The Big Beautiful Bill needs its own thread.

[LuFins Dad]

Grok, how did the TCJA perform vs. CBO projections?

CBO Projections vs. Actual Outcomes
Revenue Projections:
CBO Estimate: The CBO initially projected that the TCJA would reduce federal revenues by $1.8 trillion over 2018–2028, excluding dynamic effects, or $1.3 trillion after accounting for economic growth (macroeconomic feedback). They anticipated a significant revenue shortfall due to lower tax rates, particularly for corporate and individual income taxes.

Reality: Actual revenue collections outperformed CBO’s projections:
In 2022, federal tax revenues reached $4.9 trillion, $884 billion above CBO’s post-TCJA projections for that year, and $642 billion higher than projected for individual tax revenues alone.

Over the five years following the TCJA (FY 2019–2023), tax revenues averaged $170–$205 billion per year above CBO’s post-2017 projections.

Corporate tax revenues in FY 2022 and 2023 exceeded CBO projections by $103 billion, with FY 2024 corporate receipts at $529 billion, surpassing the CBO’s $421 billion estimate.

However, when adjusted for inflation, total real revenue in 2023 was $3.6 trillion, below the CBO’s pre-TCJA projection of $3.9 trillion, suggesting that nominal revenue gains were partly driven by inflation and other factors like capital gains realizations.

Economic Growth:
CBO Estimate: The CBO projected that the TCJA would boost GDP by an average of 0.7% over 2018–2028, with stronger effects in the early years (e.g., 2.1% GDP growth in 2018). They expected growth to taper off after 2025 when individual tax cuts expired.

Reality: Economic growth exceeded CBO forecasts in the initial years:
GDP growth in 2018 reached 3.0%, a full percentage point above the CBO’s pre-TCJA forecast of 2.1%.

Total U.S. investment increased by over 20%, including an 18% rise in R&D investment, and wages grew by 4.9% in 2018–2019, the fastest two-year growth in 20 years.

Real median household income rose by $5,000 in the first two years post-TCJA, outpacing the prior eight years combined. Unemployment hit 50-year lows, with record lows for African American, Hispanic, and non-high-school-educated workers.

I’m not a big believer in CBO projections.

Deficit Impact:
CBO Estimate: The CBO projected the TCJA would increase the primary deficit by $1.8 trillion over 2018–2028, or $1.3 trillion after macroeconomic feedback, with total deficits (including debt-service costs) rising by $2.3 trillion.

Reality: Deficits grew, but the extent is debated:
The deficit increased by 17% in 2018 and was projected to grow another 15% in 2019, even with stronger economic growth.

Some sources argue the TCJA’s revenue shortfalls were less severe than predicted due to higher-than-expected revenues, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes that inflation-adjusted revenues in 2023 were close to post-TCJA projections, not pre-TCJA levels, implying no significant deficit reduction.

Extending the TCJA’s provisions is estimated to add $3.5–$4.7 trillion to deficits over the next decade, depending on the scope of extensions.

That’s a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Especially due to the COVID stimulus packages. Take those out and the deficits would not have grown anywhere close to the projections.

Distributional Effects:
CBO Estimate: The CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) projected the TCJA would disproportionately benefit higher earners, with the top 1% seeing significant tax cuts due to estate tax and pass-through business provisions.

Reality: The TCJA provided broad tax relief but skewed benefits upward:
Americans earning under $100,000 saw an average tax cut of 16%, while the top 1% paid a higher share of federal taxes post-TCJA.

However, the Senate Budget Committee reported that the richest 5% reaped 40% of the benefits in the first year, with the top 1% saving nearly $26,000 on average in 2026 if extended.

Low-income households ($25,000 or less) saved an average of $60 in 2018, per the Tax Policy Center, compared to over $51,000 for the top 1%.

Again, the percentage of the tax revenues from the top 5% INCREASED. The percentage from the poorest decreased…

[LuFins Dad]

Simple math. Taxing the wealthy at 90% doesn’t get us out of this.

Cutting spending doesn’t get us out of this.

The only thing that does is reduced spending coupled with economic growth. Right now, Trump is failing on both tasks.

[Horace]

@LuFins-Dad said in The Big Beautiful Bill needs its own thread.:

Good for Elon.

Sure doesn't comport with any purely cynical perspective on Elon. Which is to say, the mainstream Trump-hating perspective on Elon.

[jon-nyc]

It’s not remotely surprising. Since it’s Congress not Trump he can criticize. Like how he indirectly called Trump’s tariff policy moronic by unleashing on Navarro.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Big Beautiful Bill needs its own thread.:

It’s not remotely surprising. Since it’s Congress not Trump he can criticize. Like how he indirectly called Trump’s tariff policy moronic by unleashing on Navarro.

I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you. But the realities you attempt to weave with your words don't really comport with each other. I'm sure in other contexts you would acknowledge that a policy or bill which Trump brands himself with, such as tariffs or the Big Beautiful Bill, would be treated with great deference by Trump boot lickers.

[jon-nyc]

"And you know, it's not like I agree with everything the administration does," said Musk. "So it's like, I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does. But we have differences of opinion. You know, there are things that I don't entirely agree with. But it's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention. So then, I'm a little stuck in a bind, where I'm like, well, I don't wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don't wanna take responsibility for everything this administration's doing."

Toadyism runs on a continuum, it’s not binary. There may exist some policy that could cause Elon to publicly criticize Trump but we haven’t found it yet. The economy and the fiscal trajectory are close, but again he can criticize indirectly by attacking surrogates.

We could spend an afternoon placing various republicans along the continuum from independent minded to cultist but each of them definitely have their place on it.

I don’t know any elected GOP official that has publicly denounced the open corruption, for example. (Which is different from claiming that none have done so)

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Big Beautiful Bill needs its own thread.:

"And you know, it's not like I agree with everything the administration does," said Musk. "So it's like, I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does. But we have differences of opinion. You know, there are things that I don't entirely agree with. But it's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention. So then, I'm a little stuck in a bind, where I'm like, well, I don't wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don't wanna take responsibility for everything this administration's doing."

Toadyism runs on a continuum, it’s not binary. There may exist some policy that could cause Elon to publicly criticize Trump but we haven’t found it yet. The economy and the fiscal trajectory are close, but again he can criticize indirectly by attacking surrogates.

We could spend an afternoon placing various republicans along the continuum from independent minded to cultist but each of them definitely have their place on it.

I don’t know any elected GOP official that has publicly denounced the open corruption, for example. (Which is different from claiming that none have done so)

of course it's a continuum. I understand those sorts of things, because I am not a child, nor chained to directional rhetoric. My original claim was that the mainstream Trump-hating view of Musk, for instance the predominant view in your Twitter feed, would be that Musk is at an extreme end. You can claim that it's totally not surprising that Musk would say what he's saying, because you know where on that continuum he resides, and it's not at the Trump toady extreme. Now go find anywhere on your twitter feed where the direction of a bit of Musk rhetoric from a Trump hater, was to nudge anybody's opinion away from Musk being an all-in toady for Trump. I bet it would take a long while to find that. It won't be a cathartic release for a Trump hater to nudge anybody away from that line of thinking, so they won't.

[Horace]

Another area this comes up is in belief in free speech. I am guessing Trump haters on twitter are all but unanimous that Musk does not care one bit about free speech, and that he only uses that messaging to cynically appeal to his tribe. Again, a rhetorical binary. Meanwhile, on the continuum of actual belief in free speech, I believe Musk tends towards actual belief, even while his practical choices have to weigh lots of confounding factors against that belief.

[Mik]

I other words, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. in anything you can name, conflicts requiring compromise abound. It's not toadyism.

[jon-nyc]

[jon-nyc]

The really funny part is that I saw the above tweet because Elon retweeted it.

[LuFins Dad]

[Doctor Phibes]

[jon-nyc]

Johnson replied via a press question in a gentlemanly way - something like ‘my friend Elon is just wrong about this beautiful bill’.

[89th]

I'm too lazy to look it up but I think we had a prediction thread about how long it would take before Elon would split with the President and become an enemy. Not saying we are there now, but it's kind of like Elon has been released from his white house filter mode and is returning to his pre-Trump47 narrative of crushing debt = fatal for our country.

[Axtremus]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-trump-tax-bill

Greene revealed she was unaware of a provision in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill act (OBBB) that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. The Georgia representative said she would have voted against the entire bill if she had known about the AI language buried on pages 278-279.

[taiwan_girl]

[Doctor Phibes]

[jon-nyc]

@taiwan_girl said in The Big Beautiful Bill needs its own thread.:

@Axtremus Who benefits from having that in the bill? Some group obviously lobby to get it included.

That’s probably the most sensible thing in the bill. You want the California legislature to govern AI?

[jon-nyc]