August 7, 2025 • 38 mins
👉 https://bit.ly/41d3Kmy 👈 CLICK HERE Ready to change your financial future? Join Tom Wheelwright, Robert Kiyosaki's CPA, and apply to the WealthAbility Accelerator today!
Join Tom Wheelwright as he discovers what is in the One Big Beautiful Bill, what’s not, and what impact it will have on your business and the economy with his guest, President and CEO of the Tax Foundation - Daniel Bunn.
Daniel has been with the Tax Foundation since 2018 and, prior to becoming President, successfully built its Center for Global Tax Policy, expanding the Tax Foundation’s reach and impact around the world. Prior to joining the Tax Foundation, Daniel worked in the United States Senate at the Joint Economic Committee as part of Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) Social Capital Project and on the policy staff for both Senator Lee and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). In his time in the Senate, Daniel developed legislative initiatives on tax, trade, regulatory, and budget policy.
In this episode, discover the improvements to the tax code, the limitations for tax payers, the consequences of lobbyists, who wins and who loses.
Order Tom’s book, “The Win-Win Wealth Strategy: 7 Investments the Government Will Pay You to Make” at: https://winwinwealthstrategy.com/
00:00 - Intro.
01:50 - The Good Policy Provisions.
06:00 - Temporary vs. Permanent.
08:40 - The Bad Policy Provisions.
12:15 - Who are the winners? Who are the losers?
15:15 - Deductions & Penalties
21:33 - Tax on Universities & Service Industries.
29:10 - Don’t miss your opportunity for savings!
33:44 - Tax cuts across the board.
36:25 - Closing Statements.
Looking for more on Daniel Bunn?
Website: www.taxfoundation.org/
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/danielbunn
Twitter/X: @danieldbunn
-----
👔 ABOUT TOM: https://www.wealthability.com/tom/
💸 WEALTHABILITY LIVE: https://www.wealthability.com/wealthability-live/
🎓 EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTS: https://www.wealthability.com/
📕 TOMS BOOK "TAX FREE WEALTH": https://taxfreewealthbook.com
📰 SIGN UP TO TOM’S WEEKLY REPORT: https://wealthability.com/getreport/
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: https://bit.ly/4bgs37w
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: https://bit.ly/3Qwh3tl
💰 WORK WITH A TFW ADVISOR: https://tfwadvisors.us/contact-us/
🎓 BECOME A TFW ADVISOR: https://tfwadvisors.us/franchise/
📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/@TomWheelwrightCPA
FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM💜
@Tom_Wheelwright
ABOUT US:
Tom Wheelwright is the founder and CEO of WealthAbility and TFW Advisors, a leading authority on tax strategy and wealth building. He is the best-selling author of Tax-Free Wealth and a trusted advisor to Robert Kiyosaki. As a world class CPA, Tom is dedicated to empowering entrepreneurs and investors to reduce their tax burden and achieve financial freedom. He currently resides in Phoenix, Arizona.
DISCLAIMER:
WealthAbility® does not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. The materials provided have been prepared for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide tax, legal or accounting advice. The materials may or may not reflect the most current legislative or regulatory requirements or the requirements of specific industries or of states. These materials are not tax advice and are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer. Readers should consult their own tax, legal and accounting advisors before applying the laws to their particular situations or engaging in any transaction.
Join Tom Wheelwright as he discovers what is in the One Big Beautiful Bill, what’s not, and what impact it will have on your business and the economy with his guest, President and CEO of the Tax Foundation - Daniel Bunn.
Daniel has been with the Tax Foundation since 2018 and, prior to becoming President, successfully built its Center for Global Tax Policy, expanding the Tax Foundation’s reach and impact around the world. Prior to joining the Tax Foundation, Daniel worked in the United States Senate at the Joint Economic Committee as part of Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) Social Capital Project and on the policy staff for both Senator Lee and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). In his time in the Senate, Daniel developed legislative initiatives on tax, trade, regulatory, and budget policy.
In this episode, discover the improvements to the tax code, the limitations for tax payers, the consequences of lobbyists, who wins and who loses.
Order Tom’s book, “The Win-Win Wealth Strategy: 7 Investments the Government Will Pay You to Make” at: https://winwinwealthstrategy.com/
00:00 - Intro.
01:50 - The Good Policy Provisions.
06:00 - Temporary vs. Permanent.
08:40 - The Bad Policy Provisions.
12:15 - Who are the winners? Who are the losers?
15:15 - Deductions & Penalties
21:33 - Tax on Universities & Service Industries.
29:10 - Don’t miss your opportunity for savings!
33:44 - Tax cuts across the board.
36:25 - Closing Statements.
Looking for more on Daniel Bunn?
Website: www.taxfoundation.org/
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/danielbunn
Twitter/X: @danieldbunn
-----
👔 ABOUT TOM: https://www.wealthability.com/tom/
💸 WEALTHABILITY LIVE: https://www.wealthability.com/wealthability-live/
🎓 EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTS: https://www.wealthability.com/
📕 TOMS BOOK "TAX FREE WEALTH": https://taxfreewealthbook.com
📰 SIGN UP TO TOM’S WEEKLY REPORT: https://wealthability.com/getreport/
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: https://bit.ly/4bgs37w
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: https://bit.ly/3Qwh3tl
💰 WORK WITH A TFW ADVISOR: https://tfwadvisors.us/contact-us/
🎓 BECOME A TFW ADVISOR: https://tfwadvisors.us/franchise/
📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/@TomWheelwrightCPA
FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM💜
@Tom_Wheelwright
ABOUT US:
Tom Wheelwright is the founder and CEO of WealthAbility and TFW Advisors, a leading authority on tax strategy and wealth building. He is the best-selling author of Tax-Free Wealth and a trusted advisor to Robert Kiyosaki. As a world class CPA, Tom is dedicated to empowering entrepreneurs and investors to reduce their tax burden and achieve financial freedom. He currently resides in Phoenix, Arizona.
DISCLAIMER:
WealthAbility® does not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. The materials provided have been prepared for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide tax, legal or accounting advice. The materials may or may not reflect the most current legislative or regulatory requirements or the requirements of specific industries or of states. These materials are not tax advice and are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer. Readers should consult their own tax, legal and accounting advisors before applying the laws to their particular situations or engaging in any transaction.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
One of the most important tax bills we've had in
recent history, just passed on July fourth, called the One
Big Beautiful Bill, and that is the actual title of it.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Today we're going to discover what's in it, what's not
in it.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
And what kind of impact might it have on you
and your business and also what kind of impact might
have on the economy and the US in general. So
today I have with us Daniel Bunn, who's the President
CEO of Tax Foundation. We've had people from the Tax
Fundation before, Dan, but this is the first time that
(00:34):
we've had you.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Well, thanks so much for having me. Tom.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Well, welcome to the Walthability Show. And if you would
just give us a little of your background. I know
you've got a pretty storied background.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah, thanks so much.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
So. I've been with Tax Foundation since twenty eighteen. Before that,
I worked on Capitol Hill for a number of years.
I worked for Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina and
Senator Mike Lee from Utah.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
And when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
Back in twenty seventeen, I was working on what's called
the Joint Economic Committee under Senator Mike Lee's leadership.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
When I joined Tax Foundation.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
My initial job was to organize an international research agenda
for US, and then after my predecessor, Scott Hodge stepped
down in twenty twenty two, I was able to get
the CEO job and it's been a lot of fun.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
It was a great organization.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
That's awesome.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
We've had Scott on the show, on The Wealthy Money
Show before. So just let's start with kind of a
big picture of the one big, beautiful bill, or OB
as we like to call it. I wish we could
just have a beautiful, one big bill. So it was Bob,
but it's it is what it is, and there's there's
some really nice things in here. There's some things I
(01:47):
know that maybe you're not as big a fan of.
And what do you see as the most important aspects
of this bill?
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Good and bad? Sure?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
Yeah, so I think it's worth let's take a little
bit of a step back to be able to get
into those good and bad things like This legislation was
extremely important because if Congress did nothing this year on
tax policy, people across the country a lot of businesses
were going to see their tax rates go up, and
so failure was not really an option for all the
(02:22):
legislators that were involved in pushing and formulating this legislation.
The primary motivator was that tax cliff, but there were
several things that lawmakers were interested in doing in the
context of the bill. So the biggest things that accomplished
was permanency for a lot of households and businesses, permanency
(02:44):
on rates and brackets with inflation adjustments, so that's important
to avoid real bracket creep. And then there were permanent
provisions on the business side for capital investment, permanence for
closely held pass through businesses, and those are all really
good things that you like.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
To see in the tax code.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
You want to see stability in the tax code, and
not stability necessarily a bad policy. You want stability of
good policy. And a lot of the things that were
made permanent are good policies, improvements to the tax code
relative to what we saw before.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
So let's start with those. Let's start with the good policies.
We'll go to some of the not maybe not quite
as good policies. What are in your mind, maybe top
three best from a policy standpoint.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Yeah, So I'd start on the individual side and say
permanence for the rates and brackets, and the larger standard deduction.
You know, this Congress didn't reinvent the wheel on that.
They basically took the template that was agreed to in
twenty seventeen and extended those rates, brackets and standard deduction
with some tweaks for some updates.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
But that's a really good start to.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Provide taxpayers permanence for those provisions. The second big saying,
and this is something tax Foundation talks a lot about,
is permanence for the provisions that impact capital investment decisions.
So this is full expensing for cap X for short
lived assets. There is now a temporary provision for investment
(04:16):
in certain structures for manufacturing, and there's immediate expensing for research.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
And development costs.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Those are really huge, really impactful things for businesses that
are trying to plan out their investment and try to
be competitive in this world. And the last piece I'd say,
and this is a little bit of a mixed bag,
but the cross border rules for the large multinationals or
really anybody who's doing business in multiple countries, providing permanency
(04:42):
for provisions for US exporters and for companies that are
earning profits around the world. They made some improvements there
that I think are really helpful and important. And again
with all three of those things, the theme of permanency
just comes comes to the foe.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Well, so it's permanent, tell us not though, So it's true.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
This is the challenge is you know it's permanent because
it doesn't by definition lapse, right does it on its
own lap?
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So the Bush tax cuts, they were supposed to lapse.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
That caused that issue back in twenty ten. And we
have the twenty seventeen provisions like the particularly the bonus
appreciation which was due to lapse totally by the end
of next year, and some of these other provisions lap
that would have lapsed. Some people might be disappointed they
(05:37):
didn't lapse, for example, the salt provision that stay in
local tax station that was due to lapse. So it's
going to come back in full. And so I'm sure
that there are actually winners and losers here, which I'd
like to talk about a little bit in just a minute.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
But what do you think?
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I mean, what I remember from twenty seventeen Act was
the minute it was passed and we had a per
permanent corporate tax reduction, right, that was the one thing
in twenty seventeen that was permanent. Immediately the Democrats start
talking about raising the corporate tax, which I thought was almost.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I thought I thought it was almost being.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Traders to actually start talking about changing it immediately like that.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
What do you think? What do you think about this
idea that?
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Okay, well, when the Democrats get into power, which they
will eventually get back into power, if they get when,
if and when they get back into power, that they
will just change it all again.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
So let me start with your permanent's point, because I
think it's a really good one. One of the things
that permanence accomplishes is it provides leverage to lawmakers who
are opposed to tax increases. Like you said, both around
twenty ten and this year, there was kind of opportunity
because of the expiring tax rates for their be a
(07:00):
debate and negotiation of where those rates are. But having
these things set until they're adjusted in the future puts
the onus on the folks who would propose either tax
hikes or further tax cuts to generate a timeline for
that debate, rather than utilizing some deadline created by an
(07:21):
expiring provision. I think when you when you're asking about,
you know, these these permanent or temporary provisions. I think
one of the things that Democrats might be looking at
is some of these new provisions that we haven't talked about,
the no tax on tips, overtime, et cetera. Looking for
some changes around that. Additionally, there's consistent, i would say,
(07:46):
movement in the Democrats side of the aisle for higher
corporate taxes, higher individual rates, and higher rates on savings.
So things like the corporate tax rate, things like the
top individual tax rate, things like the estate tax provisions.
Those are always, i think going to consistently be part
(08:07):
of different you know, platforms for the Democratic Party or
folks who are running for the presidency. I'm not sure
how much momentum they be able to build for a
coalition to change those things, but those are things that
I think will consistently come up again in the future
from the Democrat side of the aisle.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Now, interestingly, the bracket the lower brackets are index for inflation,
the higher brackets not. So there is still bracket creep
there with the higher brackets for sure. So let's talk
about then, Okay, talked about the good provisions. They tend
to be the business provisions, the investment provisions from your stamp,
(08:47):
from your point of view, what are the provisions that
you think are not really good policy decisions and why?
Speaker 4 (08:53):
Yeah, so you mentioned one of them already, so the
saltcap provision. And there's all sorts of people on different
sides of this. I thought the ten thousand dollars salt
cap was good policy. Obviously it hurt a lot of people,
but I think the trade off that people need to
remember is that prior to twenty seventeen, a lot of
those salt payers would be in the Alternative minimum tax
(09:15):
or get caught up by PAS, and I thought the
ten thousand dollars salt cap was a more transparent way
of treating those deductions in the context of rate and.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Rate reduction and other changes.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
So when this debate led to the salt cap going
up to forty thousand dollars on a temporary basis, that's
something that I felt like was not a good use
of revenue. However, the margins in Congress are so thin that,
you know, just a couple members from New York State
would be able to kind of sway the debate in
their direction. So those kinds of you know, horse trading
(09:50):
outcomes are to be expected. Another area is what I
mentioned briefly before. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
no tax on Social Security, et cetera. None of these
are truly living up to the promise of zero taxes
on those lines of income. And also, these are tax
benefits going to very narrow slices of the population. I'm
(10:11):
a broad based, low rates kind of guy. I'm not
a narrow tax cut for a slice of the population
kind of guy. And that makes it really difficult to appreciate,
you know, those provisions, even though I know the political
movement behind those kind of probably helped the bill get
done because there was so much pressure from the president
partially because of those provisions.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Now, now some people would say, well, that's it's just
a it's a good start, and that's what it is.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
So if if they.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You know Trump, President Trump's actually talked about no tax
on up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, right, right,
He's talked about that, And you know what, I think
one of the debate points is, is the no tax
on tips, no tax on overtime, just a move towards that.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
That's a good question, and honestly, that kind of proposal.
I'm trying to remember, you know, when that popped up,
but I think it was like during the debate, maybe
after the House passed its version. You know, we're not,
you know, incredibly far from that. In some cases, it
depends on how you are on your income or how
your family is structured. But you know, if you're taking
(11:19):
the standard deduction and you're eligible for certain credits and
things of that nature, there's a lot of taxpayers up
into the you know, the high double double teams or
double digits, you know, income that are not going to
be paying much in tax and they may be getting
something back through refundable credits and things of that nature.
(11:41):
I think one of the things that makes it challenging
is our large fiscal deficits and thinking about how you
have a sustainable financing system for the debt going forward.
And that's one of the things that I think is
challenging about this bill as well. There were opportunities to
make this a little more fiscally sustainable. Certainly there were
(12:03):
hard trade offs made with some of the spending cuts,
but further tax cuts, you know, kind of zeroing out
rates on folks earning one hundred and fifty K or
less that would go further to eroding our fiscal position.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Interesting, So.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Let's look at the winners and losers in your analysis,
and I'm sure you guys have done this analysis.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Who are the winners and who are the losers from
this tax bill?
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Yeah, So the big winners, i'd say on the business
side are manufacturers. This is a clear manufacturer's bill. We
have analysis that's forthcoming kind of showing the relative tax
cuts by industry and far and away manufacturers benefitted primarily
because of the bonus appreciation or full expensing.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
The additional pieces on the.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Provisions for exporters are really important for US based manufacturers,
and that's really clear.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
I would say.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
The second group of folks are the folks who are really,
you know, would have seen a massive tax hike after
this year if they if the bill had not been passed.
And that's really across the income spectrum. There's certainly people
at the top of the income spectrum that would have
been able to manage, some of those a little bit
better than your average family, but those are that's another
(13:20):
big group of winners, folks that just.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Avoided a massive tax cut. Out of that.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
You know, another thing that I think about when I
think about the context of this bill and some of
the other economic policies, I think one of the challenges here,
and it's not a clear loser from the big beautiful bill,
but it is a loser kind of in the context
of all of US economic policy right now.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And those are businesses that are doing a lot of
cross border work.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
And that are going to be facing a lot of
the uncertainty with the trade policy and the tariffs, maybe
sourcing a lot of their raw materials from foreign jurisdictions.
And that's one of those challenges where the big the
bill didn't really make a massive improved bit for US
based multinationals, and in the context of the tariffs, it's
hard to see how they're much better off than uh
(14:08):
than otherwise.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Yeah, arguably, though that's a temporary very well could be
very well could.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
It seems very clear to me.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
You know, people go, well, you know, I hear people
say all the time, well, you know, this administration doesn't
really have a sound a real strong economic policy, going
wait a minute, You've got tariffs which push manufacturing on shore,
and then you have incentives which put push manufacturing on shore.
So it seems to me like there's just this huge
(14:37):
push to bring manufacturing back to the US, which, of
course we've been pushing offshore for many, many years. We've
basically created our own enemy in China, and we we
funded theirs UH to a large extent by you know,
pushing our manufacturing over to them.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
And UH and and and continually buying from them.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
So it seem is like, you know, there there's a
pretty consistent theme here, and the theme is we need
to bring manufacturing back to the US, which, whether you
agree with it or not, that that does seem to
be the theme.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So yes, so.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Let's let's talk about, you know, some of the things
in this bill that maybe people may not really know about.
For example, let's talk about this haircut on itemized deductions,
particularly terrible contributions.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Can you kind of.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Walk us through the really I'm talking about the two haircuts,
one on charity contributions, but then the overall haircut on
itemized deductions.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
So the haircut on the itemized deductions is something that
I think is really interesting, and we'll talk about that
for sure. But on the charitable deduction side, there's there's
two haircuts. There's one on the corporate side. I imagine
you're thinking primarily of the one on the individual side.
The there's a let's talk about a benefit. First, there's
(16:06):
a new charitable deduction and above the line charitable deduction
of a thousand dollars. For a lot of people, that's
not going to be meaningful for their charitable giving. But
there's also a new zero point five percent floor for
charitable giving. So until you get across that floor, you're
not eligible to itemize those those charitable deductions. So that's
(16:27):
can be really important for a lot of taxpayers. The
there's a similar policy on the on the corporate side
as well.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
But that's a one percent, so that's at right, and
they're and they're capped at ten.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
So they got this weird nine.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
Right where where individuals have this much bigger range. Right,
they get over a half percent, but then they get
up to you know, fifty sometimes more.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, yeah, But.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Then you get into what you were talking about, the
trim on itemized deductions, and one of the things that
you know, thinking as a policy person, someone who cares
about broad bass low rates, you know, the limit on
itemized deductions makes sense. But this is a limit that says,
you know, you once you're above the thirty five percent bracket.
(17:13):
You know, the way deductions work, they're essentially valued at
your marginal tax rate. So if you're in the you know,
twenty percent bracket and itemized deduction is worth twenty cents
on the dollar to you. If you're in the thirty
five percent bracket, you get thirty five cents on the
dollar of your deductions essentially against your tax bill. But
past that you only get thirty five percent. So if
you're in the thirty seven percent bracket, you're the value
(17:36):
of your deductions is limited to thirty five percent.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
And there's some really strange.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
Interactions and I won't be able to explain them all
today because even we are still figuring out how they
all fit together with the with the AMT cutoff, and
with some of the salt limitations. And it's not clear
for certain tax you know, it's going to be taxpayer
by taxpayer, which one of these limitations is going to
be binding for them?
Speaker 3 (17:59):
I mean, which one they might want to.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Think twice about, you know, what they're itemizing, or when
they're planning they're giving, or where they are in the
income thresholds and things of that nature. So for a
lot of taxpayers in that thirty seven percent bracket, this
tax bill made their lives a little bit more complicated,
and if you're below that, it's a lot simpler.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I would say, yeah, well, I mean it means there's
going to be more planning for sure. So let's talk
about one other aspect of this bill. I don't think
people have focused a lot on, which is and I'm
just gonna ask question flat out, when is the US
government going to stop penalizing people for getting married?
Speaker 3 (18:37):
M That's a great question.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Yeah, So the marriage penalties, which essentially pop up anywhere
in the tax code where you know you've got a
tax bracket for a single filer that is not perfectly
doubled for married filing jointly, you end up with some
sort of tax penalty. The answer is, I think they
would fix it today if they didn't care about the
fiscal challenges. So there's a revenue consideration with those those
(19:04):
policies that I think fundamentally undercuts kind of the goal
of the tax code, which is to raise revenue without
creating distortions for decisions like getting married. And I think
those those the way the inter the tax code interacts
with those decisions is particularly harmful, and those things need
to be fixed. Tax foundations talked a long time about
(19:24):
fixing those marriage.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Let's talk about a couple of those that pop up
in this legislation. The salt deduction, right, it's definitely double
if I if I have two single people living together,
I have an eighty thousand dollar deduction. If I have
people married, they get a forty thousand doard deductions. So
again they lose forty thousand dollars just by getting married,
(19:45):
just by being married. And then the same thing happens
in the it's the tips right that yes, that if
you're married, it's twenty five thousand is your limit is
your limonie deduction, whether you're single married. So if you
have two single people living together both getting tips, they're
gonna get a better tax situation than if they got married.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Yes, And now for other provisions like the reduction or
the deduction for seniors, you do get doubled.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
That's per taxpayer.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
So this bill is really kind of confusing when it
comes to some commissions, and it.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Just seems like, wow, yeah, there are some of these
that they they doubled everything. I mean, the overtime that's doubled, right, right,
that's doubled, But tips are not.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
It's like to me, I mean, I know how much
much extra I pay.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
In fact, my wife complains to me all the time
I pay something, she goes. I pay so much more
in tax because I'm married Tom than if we'd never
gotten married in the first place. I'm going I And
it's true. I mean, it's it's not insignificant. It's a
lot of money.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Right right, And policymakers at different points will pay lip
service to this. But I have yet to see consistent
from beginning to end, a reform process that is focused
on eliminating marriage penalties. But that's you know again, I
think one of the barriers to that is just the
fiscal cost of eliminating some of these penalties. Like, like
you said, there's significant tax payments, which we means it
(21:16):
could be a significant tax cut to eliminate some of
these penalties.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
It's so interesting to me that you have the conservative
Christian movement has been such an important movement in this administration,
and yet they can't get the marriage penalty eliminated. I'd
like to turn to another little known aspect of this,
which is the tax on universities.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
And what I found very.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Interesting is is that the House, so the original tax
I think went up to what one and a half percent, I.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Think it was one point eight or something.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Yeah, it was significant two percent, right, it was undred
two percent.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
The House bill would have raised it to twenty one
percent the corporate tax rate, yep. But in this Senate
they reduced from twenty one to eight percent.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
So that has some pretty significant lobbying from some pretty
big endowment funds. Can you kind of walk us through
how that actually works and maybe what some of the
consequences might be, because it is still it's quadrupling the tax,
so it is going from say.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Two percent to eight percent, so.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
It is a very big tax increase percentage wise. Can
you kind of walk us through what that tax is
and who pays it.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Yeah, So it's a tax on net investment income for
university endowments. I don't have the numbers just off the
top of my head, but it's only restricted to universities
that have an endowment of certain size relative to their
student body population.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
And that's a that's a critical thing.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
So one of the things that you're talking about on
the lobbying of this, one of the things that lawmakers
wanted to avoid was getting like sweeping up a bunch
of relatively small colleges or universities that that have a
very small student body but have massive endowments and they're
not really planning to grow or or or or are
(23:11):
or they they're not at all the you know, the
target of Republican I are over university. So they were
trying to aim at, you know, the large universities and endowments,
you know, the harvards of the world, and they kind
of tailored the targeting of that to those. Now, one
of the interesting things on this is that as you
(23:32):
you know, we every once in a while in tax policy,
or pretty commonly in tax policy, you know, people talk
about the Laugher curve. At what point are you at
the revenue maximizing rate or are you you know, beyond
that and losing revenue because your rate is too high.
And one of the things that came out of this discussion,
and you look at some of the numbers that the
Joint Committee on Tax provided on this, there's clearly not
(23:55):
a linear linear effect that they are assuming for the
revenue that you get from this policy. And in fact,
I think one of the things that drove that rate
back down was thinking through, Okay, well, we may not
be able the juice might not be able to be
worth the squeeze at a certain level. Because universities can
change their behavior, they can choose, like under the provisions,
(24:18):
they could choose to spend more or spend down their
endowments to get out of the out of the tax,
or people donating to endowments could figure out different ways.
You know, taxes changed behavior, and I think lawmakers wanted
to raise some reasonable revenue with this without dramatically changing
a lot of behavior for university management. And so I
(24:39):
think that drove some of the conversation as well.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Interesting one of the challenges I have is that I
think that big universities compete head on with businesses, and
they're competing at a much lower tax rate than businesses
have to pay.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
So I liked the twenty one percent.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Just because I thought, well, let's put everybody on an
equal footing when it comes to income. Now we're not
talking about tuition here, we're talking about investment income. Harvard
has a lot of business interests, right and granted there's
some there are some rules where there is some taxation
on business, but it depends on how they earn it,
(25:18):
right on whether they're taxed on it. So I find
it to be I just I found that to be
a little fascinating. Let's talk about another segment of the economy.
While we're talking about segments of the economy, and let's
talk about the service economy. Because this bill was not
friendly to service businesses like it was to the manufacturing side.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
It fortunately it didn't end up punishing service businesses like
the House bill.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Had proposed significant punishment to services businesses by reducing the
qualified business income deduction, and that didn't.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Make it through thing, thankfully. But why is that? Why
why do you.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Think that administration And this isn't the first one, but
why do you think administrations are favor manufacturing over service
industries when are our biggest trade surplus is services?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (26:14):
Sure, yeah, that's a that's a great question. I think
one of the reasons that they have have a that
administrations have a bias toward manufacturing is one there's a
kind of a general bias towards manufacturing because you see it,
there's like a historical appreciation for the US as a
manufacturing powerhouse, and policies that support that or move back
(26:36):
in that direction are generally favored. On the services side,
I think there's a lot of concern, bipartisan concern from
lawmakers about some of these service businesses uh and in
some cases it's valid, in some cases is not valid
at all. Concerned that they're they can be used as
tax shelters for for wealthy individuals, and so some of
(26:57):
those policies or proposals that you see come out are
essentially trying to figure out a way to get at
some of those potential shouting tax shelters. But in a
lot of times the policy design is just a dragnet,
and that's what we saw in some of the provisions
that were put forward. And then I think one of
the other things that lawmakers are just trying to figure
(27:19):
out is they want to support businesses, they want to
support small businesses, but they again go back to my
earlier point, they don't want to have a massive increase
in the deaf sit or in debt, and so they're
making these trade offs. They're trying to think, Okay, in
the context of this one set of provisions, how do
I decrease taxes here and increase taxes there, And sometimes
(27:41):
that tug and pull results in really really strange outcomes.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Gotta say, not buying it just because we have a
three point seven trillion dollar deficit cost to this bill. Yeah,
and so they weren't that concerned about the death set they.
If they had been, we certainly wouldn't have had no
tax on tips, no tax on it.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Right.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
I agree with you there all induction.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
For automobile interest or an increase in the salt deduction.
I mean the int grating the salt. I think that
I think salt deduction should be zero personally.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Sure, just be doubled for people who are married zero
and the zero.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Can be doubled for people who get married, right, and
should be saying for everybody. But I find it it's
just interesting because it sure seems like there's just a
lot of lobbying, and there are some really good provisions
in this bill. I certainly think the bonus appreciation is
probably the best. That in the R and D Research
Development Expensing probably to me, the two best provisions. I
(28:38):
like they made the Qualified Business Income deduction for small
businesses permanent.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
I thought that was a good move.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
I thought it was interesting that the House had a
twenty three percent and the business groups were just going, WHOA,
where'd this come?
Speaker 2 (28:54):
This is all esome.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
We didn't ask for this, we didn't even.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Ask for this.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
I'm going, well, and in the end you didn't get it,
So right, is stay at that twenty percent. Anything else
that popped out in your mind on this bill that
we haven't covered so far.
Speaker 4 (29:08):
Yeah, one area that we haven't talked on at all
is the different savings incentives in the in the in
the bill, you know, there's expansions for health savings accounts,
expansions for five twenty nine accounts for education, there are
these new Trump accounts. You know, all of these things
are going to help various taxpayers in different ways. But
for me, I feel like it's a missed opportunity. I'm
(29:30):
a big promoter of what's what's called a universal savings account,
and what kind of missed opportunity is is to roll
some of these things into one basket for savings for
families to be able to navigate a little bit more simply,
Like I mean, right now, you can have you know,
your wroths, your traditional your you know, employer sponsored stuff.
(29:51):
You're HSA five twenty nine, et cetera, et cetera, And
it's just a nightmare for people to manage. And I
think some simplification move in that direction would have been nice,
But that is an area that policymakers dug in and
made some changes and expanded the benefits.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, and interesting enough, you know, like I was when
the House came out with the Trump Savings Plan, I'm going,
this is a really cool thing. It can be used for,
it can be used for a first home, it can
be used for starting a business, can use for education,
and then all of a sudden, it's just another five
(30:29):
twenty nine plan.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
It's just an education again. Again.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
In my mind, the lobbyists from the big universities must
have had an impact here, because all of a sudden,
it went from starting a business or purchasing a home
to solely being.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
For education once and then rolling over into a traditional
after that account.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Yeah, and I'm just going, they just decimated to me,
the Trump accounts are practically worthless just because I mean,
you know, take your thousand dollars from you. But the
way they they just they just eviscerated the original intent
of that bill when it got to the Senate, So
clearly senators had a different set of priorities priorities.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Than the other. But I think you're right.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I think it would be great to have just kind
of a more of a universal saving spot. Well, for example,
in Canada, I like their RSP because no penalty for
pulling the money out. You know, it's it's it's taxed,
but it's there's not a penalty. And I'm going, why
do we penalize people for pulling there? I mean they're
doing it anyway, but why are we taking that ten
(31:36):
percent penalty? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me,
or or the or the the super the super funds
in Australia one which I think is even a better
plan because it gives better tax rates when they pull
it out. So there are some improvements. What do you
see coming next, uh, Daniel, There there's a lot of
(31:56):
talk about a second Reconciliation bill.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Well, yeah, there is.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
I think one of the things that might we might
see come out of the House. I don't think it
makes through it's through the Senate. You know, the Senate
has a lot more procedural hurdles to deal with than
the House. But one of the things that Speaker Johnson
has mentioned is picking up some of the things that
had to be left on the cutting room floor because
of the Senate procedural challenges. I think they're going to
(32:24):
try different approaches to see if they get things through,
you know, maybe some things on the regulatory front, or
on the spending front with some eligibility requirements for the
spending programs. On the tax side, I don't imagine it's
going to be a huge push in any one direction.
Maybe there's some technical fixes that will have some meaning
that they'll you know, they'll push through, or maybe there
(32:45):
will be another bite at the apple for more years
on the no tax on tips, overtime, et cetera. But
I I think, you know, one of the things that
Republicans are going to be doing is whether or not
they're able to pass them something out of the House
or the Senate or get something into the President's desk.
Is they're going to try to continue to put the
other political party, the Democrats, in tough situations where they're
(33:09):
going to have to be voting against all these things
that Republicans think and in some cases really are politically
popular ahead of the midterm elections. So even if it's
not going to become law, I think a lot of
it is a salesmanship opportunity for the Republicans to continue
putting pressure in a political way even if the policies
(33:29):
don't become law.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
So let's wrap up with something that is really odd
to me.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
It happened in the twenty seventeen Act as well.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Somehow the one Big Beautiful Bill has not been popular
with the general public, its tax cuts across the board
general public. How, somehow, how have the Republicans mess this
up so that it's not a popular bill.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Yeah, that's a great question. So I think one thing,
and we did some polling on this earlier this year.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
One of the.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Things that Republicans had to deal with was the fact
that for most of Americans, this bill is not going
to be a net tax cut. It's going to extend
what they currently face. And it would have been it
would have been incredibly unpopular for them to just allow
the tax cuts to expire, the twenty seventeen tax cuts
(34:25):
to expire. But they get almost no political benefit for
kind of maintaining status quo. So that means when they're
looking for a popularity contest. They're trying to sell the
no tax on tips, social Security or you know, no
tax on overtime, and that's a really pretty narrow slice
of the population. So unless you're an owner of a
(34:46):
pass through business and you know how serious it could
have been if your twenty percent deduction expired, you know,
it's hard for normal people to kind of really appreciate
the value of what Congress did. And certainly they see
the top line number on debt and deficits and they're like, well,
you know, that doesn't seem very responsible. I mean, you know,
this is you know, mortgaging our future in some respects.
(35:09):
And then additionally, I think one of the things that
Republicans always have a challenge with in the media landscape
and with the political opposition is the changes to Medicaid
and SNAP. And I think on net there's a lot
of really good programmatic changes in Medicaid and SNAP, but
it's always going to be the case that the criticism
(35:30):
of those changes is that you're hurting programs that are
meant for poor people. And that's a really really big
challenge politically and for messaging wise, even though it's the
case that they're trying to target those programs more effectively
at the people who really need the benefits. It's still
going to they're still met with significant opposition in the
(35:50):
media landscape, and that's a real challenge. So they're not
really giving the vast majority of Americans an additional tax cut.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
They're just keeping things a status quo. And then these other.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Sure points aren't really you know, to their benefit on
the popularity contest.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Yeah, it does seem to me like you could say, well,
look what let's let's look what would have happened if
the Democrats had gotten their way and this bill hadn't passed,
and you all have a big tax increase, and here's
how much it would be.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
I think that I.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
Think that's the most effective message they can have.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
Yes to me, I don't quite understand the messaging. But
with that so, we've been here with with Daniel Bunn
from the Tax Foundation.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
Daniel, how can we get more.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Information on the big beautiful bill and other tax policy
issues from the Tax Foundation?
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Our website is tax foundation dot org. We just uploaded
an FAQ yesterday. I believe that has dozens of nice
little short answers to different questions that people might have.
We have our full economic modeling analysis and some breakdowns
of our analysis of the different provisions, including the Trump
(36:58):
accounts and some other pieces of the legislation. So tax
foundation dot org is where you should go, and it's
like right at the top of our website. We've got
a nice little banner with easy to access resources.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Awesome.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
So one thing that I hope everybody's gotten out of
this is the tax planning has actually going to become
more important. You have to run the numbers because if
you look at things like you've got a haircut on
terrible deductions, right, you've got this floor, maybe you need
to bunch bunch at the Trump accounts.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Actually the money comes out as capital gains.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Well, first, you know, the capital gains has a zero
rate to begin with, so there might be some opportunities there.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
So all of these.
Speaker 1 (37:40):
Things require some planning and when we get but we
have to understand these issues before we can plan for them.
And when we do plan for them, of course we'll
always make more way more money and pay way less tax.
We'll see all next time on The Wealtability Show. Thanks
for listening to The Wealtability Show. If today's episode gave
you a new perspective. Remember this, the tax law is
(38:02):
not your enemy. It's a roadmap, and when you know
how to follow it, you can build real lasting wealth.
If you're a business owner or investor who's tired of
overpaying taxes, the Wealthability Accelerator is your next step. You'll
have the opportunity to work directly with me for eighty
percent less than my standard rate, and I'll personally guide
(38:24):
you through how to change your facts so that you
can change your tax Go to wealthability dot com, slash
bonus and apply today.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Remember it's not just what you make, it's what you keep.
This podcast is a presentation of rich Dad Media Netflork
One of the most important tax bills we've had in
recent history, just passed on July fourth, called the One
Big Beautiful Bill, and that is the actual title of it.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Today we're going to discover what's in it, what's not
in it.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
And what kind of impact might it have on you
and your business and also what kind of impact might
have on the economy and the US in general. So
today I have with us Daniel Bunn, who's the President
CEO of Tax Foundation. We've had people from the Tax
Fundation before, Dan, but this is the first time that
(00:34):
we've had you.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Well, thanks so much for having me. Tom.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Well, welcome to the Walthability Show. And if you would
just give us a little of your background. I know
you've got a pretty storied background.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah, thanks so much.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
So. I've been with Tax Foundation since twenty eighteen. Before that,
I worked on Capitol Hill for a number of years.
I worked for Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina and
Senator Mike Lee from Utah.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
And when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
Back in twenty seventeen, I was working on what's called
the Joint Economic Committee under Senator Mike Lee's leadership.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
When I joined Tax Foundation.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
My initial job was to organize an international research agenda
for US, and then after my predecessor, Scott Hodge stepped
down in twenty twenty two, I was able to get
the CEO job and it's been a lot of fun.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
It was a great organization.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
That's awesome.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
We've had Scott on the show, on The Wealthy Money
Show before. So just let's start with kind of a
big picture of the one big, beautiful bill, or OB
as we like to call it. I wish we could
just have a beautiful, one big bill. So it was Bob,
but it's it is what it is, and there's there's
some really nice things in here. There's some things I
(01:47):
know that maybe you're not as big a fan of.
And what do you see as the most important aspects
of this bill?
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Good and bad? Sure?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
Yeah, so I think it's worth let's take a little
bit of a step back to be able to get
into those good and bad things like This legislation was
extremely important because if Congress did nothing this year on
tax policy, people across the country a lot of businesses
were going to see their tax rates go up, and
so failure was not really an option for all the
(02:22):
legislators that were involved in pushing and formulating this legislation.
The primary motivator was that tax cliff, but there were
several things that lawmakers were interested in doing in the
context of the bill. So the biggest things that accomplished
was permanency for a lot of households and businesses, permanency
(02:44):
on rates and brackets with inflation adjustments, so that's important
to avoid real bracket creep. And then there were permanent
provisions on the business side for capital investment, permanence for
closely held pass through businesses, and those are all really
good things that you like.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
To see in the tax code.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
You want to see stability in the tax code, and
not stability necessarily a bad policy. You want stability of
good policy. And a lot of the things that were
made permanent are good policies, improvements to the tax code
relative to what we saw before.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
So let's start with those. Let's start with the good policies.
We'll go to some of the not maybe not quite
as good policies. What are in your mind, maybe top
three best from a policy standpoint.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Yeah, So I'd start on the individual side and say
permanence for the rates and brackets, and the larger standard deduction.
You know, this Congress didn't reinvent the wheel on that.
They basically took the template that was agreed to in
twenty seventeen and extended those rates, brackets and standard deduction
with some tweaks for some updates.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
But that's a really good start to.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Provide taxpayers permanence for those provisions. The second big saying,
and this is something tax Foundation talks a lot about,
is permanence for the provisions that impact capital investment decisions.
So this is full expensing for cap X for short
lived assets. There is now a temporary provision for investment
(04:16):
in certain structures for manufacturing, and there's immediate expensing for research.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
And development costs.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Those are really huge, really impactful things for businesses that
are trying to plan out their investment and try to
be competitive in this world. And the last piece I'd say,
and this is a little bit of a mixed bag,
but the cross border rules for the large multinationals or
really anybody who's doing business in multiple countries, providing permanency
(04:42):
for provisions for US exporters and for companies that are
earning profits around the world. They made some improvements there
that I think are really helpful and important. And again
with all three of those things, the theme of permanency
just comes comes to the foe.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Well, so it's permanent, tell us not though, So it's true.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
This is the challenge is you know it's permanent because
it doesn't by definition lapse, right does it on its
own lap?
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So the Bush tax cuts, they were supposed to lapse.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
That caused that issue back in twenty ten. And we
have the twenty seventeen provisions like the particularly the bonus
appreciation which was due to lapse totally by the end
of next year, and some of these other provisions lap
that would have lapsed. Some people might be disappointed they
(05:37):
didn't lapse, for example, the salt provision that stay in
local tax station that was due to lapse. So it's
going to come back in full. And so I'm sure
that there are actually winners and losers here, which I'd
like to talk about a little bit in just a minute.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
But what do you think?
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I mean, what I remember from twenty seventeen Act was
the minute it was passed and we had a per
permanent corporate tax reduction, right, that was the one thing
in twenty seventeen that was permanent. Immediately the Democrats start
talking about raising the corporate tax, which I thought was almost.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I thought I thought it was almost being.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Traders to actually start talking about changing it immediately like that.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
What do you think? What do you think about this
idea that?
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Okay, well, when the Democrats get into power, which they
will eventually get back into power, if they get when,
if and when they get back into power, that they
will just change it all again.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
So let me start with your permanent's point, because I
think it's a really good one. One of the things
that permanence accomplishes is it provides leverage to lawmakers who
are opposed to tax increases. Like you said, both around
twenty ten and this year, there was kind of opportunity
because of the expiring tax rates for their be a
(07:00):
debate and negotiation of where those rates are. But having
these things set until they're adjusted in the future puts
the onus on the folks who would propose either tax
hikes or further tax cuts to generate a timeline for
that debate, rather than utilizing some deadline created by an
(07:21):
expiring provision. I think when you when you're asking about,
you know, these these permanent or temporary provisions. I think
one of the things that Democrats might be looking at
is some of these new provisions that we haven't talked about,
the no tax on tips, overtime, et cetera. Looking for
some changes around that. Additionally, there's consistent, i would say,
(07:46):
movement in the Democrats side of the aisle for higher
corporate taxes, higher individual rates, and higher rates on savings.
So things like the corporate tax rate, things like the
top individual tax rate, things like the estate tax provisions.
Those are always, i think going to consistently be part
(08:07):
of different you know, platforms for the Democratic Party or
folks who are running for the presidency. I'm not sure
how much momentum they be able to build for a
coalition to change those things, but those are things that
I think will consistently come up again in the future
from the Democrat side of the aisle.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Now, interestingly, the bracket the lower brackets are index for inflation,
the higher brackets not. So there is still bracket creep
there with the higher brackets for sure. So let's talk
about then, Okay, talked about the good provisions. They tend
to be the business provisions, the investment provisions from your stamp,
(08:47):
from your point of view, what are the provisions that
you think are not really good policy decisions and why?
Speaker 4 (08:53):
Yeah, so you mentioned one of them already, so the
saltcap provision. And there's all sorts of people on different
sides of this. I thought the ten thousand dollars salt
cap was good policy. Obviously it hurt a lot of people,
but I think the trade off that people need to
remember is that prior to twenty seventeen, a lot of
those salt payers would be in the Alternative minimum tax
(09:15):
or get caught up by PAS, and I thought the
ten thousand dollars salt cap was a more transparent way
of treating those deductions in the context of rate and.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Rate reduction and other changes.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
So when this debate led to the salt cap going
up to forty thousand dollars on a temporary basis, that's
something that I felt like was not a good use
of revenue. However, the margins in Congress are so thin that,
you know, just a couple members from New York State
would be able to kind of sway the debate in
their direction. So those kinds of you know, horse trading
(09:50):
outcomes are to be expected. Another area is what I
mentioned briefly before. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
no tax on Social Security, et cetera. None of these
are truly living up to the promise of zero taxes
on those lines of income. And also, these are tax
benefits going to very narrow slices of the population. I'm
(10:11):
a broad based, low rates kind of guy. I'm not
a narrow tax cut for a slice of the population
kind of guy. And that makes it really difficult to appreciate,
you know, those provisions, even though I know the political
movement behind those kind of probably helped the bill get
done because there was so much pressure from the president
partially because of those provisions.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Now, now some people would say, well, that's it's just
a it's a good start, and that's what it is.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
So if if they.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You know Trump, President Trump's actually talked about no tax
on up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, right, right,
He's talked about that, And you know what, I think
one of the debate points is, is the no tax
on tips, no tax on overtime, just a move towards that.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
That's a good question, and honestly, that kind of proposal.
I'm trying to remember, you know, when that popped up,
but I think it was like during the debate, maybe
after the House passed its version. You know, we're not,
you know, incredibly far from that. In some cases, it
depends on how you are on your income or how
your family is structured. But you know, if you're taking
(11:19):
the standard deduction and you're eligible for certain credits and
things of that nature, there's a lot of taxpayers up
into the you know, the high double double teams or
double digits, you know, income that are not going to
be paying much in tax and they may be getting
something back through refundable credits and things of that nature.
(11:41):
I think one of the things that makes it challenging
is our large fiscal deficits and thinking about how you
have a sustainable financing system for the debt going forward.
And that's one of the things that I think is
challenging about this bill as well. There were opportunities to
make this a little more fiscally sustainable. Certainly there were
(12:03):
hard trade offs made with some of the spending cuts,
but further tax cuts, you know, kind of zeroing out
rates on folks earning one hundred and fifty K or
less that would go further to eroding our fiscal position.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Interesting, So.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Let's look at the winners and losers in your analysis,
and I'm sure you guys have done this analysis.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Who are the winners and who are the losers from
this tax bill?
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Yeah, So the big winners, i'd say on the business
side are manufacturers. This is a clear manufacturer's bill. We
have analysis that's forthcoming kind of showing the relative tax
cuts by industry and far and away manufacturers benefitted primarily
because of the bonus appreciation or full expensing.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
The additional pieces on the.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Provisions for exporters are really important for US based manufacturers,
and that's really clear.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
I would say.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
The second group of folks are the folks who are really,
you know, would have seen a massive tax hike after
this year if they if the bill had not been passed.
And that's really across the income spectrum. There's certainly people
at the top of the income spectrum that would have
been able to manage, some of those a little bit
better than your average family, but those are that's another
(13:20):
big group of winners, folks that just.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Avoided a massive tax cut. Out of that.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
You know, another thing that I think about when I
think about the context of this bill and some of
the other economic policies, I think one of the challenges here,
and it's not a clear loser from the big beautiful bill,
but it is a loser kind of in the context
of all of US economic policy right now.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And those are businesses that are doing a lot of
cross border work.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
And that are going to be facing a lot of
the uncertainty with the trade policy and the tariffs, maybe
sourcing a lot of their raw materials from foreign jurisdictions.
And that's one of those challenges where the big the
bill didn't really make a massive improved bit for US
based multinationals, and in the context of the tariffs, it's
hard to see how they're much better off than uh
(14:08):
than otherwise.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Yeah, arguably, though that's a temporary very well could be
very well could.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
It seems very clear to me.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
You know, people go, well, you know, I hear people
say all the time, well, you know, this administration doesn't
really have a sound a real strong economic policy, going
wait a minute, You've got tariffs which push manufacturing on shore,
and then you have incentives which put push manufacturing on shore.
So it seems to me like there's just this huge
(14:37):
push to bring manufacturing back to the US, which, of
course we've been pushing offshore for many, many years. We've
basically created our own enemy in China, and we we
funded theirs UH to a large extent by you know,
pushing our manufacturing over to them.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
And UH and and and continually buying from them.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
So it seem is like, you know, there there's a
pretty consistent theme here, and the theme is we need
to bring manufacturing back to the US, which, whether you
agree with it or not, that that does seem to
be the theme.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So yes, so.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Let's let's talk about, you know, some of the things
in this bill that maybe people may not really know about.
For example, let's talk about this haircut on itemized deductions,
particularly terrible contributions.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Can you kind of.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Walk us through the really I'm talking about the two haircuts,
one on charity contributions, but then the overall haircut on
itemized deductions.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
So the haircut on the itemized deductions is something that
I think is really interesting, and we'll talk about that
for sure. But on the charitable deduction side, there's there's
two haircuts. There's one on the corporate side. I imagine
you're thinking primarily of the one on the individual side.
The there's a let's talk about a benefit. First, there's
(16:06):
a new charitable deduction and above the line charitable deduction
of a thousand dollars. For a lot of people, that's
not going to be meaningful for their charitable giving. But
there's also a new zero point five percent floor for
charitable giving. So until you get across that floor, you're
not eligible to itemize those those charitable deductions. So that's
(16:27):
can be really important for a lot of taxpayers. The
there's a similar policy on the on the corporate side
as well.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
But that's a one percent, so that's at right, and
they're and they're capped at ten.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
So they got this weird nine.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
Right where where individuals have this much bigger range. Right,
they get over a half percent, but then they get
up to you know, fifty sometimes more.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, yeah, But.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Then you get into what you were talking about, the
trim on itemized deductions, and one of the things that
you know, thinking as a policy person, someone who cares
about broad bass low rates, you know, the limit on
itemized deductions makes sense. But this is a limit that says,
you know, you once you're above the thirty five percent bracket.
(17:13):
You know, the way deductions work, they're essentially valued at
your marginal tax rate. So if you're in the you know,
twenty percent bracket and itemized deduction is worth twenty cents
on the dollar to you. If you're in the thirty
five percent bracket, you get thirty five cents on the
dollar of your deductions essentially against your tax bill. But
past that you only get thirty five percent. So if
you're in the thirty seven percent bracket, you're the value
(17:36):
of your deductions is limited to thirty five percent.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
And there's some really strange.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
Interactions and I won't be able to explain them all
today because even we are still figuring out how they
all fit together with the with the AMT cutoff, and
with some of the salt limitations. And it's not clear
for certain tax you know, it's going to be taxpayer
by taxpayer, which one of these limitations is going to
be binding for them?
Speaker 3 (17:59):
I mean, which one they might want to.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Think twice about, you know, what they're itemizing, or when
they're planning they're giving, or where they are in the
income thresholds and things of that nature. So for a
lot of taxpayers in that thirty seven percent bracket, this
tax bill made their lives a little bit more complicated,
and if you're below that, it's a lot simpler.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I would say, yeah, well, I mean it means there's
going to be more planning for sure. So let's talk
about one other aspect of this bill. I don't think
people have focused a lot on, which is and I'm
just gonna ask question flat out, when is the US
government going to stop penalizing people for getting married?
Speaker 3 (18:37):
M That's a great question.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Yeah, So the marriage penalties, which essentially pop up anywhere
in the tax code where you know you've got a
tax bracket for a single filer that is not perfectly
doubled for married filing jointly, you end up with some
sort of tax penalty. The answer is, I think they
would fix it today if they didn't care about the
fiscal challenges. So there's a revenue consideration with those those
(19:04):
policies that I think fundamentally undercuts kind of the goal
of the tax code, which is to raise revenue without
creating distortions for decisions like getting married. And I think
those those the way the inter the tax code interacts
with those decisions is particularly harmful, and those things need
to be fixed. Tax foundations talked a long time about
(19:24):
fixing those marriage.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Let's talk about a couple of those that pop up
in this legislation. The salt deduction, right, it's definitely double
if I if I have two single people living together,
I have an eighty thousand dollar deduction. If I have
people married, they get a forty thousand doard deductions. So
again they lose forty thousand dollars just by getting married,
(19:45):
just by being married. And then the same thing happens
in the it's the tips right that yes, that if
you're married, it's twenty five thousand is your limit is
your limonie deduction, whether you're single married. So if you
have two single people living together both getting tips, they're
gonna get a better tax situation than if they got married.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Yes, And now for other provisions like the reduction or
the deduction for seniors, you do get doubled.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
That's per taxpayer.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
So this bill is really kind of confusing when it
comes to some commissions, and it.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Just seems like, wow, yeah, there are some of these
that they they doubled everything. I mean, the overtime that's doubled, right, right,
that's doubled, But tips are not.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
It's like to me, I mean, I know how much
much extra I pay.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
In fact, my wife complains to me all the time
I pay something, she goes. I pay so much more
in tax because I'm married Tom than if we'd never
gotten married in the first place. I'm going I And
it's true. I mean, it's it's not insignificant. It's a
lot of money.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Right right, And policymakers at different points will pay lip
service to this. But I have yet to see consistent
from beginning to end, a reform process that is focused
on eliminating marriage penalties. But that's you know again, I
think one of the barriers to that is just the
fiscal cost of eliminating some of these penalties. Like, like
you said, there's significant tax payments, which we means it
(21:16):
could be a significant tax cut to eliminate some of
these penalties.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
It's so interesting to me that you have the conservative
Christian movement has been such an important movement in this administration,
and yet they can't get the marriage penalty eliminated. I'd
like to turn to another little known aspect of this,
which is the tax on universities.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
And what I found very.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Interesting is is that the House, so the original tax
I think went up to what one and a half percent, I.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Think it was one point eight or something.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Yeah, it was significant two percent, right, it was undred
two percent.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
The House bill would have raised it to twenty one
percent the corporate tax rate, yep. But in this Senate
they reduced from twenty one to eight percent.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
So that has some pretty significant lobbying from some pretty
big endowment funds. Can you kind of walk us through
how that actually works and maybe what some of the
consequences might be, because it is still it's quadrupling the tax,
so it is going from say.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Two percent to eight percent, so.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
It is a very big tax increase percentage wise. Can
you kind of walk us through what that tax is
and who pays it.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Yeah, So it's a tax on net investment income for
university endowments. I don't have the numbers just off the
top of my head, but it's only restricted to universities
that have an endowment of certain size relative to their
student body population.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
And that's a that's a critical thing.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
So one of the things that you're talking about on
the lobbying of this, one of the things that lawmakers
wanted to avoid was getting like sweeping up a bunch
of relatively small colleges or universities that that have a
very small student body but have massive endowments and they're
not really planning to grow or or or or are
(23:11):
or they they're not at all the you know, the
target of Republican I are over university. So they were
trying to aim at, you know, the large universities and endowments,
you know, the harvards of the world, and they kind
of tailored the targeting of that to those. Now, one
of the interesting things on this is that as you
(23:32):
you know, we every once in a while in tax policy,
or pretty commonly in tax policy, you know, people talk
about the Laugher curve. At what point are you at
the revenue maximizing rate or are you you know, beyond
that and losing revenue because your rate is too high.
And one of the things that came out of this discussion,
and you look at some of the numbers that the
Joint Committee on Tax provided on this, there's clearly not
(23:55):
a linear linear effect that they are assuming for the
revenue that you get from this policy. And in fact,
I think one of the things that drove that rate
back down was thinking through, Okay, well, we may not
be able the juice might not be able to be
worth the squeeze at a certain level. Because universities can
change their behavior, they can choose, like under the provisions,
(24:18):
they could choose to spend more or spend down their
endowments to get out of the out of the tax,
or people donating to endowments could figure out different ways.
You know, taxes changed behavior, and I think lawmakers wanted
to raise some reasonable revenue with this without dramatically changing
a lot of behavior for university management. And so I
(24:39):
think that drove some of the conversation as well.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Interesting one of the challenges I have is that I
think that big universities compete head on with businesses, and
they're competing at a much lower tax rate than businesses
have to pay.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
So I liked the twenty one percent.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Just because I thought, well, let's put everybody on an
equal footing when it comes to income. Now we're not
talking about tuition here, we're talking about investment income. Harvard
has a lot of business interests, right and granted there's
some there are some rules where there is some taxation
on business, but it depends on how they earn it,
(25:18):
right on whether they're taxed on it. So I find
it to be I just I found that to be
a little fascinating. Let's talk about another segment of the economy.
While we're talking about segments of the economy, and let's
talk about the service economy. Because this bill was not
friendly to service businesses like it was to the manufacturing side.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
It fortunately it didn't end up punishing service businesses like
the House bill.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Had proposed significant punishment to services businesses by reducing the
qualified business income deduction, and that didn't.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Make it through thing, thankfully. But why is that? Why
why do you.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Think that administration And this isn't the first one, but
why do you think administrations are favor manufacturing over service
industries when are our biggest trade surplus is services?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (26:14):
Sure, yeah, that's a that's a great question. I think
one of the reasons that they have have a that
administrations have a bias toward manufacturing is one there's a
kind of a general bias towards manufacturing because you see it,
there's like a historical appreciation for the US as a
manufacturing powerhouse, and policies that support that or move back
(26:36):
in that direction are generally favored. On the services side,
I think there's a lot of concern, bipartisan concern from
lawmakers about some of these service businesses uh and in
some cases it's valid, in some cases is not valid
at all. Concerned that they're they can be used as
tax shelters for for wealthy individuals, and so some of
(26:57):
those policies or proposals that you see come out are
essentially trying to figure out a way to get at
some of those potential shouting tax shelters. But in a
lot of times the policy design is just a dragnet,
and that's what we saw in some of the provisions
that were put forward. And then I think one of
the other things that lawmakers are just trying to figure
(27:19):
out is they want to support businesses, they want to
support small businesses, but they again go back to my
earlier point, they don't want to have a massive increase
in the deaf sit or in debt, and so they're
making these trade offs. They're trying to think, Okay, in
the context of this one set of provisions, how do
I decrease taxes here and increase taxes there, And sometimes
(27:41):
that tug and pull results in really really strange outcomes.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Gotta say, not buying it just because we have a
three point seven trillion dollar deficit cost to this bill. Yeah,
and so they weren't that concerned about the death set they.
If they had been, we certainly wouldn't have had no
tax on tips, no tax on it.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Right.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
I agree with you there all induction.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
For automobile interest or an increase in the salt deduction.
I mean the int grating the salt. I think that
I think salt deduction should be zero personally.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Sure, just be doubled for people who are married zero
and the zero.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Can be doubled for people who get married, right, and
should be saying for everybody. But I find it it's
just interesting because it sure seems like there's just a
lot of lobbying, and there are some really good provisions
in this bill. I certainly think the bonus appreciation is
probably the best. That in the R and D Research
Development Expensing probably to me, the two best provisions. I
(28:38):
like they made the Qualified Business Income deduction for small
businesses permanent.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
I thought that was a good move.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
I thought it was interesting that the House had a
twenty three percent and the business groups were just going, WHOA,
where'd this come?
Speaker 2 (28:54):
This is all esome.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
We didn't ask for this, we didn't even.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Ask for this.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
I'm going, well, and in the end you didn't get it,
So right, is stay at that twenty percent. Anything else
that popped out in your mind on this bill that
we haven't covered so far.
Speaker 4 (29:08):
Yeah, one area that we haven't talked on at all
is the different savings incentives in the in the in
the bill, you know, there's expansions for health savings accounts,
expansions for five twenty nine accounts for education, there are
these new Trump accounts. You know, all of these things
are going to help various taxpayers in different ways. But
for me, I feel like it's a missed opportunity. I'm
(29:30):
a big promoter of what's what's called a universal savings account,
and what kind of missed opportunity is is to roll
some of these things into one basket for savings for
families to be able to navigate a little bit more simply,
Like I mean, right now, you can have you know,
your wroths, your traditional your you know, employer sponsored stuff.
(29:51):
You're HSA five twenty nine, et cetera, et cetera, And
it's just a nightmare for people to manage. And I
think some simplification move in that direction would have been nice,
But that is an area that policymakers dug in and
made some changes and expanded the benefits.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, and interesting enough, you know, like I was when
the House came out with the Trump Savings Plan, I'm going,
this is a really cool thing. It can be used for,
it can be used for a first home, it can
be used for starting a business, can use for education,
and then all of a sudden, it's just another five
(30:29):
twenty nine plan.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
It's just an education again. Again.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
In my mind, the lobbyists from the big universities must
have had an impact here, because all of a sudden,
it went from starting a business or purchasing a home
to solely being.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
For education once and then rolling over into a traditional
after that account.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Yeah, and I'm just going, they just decimated to me,
the Trump accounts are practically worthless just because I mean,
you know, take your thousand dollars from you. But the
way they they just they just eviscerated the original intent
of that bill when it got to the Senate, So
clearly senators had a different set of priorities priorities.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Than the other. But I think you're right.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I think it would be great to have just kind
of a more of a universal saving spot. Well, for example,
in Canada, I like their RSP because no penalty for
pulling the money out. You know, it's it's it's taxed,
but it's there's not a penalty. And I'm going, why
do we penalize people for pulling there? I mean they're
doing it anyway, but why are we taking that ten
(31:36):
percent penalty? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me,
or or the or the the super the super funds
in Australia one which I think is even a better
plan because it gives better tax rates when they pull
it out. So there are some improvements. What do you
see coming next, uh, Daniel, There there's a lot of
(31:56):
talk about a second Reconciliation bill.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Well, yeah, there is.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
I think one of the things that might we might
see come out of the House. I don't think it
makes through it's through the Senate. You know, the Senate
has a lot more procedural hurdles to deal with than
the House. But one of the things that Speaker Johnson
has mentioned is picking up some of the things that
had to be left on the cutting room floor because
of the Senate procedural challenges. I think they're going to
(32:24):
try different approaches to see if they get things through,
you know, maybe some things on the regulatory front, or
on the spending front with some eligibility requirements for the
spending programs. On the tax side, I don't imagine it's
going to be a huge push in any one direction.
Maybe there's some technical fixes that will have some meaning
that they'll you know, they'll push through, or maybe there
(32:45):
will be another bite at the apple for more years
on the no tax on tips, overtime, et cetera. But
I I think, you know, one of the things that
Republicans are going to be doing is whether or not
they're able to pass them something out of the House
or the Senate or get something into the President's desk.
Is they're going to try to continue to put the
other political party, the Democrats, in tough situations where they're
(33:09):
going to have to be voting against all these things
that Republicans think and in some cases really are politically
popular ahead of the midterm elections. So even if it's
not going to become law, I think a lot of
it is a salesmanship opportunity for the Republicans to continue
putting pressure in a political way even if the policies
(33:29):
don't become law.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
So let's wrap up with something that is really odd
to me.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
It happened in the twenty seventeen Act as well.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Somehow the one Big Beautiful Bill has not been popular
with the general public, its tax cuts across the board
general public. How, somehow, how have the Republicans mess this
up so that it's not a popular bill.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Yeah, that's a great question. So I think one thing,
and we did some polling on this earlier this year.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
One of the.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Things that Republicans had to deal with was the fact
that for most of Americans, this bill is not going
to be a net tax cut. It's going to extend
what they currently face. And it would have been it
would have been incredibly unpopular for them to just allow
the tax cuts to expire, the twenty seventeen tax cuts
(34:25):
to expire. But they get almost no political benefit for
kind of maintaining status quo. So that means when they're
looking for a popularity contest. They're trying to sell the
no tax on tips, social Security or you know, no
tax on overtime, and that's a really pretty narrow slice
of the population. So unless you're an owner of a
(34:46):
pass through business and you know how serious it could
have been if your twenty percent deduction expired, you know,
it's hard for normal people to kind of really appreciate
the value of what Congress did. And certainly they see
the top line number on debt and deficits and they're like, well,
you know, that doesn't seem very responsible. I mean, you know,
this is you know, mortgaging our future in some respects.
(35:09):
And then additionally, I think one of the things that
Republicans always have a challenge with in the media landscape
and with the political opposition is the changes to Medicaid
and SNAP. And I think on net there's a lot
of really good programmatic changes in Medicaid and SNAP, but
it's always going to be the case that the criticism
(35:30):
of those changes is that you're hurting programs that are
meant for poor people. And that's a really really big
challenge politically and for messaging wise, even though it's the
case that they're trying to target those programs more effectively
at the people who really need the benefits. It's still
going to they're still met with significant opposition in the
(35:50):
media landscape, and that's a real challenge. So they're not
really giving the vast majority of Americans an additional tax cut.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
They're just keeping things a status quo. And then these other.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Sure points aren't really you know, to their benefit on
the popularity contest.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Yeah, it does seem to me like you could say, well,
look what let's let's look what would have happened if
the Democrats had gotten their way and this bill hadn't passed,
and you all have a big tax increase, and here's
how much it would be.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
I think that I.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
Think that's the most effective message they can have.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
Yes to me, I don't quite understand the messaging. But
with that so, we've been here with with Daniel Bunn
from the Tax Foundation.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
Daniel, how can we get more.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Information on the big beautiful bill and other tax policy
issues from the Tax Foundation?
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Our website is tax foundation dot org. We just uploaded
an FAQ yesterday. I believe that has dozens of nice
little short answers to different questions that people might have.
We have our full economic modeling analysis and some breakdowns
of our analysis of the different provisions, including the Trump
(36:58):
accounts and some other pieces of the legislation. So tax
foundation dot org is where you should go, and it's
like right at the top of our website. We've got
a nice little banner with easy to access resources.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Awesome.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
So one thing that I hope everybody's gotten out of
this is the tax planning has actually going to become
more important. You have to run the numbers because if
you look at things like you've got a haircut on
terrible deductions, right, you've got this floor, maybe you need
to bunch bunch at the Trump accounts.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Actually the money comes out as capital gains.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Well, first, you know, the capital gains has a zero
rate to begin with, so there might be some opportunities there.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
So all of these.
Speaker 1 (37:40):
Things require some planning and when we get but we
have to understand these issues before we can plan for them.
And when we do plan for them, of course we'll
always make more way more money and pay way less tax.
We'll see all next time on The Wealtability Show. Thanks
for listening to The Wealtability Show. If today's episode gave
you a new perspective. Remember this, the tax law is
(38:02):
not your enemy. It's a roadmap, and when you know
how to follow it, you can build real lasting wealth.
If you're a business owner or investor who's tired of
overpaying taxes, the Wealthability Accelerator is your next step. You'll
have the opportunity to work directly with me for eighty
percent less than my standard rate, and I'll personally guide
(38:24):
you through how to change your facts so that you
can change your tax Go to wealthability dot com, slash
bonus and apply today.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Remember it's not just what you make, it's what you keep.
This podcast is a presentation of rich Dad Media Netflork
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!