tv Senate GOP Tax Reform Plan Part 1 CSPAN November 17, 2017 12:07am-1:31am EST
mooreroy . and we will review president trump's trip to asia. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, friday morning. join the discussion. friday a discussion about the future of saudi arabia after the arrest and detention of 200 men and lower-level leaders in the capital. the senate finance committee continued with a fourth day of reviewing the senate republican tax reform bill. this portion of the hearing is one hour 20 minutes.
>> today we're going to consideration to the tax cuts act. having walked back through the modification with extensive questioning of amendments last night, admittedly things were a little chaotic at the outset. i know tensions run high. we are going to improve the process of communication today and hopefully make things move more smoothly. i would like to say a few words about the tone of our discussion this morning were this week. i think it has been a problem. i do not begrudge anyone for holding a passionate viewpoint
on any issue. i do not doubt my various colleagues sincerity. to operate committee we have to be respectful and allow the debate to unfold in an orderly fashion. members are free to disagree about any issue. but no one should interrupt or shut down the other side or him. i saw some of that yesterday. it, i myself, i can take can guarantee that in my 40 plus years in the senate, i have been called worse names than anyone on this committee could come up with. but for the good of committee i colleagues toy
dial down the rhetoric and tone down the volume. view if we are going to have a lively debate it should be about policy. so let's talk about policy differences. let me reiterate what are billed tax relief toives individuals and families across the board with the middle class getting the largest benefit relative to their income. we provide this relief primarily by cutting rates and expanding credits for parents and families . our bill will also help businesses of all sizes. our resolution is system -- simple and effective. most -- the business section
also includes a significant reduction in corporate rate. i know my colleagues have characterized this in a number of ways. this is not a radical approach. bothrs of the committee on sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years. the ranking member actually introduced legislation that reduced the rate to 24% in the past year it yet now it appears that the notion that we even consider moving down from the highest tax rates is something totally important to democrats. anave yet to hear explanation from anyone on the other side as to why they are changing their mind and calling it a corporate giveaway. that would be interesting to hear.
the mark will also zero out the punitive taxes established under obamacare. despite claims the contrary, we proend that this is a family and pro-middle-class proposition. will undo one of the most regressive taxes in the tax code and allow us to provide additional tax relief to middle-class families. i expect our friends on the other side will try to make some hay out of the new analysis table this morning. i want to provide some context before that begins. we developed a modification to the mark that included additional tax relief for families in the middle class. it expanded further the child
tax credit, made it more refundable, provided it to a greater number of families with children. we also adjusted the rates downward for middle-class families. the lower income families of the burdens imposed by the individual mandate tax. with those changes in place, gct byjected an uptick in taxes those in some lower income brackets. obviously we have no in trip -- we have no intent on raising taxes for those families. raising taxtted to cuts. analysis doesn't show this. up theeeing them going cause of the scoring assumption,
not because of tax policy. people assumed that if the individual mandate would be repealed, a segment of people would voluntarily -- would volunteer to not get health insurance. gct began with an assumption that something -- that someone from the lower income brackets would opt to not purchase insurance. without those credits, they see an overall uptick in their tax liability. jct for this. but people will be making their own choices. our bill give them additional freedom to do so. nothing in our mark will affect the availability of premium
subsidy credits. nothing would suggest to taxpayers that they should not take advantage of the credits. this is a result of an assumption about economic behavior that is 100% voluntary. i believe they have additional data that will demonstrate that, but for the behavioral assumptions of the company, are mark provide significant relief to low income and middle class income brackets. now we will hear arguments to the contrary but let's be clear. anyone who says we are hiking taxes on low incoming on low income families is misstating. wille who says their taxes go up because were taking away health insurance is miss stating the facts. i want to ask mr. barr told about the latest analysis. let me ask you this.
does anything in the mark reduce the availability of premium subsidy tax credits? >> your modified mark leaves in place the existing premium subsidy credit structure. it leaves it in place. no change. >> does anything in the mark suggest or direct individuals to not purchase health insurance or forgo the use of tax credits? >> now. >> is the impact were seeing in the analysis released the results of voluntary taxpayer behavior that is not mandated under the mark? >> that is correct. all of the analysis we tried to provide and the revenue estimates, it accounts for taxpayer behavior.
the specific set example you are referring to is included in the analysis. >> thank you. i appreciate the work you have done for the committee of the years. mr. chairman, first you made some comments about our personal demeanor and personal relations. i can go down the row and you,on my colleagues for my colleagues love you. i cannot top that. but nancy and i are so fond of you. for those of you who don't know formerrman hatch is a boxer. you do not want to mess with him.
colleagues, i'm going to make my opening statement. i have a statement -- a question .ased on the news of yesterday a number of our colleagues have questions because of the extraordinary dues we have just learned. mr. chairman, i feel very strongly that colleagues ought to be a will ask questions about what we have just learned. newsve gotten astounding and a last hour. according to latest figures, is a joint committee on taxation, in 2021, families earning $30,000 and under are going to get clobbered by a tax hike of pay for6 billion to this handout to multinational corporations. on low6 billion tax hike
2027 theericans by news is even worse. it still raises taxes by $27 billion on families earning $75,000 and under. meanwhile, the big corporations are guaranteed a cut across the board. colleagues, i believe this process ought to end right here and now. we get together when we are prepared, as our side wants to do, to work in a bipartisan way. i don't know how anybody can go home now, and explain why it is a good idea to hike taxes on afloat who barely stay to pay for a massive corporate handout. what is happening now is
shameful. republicans in this room spent all day yesterday saying that repealing individual mandate is a tax cut. we now have proof positive that is dead wrong. this is what happens when you legislate in secret with reckless hate. this amounts to reading tax policy in the dark. the majority has done its best to keep the light turned off. the first version of the bill that came out last week was a huge tax hike for million of middle-class votes. on tuesday, after two days of mark ups, there was a new version that attacked the health care of millions of americans. have shocking new information as of this morning. at this rate, republicans are going to test the limits of
exactly how many different ways hard-working americans can be massive sumsy up for corporate handouts. i want to be clear because we touch on this yesterday. i think we are getting a bead on what is ahead. this bill is headed straight back behind closed doors. the majorities from the house and senate are going to be hashing out the differences in their two bills. they are looking to kill -- to cut a backroom deal and make $10 trillion in tax changes on-the-fly. if you are watching at home, and it has been a minute since you took civics, here is what that
means. are reaching for the cranberry sauce, republicans are going to be reaching for your pocketbook to give handouts to multinational corporations. a real attempt to have a bipartisan attempts on tax reform that gives everyone a chance to get ahead. there were amendments to bring sunshine to the process. medicareent to protect and social security. another on protecting veterans. stunner wasthe real what happened with senator brown yesterday. he brought up an amendment because he wants to protect american jobs. crusadeeen leading this for years. he took his proposal to the president. handed it to him twice. i know because i was at the white house when he did it.
when you are dealing with a smart bipartisan proposal, all ,bout protecting american jobs people should look on a bipartisan basis to see how it can happen. that is not what happened. he submitted his proposal nearly a week ago. ask a senator to do better than that? in my judgment, it seems like an x -- seems like a convenient excuse to say no. -- this morning, people
across the country are waking up to confirmation that the bill paid for massive handouts for corporations and is a tax hike on those who cannot afford it. this is nothing like the thoughtful, measured, i partisan approach that in my view defines the committee's history. this is not a process of bringing together good ideas from both lives. this is an exercise in legislating with hate. and lowlass family class families can now see. especially because of the news from this morning that it has disastrous consequences. i just want to say with great sorrow that if this process continues this way, when the
history of the senate finance committee is written, this is going to be a dark chapter. .y first question mr. chairman, i have one question. but i want to emphasize holidays on my side have asked for the chance to ask mr. barr hold about the news from this morning. told and colleagues, i would like to ask -- >> i am going to run the committee. what we're going to do is have 10 minutes to each person. everyone is going to get a chance to ask questions. i apologize to you for having asked a question. fairness,interest of
can i ask one question after my opening statement, since you did? >> sure. >> thank you. i've been asking for a distribution table on the modified the past two days. i still have not received the table directly emma but i understand the table was put out earlier today. my understanding is that by 2027, almost every middle-class taxpayer is going to get a tax hike. artold toike mr. b describe the result of this new inn for middle-class people 2027. that is my one question. >> ok, thank you.
did the senator want me to respond? 2027, remember that is the year that includes the onset of the individual income tax divisions in the chairman's mark as well as some additional taxesions that increase on businesses by changing business tax base, page five of jcx 58 that we released this that compared to present law, the change in federal taxes is generally positive for the income groups 10,000 to 75,000, slight monist negatives in
comparison to the underlying mark for taxpayers in our income categories above $75,000. >> that is my point, i am looking at the chart on page six. $75,000, these are hard-working, middle-class families in michigan and maryland and colorado. look at page six. those folks get hammered. under $75,000, excuse me. those folks get hammered. page six.he table on middle-class families making under $75,000, 2027, page six, they get clobbered. they pay more taxes. yourl right, you have made
point. i have to assume for now there is a profound misunderstanding on the part of the ranking member. i know him well enough to know he would not knowingly suggest something as absurd as what he seems to be alleging. let me explain what is going on to clarify this. first of all, i think we all know we subsidize many activities through the tax code. whether people think that is a good idea or not, it happens. here in congress, we have very strange and ridiculous rules and scoring conventions that wildly mischaracterize these subsidies and a number of circumstances. aecifically, when we think taxpayer voluntarily chooses not to participate or engage in a program that has such a tax code
subsidy we take that and we stick it in the table as if it is a tax increase. the advance premium tax credit is one such example. tax is absolutely not a increase and you guys know that. is, every single income inrt has substantial savings taxes, and virtually all middle income taxpayers will get a substantial tax cuts. so let me try and analogy. let's imagine somebody qualifies for unemployment insurance. they qualify. i could get it. they lose their job they could get if they want it. but they choose not to sign up for whatever reason. they would not get on insurance limits. did we raise their taxes? to that person just get a tax increase? or how about directly through the tax code. let's imagine someone is
working, they get earned income tax credit. they qualify it. they make a dollars and hour. whatever reason, they decide to quit that job. they could still be working. they could still be getting the earned income tax credit. but they have chosen not to. did we raise their taxes? that is ridiculous. how about the american opportunity tax credit. that is a partially refundable tax credit. it covers part of the cost of tuitions and fees for people who go out to college. it is refundable. if somebody decides not to go to taxege, did we raise their because they didn't take it be tax credit? that is ridiculous. that is what our colleagues are suggesting is a tax increase. it is not a tax increase if a person decides they do not want
to buy an obamacare plan and as a result we don't send a payment to an insurance company. that is what the advance premium tax credit is. -- toa payment to an inch an insurance company. if they decide not to participate in the program, we do not send payment to the insurance company. that is not a tax increase. it is a tax cut. let me show the chart. effects on shows the tax payers by income cohorts with the insurance company payments but aside. it shows that each and every income cohort has an increase. but this reflects is the reality that the family will experience. they will a less money to uncle sam. if somebody decides that they want to participate in obamacare, we will not make any changes. the premium tax credit goes
forward. but if they decide that they cannot afford that, we are going to give them the tax benefit of not penalizing them anymore and we will not send a payment to the insurance company. that has no effect on them. this is the chart that affects the tax reality for everybody. every covert and every year has a savings. that is the reality. we are not going to have a free-for-all here today. as is going to be run in a responsible manner. we didn't do it yesterday very well. to the ranking member first, and then go back and forth. i have never heard a senator try to psychoanalyze a joint committee on a taxation table.
six,t the bottom of page it is all there in black and white. under $75,000, and according to the table, they pay more in taxes. anybody who wants to psychoanalyze otherwise is theirs -- their constitutional right of the table is indisputable. say, is there anybody on the side who wants answered that? >> yes. thank you. thes correct that the table ranking member is reading from has that number on it. but it is also correct that no american who is attributed a tax increase by that number is paying. it is a payment to an insurance company. and it is a payment that every american who is on that chart
could choose to take if they wanted to. the bottom line is, if you look at the tax liability of the people you are talking about, saying they are getting a tax increase year, and calculate out their tax liability, it ever was before that bill and whatever it is under the bill, the tax liability is going down. that were made are accurate. if somebody qualifies for food stamps and chooses not to apply for them, did we take away their money? no. if somebody qualifies for any of the other government programs, if somebody qualifies for medicaid, but chooses not to sign up for it, did we give them a tax increase? no. no matter how you try to characterize it, exactly what is reflected on these chart is the fact that people who are
required by law to pay a penalty for not buying insurance and are under this bill relieved of paying that penalty, are then going to have the choice as to whether to buy insurance or not by insurance, but they now know they do not have to pay a tax penalty if they do not. if they choose not to, that doesn't mean their taxes went up. there is not one dollar taken away from them if they make that choice. this bill does not take one dollar away from them or charge them one dollar more. no matter what the way our conventions about scoring refundable tax credits say. >> mr. chairman. i listened on monday, tuesday, and wednesday. as my republican colleagues pointed to the joint tax
committee distributional chart as evidence that this bill will help low-income families. i also heard republican say the estimates were wrong and that the one and half trillion dollars would not be there, when in fact we know it could be more than $1.5 trillion. a lot of this is tougher in nature and will be a greater deficit. now we have the joint tax analysis that shows that middle income families will actually see their taxes go up, not down, yet high income families will do fine. talk, this chairman is there and behavior. it is interesting that the $180 million we're talking about that comes out of middle income families on the health care subsidies, the majority used
that money in the chair -- in the chairman's modified mark. they used it to make certain changes that are reflected in the distributional charts. so you are saying, no we are not behavior, but we'll take it and use it to make the distributional charts look better. how hypocritical could you be? people make decisions. that decision affects their tax liability. you are not challenging that. let's at least have some decency to respect the professional work that has been done here. and call it what it is. with this modified mark, middle income families will pay more. higher income families will pay less. to have targeted the relief
help the wealthy and middle uncomfortably's are going to get stuck with it. now when you say voluntary activity, is 70 makes a voluntary contribution -- a voluntary contribution, that affects their tax returns. to what will happen? and a figure challenging their assumptions. you have taken that 100 $80 billion under the affordable care act and units rented. you also took the muddy -- the money that gay people medicaid and you spent it. >> your 10 minutes is up. >> thank you. we're going to go back and forth. i have found that the more shouting that goes on, the more tenuous the ground that the senator is on. i think that is the case here.
we flatly deny and disagree with these accusations made by my friend from maryland and the ranking member. ask,e just ask, could i what is the income threshold for say a single mom with two children. income threshold that has to be achieved before they will actually pay any income tax at all? >> the standard deduction for , let's household is 9000 approximate it. $9,000. each personal exemption is $4050. you said that was three.
so that is 12,150. firstroximately the $21,000 of income for that household is exempt from tax before calculating any benefit that the house might receive, assuming it is a working mother in the situation. so more income would be effectively not taxed. underthe $33,000 roughly this circumstance would be tax-free? $1000 of tax credit, the person being in the 10% bracket. credit. of child tax
let's say. i hate doing this on the fly. so the $33,000 worth of income this individual should have no tax liability under present law. >> so the single mom with two yearren earning $33,000 a would pay zero tax? >> under present law, rough calculation. >> under the chairman's modified mark, how much would be the income tax responsibility of
that same and will mom with the two children? >> no change. >> wait a second. you're kidding me. our colleagues over here are claiming that we are somehow thisting individuals like single mother with two kids, seo we are going to raise her taxes to benefit multinational organizations, but her tax liability under current law is zero and after the bill passes, it will still be zero. is that accurate? >> the income tax liability for the household that was described should be zero under present law and also under the chairman's mark. that's the point he's making.
he is countering the outrageous claims made by the other side. we are going back and forth, five minutes. thank you. this bill gets worse and worse. onwas trickle-down economics monday, then i got worse and more people were going to have to pay more on tuesday. now people losing health therance, and now today we now see the worst yet in terms of the numbers. this, thisow you cut bill is about trickle-down
economics. it is about giveaways for the wealthiest americans, multinational corporations, most people under $75,000 a year will pay more in taxes and mehdi people will lose their health insurance. you lose your health insurance, you have trickle down tax cuts, or you pay more taxes so that those who are the wealthiest among us will be able to get another tax cut. every piece of this bill is skewed to the wealthy and those at the very top and the very largest corporations in wealthiest individuals. every single piece. in three years, 2021, the latest version gives families earning less than $30,000 a year a tax increase.
billion spread out among taxpayers. millionaires and billionaires get a $28 billion tax cuts. the joint committee on taxation has given us in terms of numbers. so every day, this bill gets so every, it gets -- day that this bill gets worked on, it gets worse. so let me ask you a question regarding the tax credit. and by the way, the personal exemption is eliminated in this bill, so if you have more than one child, you're going to be penalized. if you are a family of two thatren, for children, personal exemption is gone so you start in the whole. but the child tax to me as another example of how this is
skewed to the top and trickle-down economics and the current tax child credit is $1000. is 2000.ersion that sounds good. ?ow much of that is refundable >> under the chairman's modified mark, $1000 remains refundable. an increase, but if you are the mom we were just talked about, you will not benefit from that increase. but who benefits from that increase? incomeise the cap on the of the households that can benefit from the child tax credit five times higher. $500,000. now,e working mom who
earning less than $30,000, might see a tax increase, might have more difficulty getting health insurance, but she is not going to benefit from the child tax cut any more than she does now. maybe a tiny bit because of indexing. but the people who will benefit is 70 making half $1 million. so every piece of this bill, unfortunately, in the fine print, goes back to the same thing. it is skewed to the wealthy and well-connected and it is trickle-down economics, which has never worked. kansas wherele in after the disaster they had there, a bipartisan group had to come back and repeal the whole thing because it was hurting families in their state. thank you.
senator warner, you're next. i just want to make three quick points. if we are assuming individuals are not going to make rational economic choices in their own best interest in terms of receiving benefits available, i agree their voluntary. we -- should we also make the assumptions that they will not choose expensing opportunities? we get ourselves into a land of hypotheticals that really don't get us there. hard job. you have to assume rational
i have friends on either side that say it they will not act this way. we're assuming people are not going to make rational choices to take their subsidies from the government. i heard a colleague put out a pipe of federal that said this children, with three numbers,sk, using your if a young struggling texasreneur in dallas
2027, based onin your charts he will see an increase in taxes from where they were in 2019. is that not a correct assumption ? i am looking at page five. trying to single man based on thess, proposal of where he might be in 2018, 2019, what happens in 2027 ? willie not see a 25% increase in his taxes? not a single mom, not three kids, just a single guy. and i miss reading your charts?
>> the specifics, when you say a entrepreneur,ual $29,000 in income, that is one of many of millions of people in different circumstances. the total is the aggregate --nge the point is if we create an example like the single mom struggling with kids, they want have a tax hike. was trying to pick an example of someone who would have the least amount of other deductions. >> to be more precise, what this reflects is in the chairman's modifications, there is the modified indexing and that means
the tax bracket of the personal , they are lower than they would be under present law. >> i just want to say we could all show examples. but you are the referees and we have to count on referees. my last point very briefly is that if we are going to end up, , andou have made the point i thought weack were going to vote on the final have created a whole new bucket of extenders. intot want to introduce it record the analysis,
really says that this added to the dead is $2.2 trillion. when you presume that these popular benefits are going to be extended, we ought to be straight with people. >> your time is way expired. on the next senator. you have five minutes. >> thank you. i don't think anybody here is suggesting that people don't make rational choices. what i am pointing out is the bizarre anomaly of the way we require joint tax to account for them. that is what is so misleading about what you are alleging here. for michigan seems to suggest that every iteration
of this is getting worse. these iterations are getting better and better for working families. let me ask a couple of questions. on taxes thats people actually have to pay, not payments that the federal government makes to insurance companies. so let's not focus on payments my colleagues are suggesting is a tax increase. if you look at the actual taxes that are paid by people, and we look at the chart produced on november 11, i see reductions in every cohort. $20,000 cohort. is inumber on my she average 7% reduction -- the number on my sheets is an average 7% reduction. >> the senator is referring to
jcx 53. yes. $30,000 we000 to estimated that the total taxes collected to that in group would fall by 7%. >> right. it falls in all of the brackets. jcx 53.three of it illustrates contrary to what we have been hearing all week that every middle income tax cohort has a tax cut. thethen, putting aside payments the government makes to insurance companies, i know you ran a set of numbers exclusive of that dynamic. appear for thert
year 2023. that is the joint committee on taxi -- on taxation. yes. could -- you we had asked if we could distribute the affects of the market as modified absent the zero rated individual mandate penalty. and the effects of that. >> and when you look at the $20,000 to $30,000 income cohort, the savings is not the 7% that it was before, it is 9.5%. singleually, every cohort has a larger savings, which is to say a bigger tax cut under this more recent version then the previous version. so contrary to what our friend --m michigan said,
>> do we have this document? i am trying to follow it. >> it was not a public document. i will have it provided to all of the members. >> i had no idea this was not being distributed. i put it on a chart. listen, the fact is, what we have done in the latest version is further reduce, and there is no mystery about how. what are some of the devices that were used to further reduce the tax burden for middle income families? >> you change.
the original mark had tax brackets of 22 and half percent, middle brackets. each of those reduced to 22%, 24%, and 32%. with lower rates. >> we increase the child tax credit for these families. that is why the tax burden in this iteration is lower. a bigger savings for middle income families. portman?r >> thank you. if i were watching this from the real world, not this podium, i would wonder how this all squares. we are hearing very different messages. let me make an obvious point.
senators widen and warner talked about 2027, 10 years from now, and what the effect is going to be on middle-class families, they were talking bothell's sunset. so senator wyden went to page six and talked about 27 and said that he was concerned that texas went up for individuals. they go up as tax cuts that we are putting in place with this proposal ends. if you're watching and wondering how good both these things be true that they are middle-class tax cuts as mr. barr told you said, from today until 10 years from now but somehow continues, taxes go up, that is true because it is sunset. senator warner talked about the entrepreneurial texas and he
referred to the chart of 2027, yeah, that is true. of course the taxes go up because under the budget rules within which we have to operate here, there cannot be even a has scored on a steady basis in the second 10 years. cuts thatthose tax are substantial between now and then for that individual you are talking about. because of these budget rules. is it true that in 2027, the difference you see in these page six of jc ex 58. if you look at that you will see this substantial tax relief, look at the bottom chart. is that accurate?
>> yes, senator toomey. >> i am sorry. >> i present the comment. -- i appreciate the compliment. thank you, john. i mean, tom. for the folks in the real world, that is what we are talking about. every member of this panel including the democrats had the .pportunity to strike that they want to offer in a memo to say let's not have this sunset after 10 years because we want to continue substantial tax relief that we are providing on this bill. we have the opportunity to do that. on the floor of the united states senate and it was indicated yesterday that perhaps one of our colleagues is going to do that. if so, this will not be an issue . the tax relief will continue.
again, if i were watching, i would be confused. this notion that in the lower 20,000,, 10,000 total there has been the argument made that there has been a tax increase because of the expiration of the individual mandate. choose.e people who do people are rational and make the choices. the joint committee on taxation is supposed to reflect that. people are gone to say, i would rather not take this a formal care act health care plan, even though i get a tax credit, because i will have other costs attended to that some people get morbid premium credit and others. some people are convicted of. higher. i am choosing not to take that.
the committee reflects that is a tax increase. it is a choice by people -- they would rather as a rational human being make a decision to the other costs. that is why i hope you're watching this and listen to what we are saying, it is a decision. that the bottom line is recognized which is this provides substantial tax relief, particularly to middle-class families and that tax relief is going to be across the board. every single different group of taxpayers as indicated on these charts. means the promise that we made that it will be relief from the class families that are feeling the stress, higher expenses, flat wages,
isn't it true based on the last distribution table that you have given us that while taxes go up for people with $100,000 of income or less in 2027, they continue to be lower for everyone over $200,000. >> senator mccaskill, that's correct the total table. you can see the components on page 6 and the two subtables above. senator mccaskill: the point is, even when the individual goes away, the millionaires are still paying less taxes. folks that make $500 to $1 million are still paying less taxes. it's only the bottom folks that end up paying more assuming these individual rates aren't -- let's look at another diagram, on year 2021, based on the distribution table, federal taxes paid in, people between 20000 and $30,000 upped the
present law pay in $22 million in taxes, $22.5 based on your chart, page 2 year 2021. on page two. 2021, nothing has expired yet, they pay $22 billion, .5 in taxes now and $3 billion more, correct? >> that's the consequence of predominantly of the change in the premium credit subsidies. senator mccaskill: and c.p.i. for millionaires they are going to pay 671 under the current law and pay 643. they pay $28 billion less in 2021 while people between 20 and 30 have to pay $3 billion more. 2025, it's really stark here.
if you add up the numbers of the federal taxes paid by people who make $30,000 or less, they are going to pay $4 billion more in 2025 based on this proposal. total of $4 billion. if you add up everyone who makes more than 200,000, they are going to pay $90 billion. you add up how much taxes, 200 to 500, 889, under this proposal, 500 to a million, 321 billion in taxes. a million and over, 80e now and pay 764 in this proposal. in 2025 and let me make sure i understand this, people making less than $230,000 are going to pay $4 billion in taxes while people who make $200 and over are going to pay less. that's what is wrong with this bill. that's why we are offended at all of these things that are skewed to the people at the top of the income charts. and if anybody is confused about
would love to work in a bipartisan way. >> anybody on this side that is going to disagree. >> i want to go on the theme on my friend senator portman and watching this on tv and listening to the other side of the aisle argue against themselves, it's pretty fascinating. i listened to my friend from michigan that those less than $30,000 a year will be paying more taxes. and my friend from virginia he agrees that they will not be agreeing to pay more taxes and my friend from missouri and saying under $30,000 we are paying more taxes. what is it? the fact is and i'll tell you what it is, if you are making less than $30,000 under the current tax system, you aren't
paying taxes. and under this new tax system that's being presented today, you still won't be paying taxes. i know we wear ear plugs around here. but the fact of the matter is he was very upfront and said under the current system if you make less than $30,000 a year today you do not have a federal liability. under the new bill that we have in front of us today and you make $30,000 or less, you still won't be paying additional taxes. maybe i should ask this question one more time, is there anything under this legislation that would prohibit an individual from receiving federal assistance to help them afford coverage? >> senator heller, the
chairman's mark makes no changes to credits available under the advanced premium subsidy credit. senator heller: you have a federal liability? >> individuals specific case if we return to senator cornyn's example, none. senator heller: would the same individual have a tax bibletd liability. >> i'm getting tired to individuals of those who talk and make $30,000 or less having their taxes increased. that is absurd and not true. if we could go to other pieces of this legislation, but to continue to beat on that point is literally untrue simply because you choose, because you choose not to take the
individual mandate. i can tell you stories after stories back in my state that was hit hard by the recession of individuals that lost their jobs and were told they could pick up unemployment insurance and said by my boot straps, we are going to work hard and find a job. not to take unemployment insurance, none of them believe that their taxes were raised. there is none of them out there. and i have talked to people in nevada that chose not to take unemployment insurance during the depth of the recession. a yet everybody on the other side is saying, they got their taxes increased. that's what you are saying. i want to make one other point and thank my friend from virginia for his indoor voice.
i thank you for your indoor voice and i hope you will use that as an example of how we can have a decent discussion back and forth. >> a point of privilege if i might for a moment, my comments -- a number of folks have referenced comments. i would like to ask one question i given the fact that my comments have been referenced a number of times. senator hatch: i'm going to insist on regular order. senator hatch: the next person up is senator bennett. >> looking at these charts for the record, the new version of the bill gives families earning less than $30,000 a net tax increase $6 billion according to j.c.t.
senator bennet: i will clear this up. there was a circumstance where there was a tax increase. look, this is supposed to be a tax bill. it comes on the heels of two attempts to try to repeal the affordable care act. the republicans decided to put health care into this bill. and the result of that is every 13 million people are going to lose their health insurance. speaking of life in colorado, i was in frisco, colorado, where i went to visit the health clinic there in the rural part of our state and i asked what the payer makes. 33% was medicaid. 53% was uncompensated care. i said, what is that 53%? they said those are people making too much money to get
medicaid but not enough money to get private insurance. they are in the middle of the middle class and those are the people you are taking insurance away. and the reason it shows up in the tax tables is that you are making it harder and harder for them to be able to afford insurance. and with respect to my friend from nevada, and i have a lot of admiration for him, it's not true people are not paying taxes, paying payroll taxes, sales taxes, all of which are regressive taxes. and we could -- you will have an opportunity today to vote for a bill here that recognizes that fact, the bill that i have with him and senator brown and senator casey that would make a profound difference in the lives of working people in this country especially ones that are raising children. if that is your concern is what i have heard stated today, you
have a chance to express that in this vote. but the tax tables that i have seen and i'm happy to be proven wrong, the tax tables i have seen when you add up the state and local taxes that people pay, the payroll taxes that people pay, it's roughly in proportion to what they're earning. so the idea there are a bunch of people in the country that are kind of free loading or might have some opportunity to pay more at the bottom is just incorrect. and i guess i would ask whether it's true that people at this level are paying lots of taxes. i won't even use that characterization, paying state and local taxes, payroll taxes. >> i said federal tax liability. i didn't say they didn't pay federal taxes, but federal tax liability. you have to understand. senator bennet: i understand
that. >> there are many taxes levied at different levels of government and at the federal level, income tax, we have payroll taxes, we have some selected excise taxes and many people at the low-income people purchase gasoline, alcoholic beverages. senator bennet: that is federal tax liability. and i enjoy so much the chance to work with the senator from nevada on our infrastructure subcommittee and i thank the chairman for putting that together. i really think what all this reveals, this argument we're having today between senator toomey and senator warner, all it suggests to me we should go back to regular order and let's have a bipartisan approach to reforming our tax code, to
reforming the corporate rate into bringing it down. let's do it together and do it in plain sight of the american people. they would have a lot more confidence in this process if we were doing that, especially with the chairman and ranking member leading it than they will have in the process where the numbers change from day-to-day and the work is done behind closed doors. i yield back 40 seconds of my time. >> thanks so much. we will wind up. >> mr. chairman and i think in response to the senator from colorado's comment, in a lot of ways, our colleagues on the other side for close that opportunity earlier on this year by sending a letter stating the conditions under which they would participate in a tax which were many of not feasible. let me come back to this question that has been added
around all morning and i think in respect to federal income tax liability the issue has been raised since heller that if you have an individual with the income characteristics that were described earlier, that person would not have a federal income tax liability. i would ask mr. barr hold under the chairman's modified mark, the standard deduction goes from what for a single? what primary -- a married filing jointly? >> goes from present law today, $12,700 to 24 -- 24,000 head of 9300 tod goes to $18,000. the single goes from -- i don't
have the right numbers. 6000 to $12,000. >> more and more people praising the threshold where someone would have a federal income tax liability and the chairman's might afford mark, what does the child tax credit which is $1000 per child today go to under the chairman's modified market? $2000.ncreases to >> who benefits from a $1000 increase in the child tax credit distribution the? -- distribution only? reduces taxx credit whoility so anyone under affords the tax credit would have a positive tax liability, so that a part of it is refundable as under present law, that is everyone up and down the income level except the area
where it is phased out which basically, itt -- goes to basic changes are going to flow through all of the income categories, income cohorts that have been talked about. we stated is our objective is the desire to lower taxes for middle income families, those changes would make that happen. we are also reducing the rates throughout the entire tax structure in a way that i think helps and impacts those same courts so they would also benefit from the rate reductions that are occurring? the mark maintains a 10% rocket by having 12 instead of 15. 24 soon 25.
. >> everything the chairman's modified mark does should approve to people who are in those middle and come categories. those middle income families that have been the principal beneficiaries that is been our intention of this legislation all along. why ourrd to understand colleagues on the other side there are notthat going to benefit. people who are in the lower raise taxes on people who don't have a federal income tax liability and that is for single moms who were suggested earlier with a couple of kids so it is hard to argue that taxes are going to go up on somebody in those income categories if that is all true. that is all true under the chairman's modified mark.
what i would say and i look at the distribution table that have been distributed based on the initial proposal, the chairman's modified mark and if you look at who bears the tax burden when this is all said and done, it is very similar today and affect people over $1 million as far as i can tell in most cases, their isual share of taxes paid higher than it is today. people over the so-called rich -- and that income category are going to pay more than it paid today. it seems to me that the chairman's modified mark compasses the objective that is set out to accomplish that is to deliver meaningful tax relief to middle income families all across those middle income categories. i hope we can get on with it and vote on some amendments but let's move this legislation forward and bring much-needed
relief to middle income families. next i appreciate the distinguished senators comments because that is true. we are going to wind up with senator cantwell. up and thenish it we are going to recess until 2:30. i will take the opportunity, even though i think this is a very important subject. i know we have a vote that is down to one minute. pills subpart f, are subject to the current taxation, is that correct? >> that is right. >> how much revenue does this provision lose? >> i will have to look it up. : it is cantwell ok, your around --
comments are at the foreign base includesncome which passive income, including dividends, random royalties of income operation, foreign base company sales income, foreign-based services, foreign-based companies related income. are there any of the categories repeals in this mark? >> know, senator. >> why are we assuming a revenue loss for this provision? does jc ta believe the revenue will not be captured by the marks current inclusion of global intangible low tax income? doesn't drilling a well not create a global low tax intangible income?
create during would not global intangible low tax income. the estimates provided here reflect a lot of interaction between the different provisions. to provide you -- i don't want to waste your time by floundering here. i will provide a more detailed explanation separately. >> the question here is current law was enacted to combat any kind of tax haven for these kind of operations. committee report from which this provision was enacted stated because of complex structures, oil income is suited activities.
petroleum companies have paid little or no u.s. tax on their foreign subsidiary operations despite the extremely high revenue. if we repeal that provision, will there be any foreign-based oil revenues that will never be tax by the united states. will he be creating a new tax haven for oil companies? concern is understanding why oil companies at a special deal on this? our colleagues would say this is about the larger repatriation. why do we have to give this a digital tax break to them? woodhaven are we creating right doing that? you can take the time, come back to us but that is the concern i have. it is a very costly provision. nearly $4 billion. it is a big cost and i really want to understand the difference for oil companies versus other companies.
>> i will write you more details. >> we are going to stand in recess until 2:30 this afternoon. we will resume. yeah, you do. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> on thursday, the house passes his version of the text plan. the final vote was to its 27 205 . all democrats and 13 republicans voted against the legislation. 12.he senate side, -- 14 to
that bill is expected on the floor of the senate after the thanksgiving recess. live coverage of the house always here on c-span. the senate on c-span2. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal of life every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, the sexual assault allegations against roy moore. we'll hear about senate reaction with bridget bowman. senate republicans look to eliminate the affordable care act individual mandate. we will review trump's trip to asia with michael fuchs for center for the american progress. he sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on friday morning. join the discussion. >> friday a discussion on the future of saudi arabia after the crown prince