July 1, 2025 • 13 mins
Congress is racing to pass the One Big Beautiful Tax Bill before the July 4
deadline.
In this episode, Kyle Hulehan and Erica York break down what just
happened over the weekend, what’s actually in the bill, and what comes
next as the House and Senate try to reconcile their differences.
Learn more:
“Big Beautiful Bill” Senate GOP Tax Plan: Preliminary Details and Analysis:
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/big-beautiful-bill-senate-gop-tax-plan/
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 a Tax
Foundation podcast.
I'm your host, Kyle Houlahan,and we are back today with
another episode with my co-host,Erica York, and we are talking
once again about the one bigbeautiful Bill.
So Erica, we're gonna dive rightin here.
What happened over the weekend?
There's been a lot of news.
There's the house bill, there'sthe Senate bill.
(00:22):
What's going on?
Erica York (00:22):
It was a very busy weekend in Washington, um, for,
for policymakers.
So late Friday night, the Senatereleased a new version of its
text of the one big beautifulbill act.
It is now a 940 page bill.
Um, so a lot to dig through inthere.
Not I.
Just tax policy, but a lot ofspending stuff as well.
(00:42):
Um, and then the Senate spentthe weekend, um, working up
toward a procedural vote thattook place on Saturday night.
This was a key vote that allowsdebate to continue moving
forward on the bill.
Um, and it took several hours,but the, um, Senate did end up
advancing the bill.
Um, that initial vote was 51 49and two GOP Senators actually
(01:06):
voted against.
Um, against that, that wasn'tthe final vote, I should say.
That was again, just like thiskey procedural vote to get to
continue moving forward in theprocess.
And now that's exactly whatthey're doing.
Um, this morning, Mondaymorning.
Kyle Hulehan (01:21):
So then what are, or what do we see as like the
major differences between theHouse and Senate bills as
they're continuing to go throughreconciliation?
Erica York (01:31):
So some of the key changes in this version of the
Senate bill compared to theinitial version are, um, to some
of these big ticket items thatwe've been hearing a lot of
debate about, um, like the stateand local tax deduction.
Some of these internationalprovisions.
Um, so some of those keychanges, the, the initial Senate
version of the bill had a$10,000salt cap, so it would've
(01:53):
maintained the cap on theitemized deduction for state and
local taxes paid that we haveunder current law.
Um, that was a really bigsticking point with the house
because the house version of thebill would've permanently
increased that cap to$40,000phased out for higher income
individuals and allowed that capto be inflation adjusted over
time.
Uh, the Senate kind of takes acompromise approach to that.
(02:17):
And this latest version, they doa$40,000 cap with the same phase
out.
That's only through 2029 andthen the cap is scheduled to go
back down to$10,000.
So that's one of the really bigchanges between both the House
and the Senate as well as these,um, different versions of the
Senate bill.
We also saw, um, the Senate hastaken a different approach to
(02:39):
international taxes, which is apretty complicated area of the
tax system, but the Senategenerally makes some good
improvements on a permanentbasis there.
Makes some pay fors that may notbe the, the best policy, but
overall end up, um.
Being a pretty good spot forinternational taxes.
This version of the Senate billdoes include some changes there,
(03:00):
um, both with the house versionand with the previous Senate
version.
So some of the more, I would saycontroversial elements of
international taxes.
Um, you may have heard of the,the remittance tax.
The Senate takes a much softerapproach to, that takes a lot of
the teeth out of that designcompared to the house bill and
then actually entirelyeliminates.
(03:21):
Um, what has been called the,the revenge tax, um, because
separately the TreasuryDepartment has been working, um,
internationally secured inagreement amongst the G seven
countries to tone back some ofthese discriminatory
international taxes.
So now this.
Um, revenge tax has fallen outof the Senate bill.
What a lot of these changes meanthough is that the cost of the
(03:44):
Senate bill has gone up.
So we saw a few changes to taxprovisions to try to reduce cost
elsewhere.
Um, particularly changes to thealternative minimum tax, a
slightly smaller increase to thestandard deduction.
Um, some changes aroundinflation adjustments.
So lots of moving pieces.
Um, but big picture between theHouse and the Senate.
(04:06):
What we see is the Senate makesmore permanent changes while the
house has relied on a lot oftemporary changes to reduce what
it looks like the bill costs.
Um, so overall we see much morepermanence on the Senate side,
which means.
We see a stronger economiceffect from this bill.
We're still working on our finalnumbers, um, but our, our GDP
(04:28):
effect for the Senate version ofthe bill is probably gonna be
somewhere between a 1.1 to 1.2%increase in long run GDP while
the house bill was a 0.8%increase.
So you can see a prettysubstantial improvement because
the Senate makes key provisions,especially on the business side,
like full expensing, like welike to talk about, um, for
research and development forshort live investment.
(04:49):
Those are permanent in theSenate bill.
So we see that stronger boost,but we also see a larger price
tag.
Um, again, we're still workingon those cost estimates, but if
you look at the CongressionalBudget office scores, um, the
CBO has estimated a totaldeficit increase from the house
version at$2.77 trillion overthe decade.
For the Senate version, it's3.25 trillion.
(05:13):
So you can see roughly$500billion, um, more over the, the
budget window.
For the Senate version, we'llprobably be even a little bit
higher than that.
Um, because our scoringindicates that some of these
business investment provisionstend to reduce revenue by more
than, than what the, um,official scorekeepers estimate.
Either way, we're looking at areally big increase, um, in, in
(05:36):
budget deficits under this bill,even when we factor in the more
pro-growth version of, of theSenate's bill.
Kyle Hulehan (05:43):
And, and so maybe the, the elephant in the room
with this is a little bit, asyou know, we're talking about
cost.
Why does the cost matter foreveryone in the US right now?
Why does the debt matter somuch?
Where do we stand with that?
Erica York (05:56):
So our, our baseline debt, the debt that already
exists.
Is very large.
Historically speaking, deficitsare very large, historically
speaking.
So the gap between spending andrevenue that we have right now
before any changes Congressmakes is much larger than you
would expect to see, um, at a,at an economic time like this.
We also have relatively highinterest rates, which means that
(06:19):
interest payments on the debtare becoming an even larger part
of the federal government'sbudget.
Um, so if you look at like thepast year, we spent more on
interest than we did on defense,and that's only scheduled to
grow.
That's gonna get even costlier,if Congress passes a bill, that
further increases the deficit.
That means we're adding to thedebt rather than stabilizing it,
(06:41):
which means interest costs aregoing to grow.
And over time, that reallyerodes the fiscal capacity of
the government.
We want the government to haveresources to spend on certain
programs, whether it's.
Defense, whether it's supportfor the elderly, um, whether
it's support for low incomehouseholds, the more that the
government has to spend oninterest payments, um, the less
(07:02):
they have to spend on theseother programs.
And it really puts us on thewrong track long term towards
addressing the debt and justgetting it to a, to a stable
place.
I think this also relates toone, uh, another, one of the key
differences we see between theapproach that the house has
taken and the approach that theSenate has taken.
One of the first things that theSenate voted on, um, this
(07:26):
morning was okaying the idea tosay, Hey, the extension of the
tax cuts that are in place todayisn't gonna actually cost
anything.
Now, we all know like, if, ifyou cut taxes, that's gonna
reduce revenue.
So that costs, but what Congressis talking about, what the
Senate in particular is talkingabout is saying.
We are just gonna say that thisdoesn't add to the debt or
(07:48):
deficits.
So that's a really bigdifference in approach between
the house and the Senate, wherethe house was pretty concerned
about deficits, where they had,um, a requirement in their
reconciliation rules to say.
If we increase the deficit byany more, then the tax cuts have
to come down, or the spendingcuts have to go up because they
(08:09):
wanted to pay for a certainamount of the tax cuts that they
were looking at.
Whereas the Senate is saying, weare just gonna pretend to erase
this nearly$4 trillion of costand then just count this, this
other part over here.
Um, so again, it, it all comesback to fiscal responsibility
and whether lawmakers.
Are really serious aboutreducing debt and deficits, or
(08:30):
whether they're going to dobudget gimmicks and allow
deficits to grow and interestcosts to rise.
Kyle Hulehan (08:36):
Yeah, and I think we kind of, you gotta stay in.
Why do we have government, youknow, there's supposed to be
this mutual exchange ofservices.
We pay taxes, we get thingswe're.
Safer, military, all of theseother things.
And when they're just payinginterest, when most of our money
is going to interest, we don'tget anything.
And it, and it's just reallythat simple, like if you wanna
think about the debt in thatway, I feel like that's a really
simple way to break it down forpeople.
(08:57):
So I really appreciate that.
So then what do we see ishappening next?
What, what are the next stepsthat are gonna play out here?
Erica York (09:04):
Everyone is still aiming for this July 4th
deadline, which of course isjust a, a handful of days away.
Um, if they are to keep that,this voter aama and the Senate,
um, probably wraps up Mondaynight so the Senate could vote
on the final version of thebill, which could change because
of course voter means senatorsare offering amendments.
(09:25):
To all of these differentprovisions, um, throughout the
day.
Some of those may be approved sowe could see, you know, the tax
and the spending side stillchange, but ultimately we're
looking at a Senate vote.
Late Monday night, very earlyTuesday morning, then the bill
would have to go back to thehouse because the house has
approved a different version.
They would need to approve thisSenate version in order to get
(09:48):
this to the President's desk byFriday.
The big question of course isdoes the house agree with all of
the changes the Senate has made?
Or is the house going to wannamake its own changes?
And then we're back at thisprocess of the Senate and the
House still have to reconcile afinal version of the bill.
Um, so there's a potential pathfor this thing to get done this
(10:09):
week, but it is still prettyuncertain.
I.
Ultimately though, I think, um,what we've kind of seen with
this house passed version withthe version the Senate is
working on now is that there'sagreement on the bulk of the
provisions being discussed here.
You know, both the House and theSenate want to extend all of the
expiring tax cuts they want to,in some form or fashion.
(10:32):
Um, enact the President'scampaign promises like no tax on
tips.
Auto loans, um, overtime, aprovision for seniors.
Then there are a bit, uh, uh,the di differences come in on
some of the trickier provisionslike business expensing, like
international, like the stateand local tax deduction.
I think those are areas wherecompromise can still be worked
(10:54):
out though.
Um, so the, the devil's in thedetails, but I think what this
all means is that we are movingtoward final passage of the one
big beautiful bill act.
Maybe Friday, maybe it takes alittle bit longer.
Kyle Hulehan (11:07):
Yeah.
And so I'm wondering maybe whatthe, the big takeaway from all
of this is, you know, when wetalk about tariffs, uh, I, I
feel like it's always a littlebit bleak because it's like, oh,
this is just really bad and thisis all really bad.
So I, I, I'm curious what youroverall takeaway is from this.
Is it maybe a little bit moremixed and not quite as dire as,
as tariffs?
Erica York (11:27):
it's probably a missed opportunity.
So the.
You know, the, the expiration,the need to do tax reform could
have yielded something thatreally set the United States on
a more fiscally responsibletrajectory and improved the tax
code for individuals andbusinesses.
We're probably looking atsomething that that does improve
(11:48):
the tax code for individuals andbusinesses, particularly if the
Senate version of the expendingprovisions goes through and we
have.
Permanent.
Um, that's, that's a veryhistorically good bill for
investment incentives in theUnited States.
It's also a bill that's going tosignificantly increase deficits.
It's going to add a lot ofuncertainty because of the
(12:10):
temporary provisions related tothe president's campaign
promises.
So on the one hand, you'regetting some certainty, you're
getting better economicincentives.
On the other hand, you'regetting a really large increase
in the deficit and a lot morecomplexity added to the tax
code.
Um, so while it does preventthese tax increases on
individual taxpayers that wouldoccur.
(12:32):
If Congress did nothing.
While it does make improvementsto investment incentives, it
certainly falls well short of,of what we would say would be an
ideal tax package.
Kyle Hulehan (12:42):
Okay.
That, that makes sense.
I mean, it, it does seem likeit, it has some mixed results,
but yeah, full expensing issomething we talk about a lot
here, and that would definitelyhelp businesses and, uh, boost
our economy.
So, so there's, there's a mixedbag here.
it's not all bad, it's not allgood.
Um, but Erica.
Thank you for being on the show.
Thank you for giving us all thisinformation today.
(13:02):
Uh, and before we sign off, Ijust wanna let you guys know if
you have any questions, you cancomment on YouTube.
You can DM us on Twitter, youcan email us at
podcast@taxfoundation.org, oryou can, you know, slide into
our dms if you want.
Thank you for listening.
Hello and welcome to the Deduction a Tax
Foundation podcast.
I'm your host, Kyle Houlahan,and we are back today with
another episode with my co-host,Erica York, and we are talking
once again about the one bigbeautiful Bill.
So Erica, we're gonna dive rightin here.
What happened over the weekend?
There's been a lot of news.
There's the house bill, there'sthe Senate bill.
(00:22):
What's going on?
Erica York (00:22):
It was a very busy weekend in Washington, um, for,
for policymakers.
So late Friday night, the Senatereleased a new version of its
text of the one big beautifulbill act.
It is now a 940 page bill.
Um, so a lot to dig through inthere.
Not I.
Just tax policy, but a lot ofspending stuff as well.
(00:42):
Um, and then the Senate spentthe weekend, um, working up
toward a procedural vote thattook place on Saturday night.
This was a key vote that allowsdebate to continue moving
forward on the bill.
Um, and it took several hours,but the, um, Senate did end up
advancing the bill.
Um, that initial vote was 51 49and two GOP Senators actually
(01:06):
voted against.
Um, against that, that wasn'tthe final vote, I should say.
That was again, just like thiskey procedural vote to get to
continue moving forward in theprocess.
And now that's exactly whatthey're doing.
Um, this morning, Mondaymorning.
Kyle Hulehan (01:21):
So then what are, or what do we see as like the
major differences between theHouse and Senate bills as
they're continuing to go throughreconciliation?
Erica York (01:31):
So some of the key changes in this version of the
Senate bill compared to theinitial version are, um, to some
of these big ticket items thatwe've been hearing a lot of
debate about, um, like the stateand local tax deduction.
Some of these internationalprovisions.
Um, so some of those keychanges, the, the initial Senate
version of the bill had a$10,000salt cap, so it would've
(01:53):
maintained the cap on theitemized deduction for state and
local taxes paid that we haveunder current law.
Um, that was a really bigsticking point with the house
because the house version of thebill would've permanently
increased that cap to$40,000phased out for higher income
individuals and allowed that capto be inflation adjusted over
time.
Uh, the Senate kind of takes acompromise approach to that.
(02:17):
And this latest version, they doa$40,000 cap with the same phase
out.
That's only through 2029 andthen the cap is scheduled to go
back down to$10,000.
So that's one of the really bigchanges between both the House
and the Senate as well as these,um, different versions of the
Senate bill.
We also saw, um, the Senate hastaken a different approach to
(02:39):
international taxes, which is apretty complicated area of the
tax system, but the Senategenerally makes some good
improvements on a permanentbasis there.
Makes some pay fors that may notbe the, the best policy, but
overall end up, um.
Being a pretty good spot forinternational taxes.
This version of the Senate billdoes include some changes there,
(03:00):
um, both with the house versionand with the previous Senate
version.
So some of the more, I would saycontroversial elements of
international taxes.
Um, you may have heard of the,the remittance tax.
The Senate takes a much softerapproach to, that takes a lot of
the teeth out of that designcompared to the house bill and
then actually entirelyeliminates.
(03:21):
Um, what has been called the,the revenge tax, um, because
separately the TreasuryDepartment has been working, um,
internationally secured inagreement amongst the G seven
countries to tone back some ofthese discriminatory
international taxes.
So now this.
Um, revenge tax has fallen outof the Senate bill.
What a lot of these changes meanthough is that the cost of the
(03:44):
Senate bill has gone up.
So we saw a few changes to taxprovisions to try to reduce cost
elsewhere.
Um, particularly changes to thealternative minimum tax, a
slightly smaller increase to thestandard deduction.
Um, some changes aroundinflation adjustments.
So lots of moving pieces.
Um, but big picture between theHouse and the Senate.
(04:06):
What we see is the Senate makesmore permanent changes while the
house has relied on a lot oftemporary changes to reduce what
it looks like the bill costs.
Um, so overall we see much morepermanence on the Senate side,
which means.
We see a stronger economiceffect from this bill.
We're still working on our finalnumbers, um, but our, our GDP
(04:28):
effect for the Senate version ofthe bill is probably gonna be
somewhere between a 1.1 to 1.2%increase in long run GDP while
the house bill was a 0.8%increase.
So you can see a prettysubstantial improvement because
the Senate makes key provisions,especially on the business side,
like full expensing, like welike to talk about, um, for
research and development forshort live investment.
(04:49):
Those are permanent in theSenate bill.
So we see that stronger boost,but we also see a larger price
tag.
Um, again, we're still workingon those cost estimates, but if
you look at the CongressionalBudget office scores, um, the
CBO has estimated a totaldeficit increase from the house
version at$2.77 trillion overthe decade.
For the Senate version, it's3.25 trillion.
(05:13):
So you can see roughly$500billion, um, more over the, the
budget window.
For the Senate version, we'llprobably be even a little bit
higher than that.
Um, because our scoringindicates that some of these
business investment provisionstend to reduce revenue by more
than, than what the, um,official scorekeepers estimate.
Either way, we're looking at areally big increase, um, in, in
(05:36):
budget deficits under this bill,even when we factor in the more
pro-growth version of, of theSenate's bill.
Kyle Hulehan (05:43):
And, and so maybe the, the elephant in the room
with this is a little bit, asyou know, we're talking about
cost.
Why does the cost matter foreveryone in the US right now?
Why does the debt matter somuch?
Where do we stand with that?
Erica York (05:56):
So our, our baseline debt, the debt that already
exists.
Is very large.
Historically speaking, deficitsare very large, historically
speaking.
So the gap between spending andrevenue that we have right now
before any changes Congressmakes is much larger than you
would expect to see, um, at a,at an economic time like this.
We also have relatively highinterest rates, which means that
(06:19):
interest payments on the debtare becoming an even larger part
of the federal government'sbudget.
Um, so if you look at like thepast year, we spent more on
interest than we did on defense,and that's only scheduled to
grow.
That's gonna get even costlier,if Congress passes a bill, that
further increases the deficit.
That means we're adding to thedebt rather than stabilizing it,
(06:41):
which means interest costs aregoing to grow.
And over time, that reallyerodes the fiscal capacity of
the government.
We want the government to haveresources to spend on certain
programs, whether it's.
Defense, whether it's supportfor the elderly, um, whether
it's support for low incomehouseholds, the more that the
government has to spend oninterest payments, um, the less
(07:02):
they have to spend on theseother programs.
And it really puts us on thewrong track long term towards
addressing the debt and justgetting it to a, to a stable
place.
I think this also relates toone, uh, another, one of the key
differences we see between theapproach that the house has
taken and the approach that theSenate has taken.
One of the first things that theSenate voted on, um, this
(07:26):
morning was okaying the idea tosay, Hey, the extension of the
tax cuts that are in place todayisn't gonna actually cost
anything.
Now, we all know like, if, ifyou cut taxes, that's gonna
reduce revenue.
So that costs, but what Congressis talking about, what the
Senate in particular is talkingabout is saying.
We are just gonna say that thisdoesn't add to the debt or
(07:48):
deficits.
So that's a really bigdifference in approach between
the house and the Senate, wherethe house was pretty concerned
about deficits, where they had,um, a requirement in their
reconciliation rules to say.
If we increase the deficit byany more, then the tax cuts have
to come down, or the spendingcuts have to go up because they
(08:09):
wanted to pay for a certainamount of the tax cuts that they
were looking at.
Whereas the Senate is saying, weare just gonna pretend to erase
this nearly$4 trillion of costand then just count this, this
other part over here.
Um, so again, it, it all comesback to fiscal responsibility
and whether lawmakers.
Are really serious aboutreducing debt and deficits, or
(08:30):
whether they're going to dobudget gimmicks and allow
deficits to grow and interestcosts to rise.
Kyle Hulehan (08:36):
Yeah, and I think we kind of, you gotta stay in.
Why do we have government, youknow, there's supposed to be
this mutual exchange ofservices.
We pay taxes, we get thingswe're.
Safer, military, all of theseother things.
And when they're just payinginterest, when most of our money
is going to interest, we don'tget anything.
And it, and it's just reallythat simple, like if you wanna
think about the debt in thatway, I feel like that's a really
simple way to break it down forpeople.
(08:57):
So I really appreciate that.
So then what do we see ishappening next?
What, what are the next stepsthat are gonna play out here?
Erica York (09:04):
Everyone is still aiming for this July 4th
deadline, which of course isjust a, a handful of days away.
Um, if they are to keep that,this voter aama and the Senate,
um, probably wraps up Mondaynight so the Senate could vote
on the final version of thebill, which could change because
of course voter means senatorsare offering amendments.
(09:25):
To all of these differentprovisions, um, throughout the
day.
Some of those may be approved sowe could see, you know, the tax
and the spending side stillchange, but ultimately we're
looking at a Senate vote.
Late Monday night, very earlyTuesday morning, then the bill
would have to go back to thehouse because the house has
approved a different version.
They would need to approve thisSenate version in order to get
(09:48):
this to the President's desk byFriday.
The big question of course isdoes the house agree with all of
the changes the Senate has made?
Or is the house going to wannamake its own changes?
And then we're back at thisprocess of the Senate and the
House still have to reconcile afinal version of the bill.
Um, so there's a potential pathfor this thing to get done this
(10:09):
week, but it is still prettyuncertain.
I.
Ultimately though, I think, um,what we've kind of seen with
this house passed version withthe version the Senate is
working on now is that there'sagreement on the bulk of the
provisions being discussed here.
You know, both the House and theSenate want to extend all of the
expiring tax cuts they want to,in some form or fashion.
(10:32):
Um, enact the President'scampaign promises like no tax on
tips.
Auto loans, um, overtime, aprovision for seniors.
Then there are a bit, uh, uh,the di differences come in on
some of the trickier provisionslike business expensing, like
international, like the stateand local tax deduction.
I think those are areas wherecompromise can still be worked
(10:54):
out though.
Um, so the, the devil's in thedetails, but I think what this
all means is that we are movingtoward final passage of the one
big beautiful bill act.
Maybe Friday, maybe it takes alittle bit longer.
Kyle Hulehan (11:07):
Yeah.
And so I'm wondering maybe whatthe, the big takeaway from all
of this is, you know, when wetalk about tariffs, uh, I, I
feel like it's always a littlebit bleak because it's like, oh,
this is just really bad and thisis all really bad.
So I, I, I'm curious what youroverall takeaway is from this.
Is it maybe a little bit moremixed and not quite as dire as,
as tariffs?
Erica York (11:27):
it's probably a missed opportunity.
So the.
You know, the, the expiration,the need to do tax reform could
have yielded something thatreally set the United States on
a more fiscally responsibletrajectory and improved the tax
code for individuals andbusinesses.
We're probably looking atsomething that that does improve
(11:48):
the tax code for individuals andbusinesses, particularly if the
Senate version of the expendingprovisions goes through and we
have.
Permanent.
Um, that's, that's a veryhistorically good bill for
investment incentives in theUnited States.
It's also a bill that's going tosignificantly increase deficits.
It's going to add a lot ofuncertainty because of the
(12:10):
temporary provisions related tothe president's campaign
promises.
So on the one hand, you'regetting some certainty, you're
getting better economicincentives.
On the other hand, you'regetting a really large increase
in the deficit and a lot morecomplexity added to the tax
code.
Um, so while it does preventthese tax increases on
individual taxpayers that wouldoccur.
(12:32):
If Congress did nothing.
While it does make improvementsto investment incentives, it
certainly falls well short of,of what we would say would be an
ideal tax package.
Kyle Hulehan (12:42):
Okay.
That, that makes sense.
I mean, it, it does seem likeit, it has some mixed results,
but yeah, full expensing issomething we talk about a lot
here, and that would definitelyhelp businesses and, uh, boost
our economy.
So, so there's, there's a mixedbag here.
it's not all bad, it's not allgood.
Um, but Erica.
Thank you for being on the show.
Thank you for giving us all thisinformation today.
(13:02):
Uh, and before we sign off, Ijust wanna let you guys know if
you have any questions, you cancomment on YouTube.
You can DM us on Twitter, youcan email us at
podcast@taxfoundation.org, oryou can, you know, slide into
our dms if you want.
Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.