{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-tax-relief-middle-class-heart-tax-reform", "Grassley: Tax Relief for the Middle Class at the Heart of Tax Reform", "2017-11-29", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senior Member and Former Chairman, Senate Finance Committee Tax Cuts and Jobs Act November 29, 2017 \u00a0 Mr. President, the last time Congress modernized the tax code, it was 1986. \u00a0 That\u2019s more than 30 years ago. \u00a0 In the generation since, the tax code has grown out of control. \u00a0 It\u2019s been a dream come true for accountants and lobbyists.\u00a0 But it\u2019s a nightmare for most Americans. \u00a0 The outdated tax code helps the powerful and the well-connected.\u00a0 But hurts American workers.\u00a0 It hurts American industry.\u00a0 And it hurts America\u2019s ability to compete with the rest of the world. \u00a0 The bill passed out of the Finance Committee moves us in the right direction to make our tax code simpler, fairer, and more competitive. \u00a0 At the heart of the legislation is a middle-class tax cut.\u00a0 A typical family of four with two children making $59,000 a year could see a tax cut of more than $1,700. \u00a0 That is significant tax relief.\u00a0 But, you would never know it by listening to the rhetoric of my colleagues on the other side.\u00a0 \u00a0 They have repeatedly recited the tired line that Republicans are only interested in giving \u201ctax cuts to the wealthy.\u201d \u00a0 In fact, they began pushing that narrative before a bill was even written. \u00a0 It was a charge made against the unified framework which merely provided guidelines for the tax writing committee to start from. \u00a0 The partisan Tax Policy Center then filled the gaps with policy assumptions and crafted an analysis to fit their narrative. \u00a0 The problem is, their narrative hasn\u2019t changed, even after the Finance Committee provided policy details.\u00a0 I think even the Tax Policy Center would have to agree that the Finance Committee product differs drastically from the underlying assumptions of their initial analysis. \u00a0 The Finance Committee used all the available tools granted under the Unified Framework to target more relief to middle-income taxpayers and retain the progressivity of the tax code. \u00a0 Let\u2019s take a look at some of the major features of the Finance bill and how they provide relief for the nation\u2019s middle-class and low-income earners. First, it nearly doubles the standard deduction which means that many lower income Americans will be removed from the tax rolls completely.\u00a0 And tax filing season will be simpler for millions more. \u00a0 Second, it doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and moderately increases its refundability. \u00a0 Both of these are made possible in large part by repealing personal exemptions.\u00a0 Personal exemptions for the taxpayer and spouse help to increase the standard deduction, and the personal exemptions for children help with increasing the child tax credit. \u00a0 Interesting enough, these provisions mirror a proposal put out by the Tax Policy Center in December of 2016. \u00a0 Nearly identical to the Finance bill, the Tax Policy Center paper argued for repealing personal exemptions, nearly doubling the standard deduction, and increasing the Child Tax Credit to $2,012. \u00a0 According to the authors of the Tax Policy Center proposal, such a change would \u201creduce complexity, remove inequities, and mitigate marriage penalties.\u201d \u00a0 The fact is, these changes provide more relief to the middle-class and simplify the tax code. \u00a0 As the Tax Policy Center paper points out, the value of the personal exemption is largely dependent on the tax bracket of the taxpayer.\u00a0 The higher the tax bracket, the more benefit. \u00a0 In comparison, the child tax credit generally lowers a taxpayer\u2019s tax liability dollar for dollar regardless of the tax bracket.\u00a0 As a result, repealing personal exemption in favor of expanding the child tax credit makes the tax code MORE progressive and targets more relief to lower and middle-income taxpayers. \u00a0 Admittedly there are some differences between what was suggested by TPC and the Finance bill.\u00a0 Its proposal would have been more generous on the refundable feature of the child tax credit. \u00a0 But on the opposite end, they would have made the child tax credit available to everyone, even millionaires.\u00a0 The Finance bill is less generous to the affluent because it phases out the credit for married taxpayers with incomes over $500,000. \u00a0 You would think the other side would offer some credit for taking this rather progressive approach to providing family tax relief. \u00a0 But no.\u00a0 They continue repeating their line over and over that the bill is a \u201ctax cut for the wealthy.\u201d \u00a0 Another feature of the Finance bill that provides relief to middle-class and low-income earners is the reduction of tax rates for middle-bracket taxpayers. \u00a0 First, it retains the 10 percent bracket, which many on the other side expressed concerns about being repealed based on the Big Six framework. \u00a0 Next, it lowers the current law 15 percent bracket to 12 percent and expands its applicability.\u00a0 Additionally, it reduces what is essentially the current law bracket of 25 percent to 22 percent and what is essentially today\u2019s current law 28 percent bracket to a much wider 24 percent bracket. \u00a0 These rate reductions target tax relief to the heart of the middle-class. \u00a0 You may be wondering how this middle-class tax relief bill will be financed.\u00a0 Largely by repealing the State and Local Tax Deduction, also known as the SALT deduction. \u00a0 Our colleagues on the other side have tried to argue the repeal of SALT is a tax increase on the middle-class.\u00a0 But nothing could be further from the truth, considering the reduced tax brackets I just discussed in combination of with the higher standard deduction and doubled child tax credit. \u00a0 The repeal of SALT is actually a key piece of this legislation which makes middle-class tax cuts possible.\u00a0 \u00a0 The SALT deduction overwhelmingly benefits the so-called \u201cwealthy\u201d that our colleagues on the other side vehemently argue should receive no tax benefits under the bill.\u00a0 \u00a0 You don\u2019t have to take my word for it. Here is what several partisan think tanks have said about SALT in the past. \u00a0 According to TPC, about 40 percent of SALT benefits go to taxpayers with incomes exceeding $500,000. \u00a0 Keep in mind that tax filers with incomes of $500,000 or more only make up about 1% of all tax filers, making it a very lopsided benefit. \u00a0 Here is what the Center for American Progress has said on SALT, \u00a0 \u201cThe deduction for state and local taxes disproportionately benefits high-income taxpayers, property owners, and residents of high-tax states.\u00a0 That\u2019s because those groups pay the most taxes at the state and local level.\u00a0 It also benefits high-income taxpayers because any kind of deduction is worth more to people in high tax brackets than low tax brackets.\u201d \u00a0 To further illustrate who eliminating SALT really hits, I would like to highlight a recent Bloomberg article titled, \u201cTax-Hike Fears Trigger Talk of Exodus from Manhattan and Greenwich.\u201d \u00a0 Now, this article is not about concerns from middle-class police officers or teachers on the repeal of SALT.\u00a0 Instead, it highlights concerns from wealthy hedge fund managers who may now consider moving out of the high-tax state of New York.\u00a0 Here is what that article had to say, \u00a0 \u201cThe problem for the Connecticut hedge-fund set -- and, more broadly, for a lot of the Wall Street crowd -- is that Republican proposals in both the House and Senate would drive up taxes for many high-earners in the New York City area.\u00a0 By eliminating the deduction for most state and local taxes, an individual making a yearly salary of $1,000,000\u2026would owe the Internal Revenue Service an additional $21,000.\u201d \u00a0 So I ask my colleagues on the left, are you prepared to go to bat over the SALT deduction for millionaire hedge-fund managers? \u00a0 In truth, from listening to my Democratic colleague\u2019s rhetoric I am really surprised by this article.\u00a0 I thought Republicans were all about \u201ctax cuts for the wealthy\u201d and giveaways to Wall Street.\u00a0 But this article suggests otherwise.\u00a0 In fact these types of taxpayers are likely to experience a sizable tax hike under our proposal. \u00a0 According to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, by 2023 nearly 30 percent of taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million will experience a tax hike. \u00a0 That does not sound like a giveaway to the wealthy to me. \u00a0 I yield the floor. \u00a0 -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-tax-relief-middle-class-heart-tax-reform"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.1606681402772665, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}