FireAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gigemJTH12 said:

---

Can someone explain the negative side of this to me like I'm 5?

All I know about it is the tax relief on OT which I think is great and will likely revive the trades that would be dying out in the years to come.

---

We are spending more than we are bringing in.

Do this at home and see what happens.

---

Now wait…even with all of the cuts being made to multiple high cost policies, you're saying we are still spending more?

Or is that we are bringing in less because of all of the revenue cutting measures, and the net gain on paper is actually negative?

Everything I see in the bill highlights so far are exactly the types of things I voted in favor of…permanent tax cuts, more requirements put on Medicaid recipients, pushing the burden of certain entitlement programs more toward the states…

Please help dissect why you say it is more spending rather than less…

---

Does it matter? We are digging a bigger hole regardless of how.

I voted for those things as well and happy about them.

But what should have happened is to cut everything back to pre-Covid levels at a minimum. Instead they set Covid infused outlier spending as the new baseline.

FireAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gigemJTH12 said:

---

Can someone explain the negative side of this to me like I'm 5?

All I know about it is the tax relief on OT which I think is great and will likely revive the trades that would be dying out in the years to come.

---

We are spending more than we are bringing in.

Do this at home and see what happens.

---

Now wait…even with all of the cuts being made to multiple high cost policies, you're saying we are still spending more?

Or is that we are bringing in less because of all of the revenue cutting measures, and the net gain on paper is actually negative?

Everything I see in the bill highlights so far are exactly the types of things I voted in favor of…permanent tax cuts, more requirements put on Medicaid recipients, pushing the burden of certain entitlement programs more toward the states…

Please help dissect why you say it is more spending rather than less…

---

We would have to cut almost $2 trillion from our annual spending to not run a deficit. That would be a 30% reduction in spending!

Right now, they are estimating a FY 2025 deficit, which ends in Oct of this year, of $1.7 trillion. This bill will increase the deficit to between $2.1 and $2.3 trillion for this year.

FireAg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Congress didn't cut the stuff DOGE found.

---

Which stuff specifically?

And I was under the impression that the Senate was going to make further changes to the bill that would address those items…is that false?

---

That is false. They said they may address it with rescission, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Logos Stick said:

---

FireAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gigemJTH12 said:

---

Can someone explain the negative side of this to me like I'm 5?

All I know about it is the tax relief on OT which I think is great and will likely revive the trades that would be dying out in the years to come.

---

We are spending more than we are bringing in.

Do this at home and see what happens.

---

Now wait…even with all of the cuts being made to multiple high cost policies, you're saying we are still spending more?

Or is that we are bringing in less because of all of the revenue cutting measures, and the net gain on paper is actually negative?

Everything I see in the bill highlights so far are exactly the types of things I voted in favor of…permanent tax cuts, more requirements put on Medicaid recipients, pushing the burden of certain entitlement programs more toward the states…

Please help dissect why you say it is more spending rather than less…

---

We would have to cut almost $2 trillion from our annual spending to not run a deficit. That would be a 30% reduction in spending!

Right now, they are estimating a FY 2025 deficit, which ends in Oct of this year, of $1.7 trillion. This bill will increase the deficit to between $2.1 and $2.3 trillion for this year.

---

Okay…I hear you…but is that based on actual new spending or is the deficit created more so by tightening revenue streams coming into the government's hands?

Also, what is the year-over-year increase in deficit with this bill compared to the 4 years under Biden? Is it a net increase or decrease in overall rate of deficit creation?

YouBet said:

---

FireAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gigemJTH12 said:

---

Can someone explain the negative side of this to me like I'm 5?

All I know about it is the tax relief on OT which I think is great and will likely revive the trades that would be dying out in the years to come.

---

We are spending more than we are bringing in.

Do this at home and see what happens.

---

Now wait…even with all of the cuts being made to multiple high cost policies, you're saying we are still spending more?

Or is that we are bringing in less because of all of the revenue cutting measures, and the net gain on paper is actually negative?

Everything I see in the bill highlights so far are exactly the types of things I voted in favor of…permanent tax cuts, more requirements put on Medicaid recipients, pushing the burden of certain entitlement programs more toward the states…

Please help dissect why you say it is more spending rather than less…

---

Does it matter? We are digging a bigger hole regardless of how.

I voted for those things as well and happy about them.

But what should have happened is to cut everything back to pre-Covid levels at a minimum. Instead they set Covid infused outlier spending as the new baseline.

---

That's what really burns me up about the matter. There is ZERO excuse not to reset to the pre-COVID baseline.

Logos Stick said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Congress didn't cut the stuff DOGE found.

---

Which stuff specifically?

And I was under the impression that the Senate was going to make further changes to the bill that would address those items…is that false?

---

That is false. They said they may address it with rescission, but I'll believe it when I see it.

---

I guess we will seen then…I agree it needs to be addressed in this bill before it hits Trump's desk for signature, but I think the hope remains that it will still get done…

That's $2T ..our economy would implode if it's taken out drastically in one swoop. I'm trying to figure out what Trump has planned because it's not like him to not deliver on what he said. And then there's Congress not behaving, but that's expected.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

That's $2T ..our economy would implode if it's taken out drastically in one swoop. I'm trying to figure out what Trump has planned because it's not like him to not deliver on what he said. And then there's Congress not behaving, but that's expected.

---

lol is that sarcasm?

I will be donating to whoever runs against

that execrable @#$#@$ Thomas Massie!

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

That's $2T ..our economy would implode if it's taken out drastically in one swoop.

---

This is what all the concerned moderates said when Mileli was elected in Argentina. Instead they are roaring back on a time scale few thought possible.

They were already at bottom. We will get there once the overspending stops.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

That's $2T ..our economy would implode if it's taken out drastically in one swoop. I'm trying to figure out what Trump has planned because it's not like him to not deliver on what he said. And then there's Congress not behaving, but that's expected.

---

lol is that sarcasm?

---

No

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

They were already at bottom. We will get there once the overspending stops.

---

Its not stopping, this bill proves it

It may not be by design, but it will stop one way or another.

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

The fact that people are dumping 10 year treasuries tells you everything you need to know about the bill.

FireAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

FireAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gigemJTH12 said:

---

Can someone explain the negative side of this to me like I'm 5?

All I know about it is the tax relief on OT which I think is great and will likely revive the trades that would be dying out in the years to come.

---

We are spending more than we are bringing in.

Do this at home and see what happens.

---

Now wait…even with all of the cuts being made to multiple high cost policies, you're saying we are still spending more?

Or is that we are bringing in less because of all of the revenue cutting measures, and the net gain on paper is actually negative?

Everything I see in the bill highlights so far are exactly the types of things I voted in favor of…permanent tax cuts, more requirements put on Medicaid recipients, pushing the burden of certain entitlement programs more toward the states…

Please help dissect why you say it is more spending rather than less…

---

We would have to cut almost $2 trillion from our annual spending to not run a deficit. That would be a 30% reduction in spending!

Right now, they are estimating a FY 2025 deficit, which ends in Oct of this year, of $1.7 trillion. This bill will increase the deficit to between $2.1 and $2.3 trillion for this year.

---

Okay…I hear you…but is that based on actual new spending or is the deficit created more so by tightening revenue streams coming into the government's hands?

Also, what is the year-over-year increase in deficit with this bill compared to the 4 years under Biden? Is it a net increase or decrease in overall rate of deficit creation?

---

Every year since 2015 has been an increase in the deficit. FY '20 and '21 are outliers due to COVID but, ignoring those, the general trend is not good. Trump continues the debt increase acceleration.

Robert C. Christian said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

FireAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gigemJTH12 said:

---

Can someone explain the negative side of this to me like I'm 5?

All I know about it is the tax relief on OT which I think is great and will likely revive the trades that would be dying out in the years to come.

---

We are spending more than we are bringing in.

Do this at home and see what happens.

---

Now wait…even with all of the cuts being made to multiple high cost policies, you're saying we are still spending more?

Or is that we are bringing in less because of all of the revenue cutting measures, and the net gain on paper is actually negative?

Everything I see in the bill highlights so far are exactly the types of things I voted in favor of…permanent tax cuts, more requirements put on Medicaid recipients, pushing the burden of certain entitlement programs more toward the states…

Please help dissect why you say it is more spending rather than less…

---

We would have to cut almost $2 trillion from our annual spending to not run a deficit. That would be a 30% reduction in spending!

Right now, they are estimating a FY 2025 deficit, which ends in Oct of this year, of $1.7 trillion. This bill will increase the deficit to between $2.1 and $2.3 trillion for this year.

---

Okay…I hear you…but is that based on actual new spending or is the deficit created more so by tightening revenue streams coming into the government's hands?

Also, what is the year-over-year increase in deficit with this bill compared to the 4 years under Biden? Is it a net increase or decrease in overall rate of deficit creation?

---

Every year since 2015 has been an increase in the deficit. FY '20 and '21 are outliers due to COVID but, ignoring those, the general trend is not good. Trump continues the debt increase acceleration.

---

It really started to ramp in 2008

Trumps strategy is to grow the economy enough to reduce or eliminate the deficit. Remember the announcements regarding foreign investment into our economy? Iirc, it was $5-6T so far. This investment will increase tax revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. The current deficit projections don't account (rightfully so) for this increase in revenue.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Trumps strategy is to grow the economy enough to reduce or eliminate the deficit. Remember the announcements regarding foreign investment into our economy? Iirc, it was $5-6T so far. This investment will increase tax revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. The current deficit projections don't account (rightfully so) for this increase in revenue.

---

Its a pipe dream, as is the 5-6T

As far as tax relief for seniors.... they could not eliminate or reduce tax rates on SS. Instead, they added an additional $4000 to the standard deduction. So for a single filer 65 and older, you get to deduct $22k with conditions:

Base: $15,000
Temporary OBBBA increase: $1,000
Existing senior deduction: $2,000
OBBBA senior deduction: $4,000
Total: $22,000 (assuming AGI $75,000 for full OBBBA senior deduction)

FireAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Congress didn't cut the stuff DOGE found.

---

Which stuff specifically?

And I was under the impression that the Senate was going to make further changes to the bill that would address those items…is that false?

---

That is false. They said they may address it with rescission, but I'll believe it when I see it.

---

I guess we will seen then…I agree it needs to be addressed in this bill before it hits Trump's desk for signature, but I think the hope remains that it will still get done…

---

Regarding the Senate, they went into this with an even more absurd take than the House. Opening positions:

- House: cut $1.5T in spending over 10 years. Hard to tell where that number ended up since we are increasing the deficit by $3T over 10 years. Regardless, only cutting $1.5T over 10 years is irrelevant and does nothing to address the debt.

- Senate: cut....(wait for it)....$4B in spending over 10 years. Yes, you read that right - $4B over 10 years. That is less than rounding error and so absurd you just have to laugh at it. Their language around this idea was "maximum flexibility" which translates to print money as much as we can.

So, unless the Senate has done a complete 180 on their opening position you can expect spending to actually increase coming out of the Senate version.

Best case: they keep the House bill intact which does nothing for us over the long-term.

samurai_science said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Trumps strategy is to grow the economy enough to reduce or eliminate the deficit. Remember the announcements regarding foreign investment into our economy? Iirc, it was $5-6T so far. This investment will increase tax revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. The current deficit projections don't account (rightfully so) for this increase in revenue.

---

Its a pipe dream, as is the 5-6T

---

What sort of dream is it when the CBO and other bill "scoring" groups ignore certain inputs and ampliify others to arrive at numbers fitting a particular political narrative?

Some very very very smart guys who have been doing this at the highest levels since Reagan point to the fallacy in this approach.

And would you rather pipe dreams of foreign investments or the typical big government approach to provide huge handouts to Solyndra to "make" solar panels?

The TCJA worked well for most Americans and I suspect this will prove long term to be even better.

The chicken little screaming about the impending debt bomb continues to be nothing but noise.

For the bloviators Massie, Roy and the bunch... tell them to take their proposed cuts to their constituents and get the support. I mean the actual details, not "we have to cut massively or we will all be in Chinese debtors prison by next Wednesday" rhetoric.

Once they have gotten the buy in from those guys, they then need to go help 215 or so of their friends to sell the same package to their constituents. Until then, they are just self-serving roadblocks trying to make a name for theyselves.

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

People getting tips and overtime are at best middle class, and likely lower.

Why are billionaires getting a f'ing tax cut? That is what is absurd.

flown-the-coop said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Trumps strategy is to grow the economy enough to reduce or eliminate the deficit. Remember the announcements regarding foreign investment into our economy? Iirc, it was $5-6T so far. This investment will increase tax revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. The current deficit projections don't account (rightfully so) for this increase in revenue.

---

Its a pipe dream, as is the 5-6T

---

What sort of dream is it when the CBO and other bill "scoring" groups ignore certain inputs and ampliify others to arrive at numbers fitting a particular political narrative?

Some very very very smart guys who have been doing this at the highest levels since Reagan point to the fallacy in this approach.

And would you rather pipe dreams of foreign investments or the typical big government approach to provide huge handouts to Solyndra to "make" solar panels?

The TCJA worked well for most Americans and I suspect this will prove long term to be even better.

The chicken little screaming about the impending debt bomb continues to be nothing but noise.

For the bloviators Massie, Roy and the bunch... tell them to take their proposed cuts to their constituents and get the support. I mean the actual details, not "we have to cut massively or we will all be in Chinese debtors prison by next Wednesday" rhetoric.

Once they have gotten the buy in from those guys, they then need to go help 215 or so of their friends to sell the same package to their constituents. Until then, they are just self-serving roadblocks trying to make a name for theyselves.

---

I share your disdain of the CBO. Example...for whatever reason, they keep using a much lower and false US Debt to GDP ratio of 100% when it's really 125% reported by all other sources. So, they are clearly not accounting for the true number due to some accounting gimmickry, I'm sure.

However, your chicken little comments on the debt deny our harsh reality as well.

GeorgiAg said:

---

People getting tips and overtime are at best middle class, and likely lower.

Why are billionaires getting a f'ing tax cut? That is what is absurd.

---

Tell us more.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

People getting tips and overtime are at best middle class, and likely lower.

Why are billionaires getting a f'ing tax cut? That is what is absurd.

---

They aren't. The only tax cuts in this bill are no tax on tips and overtime.

The SALT deduction increased to $40K but then phases out at $500k income.

I'm sure there are other goodies hidden in various deductions and programs, but billionaires aren't getting tax cuts.

What are you tying this comment to?

GeorgiAg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

People getting tips and overtime are at best middle class, and likely lower.

Why are billionaires getting a f'ing tax cut? That is what is absurd.

---

There are very few billionaires. They, like millionaires, and fairly well off are paying way more there fair share. The bottom half are not. Tips and overtime should be taxed, both are income. More than a few of those receiving tips will be unpleasantly surprised come tax time.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

People getting tips and overtime are at best middle class, and likely lower.

Why are billionaires getting a f'ing tax cut? That is what is absurd.

---

You could tax billionaires at 100% and it wouldnt save us

Here's where we are in this dystopian future and where trying to get reliable "news" is near impossible.

So the CBO report is wrong? I have not been reading this thread, am not an economist and don't have time to dO mY OwN ReSeaRCh.

Quote:

---

Estimated Effects CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP (see the figure). 3 By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects vary throughout the 10-year projection period as different components of the legislation are phased in and out.

---

.https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

pretty sure the servers are still paying taxes on their W4 salary

just not on the cash tips which they don't ever record anyway.

Where is the billionaire tax cut?

GeorgiAg said:

---

Here's where we are in this dystopian future and where trying to get reliable "news" is near impossible.

So the CBO report is wrong? I have not been reading this thread, am not an economist and don't have time to dO mY OwN ReSeaRCh.

Quote:

---

Estimated Effects CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP (see the figure). 3 By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects vary throughout the 10-year projection period as different components of the legislation are phased in and out.

---

.https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf

---

Its a CBO report for a bill that has not passed and has Honorable Brendan F. Boyle and Honorable Hakeem Jeffries on said CBO report. I am sure its legit lol

LMCane said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

pretty sure the servers are still paying taxes on their W4 salary

just not on the cash tips which they don't ever record anyway.

---

Most tips are credit card tips these days, over 90%, in which taxes are paid.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I don't have the time to read all this, but how does the OT wages exclusion work? I'm sure it's "phased out" for high wage earners, but does anyone know how that phase out works?

---

I'm as conservative as they come, but someone please explain why not taxing tips and overtime is fair? It's income. Why should some forms of income be excluded, forcing the rest of us to pay more? Absurd.

---

People getting tips and overtime are at best middle class, and likely lower.

Why are billionaires getting a f'ing tax cut? That is what is absurd.

---

Well, they aren't. Quit playing the class card. But aside from that, lots of people work low paying jobs. Why single out one type of income to exclude from tax?