Jason Smith (R-Mo.),
scheduled
an afternoon session on Tuesday, disclosed 28 pages of legislation
proposals
For the reconciliation package, and presented the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which was enacted by Republican lawmakers in Congress and signed by Trump, in a positive light.
signed
In 2017, the initiative for tax reform was launched mere months before portions of that legislation—criticized as the “Republican Party tax scam”—were set to expire.
Amy Hanauer, the executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), stated in a Saturday release, “This expensive legislation seems to reinforce the trickle-down approach, offering substantial tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy without providing much relief for others.” She added, “Furthermore, several minor enhancements aimed at aiding low- and middle-income individuals are suggested as short-term measures, while the advantages for the richest segment are intended to last indefinitely.”
Hanauer’s team explicitly stated that “the modifications to personal income tax rates and brackets introduced in 2017 should become permanent.” They also highlighted an increase in the deduction for income derived from ‘pass-through’ entities, raising this benefit from 20% to 22%. Additionally, Republicans aim to boost the estate tax exclusion from $13.99 million per spouse to $15 million and ensure it adjusts upward according to inflation.
The substantial provision offering a tax relief for overseas earnings (known as the GILTI deduction) would become an ongoing policy, thereby cutting the taxation on foreign profits of U.S. firms to at least half compared to how their domestic earnings are taxed, according to the think tank’s emphasis.
ITEP also noted that “the modification to the standard deduction in 2017 would become permanent, with an additional four-year enhancement raising it to $16,000 for single filers, $24,000 for those filing as heads of households, and $32,000 for joint returns by married couples.”
“The child tax credit would rise temporarily to $2,500 per child from $2,000 per child over four years; however, 4.5 million citizen children might become ineligible for the …CTC because of a stipulation requiring both parents to possess Social Security numbers,” cautioned the organization.
Chuck Marr, who serves as the vice president for federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, expressed a similar viewpoint.
said
In a sequence of Friday social media updates, they stated that the new “bill seems heavily tilted towards the affluent, [including] various retrogressive extensions of the 2017 tax reductions and packed with expensive timing tricks, all while, contrary to their claims, not providing support for countless working-class households.”
Similar to ITEP, Marr criticized House Republicans for their “remarkable lack of success” regarding the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and for persistently advocating for the pass-through deduction and the estate tax exemption. He described the estate tax exemption as “the most biased aspect” of the legislation enacted in 2017.
“On Tuesday, a House Republican committee will strip individuals of their health coverage, while another will cut off food aid; simultaneously, a third panel plans to make permanent an increase in the tax-free inheritance limit for the richest beneficiaries in the nation,” he stated.
said
highlighting that the GOP intends to fund its tax breaks for the wealthy by cutting back on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Marr pointed out that it seems House Republicans are once again exhibiting a bold pattern from 2017: ensuring that benefits for wealthy individuals become permanent (remember the substantial corporate tax reduction in 2017), while making more general provisions temporary—a backward set of priorities.
“And so tonight, despite all the rhetoric from Trump, House Republicans are suggesting further tax reductions for the affluent, which will inflate an already excessive budget, while miserably falling short of assisting the millions of families he pledged to support,” he ended his statement.
Smith’s legislation explicitly avoids reverting the highest tax rate back from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income exceeding $5 million for joint filers and $2.5 million individually—a concept that Trump proposed earlier this week but which has met with opposition.
NBC News
put it
is encountering significant resistance within the Republican Party.
Trump
said
On his Truth Social platform early Friday, he stated: “‘Even a TINY tax hike for the rich’, which I and everyone else would happily agree to support to assist low- and middle-income earners, becomes an issue because the Radical Left Democratic Loons might start spreading ‘Read my lips,’ as famously quoted by President George H.W. Bush—a statement believed to have contributed to losing the election. However, it was actually Ross Perot who cost him the election! Regardless, Republicans shouldn’t consider this, but I’m fine with them doing so if necessary!!”
Although President Trump’s remarks this week have grabbed media attention, leading to numerous news stories.
proposing
“to increase income taxes for affluent Americans,” as stated by ITEP’s Steve Wamhoff and Carl Davis
argued
In her blog post, she emphasized that “it’s crucial nobody gets misled: The most affluent taxpayers received substantial tax cuts under Trump’s legislation in 2017 and are poised to receive even larger tax reductions from the proposals currently put forth by Trump and the Republican Party.”
They emphasized, ‘We require laws mandating that wealthy individuals contribute higher tax amounts rather than lower ones.’ The Republicans’ proposal will have the reverse effect, irrespective of whether Congress incorporates this recent recommendation.’
Donald Trump.”
