June 2, 2025 • 24 mins
From generous tax breaks to costly trade-offs, the House GOP’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill has a little of everything. It’s a sweeping attempt to extend key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act before they expire in 2026—but what’s actually in it?
Kyle Hulehan and Erica York are joined by Garett Watson, Director of Policy Analysis at the Tax Foundation, to break down the good, the bad, and the ugly: who benefits, what it could mean for the economy, and how it might reshape your tax bill.
Learn more:
Budget Reconciliation Tracker: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tax-cuts-2025-budget-reconciliation/
“Big Beautiful Bill” House GOP Tax Plan: Preliminary Details and Analysis: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/big-beautiful-bill-house-gop-tax-plan/
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-big-beautiful-bill-pros-cons/
House Tax Package Could Double Economic Growth Impact by Prioritizing Permanence for TCJA Business Provisions: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/house-tax-plan-economic-growth-impact-business-tax-permanent/
A More Generous SALT Deduction Cap in the Big, Beautiful Bill Would Cost Revenue and Primarily Benefit High Earners: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/salt-deduction-cap-increase-proposal-analysis/
House “One Big Beautiful Bill” Riddled with Temporary Tax Policy: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/house-one-big-beautiful-bill-temporary-tax-policy/
Current Trump Tariffs Threaten to Offset Benefits of Promised Tax Cuts: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-tariffs-tax-cuts/
House GOP’s Approach to the IRA Clean Energy Tax Credits: Five Things to Know: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/ira-clean-energy-tax-credits-house-gop-ways-means-bill/
Follow us!
https://twitter.com/TaxFoundation
https://twitter.com/deductionpod
Support the show
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kyle Hulehan (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the Deduction of Tax
Foundation podcast.
I'm your host, Kyle Houlahan,and today we are back with
another episode with Erica Yorkand Garrett Watson, the Director
of policy Analysis here at theTax Foundation.
So Garrett and I kind of alreadybroke down the big beautiful
Bill, uh, in an episode lastweek, but now we got Erica on
the show here.
So Erica.
(00:20):
Let's talk about this real quickas well.
Um, what do you think are likethe most significant provisions
in the new tax package and howdoes that build on or depart
from the 2017 Tax Cuts and JobsAct?
Erica York (00:33):
Yeah, I'd separat it into two buckets.
First is just all the expiringstuff from the 2017 tax law.
Um, on the individual side,especially those all get a.
Permanent extension.
Um, so that's, that's a bigimprovement for taxpayers
because all of this is up in theair.
You know, the child tax credit,the standard deduction, the
rates and brackets, those wouldall be set in place.
(00:57):
And then the other bucket is.
A bunch of new stuff andtemporary stuff.
Um, so on the new stuff, it'sthe things we heard from Trump
on the campaign trail.
Like no tax on tips, no tax onovertime, no tax on auto loan
interest.
And then rather than no tax onsocial security, we have this
bonus deduction for seniorcitizens.
(01:17):
Um.
then also in this bucket oftemporary stuff are some, some
really good provisions likebonus expensing, r and d,
expensing a new type of specialdeduction or bonus deduction for
structures investment.
Those were all really goodthings that would build on the
improvements the TCJA made, butthey would sunset after five
(01:38):
years, um, rather than be madepermanent.
So overall I'd say it, it reallyends up being a mixed bag
because while in some cases thebill would enhance the stability
and the certainty of the taxcode in others, it adds a bunch
of new complicated provisionsand then it sunsets some of the
most important things.
Kyle Hulehan (02:00):
And real quick, just, just to clarify this, when
you say sunset, you're, and likethe problem with sunsetting
something is, is what?
What is the biggest issue withthat?
Erica York (02:09):
The biggest issue is certainty.
So if you think of a businessthat's wanting to build a
factory in the United States,it's not just gonna decide to do
that because it gets atemporary, you know, five year
tax cut.
A, a new factory is like areally big, long-term
investment.
You need stability over thelong.
Long-term in order to make thatdecision, we're talking like,
(02:31):
you know, 15, 30 years.
And so a temporary tax cutdoesn't really change the
calculus for a big long-terminvestment.
Um, if you wanna change thatcalculus, you need to make that
policy set for the long-term orat least as much as you can.
Five years just really fallsshort of that.
Kyle Hulehan (02:49):
Got it.
Erica York (02:50):
Garrett, um, pivoting to, to you on, on the.
The, like, the overall bill andwhether it's like a really big
improvement for taxpayers ornot.
One of the things we're hearingquite a bit is that having the
larger standard deduction,having these rates and brackets
set in place will really makethings simpler for taxpayers.
(03:10):
Um, is, is that true or what doyou make of that?
Garrett Watson (03:12):
So I think there are some elements of this
package that would help improvesimplicity.
The biggest of which is thatpermanency for the underlying.
2017, uh, tax law provisionsthat are expiring.
When you think about, uh, thedoubling of this standard
deduction from 2017 to 2018, uh,and that's continuation, uh,
from 2026 onward, that's goingto reduce the number of folks
who are itemizing, which stoodat.
(03:34):
Rounding here, roughly one thirdof all taxpayers who are
itemizing in 2017 down to about9% of taxpayers today.
And we're avoiding going back tothat higher share of taxpayers
who would itemize.
And of course, uh, for folks whohaven't itemized, uh, it does
require both, uh, tracking a lotof.
Uh, details, receipts, expensesrelated to itemization, uh, and
(03:55):
of course also opens taxpayersup to, uh, inquiries from the
IRS on those particulardeductions.
This standard deduction doesn'thave those challenges from a
complexity perspective, so thatis one benefit.
Uh, on the other hand, uh, thereis, uh, there are some
additional temporary measures inthe bill.
to the 2017 law, some of whichErica you just mentioned.
We also have some temporary, uh,expansions to the standard
(04:18):
deduction worth a thousanddollars for a single uh,
taxpayer,$2,000 for jointhouseholds for a few years.
We have a temporary expansion ofthe child credit up to$2,500,
and some of that is beingmarketed as additional relief
for families.
and taxpayers overall, but, uh,they are temporary and they will
require taxpayers to know aboutthese new temporary rules on top
(04:40):
of the existing, uh, code.
So that does add a little bit ofcomplexity, or at least a
potential source of confusionover the next few years.
That's also true when you layeron these new, uh, exemptions
for, uh, tipped income forovertime.
These are all new things, uh,that, uh, the IRS with the guide
taxpayers on, and that couldcreate new sources of
complexity, uh, particularlywhen they're in effect through.
(05:01):
Uh, 2028.
Erica York (05:03):
Yeah, I, we, we saw a little bit of that with the
original TCJA.
It made these improvements likethe larger standard deduction,
but then it added complexitieslike the section 1 99, a pass
through deduction on net.
I think it was safe to say the2017 law, like.
Overall resulted insimplification.
I think it's harder to make thatcall with this law because it's
really justing insimplifications we've already
(05:26):
had, but then layering on somany new things that are re
requiring, like new reportingfrom businesses new.
Who knows what, like the lineson, on the form, 10 40 or
different schedules to do these,like overtime tax exemptions,
um, that, that probably tip thebalance, uh, away from overall
(05:47):
simplification toward morecomplexity.
I.
Kyle Hulehan (05:50):
Moving to maybe some of the more negative side
of the bills that we see.
Uh, you know, it's funny.
When I think of the word salt,now I actually think of state
and local deduction and not thething you put on food because
we've been talking about salt somuch.
Garrett in, in this bill, the,there's a lot of debate over the
salt deduction cap and you know,what it proposes and how do
these changes reflect politicaltensions, you know, uh, how do
(06:13):
you see this and, and does itadd like a lot of fiscal cost?
Garrett Watson (06:16):
Yeah, the salt cap debate has been a, a central
one in trying to get a degree ofconsensus amongst Republicans in
the house, given the very narrowmajorities as a recap, uh, in
2017.
Uh, and prior to that, there wasan unlimited deduction on
federal returns for.
Taxpayers who itemize and havestate and local taxes, uh, that
they're paying and can deductagainst their federal, uh, their
(06:37):
federal, uh, taxable income.
So that includes things likeyour state and local in, uh,
income tax.
It includes property taxes.
Those are probably the two mostprominent.
It also could include salestaxes in lieu of income tax and
some other types of taxes likereal estate transfer taxes and
for certain taxpayers.
And, uh, high cost of living,high income, high tax states,
(06:57):
uh, that can easily be in thetens of thousands of dollars for
higher income.
Households as part of the 2017tax law, uh, policymakers as
part of this broader package oftax cuts included a base
broadener that capped the amountof state and local taxes that
could be deducted on federalreturns to$10,000 for everyone.
That's 10,$10,000 for all filingstatuses and, uh, was not, uh,
(07:18):
indexed for inflation, uh,moving forward.
That was scheduled to expire atthe end of 2025, along with the
other individual provisions and,uh, as expected, as ignited a
big debate.
About the future of that capbecause it did represent a
substantial gross, uh, tax hikeon its own, on certain, uh,
taxpayers.
It has a very strong geographiccomponent because state and
(07:39):
local taxes paid vary quite abit across the country.
When you look at certain, uh,uh, states and localities on the
coast, for example, they mayhave much higher liabilities
than places in the interior andthe Midwest of the country, for
example.
And one thing that's beenlacking, uh, up to.
This bill was a consensusagreement by policymakers who
wanted to see a more generouscap on what that may look like.
(07:59):
Uh, they did land on somethingthat, uh, passed in this, in
this, uh, bill.
After a few differentiterations, uh, the proposal
would, uh, extend and makepermanent I.
A cap, but it would be a moregenerous cap than the$10,000
that's currently prevailed.
So it would increase it to$40,000, uh, for most taxpayers.
But they added a new element tothis, which is an income limit,
(08:19):
so you can get a$40,000 saltdeduction, which is more
generous than current policy.
Uh, up, up until you hit$500,000in income and then it phases out
basically between 500 and$600,000 in income.
Um, and then it goes back downto that$10,000 amount, uh, for,
for joint households.
And so that, uh, will limit thebene the benefits of that more
(08:41):
generous cap, uh, for the veryhighest of earners.
Uh, but we'll provide, um, thatbenefit for.
to upper middle earners who do,uh, have, uh, salt deductions in
excess of$10,000.
We are looking at, it is a, asubstantial tax cut on top of
the existing cuts.
It's about$300 billion, maybe abit north of that over 10 years.
Net of those additional limits.
(09:01):
Uh, the proposal would alsolimit, uh, certain, uh, uh,
strategies to get around the capusing passer businesses.
Um, and so there's someadditional hikes there.
Uh, the big question movingforward, I think is going to be
whether or not the Senate findsthis, uh, design attractive.
There's a lot of interest fromthe policy perspective of, uh,
cementing this base broadenerfor revenue purposes because
(09:23):
that is part of the broader, uh,uh, sort of, um, motivation of
the 2017 tax law to broaden thebase and lower the rates, and a
lot of ways making into salt capmore generous moves in the
opposite direction, underminesthat legacy.
one of the more positivelegacies of the 2017 tax law
and, uh, the Senate may be alittle more skeptical of that.
So, uh, still a long road aheadfor folks who wanna see changes
(09:44):
to salt.
Uh, one thing, one last thing I,I'd mention on that of course is
there would be, I think, asilver lining for everyone
involved, even if no one isexactly happy with whatever ends
up being produced in the longrun.
If there's some permanency here.
Going back to the, um, thetemporary discussion, right?
The existing cap is a lot ofuncertainty'cause no one knows
next year what that may looklike.
So having some permanency,getting this off of the policy
(10:05):
debate that's been going on foryears and years would be one
win, even if no one's exactlyhappy with the final outcome of
the design.
Kyle Hulehan (10:12):
I, I think that's true in policy a lot of times is
there's always a group that'svery unhappy.
It's really hard to kind of, uh,politics.
We've talked about this a lot.
Politics is, and, and laws.
It's a lot of narrow wins.
It's a lot of marginal.
Is this just a little bit betterthan it was before?
So we deal with that a lot here.
I.
Um, and so, wait, we're stillgonna stay on this.
You know, there's the debate ofhow much this bill will cost.
(10:34):
There's been some stuff in thenews recently that many of you
listeners have probably heardabout.
So could you, you know, breakthis down for us and, uh, I
guess I'll start with Erica.
You know, how much do, will itadd to the deficit and what's
kind of going on with thisdebate?
Erica York (10:45):
Yeah, so before accounting for any added
interest costs because thedeficit goes up, um, we estimate
that.
The primary deficit itself willincrease by about$2.6 trillion
over the next 10 years becauseof the tax and spending changes
in this bill.
On the tax side, we estimatethat it reduces federal tax
(11:06):
revenues by a little bit morethan$4 trillion over the budget
window.
It does include, um, spendingreductions about one and a half
trillion dollars of reduced.
Spending.
So when you combine those two,that's where you get the roughly
$2.6 trillion increase in thedeficit.
Now you'll hear, um, some folkssay, well, that's not doing the
(11:27):
math right.
You need to do the math.
Right?
they mean by that is don'tcount.
Most of the tax cuts as adeficit increase, they, they
wanna change the rules and saythat if you continue policies
that are in effect today, that'snot really reducing.
Tax revenue.
If you grant that, then thatjust means that baseline
(11:48):
deficits are going to be higheranyway.
So you might not count that costas part of the official score,
but you would have to count itas part of like the real world
effect of what's happening totax revenues.
Um, so either way, deficitsunder this bill would be
significantly higher.
Um, I think, you know, the, the.
(12:09):
Correct way.
The right way.
According to conventions andrules, rules that were used to
pass the original tax law, um,are that this is a tax cut that
reduces revenue.
if you wanna pretend that therules are different and say, no,
it doesn't, well then you alsohave to say that deficits are
going to be higher in thebaseline because we are going to
(12:30):
assume that these tax cutscontinue indefinitely, and that
means lower tax revenues.
Um, so really any way you sliceit, uh, the fiscal trajectory of
the United States issignificantly higher deficits
and higher debt over the nextdecade under the combination of
policies being considered here.
Garrett Watson (12:50):
I think it's also helpful, uh, to look at a
couple other perspectives.
One is, uh, the, uh, the numbersthat we used, uh, to, uh, we
that we produced to score this,uh, that are commonly cited,
score the bill as written.
And so, of course, um, as Ericajust mentioned, right, there's a
lot of, um, potential gameplaying with the, either the
baseline or whether or not we'reincluding, uh, uh, things that
(13:13):
are scheduled to expire that arenot intended to actually expire.
Um, or, or applying temporarypolicy and consistently across.
Legislation.
So there have been someestimates, uh, and we're
actually working right now onproducing our own estimate of
what the cost of this packagewould look like if, uh, all the
provisions were made permanent,including in the tax side, most
prominently the new, uh, taxcuts on tips over time, the new
(13:35):
senior deduction, the auto loandeduction, et cetera.
Uh, and that, uh, broadlyspeaking, uh, puts the, the, the
bill overall, uh, another, atleast another trillion dollars
more expensive over 10 years.
And that's just in the budgetwindow.
Um, and that even that may be,uh, somewhat conservative
depending on the path of.
Uh, the cost of some of theseprovisions.
And so I think that's, uh, oneway to think about it is if
(13:56):
there is an intent, hey, uh,these new, um, no taxes on tips,
do we really intend that toexpire in, uh, four years?
Or is it going to be anelectoral issue where it's gonna
be extended?
Uh, we did see that happen inTCJA, right?
Where there were base broadensthat were built in that.
We're not intended to takeeffect.
That did take effect, forexample, r and d, amortization
and, and bonus, uh, phasingdown.
(14:17):
Uh, and there's a similar riskhere, I think.
Um, the other of course, uh, youknow, revenue area, which I
think we'll touch on a littlelater, is just the status of, of
tariffs and other, uh, fiscalpolicy that could impact, uh,
this broader debate or thefiscal trajectory of the us.
But if anything, that's evenmore uncertain given some of the
more recent developments, whichwe'll we'll touch on in a little
bit.
Kyle Hulehan (14:37):
Honestly, what I can think of is how dare you
guys try to stick to likeregular rules and conventions
and what we've done before?
Come on, it's a new time, newage.
We gotta, we gotta do thingsdifferently now.
So, um, anyway, moving on.
Uh, so there are provisions fortax exemptions on tips and
overtime, and that's strong.
Some people love it.
(14:57):
I mean, some people criticizeit, uh, that they're very
interesting to say the least.
Uh, but Erica, could you breakthat down for us?
You know, uh, do they complicatematters?
Do they pay off at all?
What do you think?
Erica York (15:09):
Yeah, so if you think of the idea of tax reform
and like what makes a tax reformgood, it is something that makes
the tax code more neutral.
I.
That makes it more simple andthat makes it more efficient.
So we want different types ofincome treated the same way.
We want income all to betaxable, but at a lower rate
(15:29):
rather than carving out, youknow, special low rates for
certain things and then higherrates on other things.
'cause that creates a lot of.
Distortions.
And if we look at what theseprovisions do, they obviously
don't line up with that ideal oftax reform.
They are creating specialtreatment for certain types of
workers, depending on theindustry they're in.
Um, and, you know, it's, it'swell meant.
(15:51):
Um, it's, it's trying to.
Offer tax relief to workingclass Americans, and that's a
good goal.
But why would you say, you know,let's say a waiter making$30,000
a year is not gonna get a bigtax cut, but a clerk at a store
also making$30,000 a year isn'tgonna get any tax cut.
(16:12):
Um, so there's.
Equity problems between peoplewith similar levels of income,
but who earn that income indifferent ways.
It could be taxed differently.
It also creates a lot ofincentives for gaming.
Like if my income is in tips orif I am making overtime, that
gets.
Exempt from tax.
Um, so there's a big incentiveto try to structure your pay in
(16:34):
that way, and that requiresCongress to then try to write
guardrails to prevent that typeof gaming.
And it requires the IRS to, um,you know, clamp down and make
sure that people are followingthose rules.
All that gets really complicatedwhen the alternative, something
really simple, like an evenlarger standard deduction or a
lower marginal tax rate, couldoffer similar relief to people
(16:58):
at those income levels.
Without all of this gaming andadministrative complexity.
So I think it's a, it's a reallike failure on the part of
lawmakers to enact tax reformthat really improves the
structure of the tax code andthe incentives that people face.
Instead, it worsens thestructure of the tax code and
(17:19):
tries to provide tax relief in areally targeted and complicated
way.
Kyle Hulehan (17:24):
And you know, I'll say this, I was a server for
many, many years and I, and Idid that job, and I understand
what it's like to do that.
I think that the problem is, isit's nice when it benefits you.
It's nice when something worksout well.
The problem is, is that.
It's better when everyone canbenefit.
I, I think there's a much, weconstantly are talking about
this, like, is there a betterway to do this?
You can make a, you can make acarve out for something, you can
(17:45):
make a tax credit, you can makea deduction.
Or can we just simplify thewhole thing?
And that's what you guys aregetting at over and over again.
And that's what I think reallymakes sense here is like there's
a much broader way to do all ofthis and a much simpler way to
do the exact same thing.
Help people who are not making alot of money.
That's great, but there's abetter way to do it.
Erica York (18:03):
Yeah, exactly.
Garrett Watson (18:04):
And I think part of this, uh, the other risk long
term, um, is that it also, itdoesn't have a limiting
principle behind it.
And so there's gonna be, uh,incentives not only, not only to
extend these new provisions thatare very targeted, but also to
maybe enhance them or to expandthem to other, uh, types of
income, other, you know,occupations, other folks who are
seeing this and say, Hey, whydon't we.
(18:26):
as well.
And the problem is it, it'scompounding what is already a
flawed approach rather thangoing at it in a more broad way.
So that, that's another, Ithink, broader concern that this
is almost like tax reform inreverse, in the long run, if it
does get cemented in the, uh, inthe tax code
Erica York (18:42):
So we touched on this a little bit, but full
expensing could have been themost pro-growth element of the
2017 tax law, had it been madepermanent.
And we're kind of seeing arepeat of that here because that
provision again gets a temporaryextension.
But sunsets, Garrett, what doyou think lawmakers are missing
(19:02):
when it comes to the importanceof permanence for this
provision?
Garrett Watson (19:05):
So this was probably a, a major
disappointment for us as, uh, tobe expected to see, uh, on the
one hand, one, you know,positive thing is it's better to
have some sort of extensionrather than nothing potentially.
But this is a big missedopportunity to make a.
are probably the most pro-growthelements of this package
permanent, which includesextension of permanency for 100%
bonus, uh, depreciation, goingback to expensing for r and d
(19:28):
investments, which is prettyimportant on several, in several
respects in policy.
Um, making more generous, theinterest limitation, making that
permanent, so there's somestability there.
Uh, and, um, uh, there's also anadditional temporary change, uh,
a bonus, uh, deduction forstructures, which, uh, we've
been big, uh, fans of trying toimprove cost recovery
infrastructure so that they can,uh, we can improve their, uh,
(19:51):
incentives for investment there.
Uh, an area of potentialunderinvestment in the US over
the last few years, uh, but thatis also temporary over the next
five years.
And, uh, that, uh, is a missedopportunity because while we may
see some short term bumps inthe, uh, overall size of the
economy from these provisions,the long run.
Uh, it is going to be unchangedbecause the tax treatment isn't
(20:11):
changing relative to, uh, today.
And so you're gonna see a changein the pattern of investment as
investment is accelerated totake advantage of this, uh,
these provisions that are inplace temporarily.
But the overall long term sizeof the economy is unaffected.
And so, uh, that, uh, of coursewas done potentially for revenue
reasons, because, uh, it does,it is a one-time cost to move
(20:32):
toward a better, uh, costrecovery for these in, uh, types
of investments.
Uh, but we, we ran the numbersand found that.
Overall, if you take thispackage, which currently we
score it as increasing in thelong run size of the economy by
about 0.8% in our latestestimates, uh, we're estimating
that we could roughly addanother, uh, 1% of long run, uh,
uh, the long run size of theeconomy by making these business
(20:54):
provisions from TCGA permanent.
So that's more than doubling,uh, the, uh, overall, uh, growth
effects.
It would also increase long runAmerican incomes as measured by,
uh, GNP.
Uh, and the other upside is,while this would have, of
course, a, a conventional costin the 10 year window, uh,
rounding here, roughly$500billion on a dynamic basis
(21:14):
because they are some of thebiggest, uh, pro-growth
provisions per dollar revenuelost.
Uh, we find that the dynamiccost would not be quite as big
somewhere closer.
The, the order of a hundred to$150 billion over.
10 years.
So, uh, we're hoping that asthis turns to the Senate, there
may be more of a prioritizationon permanency and stability
there and, and the, uh,maximizing the growth potential
of this package.
(21:34):
Uh, of course, love to seepotential, uh, uh, efficient
offsets that could help withthat revenue, uh, math if
needed.
Uh, because this is, uh, some ofthe best, uh, best way, probably
the lowest hanging fruit toimprove the package moving
forward.
Kyle Hulehan (21:48):
All right, so we're talking about a bunch of
different things here.
We've hit on some of the thingswe'd like to change, but I'm
just gonna wave my magic wandhere and I'm gonna pass it over
to Erica and say.
You know, if you could changeone thing going forward, what do
you think it would be and howwould that long-term impact, you
know, have on the tax code?
Erica York (22:05):
I would propose a swap.
So take, uh, these liketemporary grab bag provisions,
like no tax on tips, no tax onovertime, the last minute boost
to the salt deduction.
Um, claw those backsignificantly.
Put limitations on those withsalt.
Just go back to like the, theoriginal house bill that would
(22:26):
give you enough revenue to makethe bonus depreciation.
RD expensing structures,provision permanent.
Um, so you would get thatdoubling more than doubling of
the economic effect, and youcould keep the score on a
conventional basis the same.
If you made that swap, thatwould get rid of a lot of the
complex things.
(22:47):
It would add certainty bygetting rid of some of the
sunsets and making it permanent,so it a significant enhancement
to the bill that could be donewithin a revenue neutral context
given the the parameters they'vealready outlined.
Kyle Hulehan (23:00):
And Garrett, what about you?
Garrett Watson (23:01):
I definitely like that one.
I think another one that's, uh,worth thinking about if you
abstract away all the politicalchalleng.
Which, that's the fun part aboutbeing at a think tank is we, uh,
don't have to worry about thatas much.
Would be basically to, uh, askall of these new targeted, uh,
tax exemptions, tax cuts and putthat, uh, revenue to work
elsewhere, either to help withthe revenue cost of the broader
(23:23):
bill or to, if you wanted toprovide other tax relief, even
just doubling down on theexpanded standard deduction and
making that permanent would, uh,even though it's not, uh,
majorly pro-growth.
Be our simplification, providemore, uh, stability.
And for a lot of folks, uh, whoare being targeted by these tax
cuts still benefit them, right?
The distribution would look alittle bit different, but, uh,
it still would fulfill some ofthe spirit of that, uh, of that,
(23:46):
the goal of those policy changeswithout introducing any of the
complexity or underminingbroader reform.
Uh, so that's another, anotheroption, though.
There's uphill battlespolitically, as we know with
that approach.
Kyle Hulehan (23:56):
There will continue to be uphill battles
politically.
We're gonna keep you guysupdated as things move over to
the Senate.
There's going to be more comingout on this.
We are not done by any meanswith the one big beautiful Bill.
We will try to answer a lot ofyour questions.
We appreciate a lot of you forcommenting here on YouTube and,
and getting everything outeverywhere.
It was, uh, uh, a great to see,uh, all the responses from the
last episode.
(24:17):
So before we sign off, you guysknow.
You can ask us these questions.
You've been asking us questionsand we'll try to address them,
or you can send us an email atpodcast@taxfoundation.org.
You can slide into the dms onTwitter if you want.
Thank you for listening.
Hello and welcome to the Deduction of Tax
Foundation podcast.
I'm your host, Kyle Houlahan,and today we are back with
another episode with Erica Yorkand Garrett Watson, the Director
of policy Analysis here at theTax Foundation.
So Garrett and I kind of alreadybroke down the big beautiful
Bill, uh, in an episode lastweek, but now we got Erica on
the show here.
So Erica.
(00:20):
Let's talk about this real quickas well.
Um, what do you think are likethe most significant provisions
in the new tax package and howdoes that build on or depart
from the 2017 Tax Cuts and JobsAct?
Erica York (00:33):
Yeah, I'd separat it into two buckets.
First is just all the expiringstuff from the 2017 tax law.
Um, on the individual side,especially those all get a.
Permanent extension.
Um, so that's, that's a bigimprovement for taxpayers
because all of this is up in theair.
You know, the child tax credit,the standard deduction, the
rates and brackets, those wouldall be set in place.
(00:57):
And then the other bucket is.
A bunch of new stuff andtemporary stuff.
Um, so on the new stuff, it'sthe things we heard from Trump
on the campaign trail.
Like no tax on tips, no tax onovertime, no tax on auto loan
interest.
And then rather than no tax onsocial security, we have this
bonus deduction for seniorcitizens.
(01:17):
Um.
then also in this bucket oftemporary stuff are some, some
really good provisions likebonus expensing, r and d,
expensing a new type of specialdeduction or bonus deduction for
structures investment.
Those were all really goodthings that would build on the
improvements the TCJA made, butthey would sunset after five
(01:38):
years, um, rather than be madepermanent.
So overall I'd say it, it reallyends up being a mixed bag
because while in some cases thebill would enhance the stability
and the certainty of the taxcode in others, it adds a bunch
of new complicated provisionsand then it sunsets some of the
most important things.
Kyle Hulehan (02:00):
And real quick, just, just to clarify this, when
you say sunset, you're, and likethe problem with sunsetting
something is, is what?
What is the biggest issue withthat?
Erica York (02:09):
The biggest issue is certainty.
So if you think of a businessthat's wanting to build a
factory in the United States,it's not just gonna decide to do
that because it gets atemporary, you know, five year
tax cut.
A, a new factory is like areally big, long-term
investment.
You need stability over thelong.
Long-term in order to make thatdecision, we're talking like,
(02:31):
you know, 15, 30 years.
And so a temporary tax cutdoesn't really change the
calculus for a big long-terminvestment.
Um, if you wanna change thatcalculus, you need to make that
policy set for the long-term orat least as much as you can.
Five years just really fallsshort of that.
Kyle Hulehan (02:49):
Got it.
Erica York (02:50):
Garrett, um, pivoting to, to you on, on the.
The, like, the overall bill andwhether it's like a really big
improvement for taxpayers ornot.
One of the things we're hearingquite a bit is that having the
larger standard deduction,having these rates and brackets
set in place will really makethings simpler for taxpayers.
(03:10):
Um, is, is that true or what doyou make of that?
Garrett Watson (03:12):
So I think there are some elements of this
package that would help improvesimplicity.
The biggest of which is thatpermanency for the underlying.
2017, uh, tax law provisionsthat are expiring.
When you think about, uh, thedoubling of this standard
deduction from 2017 to 2018, uh,and that's continuation, uh,
from 2026 onward, that's goingto reduce the number of folks
who are itemizing, which stoodat.
(03:34):
Rounding here, roughly one thirdof all taxpayers who are
itemizing in 2017 down to about9% of taxpayers today.
And we're avoiding going back tothat higher share of taxpayers
who would itemize.
And of course, uh, for folks whohaven't itemized, uh, it does
require both, uh, tracking a lotof.
Uh, details, receipts, expensesrelated to itemization, uh, and
(03:55):
of course also opens taxpayersup to, uh, inquiries from the
IRS on those particulardeductions.
This standard deduction doesn'thave those challenges from a
complexity perspective, so thatis one benefit.
Uh, on the other hand, uh, thereis, uh, there are some
additional temporary measures inthe bill.
to the 2017 law, some of whichErica you just mentioned.
We also have some temporary, uh,expansions to the standard
(04:18):
deduction worth a thousanddollars for a single uh,
taxpayer,$2,000 for jointhouseholds for a few years.
We have a temporary expansion ofthe child credit up to$2,500,
and some of that is beingmarketed as additional relief
for families.
and taxpayers overall, but, uh,they are temporary and they will
require taxpayers to know aboutthese new temporary rules on top
(04:40):
of the existing, uh, code.
So that does add a little bit ofcomplexity, or at least a
potential source of confusionover the next few years.
That's also true when you layeron these new, uh, exemptions
for, uh, tipped income forovertime.
These are all new things, uh,that, uh, the IRS with the guide
taxpayers on, and that couldcreate new sources of
complexity, uh, particularlywhen they're in effect through.
(05:01):
Uh, 2028.
Erica York (05:03):
Yeah, I, we, we saw a little bit of that with the
original TCJA.
It made these improvements likethe larger standard deduction,
but then it added complexitieslike the section 1 99, a pass
through deduction on net.
I think it was safe to say the2017 law, like.
Overall resulted insimplification.
I think it's harder to make thatcall with this law because it's
really justing insimplifications we've already
(05:26):
had, but then layering on somany new things that are re
requiring, like new reportingfrom businesses new.
Who knows what, like the lineson, on the form, 10 40 or
different schedules to do these,like overtime tax exemptions,
um, that, that probably tip thebalance, uh, away from overall
(05:47):
simplification toward morecomplexity.
I.
Kyle Hulehan (05:50):
Moving to maybe some of the more negative side
of the bills that we see.
Uh, you know, it's funny.
When I think of the word salt,now I actually think of state
and local deduction and not thething you put on food because
we've been talking about salt somuch.
Garrett in, in this bill, the,there's a lot of debate over the
salt deduction cap and you know,what it proposes and how do
these changes reflect politicaltensions, you know, uh, how do
(06:13):
you see this and, and does itadd like a lot of fiscal cost?
Garrett Watson (06:16):
Yeah, the salt cap debate has been a, a central
one in trying to get a degree ofconsensus amongst Republicans in
the house, given the very narrowmajorities as a recap, uh, in
2017.
Uh, and prior to that, there wasan unlimited deduction on
federal returns for.
Taxpayers who itemize and havestate and local taxes, uh, that
they're paying and can deductagainst their federal, uh, their
(06:37):
federal, uh, taxable income.
So that includes things likeyour state and local in, uh,
income tax.
It includes property taxes.
Those are probably the two mostprominent.
It also could include salestaxes in lieu of income tax and
some other types of taxes likereal estate transfer taxes and
for certain taxpayers.
And, uh, high cost of living,high income, high tax states,
(06:57):
uh, that can easily be in thetens of thousands of dollars for
higher income.
Households as part of the 2017tax law, uh, policymakers as
part of this broader package oftax cuts included a base
broadener that capped the amountof state and local taxes that
could be deducted on federalreturns to$10,000 for everyone.
That's 10,$10,000 for all filingstatuses and, uh, was not, uh,
(07:18):
indexed for inflation, uh,moving forward.
That was scheduled to expire atthe end of 2025, along with the
other individual provisions and,uh, as expected, as ignited a
big debate.
About the future of that capbecause it did represent a
substantial gross, uh, tax hikeon its own, on certain, uh,
taxpayers.
It has a very strong geographiccomponent because state and
(07:39):
local taxes paid vary quite abit across the country.
When you look at certain, uh,uh, states and localities on the
coast, for example, they mayhave much higher liabilities
than places in the interior andthe Midwest of the country, for
example.
And one thing that's beenlacking, uh, up to.
This bill was a consensusagreement by policymakers who
wanted to see a more generouscap on what that may look like.
(07:59):
Uh, they did land on somethingthat, uh, passed in this, in
this, uh, bill.
After a few differentiterations, uh, the proposal
would, uh, extend and makepermanent I.
A cap, but it would be a moregenerous cap than the$10,000
that's currently prevailed.
So it would increase it to$40,000, uh, for most taxpayers.
But they added a new element tothis, which is an income limit,
(08:19):
so you can get a$40,000 saltdeduction, which is more
generous than current policy.
Uh, up, up until you hit$500,000in income and then it phases out
basically between 500 and$600,000 in income.
Um, and then it goes back downto that$10,000 amount, uh, for,
for joint households.
And so that, uh, will limit thebene the benefits of that more
(08:41):
generous cap, uh, for the veryhighest of earners.
Uh, but we'll provide, um, thatbenefit for.
to upper middle earners who do,uh, have, uh, salt deductions in
excess of$10,000.
We are looking at, it is a, asubstantial tax cut on top of
the existing cuts.
It's about$300 billion, maybe abit north of that over 10 years.
Net of those additional limits.
(09:01):
Uh, the proposal would alsolimit, uh, certain, uh, uh,
strategies to get around the capusing passer businesses.
Um, and so there's someadditional hikes there.
Uh, the big question movingforward, I think is going to be
whether or not the Senate findsthis, uh, design attractive.
There's a lot of interest fromthe policy perspective of, uh,
cementing this base broadenerfor revenue purposes because
(09:23):
that is part of the broader, uh,uh, sort of, um, motivation of
the 2017 tax law to broaden thebase and lower the rates, and a
lot of ways making into salt capmore generous moves in the
opposite direction, underminesthat legacy.
one of the more positivelegacies of the 2017 tax law
and, uh, the Senate may be alittle more skeptical of that.
So, uh, still a long road aheadfor folks who wanna see changes
(09:44):
to salt.
Uh, one thing, one last thing I,I'd mention on that of course is
there would be, I think, asilver lining for everyone
involved, even if no one isexactly happy with whatever ends
up being produced in the longrun.
If there's some permanency here.
Going back to the, um, thetemporary discussion, right?
The existing cap is a lot ofuncertainty'cause no one knows
next year what that may looklike.
So having some permanency,getting this off of the policy
(10:05):
debate that's been going on foryears and years would be one
win, even if no one's exactlyhappy with the final outcome of
the design.
Kyle Hulehan (10:12):
I, I think that's true in policy a lot of times is
there's always a group that'svery unhappy.
It's really hard to kind of, uh,politics.
We've talked about this a lot.
Politics is, and, and laws.
It's a lot of narrow wins.
It's a lot of marginal.
Is this just a little bit betterthan it was before?
So we deal with that a lot here.
I.
Um, and so, wait, we're stillgonna stay on this.
You know, there's the debate ofhow much this bill will cost.
(10:34):
There's been some stuff in thenews recently that many of you
listeners have probably heardabout.
So could you, you know, breakthis down for us and, uh, I
guess I'll start with Erica.
You know, how much do, will itadd to the deficit and what's
kind of going on with thisdebate?
Erica York (10:45):
Yeah, so before accounting for any added
interest costs because thedeficit goes up, um, we estimate
that.
The primary deficit itself willincrease by about$2.6 trillion
over the next 10 years becauseof the tax and spending changes
in this bill.
On the tax side, we estimatethat it reduces federal tax
(11:06):
revenues by a little bit morethan$4 trillion over the budget
window.
It does include, um, spendingreductions about one and a half
trillion dollars of reduced.
Spending.
So when you combine those two,that's where you get the roughly
$2.6 trillion increase in thedeficit.
Now you'll hear, um, some folkssay, well, that's not doing the
(11:27):
math right.
You need to do the math.
Right?
they mean by that is don'tcount.
Most of the tax cuts as adeficit increase, they, they
wanna change the rules and saythat if you continue policies
that are in effect today, that'snot really reducing.
Tax revenue.
If you grant that, then thatjust means that baseline
(11:48):
deficits are going to be higheranyway.
So you might not count that costas part of the official score,
but you would have to count itas part of like the real world
effect of what's happening totax revenues.
Um, so either way, deficitsunder this bill would be
significantly higher.
Um, I think, you know, the, the.
(12:09):
Correct way.
The right way.
According to conventions andrules, rules that were used to
pass the original tax law, um,are that this is a tax cut that
reduces revenue.
if you wanna pretend that therules are different and say, no,
it doesn't, well then you alsohave to say that deficits are
going to be higher in thebaseline because we are going to
(12:30):
assume that these tax cutscontinue indefinitely, and that
means lower tax revenues.
Um, so really any way you sliceit, uh, the fiscal trajectory of
the United States issignificantly higher deficits
and higher debt over the nextdecade under the combination of
policies being considered here.
Garrett Watson (12:50):
I think it's also helpful, uh, to look at a
couple other perspectives.
One is, uh, the, uh, the numbersthat we used, uh, to, uh, we
that we produced to score this,uh, that are commonly cited,
score the bill as written.
And so, of course, um, as Ericajust mentioned, right, there's a
lot of, um, potential gameplaying with the, either the
baseline or whether or not we'reincluding, uh, uh, things that
(13:13):
are scheduled to expire that arenot intended to actually expire.
Um, or, or applying temporarypolicy and consistently across.
Legislation.
So there have been someestimates, uh, and we're
actually working right now onproducing our own estimate of
what the cost of this packagewould look like if, uh, all the
provisions were made permanent,including in the tax side, most
prominently the new, uh, taxcuts on tips over time, the new
(13:35):
senior deduction, the auto loandeduction, et cetera.
Uh, and that, uh, broadlyspeaking, uh, puts the, the, the
bill overall, uh, another, atleast another trillion dollars
more expensive over 10 years.
And that's just in the budgetwindow.
Um, and that even that may be,uh, somewhat conservative
depending on the path of.
Uh, the cost of some of theseprovisions.
And so I think that's, uh, oneway to think about it is if
(13:56):
there is an intent, hey, uh,these new, um, no taxes on tips,
do we really intend that toexpire in, uh, four years?
Or is it going to be anelectoral issue where it's gonna
be extended?
Uh, we did see that happen inTCJA, right?
Where there were base broadensthat were built in that.
We're not intended to takeeffect.
That did take effect, forexample, r and d, amortization
and, and bonus, uh, phasingdown.
(14:17):
Uh, and there's a similar riskhere, I think.
Um, the other of course, uh, youknow, revenue area, which I
think we'll touch on a littlelater, is just the status of, of
tariffs and other, uh, fiscalpolicy that could impact, uh,
this broader debate or thefiscal trajectory of the us.
But if anything, that's evenmore uncertain given some of the
more recent developments, whichwe'll we'll touch on in a little
bit.
Kyle Hulehan (14:37):
Honestly, what I can think of is how dare you
guys try to stick to likeregular rules and conventions
and what we've done before?
Come on, it's a new time, newage.
We gotta, we gotta do thingsdifferently now.
So, um, anyway, moving on.
Uh, so there are provisions fortax exemptions on tips and
overtime, and that's strong.
Some people love it.
(14:57):
I mean, some people criticizeit, uh, that they're very
interesting to say the least.
Uh, but Erica, could you breakthat down for us?
You know, uh, do they complicatematters?
Do they pay off at all?
What do you think?
Erica York (15:09):
Yeah, so if you think of the idea of tax reform
and like what makes a tax reformgood, it is something that makes
the tax code more neutral.
I.
That makes it more simple andthat makes it more efficient.
So we want different types ofincome treated the same way.
We want income all to betaxable, but at a lower rate
(15:29):
rather than carving out, youknow, special low rates for
certain things and then higherrates on other things.
'cause that creates a lot of.
Distortions.
And if we look at what theseprovisions do, they obviously
don't line up with that ideal oftax reform.
They are creating specialtreatment for certain types of
workers, depending on theindustry they're in.
Um, and, you know, it's, it'swell meant.
(15:51):
Um, it's, it's trying to.
Offer tax relief to workingclass Americans, and that's a
good goal.
But why would you say, you know,let's say a waiter making$30,000
a year is not gonna get a bigtax cut, but a clerk at a store
also making$30,000 a year isn'tgonna get any tax cut.
(16:12):
Um, so there's.
Equity problems between peoplewith similar levels of income,
but who earn that income indifferent ways.
It could be taxed differently.
It also creates a lot ofincentives for gaming.
Like if my income is in tips orif I am making overtime, that
gets.
Exempt from tax.
Um, so there's a big incentiveto try to structure your pay in
(16:34):
that way, and that requiresCongress to then try to write
guardrails to prevent that typeof gaming.
And it requires the IRS to, um,you know, clamp down and make
sure that people are followingthose rules.
All that gets really complicatedwhen the alternative, something
really simple, like an evenlarger standard deduction or a
lower marginal tax rate, couldoffer similar relief to people
(16:58):
at those income levels.
Without all of this gaming andadministrative complexity.
So I think it's a, it's a reallike failure on the part of
lawmakers to enact tax reformthat really improves the
structure of the tax code andthe incentives that people face.
Instead, it worsens thestructure of the tax code and
(17:19):
tries to provide tax relief in areally targeted and complicated
way.
Kyle Hulehan (17:24):
And you know, I'll say this, I was a server for
many, many years and I, and Idid that job, and I understand
what it's like to do that.
I think that the problem is, isit's nice when it benefits you.
It's nice when something worksout well.
The problem is, is that.
It's better when everyone canbenefit.
I, I think there's a much, weconstantly are talking about
this, like, is there a betterway to do this?
You can make a, you can make acarve out for something, you can
(17:45):
make a tax credit, you can makea deduction.
Or can we just simplify thewhole thing?
And that's what you guys aregetting at over and over again.
And that's what I think reallymakes sense here is like there's
a much broader way to do all ofthis and a much simpler way to
do the exact same thing.
Help people who are not making alot of money.
That's great, but there's abetter way to do it.
Erica York (18:03):
Yeah, exactly.
Garrett Watson (18:04):
And I think part of this, uh, the other risk long
term, um, is that it also, itdoesn't have a limiting
principle behind it.
And so there's gonna be, uh,incentives not only, not only to
extend these new provisions thatare very targeted, but also to
maybe enhance them or to expandthem to other, uh, types of
income, other, you know,occupations, other folks who are
seeing this and say, Hey, whydon't we.
(18:26):
as well.
And the problem is it, it'scompounding what is already a
flawed approach rather thangoing at it in a more broad way.
So that, that's another, Ithink, broader concern that this
is almost like tax reform inreverse, in the long run, if it
does get cemented in the, uh, inthe tax code
Erica York (18:42):
So we touched on this a little bit, but full
expensing could have been themost pro-growth element of the
2017 tax law, had it been madepermanent.
And we're kind of seeing arepeat of that here because that
provision again gets a temporaryextension.
But sunsets, Garrett, what doyou think lawmakers are missing
(19:02):
when it comes to the importanceof permanence for this
provision?
Garrett Watson (19:05):
So this was probably a, a major
disappointment for us as, uh, tobe expected to see, uh, on the
one hand, one, you know,positive thing is it's better to
have some sort of extensionrather than nothing potentially.
But this is a big missedopportunity to make a.
are probably the most pro-growthelements of this package
permanent, which includesextension of permanency for 100%
bonus, uh, depreciation, goingback to expensing for r and d
(19:28):
investments, which is prettyimportant on several, in several
respects in policy.
Um, making more generous, theinterest limitation, making that
permanent, so there's somestability there.
Uh, and, um, uh, there's also anadditional temporary change, uh,
a bonus, uh, deduction forstructures, which, uh, we've
been big, uh, fans of trying toimprove cost recovery
infrastructure so that they can,uh, we can improve their, uh,
(19:51):
incentives for investment there.
Uh, an area of potentialunderinvestment in the US over
the last few years, uh, but thatis also temporary over the next
five years.
And, uh, that, uh, is a missedopportunity because while we may
see some short term bumps inthe, uh, overall size of the
economy from these provisions,the long run.
Uh, it is going to be unchangedbecause the tax treatment isn't
(20:11):
changing relative to, uh, today.
And so you're gonna see a changein the pattern of investment as
investment is accelerated totake advantage of this, uh,
these provisions that are inplace temporarily.
But the overall long term sizeof the economy is unaffected.
And so, uh, that, uh, of coursewas done potentially for revenue
reasons, because, uh, it does,it is a one-time cost to move
(20:32):
toward a better, uh, costrecovery for these in, uh, types
of investments.
Uh, but we, we ran the numbersand found that.
Overall, if you take thispackage, which currently we
score it as increasing in thelong run size of the economy by
about 0.8% in our latestestimates, uh, we're estimating
that we could roughly addanother, uh, 1% of long run, uh,
uh, the long run size of theeconomy by making these business
(20:54):
provisions from TCGA permanent.
So that's more than doubling,uh, the, uh, overall, uh, growth
effects.
It would also increase long runAmerican incomes as measured by,
uh, GNP.
Uh, and the other upside is,while this would have, of
course, a, a conventional costin the 10 year window, uh,
rounding here, roughly$500billion on a dynamic basis
(21:14):
because they are some of thebiggest, uh, pro-growth
provisions per dollar revenuelost.
Uh, we find that the dynamiccost would not be quite as big
somewhere closer.
The, the order of a hundred to$150 billion over.
10 years.
So, uh, we're hoping that asthis turns to the Senate, there
may be more of a prioritizationon permanency and stability
there and, and the, uh,maximizing the growth potential
of this package.
(21:34):
Uh, of course, love to seepotential, uh, uh, efficient
offsets that could help withthat revenue, uh, math if
needed.
Uh, because this is, uh, some ofthe best, uh, best way, probably
the lowest hanging fruit toimprove the package moving
forward.
Kyle Hulehan (21:48):
All right, so we're talking about a bunch of
different things here.
We've hit on some of the thingswe'd like to change, but I'm
just gonna wave my magic wandhere and I'm gonna pass it over
to Erica and say.
You know, if you could changeone thing going forward, what do
you think it would be and howwould that long-term impact, you
know, have on the tax code?
Erica York (22:05):
I would propose a swap.
So take, uh, these liketemporary grab bag provisions,
like no tax on tips, no tax onovertime, the last minute boost
to the salt deduction.
Um, claw those backsignificantly.
Put limitations on those withsalt.
Just go back to like the, theoriginal house bill that would
(22:26):
give you enough revenue to makethe bonus depreciation.
RD expensing structures,provision permanent.
Um, so you would get thatdoubling more than doubling of
the economic effect, and youcould keep the score on a
conventional basis the same.
If you made that swap, thatwould get rid of a lot of the
complex things.
(22:47):
It would add certainty bygetting rid of some of the
sunsets and making it permanent,so it a significant enhancement
to the bill that could be donewithin a revenue neutral context
given the the parameters they'vealready outlined.
Kyle Hulehan (23:00):
And Garrett, what about you?
Garrett Watson (23:01):
I definitely like that one.
I think another one that's, uh,worth thinking about if you
abstract away all the politicalchalleng.
Which, that's the fun part aboutbeing at a think tank is we, uh,
don't have to worry about thatas much.
Would be basically to, uh, askall of these new targeted, uh,
tax exemptions, tax cuts and putthat, uh, revenue to work
elsewhere, either to help withthe revenue cost of the broader
(23:23):
bill or to, if you wanted toprovide other tax relief, even
just doubling down on theexpanded standard deduction and
making that permanent would, uh,even though it's not, uh,
majorly pro-growth.
Be our simplification, providemore, uh, stability.
And for a lot of folks, uh, whoare being targeted by these tax
cuts still benefit them, right?
The distribution would look alittle bit different, but, uh,
it still would fulfill some ofthe spirit of that, uh, of that,
(23:46):
the goal of those policy changeswithout introducing any of the
complexity or underminingbroader reform.
Uh, so that's another, anotheroption, though.
There's uphill battlespolitically, as we know with
that approach.
Kyle Hulehan (23:56):
There will continue to be uphill battles
politically.
We're gonna keep you guysupdated as things move over to
the Senate.
There's going to be more comingout on this.
We are not done by any meanswith the one big beautiful Bill.
We will try to answer a lot ofyour questions.
We appreciate a lot of you forcommenting here on YouTube and,
and getting everything outeverywhere.
It was, uh, uh, a great to see,uh, all the responses from the
last episode.
(24:17):
So before we sign off, you guysknow.
You can ask us these questions.
You've been asking us questionsand we'll try to address them,
or you can send us an email atpodcast@taxfoundation.org.
You can slide into the dms onTwitter if you want.
Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.