Trump's Prized Tax Bill Doesn't Do Anything He Promised
Donald Trump's tax promises for the middle and working classes are actually not in his tax proposal.
The president has trumpeted the extension of his 2017 tax plan, attempting to make the bill more palatable to non-millionaires by claiming that it would end tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits. But as it turns out, none of that is actually in the text of the bill.
During a heated exchange between Representative Tom Suozzi and Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff on the Joint Committee of Taxation, it became abundantly clear that none of those promises would be happening.
'On tips—the president said, 'Your tips will be a 100 percent yours.' Does this tax bill continue the payroll tax on people's tips?' asked Suozzi.
'Yes it does,' said Barthold.
'Overtime. The president said, 'Your overtime will be tax-free.' Does this bill continue the payroll tax on overtime?' continued Suozzi.
'It does not exempt overtime from payroll tax,' said Barthold.
'The president said he's going to remove taxes from Social Security,' pressed Suozzi. 'Does this bill remove taxes on Social Security benefits?'
'The legislation provides an increased exception amount—' Barthold began, before Suozzi interrupted.
'But does it remove taxes on Social Security benefits?' reiterated Suozzi.
'It does not change Social Security,' Barthold said.
And while middle- and working-class Americans get shafted by the bill on what Trump promised them, the wealthy will continue to benefit from the president's bill—even if it's not what he claims he wants.
NBC reported Thursday that Trump pressed House Speaker Mike Johnson to raise the top income tax rate to close the carried interest loophole, raising the 37 percent tax rate to 2017 levels—39.6 percent—for Americans making $2.5 million or more.
But when Suozzi asked if the reconciliation bill included 'an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest people in the United States of America,' the answer wasn't so promising.
'The legislation before you extends permanently the top bracket at 37 percent,' Barthold said.
'So it does not return it to what it was at 39.6 [percent]?' Suozzi continued.
'That is correct, Mr. Suozzi,' Barthold responded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
The salary a single person needs to live comfortably in all 50 U.S. states—it's over $120,000 in 2 places
Americans earning a regular salary may have trouble living comfortably in all 50 states. The median annual wage for individuals was just below $62,000 at the end of 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it takes a salary of at least $80,829 for a single adult to live comfortably in West Virginia, the most affordable state, according to a recent SmartAsset study. SmartAsset defines "comfortable" as earning enough to follow the 50/30/20 budget method, which recommends putting 50% of your income toward essentials like rent and food, 30% toward discretionary spending and 20% toward debt repayment and savings. It used the latest estimates from Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Living Wage calculator to estimate individuals' cost of necessities in each state. On the other side of the spectrum from West Virginia, residents in Hawaii need to earn a minimum of $124,467 a year to live comfortably, SmartAsset finds. That's the highest of any state and one of two states — along with Massachusetts — where individuals need to earn at least $120,000 a year to afford a comfortable lifestyle. Here's how much money it takes for a single adult to live comfortably in every U.S. state 2025. While the 50/30/20 budget can be an effective tool to manage your money, it can also be difficult to follow if you have high fixed costs. And though data suggests wage growth nationwide is actually outpacing price inflation, many Americans don't feel that way. About 7 in 10 Americans feel stressed about their finances, according to a CNBC/SurveyMonkey online poll conducted in April. Plus, President Donald Trump's tariffs threaten to push prices up even further. Boosting your income by switching jobs or getting a side hustle may be easier said than done, but it can help give you some breathing room in your budget, especially if you've already cut out as much discretionary spending as you can.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk
Washington was on two parallel tracks this past week when discussing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." On one front: The nation's capital was transfixed by a seismic fight between Elon Musk and President Trump, centered on the cost of the $3 trillion tax and spending bill. On another front: Republican leaders steadily advanced the pricey package with only a few changes apparently on offer. "Pedal to the metal," Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered in a speech Thursday near the height of the Musk drama — ignoring promises from the world's richest man to oust lawmakers who didn't join his effort to kill the bill. Republicans instead appeared to move closer to passage. They previewed changes that will be of interest to taxpayers and businesses, but with little to fulsomely address the critique from Musk and others around the package's price tag. In spite of Musk's campaign and multiple government and independent analyses that found at least $2.4 trillion in new red ink, Thune dismissed Musk this week by saying "we're a long ways down this track" and that his party is "rowing in the same direction." Thune may be overstating things a touch, with a vocal group of fiscal conservatives emboldened by Musk suggesting they will vote no. But Republican leaders from the president on down echoed Thune's position throughout the week. Stifel's Brian Gardner offered a bottom line in a note this past week, suggesting the fighting "makes for great TV and fodder ... but it is unlikely to fundamentally change the composition of the tax bill." "Musk's sway among Republican voters is limited," he added. The week saw a flurry of negotiations over changes to the House package, but, perhaps Washington being Washington, even the cost-saving changes appear to have been immediately spoken for. A meeting on Wednesday with the president, Thune, and members of the Senate Finance Committee ended with a focus on two changes. The first could save significant money by paring back a $40,000 tax deduction in the House bill for state and local taxes (SALT). Any changes there will face fierce opposition when the bill returns to the House, but the Washington Post reported this week that Trump has even indicated he is willing to lower the deduction. But any savings there may be quickly eaten up by the second bit of news this week, which concerns making some business tax incentives permanent. These tax deductions to businesses involve property depreciation, interest expenses, and R&D and are currently temporary in the House package. But an array of key Senators are keen to make them permanent (and more expensive). It's still a matter of some debate, with some hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having told reporters he is looking to keep those tax breaks temporary and that Trump isn't sold. Johnson had emerged as a fierce critic of the package over spending and is also threatening to reform or break the package into different parts. He would need at least three Republican senators to join him and stand up to what is expected to be a fierce White House pressure campaign. Another key business-world change in the offing that emerged this week involves a provision that says no state may make its own law to regulate artificial intelligence in the coming decade. The need for changes there became evident when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia acknowledged she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes in the House, but that she would flip to no if it stayed in place. Those proposed revision — seen this week as part of a larger spectrum package released by the Senate Commerce Committee — would change the House plan for a 10-year outright ban to a system that blocks some federal broadband funding if a state passes certain AI laws. Tech companies will be watching those developments closely, but they're not expected to have much impact on the bill's price tag. Another possible change could actually push up the price tag, with a growing debate around changes in the House bill to Section 899 of the IRS code, focused on what Republicans call "discriminatory foreign countries." The provision would allow the president to impose new taxes to combat the practices. Removing that change could cut into future government revenues, allowing the president to levy fewer taxes as a result. Other changes could also be coming that might increase the price tag, with some senators still concerned that current cost-saving measures go too far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has been outspoken on one of the key changes around limiting Medicaid benefits, writing in a recent New York Times op-ed that cuts will hurt the working class and that the core of the issue is "will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?" Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
