Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title

There is currently a revert war going on over the name of the Act. This needs to be decided through consensus discussion here and not in edit comments. The notice at the head of this page specifically states that "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

This issue also embraces the article title, which needs to reflect the consensus reached. The two current candidate forms of words appear to be 2017 tax act (uncapitalized) and Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (capitalized), the best solution may prove to be something else. It will help any proposed wording if supporting comments are evidence-based, i.e. supported by citations of reliable sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Steelpillow, you are not exactly correct on the revert. The title of the article is "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", but the article is referring to the name of the bill before the law was enacted. That particular name was removed in the Senate before the final vote on the act, and the House went along with excising the proposed name. What Trump signed was not "Tax Cuts and Jobs", only a bill that had previously been called that.

For purposes of the Wikipedia entry, it is probably more likely that people will look up "Tax Cuts and Jobs", but the law is not named that. So in places down-article where the reference is obviously to the law, and not the bill, the reference has to be a generic reference. In places where the bill had been analyzed, there it's probably acceptable to refer to the prior name.

One or two commenters have tried to politicize this into saying that if we don't accept "Tax Cuts and Jobs", then somehow WE (i.e the people who oppose the name) are politicizing. But that's not true. The name was considered inappropriate in the Senate by the minority, and that minority used the same rules that Republicans had used in the minority to get the name changed. There is a reason that was done, and they succeeded at it. It's cute that people would say that if it appears in other parts of the Act, then the Senate really didn't mean to change the name, and it just amounted to some sort of vandalism by the minority of an otherwise accurately-titled bill. The minority in the Senate, using the Byrd Rule, found the proposed Short Title offensive enough that they wanted it off the bill. Along come certain Wikipedia contributors who decide that, no, despite what the Senate did, they want to stick with and promote the cutesy name, taking a page right out of the Frank Luntz book of misnaming laws to achieve political goals.

References to the law should be to a generic description. References to the bill can be to the prior name. Ideally, Wikipedia would want to point a 2017 tax act search to the main page.Hoofin (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. For the record, I am uninterested in the truth per se but only in the encyclopedic process of reaching a stable consensus and I rejected the edit only because the article has been partially protected and it was non-consensual. I opened this discussion to try and fix that.

Anyway, from what you say there appear to be three separate issues to be resolved. For the article title Wikipedia requires the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources subsequent to its name change (subject to disambiguation). We need to reach consensus on whether that should be the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. the 2017 tax act (US) or something else. For the article content, the other common name and the official name when finally passed into law need to be stated at least once (the full name already is). Thirdly, although it is normally down to editorial discretion which name gets repeated where needed, because of the page protection conditions currently in place, we also need to reach consensus on that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) [rewritten 13:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)]

Has there been any progress made on how the different aspects of what became the 2017 tax act will be described here? I still see the same inaccurate content.Hoofin (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, there has only been the ongoing discussion you have been having above this thread. It's a problem with these contentious disagreements and partial protection, until somebody can draw a community consensus out of the arguments, the article stays in its current arbitrary state. WP:CONSENSUS explains some optional ways ahead. Given that the issues have been well aired in those discussions above here, my best suggestion is that you consider soliciting outside opinions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

On top of all that, there still seems to be some confusion about what the original name of the bill was. Unless someone can find a source to the contrary, my understanding is that the official title -- right up almost to the end -- was "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", not "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017." The phrase "of 2017" was created by one or more Wikipedia editors, as far as I know. I have never seen any official preliminary draft of the bill that included the suffix "of 2017". Famspear (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the web site for Congress. The bill was introduced on November 2, 2017. The original text says "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". The verbiage "of 2017" simply is not there. This was an error by the Wikipedia editor who created the article. Famspear (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be weird. People who know better, know that there is no "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", either with a year attached or not. It's not the final law that was signed. Yet I get numerous solicitations from otherwise reputable "continuing professional education" companies that refer to the reconciliation law as "Tax Cuts and Jobs". A number of these companies are just money-grabbers, but some of them I used to really respect. It seems people and media who know, refer to it simply as the "tax act". I have some clients for which there is no tax cut at all--they will receive a tax hike. The Republicans' turning the name of a law into some kind of make-a-wish or mantra has really screwed things up. Wikipedia currently just multiplies it. So much for any authoritativeness here.Hoofin (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on article titles is to use the common name where an obvious one exists, even if it is technically the wrong one (I know, it's a hard one to swallow when you know what is right, but that's policies for you). The correct title of the Act should be given in the article text, which it already appears to be. The above comments would suggest to me that the article should be moved to Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (currently a redirect), as that is what almost everybody appears to call it. There is guidance on how to go about this process at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Hoofin: As someone who is generally pretty strict about getting details right, I understand how you feel. However, I believe we've already been over the point that the detail -- that the short title provision (originally naming various working drafts of the bill as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act") is not found in the bill as actually enacted into law -- is really an insignificant detail.

CCH/Wolters Kluwer is already advertising their guide to the new law, and CCH has entitled the guide as -- get ready.... wait for it.... -- yes, "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Law, Explanation and Analysis" (published January 22, 2018). I'm not trying to advertise for CCH, and I'm not buying their book -- but the argument that CCH would be "no longer reputable" or not "authoritative" merely because CCH refers to this law by a name that admittedly does not appear in any short title provision of the actual text would be a specious argument. Now, I'm not saying that you have made that specific argument.

There are many things about the new law that are important, and which have received little if any exposure. For example, there is a drafting error in the law regarding the attempt to make the receipt of alimony be non-taxable. I don't see anyone agonizing over that mistake -- and the mistake might well go unnoticed by the Internal Revenue Service. (I won't bother everyone with the technical details, but the new law is not properly worded to make the receipt of alimony be non-taxable.)

I agree with another editor who indicated that the title of the article could be changed to omit the phrase "of 2017," which has never been found in any draft of the bill of which I am aware. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• By Google count, "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" seems the WP:COMMONNAME, and it also is the title here at Congress.gov ... Other forms like "Tax Cuts Act" also are fairly common, but the current title with "of 2017" seems OK by me. Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the "of 2017" was a product of wishful thinking — someone was hoping that there would be another "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" in a future year and wanted to distinguish this one from that one. I am OK with either leaving it as it is, given the redirect, or moving it over the redirect. But switching to a less descriptive name would be a mistake. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that a Google search, at this point, is indicative of whether Public Law 115-97 should be referred to, here, as "Tax Cuts and Jobs". "Tax Cuts and Jobs" was simply a proposed short title, which, as I have pointed out, was rejected by the Senate. What the President signed was not a "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", but, rather, something that had been proposed as "Tax Cuts and Jobs". It is like Social Security. The original name suggested was "Economic Security Act". Sometime later in 1935, one of the Houses decided it should be called "Social Security Act". And that is what President Roosevelt signed. He didn't sign the "Economic Security Act". He signed the Social Security Act. What Wikipedia is doing is proclaiming that the rejected Short Title is, in fact, the name of the bill. Better resources (ones that read about or know of the name controversy) are simply referring to it as "tax reform" or the "new tax law". Crappier, lazier, or issue-biased firms are still saying "Tax Cuts and Jobs". Even CCH, apparently. I don't think that makes those references authoritative. I think it makes them suspect, because there were a number of changes in the fast-moving act. If you can't keep up with the changes, how credible are you as an authority on the final product? Shame the Wikipedia still refers to the LAW as "Tax Cuts and Jobs", as opposed to the BILL being given that designation.Hoofin (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That is because no one knows what public law 115-97 is and would not be searching for that per commonname. Likewise for it's official title of "An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018." According to the congress website for this bill, the official short name is "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

See, the group has been through this already. The official short name was removed in late December, because the question about it was taken to the Senate Parliamentarian, who ruled that approving the Short Name would require 60 votes. The bill did not have 60 votes on the short name, so it was stricken. Some people here decided to make an issue about whether the Wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect what Congress actually did, and one or two people who favor "Tax Cuts and Jobs" in reference to the actual law (even though that's not the name of the law) insisted that we keep referring to the proposed bill's name as if that were the actual name of the Law. There are other useful, short ways to describe the 2017 tax act, including, "tax act", "tax reform", etc., and the BETTER commenters among the CPA community are adopting these neutral terminologies. They stopped pretending that there was this LAW called "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", since there is no such law. But here, the charade goes on.Hoofin (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

To Hoofin: I understand your argument against the short title and its acronym, and I suspect that most of the other people here also understand it. But we are not convinced by it. I think that the amendment in the Senate removing the short title was merely a futile protest by Berne Sanders (as you called it, "an act of vandalism") made possible by the details of the Byrd rule which hardly anyone understands or would agree with. Does anyone else here agree with Hoofin? I do not think so. "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" is the common name and so it should be the one used in Wikipedia, full stop. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You keep reverting my rather modest changes, because you feel that the false name has been accepted by enough people in the public, that it is in fact the actual name. You misquote me. What I said is that your side in the issue treats the removal of the Short Name as "an act of vandalism", NOT that it was indeed that. (It was not.) Keep pushing it---you're just discrediting Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

Speaking of sources, the IRS itself does not use the name "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". They know better. They know what the actual law says. I was reading Notice 2018-14, published recently, which is here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-18-14.pdf . You see, right on the bottom of page one of the PDF, they aren't even TRYING to be cute by suggesting that "Tax Cuts and Jobs" has any pedigree. They say: "Sections 11001 and 11041 of “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018,” P.L. 115-97 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 22, 2017[.]" They aren't saying, let's just call it "Tax Cuts and Jobs". Because they know better. They know that that name was removed from the law. So they refer to it as the "Act", which is appropriate. The day the IRS starts deciding to play politics with what was proposed versus what was enacted, then forget about having a rule-of-law, revenue-raising agency. (Maybe that's where we are in the current Trump Administration, given its current attacks on the FBI.)Hoofin (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The naming convention is that we use the most recognizable natural name for a statute. It is also not unusual to attach the date of the statute to the name. This is a common practice. The current title is fine. For obvious reasons, we can not name the article An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. The long title goes in the infobox, or it did the last time I worked on a statute article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't go to the headline, however. It goes to references to the Act as they appear throughout the article. When the piece was first put up, it was pre-enactment. So contributors were referring to the Act by its proposed Short Name. However, the Short Name was removed in the Senate, and that is the bill that passed. People who argue in favor of the Act being called something other than the old name in the bill, really, just wanted to have a name passed into law that wasn't there anymore. And so, since this name was "popularized" among partisans and people who don't pay attention to detail, the NEW excuse is that enough other people use it, and supposedly, even the acronym, that this makes it AS IF that was actually the name of the law. Even the IRS does not refer to a "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". The IRS does not refer to the federal estate tax as the "Death Tax", and they don't refer to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare". They don't refer to the Social Security Act of 1935 as the "Economic Security Act", which was its original proposed name.

It sounds like the situation as to be resolved similar to what Wikipedia does for the PPACA entry. There, the site is true to facts by titling the entry correctly, but then quickly explaining where these other names come from. What the entry should do is maybe keep the phony name at the top, say what the phony name really references--as what appears now---and then have a paragraph right after that explaining why the misinformed people and the partisans use "Tax Cuts and Jobs" when they really mean the tax act that was passed as part of the budget reconciliation process. There were several tax measures passed under reconciliation from time to time. I think COBRA (1986) contained both tax changes and health care changes. (COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.) Better authorities are citing this law as "the tax act" or "tax reform", and explain that it was tax changes that were part of the 2017 budget reconciliation bill.

To repeat, what the headline in the article has, and how that description is used within the text, are two different things. Again, on the ACA page, they don't have multiple references to "Obamacare" after the explanation at the start. (The page doesn't say, "we're going to call it 'Obamacare' here in the article, because that's what MOST people know it AS!!")Hoofin (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but the IRS does use it here [1], it's also used by the Treasury [2]. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Secretary Mnuchin Travels to Pennsylvania with President Trump, Highlights Benefits of Tax Reform". JRSpriggs (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

They do make reference to it on what amounts to a blog post, or a gateway site. But even there, look at the wording, "Major tax changes approved by Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) became law on December 22, 2017." The subject is "major tax changes". Yes, there were major tax changes. Yes, they were approved by Congress. Yes, they were in a bill that (up to its final enactment) was referred to as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", whose acronym would present as "TCJA". And, yes, those major tax changes became law on December 22, 2017. But the Act that did it was NOT the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". And notice how, as the saying goes, Your Mileage May Vary. All of the sudden the new rules in the law enacted through the Act are "tax changes"---not tax cuts.

If you bother to search through the various notices that the gateway site links to, NONE of them, by my review, reference any law called the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". In fact, each notice, not just 2018-17, but all of them that are referenced, indicate that the law is the long name, and for purposes of the Notice, the long name is shorthanded as the "Act". Again, this is because the people who know better, the ones who have to respect detail in a revenue-raising function, aren't about to mess with well-established precedent, that you don't call a law something different than what was actually enacted. It could just as well be referred to popularly as "Donnie's Law".

If some of the Notices (not the website page, and not the Treasury Secretary) actually said that the law was called the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", then I could see the avenue you are going down. But it looks more like you are trying to find "authorities" who made reference to Public Law 115-97 as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", which it is not. Sorry to say, there is NO "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". There is only a set of proposed tax rule changes (i.e. also tax hikes) that were presented in Congress originally as the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act".

I do not see this as a small, nick-picking issue. Now that the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that the Short Title required 60 votes (not 51), Congress can expect that EVERY cutesy name for laws affecting public policy are going to be challenged. If something gets proposed that's called the "Gun Safety Act", and it turns out to be be a law that says that fingerprint triggers must be forever outlawed (since it may make it difficult for the owner to safely use the gun if the fingerprint ID mechanism fails, or some other twisted logic), the name is going to be challenged. Cry tears, but not many if you know better, for Frank Luntz---he is the character who really promoted this stupid game.

There needs to be an explanation in the beginning paragraph, that when some people refer to a "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", this is actually incorrect, not just technically incorrect.Hoofin (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Next Republican tax cut plan?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per WP:NOTAFORUM. Safiel (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Extended content

I believe that Republican leaders have expressed the desire to pass additional tax cut legislation during the Trump administration, if the voters see fit to increase the Republican majorities (especially in the Senate). Does anyone know if they have a more specific plan? Certainly, I would expect that they would want to extend the tax cuts which they gave to individuals which are supposed to expire in about nine years. And also do some of the things which they tried to do but were unable to do due to lack of enough votes and the restraints of the Byrd rule, to wit: abolish the alternative minimum tax, reduce the number of tax brackets, reduce the top marginal rate, and repeal the estate tax. So that they would be moving closer to a flat tax. I would also hope that they would abolish the gift tax (which is linked to the estate tax) and take stock dividends out of taxable income (since they were already taxed at the corporate level). JRSpriggs (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Judgments of better and worse

I suggest replacing almost all uses of the words "better" and "worse" in this article with descriptions of what was meant, eg.:

• "worse income inequality" → "greater income inequality"
• "the House and Senate bills would make inequality far worse" → "the House and Senate bills would increase economic inequality"

Daask (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do it! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding "Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposed split overwhelmingly rejected.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SNOW (non-admin closure)

---

{{rfc|econ|hist|pol}} Article Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is over 100 kB and should be split to a new page entitled Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. This article could certainly be shortened. But the solution isn't to split out the "Objections" section. The solution is cut it way, way, way down. It's absurdly long and totally WP:UNDUE. Compare to PPACA#Opposition: PPACA has had over a decade of "objections" and then repeal efforts, and that section is a fraction of the length. The "Polls" section is also undue. These sections together give the article an overall anti-TCJA POV bias. Then we have a whole section called "Cloud tables" without a single source. Wtf is a cloud table and why is it in this article? The whole thing needs a major trim. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia. Edit out your initialized profanity. Being a man of letters with a PHD you will easily be able to follow the scientific method and replicate the spreadsheet. When this is accomplished, read your addressed concerns six sections up in “Cloud tables?”.Alesander (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not really necessary. We should focus on removing excessive verbiage in the objections section instead. Neutrality^talk 01:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support This should really be rewritten as a law article and yes, there should be another article for the administration's policy and the non-legal discussion about it in WP:RS. This is an article about a statute, not a breaking news development. An article like "How Every Senator Voted on the Tax Bill" undoubtedly has a place in some article, but not this one. I'm not wedded to the suggestion of naming the page "objections" I would prefer Tax Policy of Donald Trump - I think the content in this article should be preserved, but this is not the right article for it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Summoned by bot. Per WP:NPOV, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NPOVVIEW, it seems it would be better to edit in place than to split one side of a political dispute out of the main article for the bill in question. There's no way to write an appropriately neutral article about a complicated, multi-faceted tax bill without a fairly detailed discussion of its projected impacts. And that, in turn, means including proportionate detail about the conflicting arguments/projections -- they should be in the same article for both readability and balance. I find the PPACA analogy compelling. Chris vLS (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with others above. Eliminate the separate "opposition" section (such sections tend to distort NPOV anyway) and have a balanced discussion of key arguments, not a laundry list of all the opposition. And do we need any of the poll data, let along the long list? It is now law. We should find third party sources that analyze the key arguments, not quoting directly from advocates and opponents, such as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Paul Krugman, or a NYT editorial. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that part of WP:LENGTH is not reasonable to try, apply the WP:Too much detail instead, particularly since room will need to be made for post-implementation inputs. I just do not see that as an independent topic, and doubt editors would let either article be without opposing view so would likely wind up duplicating content. Suggestions for deletion -- I think the 1.5 screen-long table of opinion polls can go; then focus to what was passed and the House draft vs Senate draft as not what was enacted can go; and the many WP:QUOTEFARM quotes from politicians blow-by=blow are neither RS nor particularly significant so can go. With generally tighter writing sty, should be able to greatly reduce the size of the article and improve the value at the same time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - just cut down the article, as it tends to be quite wordy and overly-detailed ('votes', poll sections?), and it's odd that 'removing objection' is the option proposed before this. TP ✎ ✓ 11:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per ThePromenader Elinruby (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Alesander (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose reads ok now. (Summoned by bot)L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot - The Objections are half way down the page .... removing it would remove a little chunk but not much .... it wouldn't really make that much of a difference removing it, The article needs to be cut down and that's the only solution to the problem, (If the cutting has already happened then ignore this!). –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

From my count 41 kB (6819 words) "readable prose size" using the page size tool. According to WP:SIZE, we might still have a bit. PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @Neutrality:, @DrFleischman:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparing to other tax cut articles -- this one runs to ~30 screens is just looking excessive when compared to the Reagan cuts of 1986 are covered with only 5 screens; that of 1997 in 2; that of 2006 including healthcare was 4 ... etcetera etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

All of those other articles you mentioned probably need to be expanded. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The chart was written on a spreadsheet. It took, almost, a whole minute. - Alesander (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesander (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Cloud tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. Given that the requested action was taken some days ago, no need to keep this pointless RfC open. In any event, WP:SNOW in favor of removal. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the section titled "Cloud tables" be removed? Please !vote with either Keep or Remove. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove It seems to be unsourced - I looked it up on Google and I haven't even been able to find out what a Cloud Table is, I imagine it will be confusing for readers also. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Unsourced and nonsensical. Comments by the Alesander, the poster and defender of this content, do not help the matter. There is clearly a CIR issue going on here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Alesander (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Good removal - And consider cutting this RfC short. Adding entirely unsourced information is beyond consensus. If and when the content can be reliably sourced, there may be a discussion there to be had about whether it gives undue weight or excessive detail, and I tend to think it likely does. But we don't hold an RfC about whether we should be blatantly violating one of our most central policies. GMG^talk 03:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove (Summoned by bot) per GMG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - Helpful to the 10% of readers who understand what a cloud table is, Useless to the 90% who have no idea what it is, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 17:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove and do not restore unless a) properly sourced, and b) done as a proper wikitable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Cloud section @Alesander: I think these kind of comparisons are useful for article, but I think it needs to be presented a little differently than in a external document. What do you think using wikitables directly in the article? Also, are these figures cited somewhere so it's clear where these values come from? I JethroBT drop me a line 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to describe the content of these Cloud tables some more. For example, what do each of the column headers stand for? Fills is a term I've never seen. What are the computations of savings? Can you write one out with text to illustrate how the table works (i.e., pick a row and walk people through it). Thanks.Farcaster (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a bone to pick. I displayed data that was off by a lot until last weekend. I made a mistake and followed a reference from Wikipedia’s main tax page to the prestigious Cornell website. Apparently,Prometheus, son of Iapetus, has some smelly leftover stuffing from the inside of that ox’s intestines. Alesander (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesander (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a long unreferenced section called "Cloud tables." Is this original research? I could not find that term defined in Wikipedia, or even by Googling it. It is not clear what it means, and the explanation is inadequate. "Fills" is not adequately explained. If it cannot be better explained and referenced to a reliable source it does not belong in the article.Edison (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Cloud tables name came about by accident. It was originally a link to a spreadsheet on the cloud. The fills are written into the bills In association with the tax brackets and are listed in the IRS tax tables, but they are not named. They are the amount of tax owed as that bracket is crossed. The reference for the 2017 brackets was taken out. It was in the first senate draft. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4192857-Senate-GOP-tax-plan.html#search/p1/TAX The 2018 brackets are from the new law. This is a spreadsheet and the formula is written from the governments method of taxation. .+IF(B32>ark_6,(IF(B32>ark_7,ark_7,B32)-ark_6)*ax_6,0)+……. Alesander (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems like confusing original research and I think it should be removed. Tables should come directly from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is mechanical. These are not estimates and there is no conclusion. You and your cabal are relegating Wikipedia to just pictures of charts and graphs. Alesander (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Alesander (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Alesander, regarding this: The Cloud tables name came about by accident. It was originally a link to a spreadsheet on the cloud. How did this linked spreadsheet get posted to the cloud? Did you post it? Is it still online? Can you please provide a link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not seeing - I'm not seeing the section mentioned. Is it already gone ? Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It was indeed removed, but the RfC is still active. I added a diff up top. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

External Link / Text of the bill.

THe external link / text of the bill points to a 185 page document, but I thought the bill was supposed to be more than 1000 pages long. I think this page is linked to the wrong bill. Centerone (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It does look like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to me. Perhaps the number of pages is a function of the length of the pages or the size of the font or some such thing. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Uhm, the currently link is to the text of the bill H.R. 1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1 I think, which is a tax reconcilliation bill, but it's not the 1000+ page Tax Cut and Jobs act. It's a different bill (although I believe they are related, due to both modifying taxes.) Centerone (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Centerone: That is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It's just formatted differently from the GPO style. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 00:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The news media and others tended to mis-report the physical length of the bill, often based on carelessness. Often, what they were reporting was a PDF file that included not only the text of the bill, but also the committee reports. Also, in the earlier versions, the bill text was double-spaced. By contrast, in the actual enrolled bill (185 pages), the text is single-spaced.

Pretty soon, the GPO will come out with the text in the United States Statutes at Large, and the page length may or may not be 185 pages there.

We get this kind of confusion all the time. I've seen media reports where someone will say that the entire Internal Revenue Code is tens of thousands of pages in length, when what they are actually referring to is the Code plus the Treasury regulations plus the committee reports plus editorial commentary, plus annotations of interpreting court cases, etc., etc. My latest version of the Internal Revenue Code as printed by CCH Publications/Wolters Kluwer (a leading private publisher of tax statutes and other legal materials) as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does run to over 5,500 pages (single-spaced, basically). It is not tens of thousands of pages in length.

The media to some extent has also picked up on the hype -- the claims that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is somehow a major re-write of the Internal Revenue Code. It's not even close to that. The overwhelming vast majority of the 5,500 pages of text was not changed at all. Some of the tax law changes are significant changes, but it's not a major re-write of the Code. Famspear (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

By way of background, the actual enrolled bill (185 pages) is the one that was physically signed into law by the President on December 22, 2017. A PDF copy of that -- without a reproduction of the President's signature, and with certain GPO markings added -- is what you see on the internet.

This is a simplified explanation, but the GPO (the U.S. Government Publishing Office, formerly known as the Government Printing Office) may publish what is called a "slip law" version of the enrolled bill. The public law number (115-97) has already been assigned.

The GPO will also publish what is called a "session law" version in a set of books called the United States Statutes at Large. That version will have a pagination that is unique to the Statutes at Large. A PDF of this version will soon be available on the internet.

Finally, for the portions of the Internal Revenue Code that are amended by the bill, GPO will publish the changes in title 26 of the United States Code.

Private publishers are generally much faster than the GPO in getting Federal statutes published. Famspear (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to the "more than 1000 pages" -- that was the December 15, 2017 conference package. That consisted of 1,097 pages, which included 588 pages of single spaced committee reports and a 509 page double-spaced preliminary version of the bill itself (but not the final version actually enacted). Some media members may well have carelessly referred to the entire 1,097 page package as "the bill." Committee reports are not part of a bill. Indeed, committee reports sometimes do not accurately reflect what was actually signed into law -- for the simple reason that some changes in a bill often come even after the committee reports have been written, but before the bill is finally passed.

Again, the actual enrolled bill (185 pages, single spaced) is what was signed into law by the President. Famspear (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add some details to the article about the differences in the released versions. Centerone (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There were very few differences between the December 15 draft and the actual enacted bill.

There were more differences between what was originally introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee and the actual enacted bill. But that's true of many, many items of legislation. Famspear (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Update polling?

Several recent polls are listed here[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not a big interest, eh? It does not seem like polls after passage have much coverage WEIGHT, and I cannot see much point in tracking that they went from the 20s to 40s to 30s by June 2018 (in the Monmouth University link above), and then up to 48 favor (versus 40 oppose and 12 no opinion) by Feb 2019 (in the CNN poll by SSRS Q16aa). I was loosely interested in the poll that showed more than half did not “see” the change, about 45% of republicans and 75% of democrats ... but more as a cognitive / partisan blindness example as the change to withholding was factual yet so many do not “see” objective fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. also note it’s another example of cognitive recentism or perception item of folks do not perceive/ remember reduction in withholding at tax breaks of Obama and now Trump, as much as they are impressed by a single check of the Bush tax break. Markbassett (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

reform is bad language ?

the intro uses the word "reform" but in common english, the word reform suggests getting better is it neutral to say the act made things worse ? OTOH, is it neutral to say the act made things better ? i dunno also, to the authors of htis article, congrats on a nice job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

TCJA was intended to be an improvement (and thus a reform) by its supporters. Whether it actually was is still a matter of dispute.

It is probably safe to say that most editors of this article oppose it.

I think that it had more good features than bad ones, but it could have been much better if the Democrats had tried to improve it rather than just opposing it at every turn. Their opposition forced the Republicans to use the Byrd rule in the Senate which crippled the act. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

January 26 edits

I made significant edits to this page today. I made those edits to address the following issues relating to the legislative history: (a) repetition; (b) confusion; and (c) self-contradiction. The article was quite muddled in regard to the complex voting history, which involved a House vote, a Senate vote, a conference committee, a Dec. 19 House vote, a Dec. 20 Senate vote, and a Dec. 20 House re-vote. I believe the problem is solved. SunCrow (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Areas needing improvement

The article needs improvement in regard to organization and neutrality.

Regarding organization, the article has multiple sections that cover the same territory. Why is there a need for an "impact" section and also a separate "results" section? Why is there a section on support and opposition, and then another entire section on objections? Also, the legislative history should be placed nearer to the top of the article and certainly before the "impact" section.

Regarding neutrality, the lede contains a litany of criticisms of the bill without including any mention of a different perspective. The "objections" section, which has been tagged for undue weight since two years ago, is also problematic for the same reason. SunCrow (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

New section "Subsequent events"

I'm not clear how the details in this section are directly relevant to this article. The suits were spawned by the elimination of the ACA mandate by this act, but in all other respects they have nothing to do with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The details are relevant to the ACA-related articles though. What am I missing here? Anastrophe (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's relevant because litigation at the Supreme Court was the very goal of the changes to ACA made by this act. Nemo 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Tax cuts effect on income

@SPECIFICO "This is viewed as a red herring by most sources that discuss the trump tax cuts. Cuts for lower income taxpayers are not a significant result of the act, according to mainstream." Please provide the "mainstream" sources that supposedly prove your arguments. Also, I'm concerned that you're engaging in WP:FOLLOWING towards me. X-Editor (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO You've still haven't responded to my post. Please provide an explanation for my questions above. X-Editor (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO "UNDUE. SYNTH." How? The source I provided deems the temporary increase to be notable. I'm not sure how I violated SYNTH when the Bloomberg sentence and other sentence are clearly separate from each other and state their findings separately. "Cited source describes this immediate increase as an insignificant brief uptick it calls a "sugar high"in the context of a 10 year $1.5 trillion cost with no prospect of commensurate trickle-down benefit." I think you're getting the "Paying for Itself" part confused with the "Renewed Investment" part. "no prospect of commensurate trickle-down benefit" What does this have to do with investment? This has more to do with income inequality. "Brief uptick not portrayed as structural, systemic benefits claimed by the bill's supporters" That's true, which is why the article notes the temporary nature of the benefits, but that doesn't mean the temporary benefits should not be included while being contextualized with the decline afterwards, which is what my edit included btw: "However, according to Bloomberg, the bill did temporarily increase investment before investments started to decline shortly after." X-Editor (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)