Trump warns of 68% tax hike if budget bill fails. Not true, say experts
US President Donald Trump has been sounding an alarm: if Congress doesn't pass his tax and spending bill, Americans will be forced to pay much higher taxes.
Referring to his wide-ranging tax and spending legislation called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' Trump said in a June 5 Truth Social post, 'If this bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% tax increase.'
Trump cited the same figure in May 25 comments to reporters and during a May 30 news conference.
However, independent analyses of the controversial bill – which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that are slated to expire later this year – found that Trump's estimate is about 10 times bigger than the expected increase would be if the cuts expire.
The budget bill has caused a split between Trump and his close aide, Elon Musk, who called it a 'disgusting abomination'.
The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article.
Republicans have largely advocated for extending the full 2017 law. Democrats – including the party's 2024 presidential nominee, then-Vice President Kamala Harris – have generally supported extending the lower tax rates only for families earning up to $400,000 a year.
If the 2017 tax bill sunsets, taxes would rise for most taxpayers. But the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, has estimated, on average, Americans' taxes would rise by about 7.5 percent if the 2017 tax cuts fully expired, not 68 percent.
The Tax Policy Center didn't find any single income group, whether lower-income or higher-income, that would see a 68 percent tax hit if the law expired.
Taxpayers earning up to $34,600 could expect a nearly 12 percent increase, and taxpayers earning $67,000 and up could expect a 7 percent to 8 percent increase.
The centre-right Tax Foundation hasn't calculated an estimate, but the group made broadly similar projections as the Tax Policy Center, said Garrett Watson, the Tax Foundation's director of policy analysis. Watson said the 68 percent figure is much higher than estimates he has seen from credible experts.
It's possible that Trump's 68 percent figure is a garbled reference to a separate statistic, tax experts said.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that just over 64 percent of taxpayers would see taxes increase if the law expires. That percentage varies based on the household income. Many low-income households would see no change, often because they don't earn enough to pay federal income taxes. But for households making $67,000 or higher, there's a roughly 80 percent likelihood of a tax increase.
Similarly, the Tax Foundation said 62 percent of taxpayers would pay higher taxes if the 2017 law lapsed.
None of this, however, means that the increase for the typical taxpayer would be more than 60 percent compared with what they paid in taxes the previous year.
The Republican tax bill generally reduces taxes for lower and middle-income groups while benefitting wealthier taxpayers the most, the Tax Policy Center found.
Those earning $34,600 or less would see their after-tax incomes rise by 0.6 percent if the Republican bill passes, while those earning $67,000 or more would see a 2.8 percent increase. The boost would be even stronger for the top 5 percent of earners, the top 1 percent of earners and the top one-10th of 1 percent of earners.
A Tax Foundation February analysis found higher gains among all income groups, especially when factoring in expected economic growth from the lower taxes. But the same pattern held – the biggest percentage gains from passing the Republican bill went to the top 5 percent and 1 percent of earners.
Trump said if his 'Big Beautiful' tax and spending bill doesn't pass, 'there will be a 68 percent tax increase.'
If the 2017 tax law is not extended, independent analyses show that taxes will increase, but by far less than what Trump said.
The Tax Policy Center projects that the increase would be about 7.5 percent overall. The Tax Foundation broadly agreed with that assessment.
We rate the statement False.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump to host ‘unforgettable' military parade in DC, but who is it for?
Washington, DC – Tanks are coming to the streets of the United States capital. Twenty-eight 61-tonne Abrams battle tanks, to be exact, as well as a fleet of 56 armoured Stryker and Bradley fighting vehicles, a flock of artillery launchers, 6,600 US troops, 34 horses – plus two mules. And a dog. It is all part of the military celebration on Saturday that has been kicked into overdrive by the administration of US President Donald Trump in recent weeks. June 14 marks the 250th birthday of the US Army and, conspicuously, Trump's 79th birthday. The US president has promised a parade of 'thundering tanks and breathtaking flyovers will roar through our capital city' that will be simply 'unforgettable'. The event comes nearly six months into Trump's second term, during which he has sought to test the limits of presidential power and his legal authority to employ the military as law enforcement force within the US. That was further exemplified in this week's deployment of the US National Guard and Marines to protests against his immigration policies in California. So, who is the audience for Trump's military parade? And what message will it send? 'Obviously, when so much money and resources are put towards an event like a military parade that coincides with a birthday, it must be for a reason,' Irene Gammel, a professor and historian at the Toronto Metropolitan University, told Al Jazeera. 'This will be a grandiose spectacle. It will be choreographed and it will be symbolically charged,' she said. Trump's desire for a flashy military parade, with US war-fighting hardware on full display, has been well documented. It traces back to his attendance at France's 2017 Bastille Day procession, after which, he said, 'We're going to have to try and top it.' Various reports have since detailed the first-term pushback from defence officials, who argued such a cavalcade would constitute an uncomfortable merger of partisan politics and military might. One official, then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Paul Selva, even directly warned Trump that such parades were 'what dictators do', according to a 2022 book published by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser. To be sure, according to Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia, parades are hardly a rarity in either US civilian or military culture, regularly planned to mark national holidays, local triumphs or historical events. It's right from the 'American songbook', she added, pointing to the 1932 Harry Richman classic, I Love a Parade. But, in addition to the two mules and dog – present as part of the Army's cavalry division, the procession planned for Saturday stands apart for several other reasons. While showing off military assets was more common for presidents during the Cold War, the practice has not been regularly performed for decades. Similar parades have been typically planned to mark US victories, or at the very least the end of involvement, in foreign conflicts, Perry noted, as was the case in the most recent comparison commemorating the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Holding a parade on the president's birthday, regardless of the overlapping Army anniversary, Perry said, also 'tends towards the authoritarian'. 'I feel this takes us from a movement of more innocent patriotism to a show of military might that is not only for enemies abroad, but in the minds of the administration, those within,' Perry said. 'It further moves towards a cult of personality by having it fall on the president's birthday,' she added. 'I'm sure any president would have celebrated this anniversary of the founding of the US Army, but not in this way.' Already criticised by some observers, including top Democratic lawmakers and a handful of veterans groups, as a tribute to the 'egoist-in-chief', Trump's decision this week to deploy the National Guard to the Los Angeles protests without the consent of the state's governor, and his subsequent move to send the Marines to the city, has cast a long shadow over the upcoming pageantry. Trump has, so far, not invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would allow the military to take direct part in domestic law enforcement. But his actions have already sent a message of force that transforms the optics of Saturday's parade, according to Marjorie Cohn, a professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego and former president of the US National Lawyers Guild. Prior to sending Marines to California, Trump had already tapped the military to support his hardline immigration policies, including sending Marines to the southern border to support federal agents. 'Trump considers the US military to be his personal police force, as he seeks to use it to 'secure' the southern border and suppress domestic protests against his inhumane policies,' Cohn told Al Jazeera. 'He has considered invoking the Insurrection Act, albeit illegally, to facilitate this agenda.' Trump's approach to the military dovetails with his aggressive stress testing of executive power, which he has sought to use to transform both federal government and civil society, particularly when it comes to education, healthcare, state rights, immigrant civil liberties, and trade with foreign partners. 'He is speaking not just to the US, but to the world as well,' Cohn said, framing the parade as part of Trump's wider mission to cast 'himself as the most powerful person in the world'. For his part, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth indicated the deployment of National Guard troops in California, which local officials have decried as an unnecessary escalation, could be part of a wider pivot in domestic military strategy. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Hegseth said during a congressional hearing on Tuesday. Soon after, Trump promised a broad – and muscular – crackdown on planned constitutionally protected protests on the day of the parade. 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, as he described those who planned to demonstrate as 'people that hate our country'. Amid the criticism, the White House has downplayed the fact that Saturday's spectacle also falls on Trump's birthday. The Pentagon has said there are no plans to acknowledge the personal milestone or to sing Happy Birthday to the president. White House official Vince Haley previously said the programme 'will be a fitting tribute to the service, sacrifice, and selflessness of the brave men and women who have worn the uniform and devoted their lives to defending the greatest experiment in liberty known to man'. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Mike Lyons, a retired US Army major and military analyst, also sided with the White House's stance that criticism of the parade has been overblown. 'All Trump is doing is seizing on an opportunity to mark 250 years of the Army,' Lyons said. 'Whether it's his birthday or not, that's just a trolling issue for the people who hate him.' Lyons noted that military equipment is regularly put on display at events 'inside the wire', using a term for military bases both in the US and abroad. He drew a distinction between the plans for Saturday and the notorious military parades held in North Korea, often used to unveil otherwise secret military advancements. 'It's not a sign of a dictator trying to project power, because we're not going to be a North Korea and roll out the latest armed missile, there's no secret equipment rolling out,' Lyons said. 'It's just a celebration that gives the normal citizen an opportunity to see what this equipment looks like up close.' Trump and his administration have also played down the price tag of the event, estimated to be between $25m and $45m, but subject to rise based on the damage the military equipment causes to the streets of the capital. Officials have characterised the spending as in line with the administration's ambition of cutting spending on federal civilian services, while surging military funding, including putting forward a historically high $1 trillion defence budget. Trump has dismissed the price tag as 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it'. Toronto Metropolitan University's Gammel also agreed that the parade could have immense value, not in a commemorative capacity, but as a particularly powerful political tool. The event is fertile ground to shore up not just Trump's domestic base, but also one-time supporters on the fence over the divisive first months of his second term, she told Al Jazeera. Wrapped in military imagery considered sacrosanct to many segments of the US population, the event will be ready-made for an online audience to hit at a 'very emotional level', Gammel said. Those images will help to 'naturalise values not only around military dominance, but also values that conjoin Trump's personal image with the military and with state power. That, to me, is particularly dangerous in all of this'. 'At a time when we have so many controversial elements being dismantled in the democratic system, all Trump needs to do is be present,' she added. 'We don't need to sing Happy Birthday. I think the message is clear enough'.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
The Democrats' resistance to Trump is a hollow performance
From March 31 to April 1, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker delivered a record-breaking 25-hour filibuster on the Senate floor of the United States Capitol. In his marathon speech, Booker repeatedly chastised President Donald Trump for his discriminatory politics and policies and for his attempts to circumvent the US Constitution. Booker also criticised both the Democratic and Republican parties for failing to do more to oppose Trump. 'Do better than me. Do better than we in this body. We are flawed and failed people,' he said unironically, adding, 'My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they're trying to do.' Two days later, he proved himself right. Booker voted against two resolutions that would have limited US arms sales to Israel – just as Israeli forces once again intensified their genocidal campaign in Gaza. In doing so, he aligned himself with one of Trump's most extreme and violent foreign policy positions – and exposed the hollowness of the Democratic resistance. After all, you cannot claim to be fighting Trumpism at home while helping it advance abroad. That contradiction sits at the heart of the Democrats' paralysis. In the five months since Trump began his second term as president, meaningful opposition from the party has been almost nonexistent. The so-called resistance to his authoritarianism has been weaker than the sun over the Arctic in the dead of winter. The reason is simple: On many of the most consequential issues – Israel, immigration, policing – the Democrats are not resisting Trumpism. They are participating in it. A centre-right party that shares core positions with its far-right opponent cannot mount real opposition. It can only pretend to. It doesn't help that the Democratic Party is, in many respects, as beholden to wealthy, right-wing donors as the Republicans. What the party lacks in vision, it also lacks in leadership. As the old saying goes: If you want to understand a politician's priorities, follow the money. Or, in the words of Upton Sinclair in his 1941 novel Between Two Worlds: 'Find out who's putting up the money for a political party, and then you know what it will do.' Take Booker's votes against restricting arms to Israel. Since his first Senate run in 2013, he has received nearly $1m from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) and individual donors. A 2019 report from The Intercept described how Booker regularly communicated with the leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 'like teenagers'. With such a cosy relationship, his votes for genocide may be immoral, but they are not surprising. Then there is Hakeem Jeffries, the most powerful Democrat in the House of Representatives. In April, he and Booker held a two-person, all-day sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest proposed deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and food and jobs assistance programmes. 'As Democrats, we're going to continue to stand on the side of the American people, and we will not rest until we bury this reckless Republican budget in the ground,' Jeffries declared. Three weeks later, Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed the House 215–214. Although the Senate may revise it, Jeffries's grandstanding had already proven hollow. Jeffries has shown far more resolve against antigenocide protesters. In April 2024 when pro-Palestinian student protests intensified and police raided encampments at Columbia University, he defended the use of New York police to arrest protesters and dismantle the camps. 'The antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation deployed by some students and outside protestors on college campuses in New York City and beyond is completely unacceptable and deeply disturbing,' Jeffries said in a news statement. There was no credible evidence to support his claim. He issued no similar statement in defence of Palestinians nor did he condemn Islamophobia or Zionist attacks on protesters. But he did raise more than $1.15m from AIPAC and other pro-Israel donors during his 2024 re-election campaign. Like Booker and Jeffries, other leading Democrats have chosen to posture against the marginalised rather than confront unjust policies. On January 30, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut posted on X: 'In the first week, Trump removed 7,300 people. On average, Biden was removing 15,000 a week. Under Biden 72 percent of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] arrests were criminals. Under Trump it's dropped to around 50 percent. Trump is removing less people and less criminals.' Whether he intended it or not, Murphy in effect endorsed a mass deportation regime that disproportionately targets migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean. Murphy is a leader who equivocates. Just two months earlier, he had written that 'mass deportation is a (terrible) response to Americans' real sense they are helpless in the face of global forces.' Yet by May, he was boasting about supporting the 'toughest bipartisan border security bill in a generation' as part of 'choosing this country over Donald Trump's campaign'. Murphy may be less beholden to corporate donors than others, but his role in leading the opposition is no less compromised. Even on issues on which Democrats have expressed rhetorical opposition – such as cuts to welfare and education – grandstanding has taken the place of real action. Despite Jeffries's occasional calls for a Democratic strategy to organise resistance, many in the party have chosen instead to cooperate with the administration. That explains how the Senate unanimously confirmed Marco Rubio – long an advocate of xenophobic and Islamophobic policies – as secretary of state by a vote of 99–0, including all 45 Democratic senators. It also explains why 10 Democrats (nine senators, one House member), including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, supported a continuing resolution in March that many agreed would hurt ordinary Americans. 'As bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,' Schumer said. With the Democratic Party applying the pressure of an ant on a mountain, the so-called resistance it claims to lead against Trump has been more than futile – it has become a grim parody. Nothing illustrates the party's rightward drift more clearly than its recent push to court billionaire and former Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk. On June 5 after Musk's public falling-out with Trump over the 'Big Beautiful Bill', Representative Ro Khanna said, 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' including 'a commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him'. By 'him', Khanna seemed to mean rich, white, highly skilled migrants – just as Trump's immigration plans have prioritised white South African farmers as 'refugees' and just as Musk has argued that the US should accept only highly skilled immigrants. Khanna's comments – and his campaign donations from individuals affiliated with Apple, Google, PayPal and Stanford University – place him squarely within the bipartisan elite consensus that dominates immigration and economic policymaking in the US. To mount real opposition, a party must have a clear, unified idea of what it would do differently. The Democratic Party has failed to offer such a vision. It continues to stand with Republicans on issue after issue – and when it claims to stand against them, it rarely follows through. It is long past time to stop hoping the Democratic Party will rescue the US from Trumpism. It won't. It can't. The party has become an unreliable and ideologically compromised actor in the struggle for democracy and justice. What is needed now is a mass movement to build a viable, independent, left-of-centre alternative. Because the Democrats have shown, again and again, that they are not it.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Which US cities have the LA immigration protests spread to?
Protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, which began on June 6 in Los Angeles, have spread beyond the California city, across the United States. This comes days before a military parade scheduled on Saturday in Washington, DC, which marks the US Army's 250th anniversary. More protests across the US are scheduled on Saturday. Here is what we know about what is happening and where. On June 6, ICE carried out immigration enforcement raids in LA, in which uniformed ICE agents arrived at various sites in LA in groups of unmarked vehicles, arresting 44 people in a military-style operation. The operation triggered protests in LA on the same day, and crowds rallied outside a facility where some of the detainees were believed to be held. They were dispersed by police, but protests began again soon after. US President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops into the city on June 8, a move condemned as an 'illegal takeover' by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who then filed a lawsuit to try to prevent their deployment onto the city streets. The next day, Trump doubled the number of active National Guard troops in the city to 4,000. On Monday, Trump also ordered 700 marines to be deployed from the Twentynine Palms base east of Los Angeles, describing the city as a 'trash heap' that was in danger of burning to the ground. A federal court hearing about whether or not Trump can legally deploy the National Guard and marines to assist with immigration raids in LA is scheduled for Thursday. Marines arrived in the city on Tuesday. However, as of Wednesday, they had still not completed training, The Hill reported, citing an unnamed US Northern Command official. The marines are now expected to join the National Guard troops on the streets of LA on Friday. On Tuesday night, LA Mayor Karen Bass announced a curfew in downtown LA, and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) made several arrests. A sixth day of protests continued on Wednesday. These were mostly peaceful but featured occasional outbursts of violence. By June 9, protests against the ICE raids and Trump's deployment of the military had spilled over to several other US cities in solidarity with the LA Wednesday, protests had appeared in 12 other cities across several states. Here is the situation in each city: LA is not the only city in California which is experiencing protests. Soon after the start of the LA protests, a peaceful protest began in San Francisco with demonstrators gathering outside an ICE building on financial hub Sansome Street in the north of the city. Local media reported that police arrived in riot gear and made arrests. On Sunday, June 8, San Francisco police arrested about 60 people, and declared the protest an 'unlawful assembly'. On Monday, the San Francisco police released a statement on X, saying the demonstrations had been 'overwhelmingly peaceful' but that 'two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts'. It said police had made more arrests, without specifying the number of people arrested. Local media reports suggest the number could be above 150. Local media reported that ICE agents were also arresting migrants in San Francisco. The city's mayor, Democrat Daniel Lurie, shared this news on X on Monday, saying: 'I have been briefed on the ongoing immigration enforcement actions taking place downtown.' Lurie added: 'I have been and will continue to be clear that these federal immigration enforcement tactics are intended to instil fear, and they make our city less safe.' He stated the police force would not be involved in making immigration arrests. 'Under our city's longstanding policies, local law enforcement does not participate in federal immigration enforcement. Those are our policies, and they make our city safer.' On Tuesday, 200 protesters rallied outside the San Francisco Immigration Court. Protests were also reported in the nearby city of Oakland. On Monday, protests broke out in Santa Ana in Orange County, a largely Mexican-American city just south of LA. The protests broke out following reports of ICE raids in the city. Local media reported that several hundred people were protesting outside the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and court. The Santa Ana Police Department released a statement on X saying it was aware of the immigration enforcement actions and would not participate in them. However, the police department posted another statement on X later on Monday saying: 'When a peaceful demonstration escalates into rocks, bottles, mortars, and fireworks being used against public service personnel, and property is destroyed, it is no longer a lawful assembly. It is a violation of the law.' Local media reported that several arrests were made. Police chief Robert Rodriguez said peaceful protesters would be protected but urged residents not to participate in violent protests or vandalism. 'Those who participate in unlawful activities will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.' On Tuesday, National Guard troops were deployed to Santa Ana and clashes with protesters were reported. Protests have broken out in Seattle, Washington State's most populous city. About 50 protesters gathered outside the immigration court in downtown Seattle on Tuesday. On Wednesday, hundreds of protesters marched downtown from Capitol Hill. According to the Seattle Police Department, this demonstration was mostly peaceful, but some individuals set fire to a dumpster, which prompted police intervention. Several clashes were also reported between protesters and the police, who arrested eight people for assault and obstruction. Protests also broke out in Spokane, a city towards the eastern side of Washington State. The police arrested more than 30 protesters and dispersed the crowd using pepper balls, Spokane police chief Kevin Hall told a news conference. Mayor Lisa Brown imposed a night curfew in the city, which was set to last until 5am (12:00 GMT) on Thursday. Protests have broken out in several cities in Texas. Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote on X on Tuesday: 'Texas National Guard will be deployed to locations across the state to ensure peace & order. Peaceful protest is legal. Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.' On Tuesday, Abbott deployed the National Guard ahead of protests in San Antonio. The city's mayor, Democrat Ron Nirenberg, said on Wednesday that he had not been informed in advance about the National Guard deployment and had not requested it. More than 400 protesters gathered outside the city hall on Wednesday in a largely peaceful protest. Hundreds of protesters gathered on Monday between the Texas State Capitol building and a federal building which holds an ICE staff office. More than a dozen people were arrested, Abbott wrote in an X post. The police used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse protesters. Some protesters threw rocks at officers and graffitied a federal building, according to local media reports. Protesters also gathered in the Texas cities of Dallas and Houston. Protesters gathered outside the Colorado State Capitol in Denver on Tuesday. Police said they arrested 18 people when protesters tried to cross Interstate 25, a highway that runs through New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. On Tuesday, thousands of protesters gathered near an immigration centre in Chicago and marched downtown, blocking a plaza. Some 17 people were arrested, according to the police and some clashes between protesters and police were reported. On the same day, a 66-year-old woman was treated for a fractured arm after she was hit by a car that drove through the protest. No other injuries have been reported. On Tuesday morning, immigration authorities raided a meat production plant in Nebraska's Omaha city, taking dozens of workers away with them in buses. Local media reported that about 400 people protested against this raid on Tuesday along the 33rd and L streets. On Monday, hundreds of people gathered outside Boston City Hall, calling for the release of trade union leader David Huerta, who was arrested during the LA protests. Huerta was released on Monday afternoon on a $50,000 bond. However, he remains charged with conspiracy to impede an officer, a felony which could result in a maximum of six years in prison, according to the office of the US Attorney. Thousands of people protested in Lower Manhattan in New York City on Tuesday. The protesters rallied near an ICE facility and federal courts. On Tuesday, New York police took 86 people into custody. Some 34 of them were charged, while the rest received a criminal court summons. The police took more people into custody on Wednesday, but did not specify how many. On Tuesday afternoon, about 150 people gathered outside the Federal Detention Center and marched between the centre and ICE's headquarters in the city. After a group defied police orders to disperse from a major road, 15 people were arrested. Demonstrators marched past the Justice Department building in the US capital on Monday. The protesters were calling for the release of union leader David Huerta. There have been no reports of violence or arrests. Yes. On Saturday, protests opposing Trump's policies in general are planned in nearly 2,000 locations from parks to cities to small towns. They will coincide with a military parade in Washington, DC, commemorating the US army's anniversary, and with Trump's 79th birthday. No protests are planned in Washington, DC.
