Budget office says Trump's tax law will add $3.4 trillion to deficits, leave 10 million uninsured
More than 10 million people will be uninsured under the law in 2034 because of the law, CBO found, an improvement from an earlier projection that found 11.8 million people losing coverage over the decade.
The release of the CBO analysis Monday comes at the end of a grueling legislative fight, but at the start of a longer political struggle to come as the two parties clash over the law's impact on the economy, healthcare and government programs. Republicans are touting the bill as a tax cut for all Americans, yet a recent AP-NORC poll found about two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new tax law will help the rich as Democrats attack the legislation.
The bill Trump signed into law on July 4 extended current tax rates for individuals that were set to expire at the end of this year and temporarily created new tax deductions for tips, overtime and auto interest loans for new vehicles assembled in the U.S. Republicans also used the bill to cut future spending on Medicaid and food assistance, and to phase out certain clean energy tax credits more quickly.
Democrats were quick to highlight the CBO's findings.
'Today's report reminds us of something: facts are stubborn and the facts are clear,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The big, ugly betrayal is a loser for the country and will be a loser for the Republicans."
Republicans say the bill was critical to ensure most Americans didn't experience a significant tax increase next year. Trump and Republicans have also insisted that economic growth will exceed the CBO's projections for the next decade, erasing the projected deficits as more revenue comes into the Treasury than anticipated.
Nonpartisan fiscal watchdogs also highlighted the CBO's latest projection. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said there will be a shorter-term 'sugar high' as stimulus makes its way through the economy. But modelers from across the ideological spectrum agree that any sustained economic changes are likely to be modestly beneficial, or negative.
'And not one serious estimate claims this bill will improve our fiscal situation,' MacGuineas said. 'Rather, positive growth effects are likely to be swamped by the effects of higher debt and interest rates.'
The CBO said more than $1 trillion in deficit savings is generated through the health portions of the bill, which includes new work requirements for certain Medicaid beneficiaries in states that expanded the program through the Affordable Care Act.
Some late changes on Medicaid were made to the bill to win over holdouts. One of those changes added a $50 billion fund for rural hospitals.
__
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Kevin Freking, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)'s CEO Has A Great Relationship With Trump, Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. After bleeding close to $600 billion in market value in January amidst the DeepSeek selloff, Wall Street's AI chip darling, NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) is once again the most valuable company in the world. The firm has benefited from growing investor bullishness about the long-term prospects of AI. NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA)'s shares closed the week 1% higher after big tech's continued persistence to spend billions of dollars to buy AI chips. Cramer discussed the impact and the CEO's relationship with President Trump: 'All CapEx go up, it's all NVIDIA. . .it's really good for NVIDIA. But of course, NVIDIA, the President talking about breaking them up, we'll get to that later. It was an out of body comment. Previously, the CNBC TV host commented on NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA)'s shares and parabolic moves: 'What is the solution to this? Look, in my forthcoming book, How to Make Money in Any Market, I have banished my antiparabola bias. I have a method I reveal of picking five stocks to go alongside an index fund with some money added each month. I state point blank that if you are in your 30s or older, you should own one speculative situation like an Oklo, okay, or a Joby. Just one. It could fail you after going parabolic. Moreover, if you're under 30, you can pick two speculative names out of five because you've got enough time to make back any potential losses. Photo by Javier Esteban on Unsplash Now, you may think I'm reckless for endorsing any of these even with caveats, but it's time to admit that for many years now, speculative stocks with great growth, they've worked. Oh, and let's not forget, they don't have to stay speculative. NVIDIA stock has had many parabolic moves, including the one that started in April. To keep yourself out of these runs because of a principle that stopped working ages ago, that's to be blind to change, and I don't like it. I don't want to be that way.' While we acknowledge the potential of NVDA as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands
More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land, including this high altitude lake at the base of Thompson Peak in the Sawtooth Wilderness. (Photo by Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun) Ninety-six percent of all registered voters in Idaho believe that public lands should remain in public hands, according to a new poll paid for by Conservation Voters for Idaho. The poll was conducted in the aftermath of a federal proposal from U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to make millions of acres of public land in the U.S., including in Idaho, available to be sold off. The poll specifically asked Idaho voters questions about Idaho public lands and who they support in Idaho's 2026 U.S. Senate race. Alexis Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, said she has never in her career seen Idahoans from all sides of the political spectrum unite behind a single issue like they have behind public lands this year. 'It really is clear that voters are unified in keeping public lands in public hands,' Pickering said in a phone interview Wednesday. 'It demonstrates that Idaho voters are very cognizant of this fight right now,' Pickering said. 'They are very engaged, and they are not going to sit this out.' More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land of some form. The polling firm Change Research conducted the poll among 1,027 registered Idaho voters from July 15-17. The margin of error was 3.2%, according to Change Research. One poll question asked voters, 'Did you support or oppose the amendment to sell off over 3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Idaho?' – with 87% of respondents saying they opposed it. Battles over public lands loom even after sell-off proposal fails Another poll question asked voters which statement came closest to their opinion: Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should remain public and be protected so that everyone can keep enjoying them. Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should be made available for purchase and private ownership. Ninety-six percent of Idaho registered voters said public lands should remain public, including 97% of registered Democrats and 95% of registered Republicans, the poll found. Lee withdrew his amendment to sell public lands after a public backlash and three of Idaho's four members of Congress provided public opposition from within the Republican Party to selling public lands. Even though the public lands amendment was withdrawn, Pickering said the issue isn't going away. She said Conservation Voters for Idaho plans to highlight public lands as a central issue and continue to hold elected officials accountable for keeping public lands public. Pickering also said the public is deeply invested in the issue and knows Lee could file another proposal to sell public lands. She compared the proposal to sell public lands to waking a sleeping bear. 'Now that they have woken the bear, it will be really hard to get that bear back in hibernation mode,' Pickering said. Three of Idaho's four members of Congress, U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, all R-Idaho, provided public Republican opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, the Sun previously reported. On June 20, Risch and Crapo, both announced they were opposed to the provision in the budget reconciliation process to sell off public lands. Simpson co-sponsored the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, opposed the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, the Utah News Dispatch reported. In a phone interview with the Idaho Capital Sun earlier this month, Fulcher said, 'public land should remain public, but the control, management should be local stakeholders, not the federal government.' Polling data shows that Risch received a 10% bump in support among all registered voters after they learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, up from 41% to 51%. Among registered Republican voters only, Risch's support increased from 60% to 72% after voters learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands. The poll only asked voters about Risch's upcoming U.S. Senate race, where he faces re-election in 2026. The poll did not ask about Crapo, Simpson or Fulcher, Pickering said. Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword
