This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The impact section contains a great deal of information about the estimated impact of the TCJA and less information about the actual impact that the law has had. Now that the law is about six years old, the article may not need to include all of the estimates anymore; regardless, it should include more analysis of the actual impact of the law. I have restructured the impact section to separate the information on estimated impact from the information on actual impact. I have also added a little bit of new information about the law's actual impact, but more would be helpful. MonMothma (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being dated, this data is possibly misleading. It discusses the tax paid for various groups within an AGI, but a more valid analysis would provide a "Taxable Income" baseline for comparison. Additionally, the root source is from a conservative thinktank (Heritage Foundation) and the data to back up the claims is provided via a dead link to a word document in a sharepoint controlled by said thinktank. Gmcnamer (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my note back in October, I have gone ahead and removed a chunk of excess detail in regard to predictions about the impact of the TCJA. I believe that section could be shortened even more. I also added some data on the actual impact of the law. MonMothma (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the analysis was performed in good faith.
I find the statement "...filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $40,000 to $50,000 received an average tax cut of 18.2 percent"
When combined the following statement "...The number of filers with an adjusted gross income of $1 to $25,000 decreased by more than 2 million in just one year, while the number of households reporting incomes higher than $25,000 increased in every income bracket"
to indicate (and I cannot use their links to verify) that on average, taxpayers moved up in AGI without any real wage growth (as evidenced by other analysis), so using before-and-after AGI is an invalid way to analyze the data. Basically you have lower income earners in this AGI bracket. Perhaps I am wrong on this.
The article is correctly sourced, but I do not trust this source, especially given that it comes from a political think-tank. Gmcnamer (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]