WEBVTT - Tax Plan Causes Incites Feuds within House GOP (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.680
<v Speaker 1>House Republicans unfair unveiled their bill to overhaul the American

0:00:03.720 --> 0:00:07.400
<v Speaker 1>tax system yesterday. The bill contains provisions, among other things,

0:00:07.400 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 1>to substantially lower corporate tax rates, consolidate individual tax rates,

0:00:11.720 --> 0:00:16.000
<v Speaker 1>eliminate the alternative minimum tax, phase out the estate tax, UH,

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:19.400
<v Speaker 1>eliminate the deduction for state and local income taxes, and

0:00:19.520 --> 0:00:22.919
<v Speaker 1>cap the mortgage interest deduction. Congress has joined Committee on

0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:25.720
<v Speaker 1>Taxation estimates that the bill would cost about one point

0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>five one trillion dollars over the next decade, and many

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:31.760
<v Speaker 1>think this is unlikely to be the final bill, and

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:33.680
<v Speaker 1>the prospects for a plan like this bill in the

0:00:33.680 --> 0:00:36.519
<v Speaker 1>Senate if it gets that far are unclear. Here to

0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:38.879
<v Speaker 1>talk with us about the proposed tax bill and what

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:42.200
<v Speaker 1>happens from here are Richard Schmallback, a professor at Duke

0:00:42.280 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>University Law School, and Tim Space, a partner at Eisner Amper. Richard,

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:50.519
<v Speaker 1>the estimate on the bill at this point is that

0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 1>it would cost about one point five one trillion dollars

0:00:53.200 --> 0:00:58.600
<v Speaker 1>over the next decade. What is it that is there

0:00:58.600 --> 0:01:04.000
<v Speaker 1>a significance to that number in particular? Um, Well, I'm

0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:05.880
<v Speaker 1>not sure exactly what you mean, but I did notice

0:01:05.920 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>that the revenue lots of associated with the basic cuts

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:15.240
<v Speaker 1>and the corporate tax rates uh plus the expensing are

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.200
<v Speaker 1>are just about that number. So one way to conceive

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:21.360
<v Speaker 1>of this bill is that it's got a big text

0:01:21.480 --> 0:01:27.679
<v Speaker 1>for cut for for business income offset by all the

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:30.000
<v Speaker 1>all the other provisions of the code are kind of

0:01:30.560 --> 0:01:35.520
<v Speaker 1>collectively revenue neutral. You've got a bunch of loophole closers, uh,

0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>and then you've got a bunch of of things that

0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:40.720
<v Speaker 1>will give away revenue. But the one thing that kind

0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:44.960
<v Speaker 1>of sticks out is the cut and the corporate rates. So, Tim,

0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:49.240
<v Speaker 1>where is the money coming from the tax cuts? Where

0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:52.400
<v Speaker 1>is that money coming from? Well, I think the cuts

0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 1>in first, thank you for for having me this Africa.

0:01:55.560 --> 0:01:59.640
<v Speaker 1>I think the cuts are coming from basically the off

0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>side of of of really the disallowed expenses. I mean,

0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 1>when you look through this, and I know that we

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:08.840
<v Speaker 1>want to keep this somewhat brisk, but there's going to

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:10.679
<v Speaker 1>be a lot of deduction. The state and local was

0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:15.239
<v Speaker 1>always talked about. Um, the state and local deduction sales

0:02:15.280 --> 0:02:19.919
<v Speaker 1>tax would be eliminated, which is important, and they would

0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:23.480
<v Speaker 1>still be allowed though however, were they're deducted in the contest.

0:02:23.520 --> 0:02:26.880
<v Speaker 1>Carrying on a trader business. The deductions that we spoke

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:31.360
<v Speaker 1>about probably throughout the whole season, medical expense deductions would

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:35.960
<v Speaker 1>still be be repealed, carried loss deductions of course, mortgage interests.

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:39.079
<v Speaker 1>So so it's really coming the other way. So tax

0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:43.680
<v Speaker 1>rates are being reduced, but then you're also taking away

0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:48.400
<v Speaker 1>in the simplest way to look at this key itemized deductions.

0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:51.359
<v Speaker 1>Although there is some relaxation here, they're not mentioned yet.

0:02:51.440 --> 0:02:55.799
<v Speaker 1>Was the fact that the mortgage limits on mortgage debt

0:02:55.919 --> 0:02:59.359
<v Speaker 1>would be reduced to five dred thousand. And that's silly.

0:02:59.600 --> 0:03:03.120
<v Speaker 1>It's a sitting at one point one and charitable contributions,

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:04.840
<v Speaker 1>I mean that was set all along that that would

0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:07.959
<v Speaker 1>never be touched. Uh And in fact, the limitation, the

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:10.600
<v Speaker 1>current shift to present limitation that someone could be ducked

0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:17.040
<v Speaker 1>a g I would actually be increased. Uh to. So

0:03:17.680 --> 0:03:21.400
<v Speaker 1>I believe that, as said by the other gentleman, it's

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:24.400
<v Speaker 1>been a dance within a window, so to speak, that

0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:30.320
<v Speaker 1>making sure the revenue offsets and the cuts equal each

0:03:30.360 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 1>other so you don't have them out of alignment. Well, Richard,

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:37.600
<v Speaker 1>the you know, you can imagine two different places that

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:40.800
<v Speaker 1>the bill could run into some issues. One is that

0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:42.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, the one and a half trillion dollars a

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:46.440
<v Speaker 1>lot is a lot of money for the deficit, and

0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:49.160
<v Speaker 1>you have deficit hawks in both the House and the

0:03:49.200 --> 0:03:51.040
<v Speaker 1>Senate who might have issues with that. And the other

0:03:51.200 --> 0:03:55.600
<v Speaker 1>is in the some of the specific revenue offsets that

0:03:55.640 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 1>we're talking about here. Where where do you think that

0:03:57.800 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 1>the primary resistance to this bill will come from? Which?

0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:08.040
<v Speaker 1>Um are you directing that to me? Well, certainly, UH,

0:04:08.120 --> 0:04:11.480
<v Speaker 1>home builders and realtors are going to object to this.

0:04:11.800 --> 0:04:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Even though the mortgage interest deduction has been mostly retained.

0:04:15.320 --> 0:04:17.599
<v Speaker 1>One of the effects of the bill by by nearly

0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:20.719
<v Speaker 1>doubling the standard deduction and then shipping away at the

0:04:20.800 --> 0:04:25.000
<v Speaker 1>various things that constituted itemized deductions, you're going to radically

0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:27.239
<v Speaker 1>reduce the number of people who are in a position

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.120
<v Speaker 1>to take advantage of itemizing. It's currently about thirty percent

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>of taxpayers who itemize, but I've been looking at some

0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:35.919
<v Speaker 1>numbers and I can't see how it could possibly be

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:37.880
<v Speaker 1>more than ten percent under this bill, and might be

0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:41.280
<v Speaker 1>as little as five And that means that even though

0:04:41.279 --> 0:04:44.839
<v Speaker 1>we've preserved the charitable contribution deduction, UH, it only applies

0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:47.919
<v Speaker 1>to itemizers, and I only five percent of taxpayers are itemizing,

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:53.120
<v Speaker 1>then the other have no particular tax incentive to make contributions.

0:04:53.680 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 1>And the same is true effectively with respect to mortgage

0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 1>interest deductions. There theoretically deductible, but again only if you

0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:02.440
<v Speaker 1>had and if only five percent of people itemized, then

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:08.640
<v Speaker 1>that deduction, which has substantially reduced the cost of homeownership

0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:12.960
<v Speaker 1>for um, basically as long as we've had our tax system,

0:05:13.279 --> 0:05:18.919
<v Speaker 1>will disappear for the taxpayers who don't itemize. And tim

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:21.599
<v Speaker 1>in about thirty seconds, do you how do you do

0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:25.599
<v Speaker 1>you agree with that? Well? First, yes, I yes, in

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:27.840
<v Speaker 1>the sense that we always have to be looking at

0:05:27.880 --> 0:05:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the percentage of US taxpayers. Treasury has these records, of

0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:35.159
<v Speaker 1>course that itemize in the first place. And if you've

0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:40.240
<v Speaker 1>meant now diminished the benefit of itemizing, it's it's certainly

0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:44.080
<v Speaker 1>logical to say that you have fewer itemizers. But amongst

0:05:44.080 --> 0:05:47.159
<v Speaker 1>those ones that do itemize, I mean there's still there's

0:05:47.160 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 1>still windows here and the opportunity. I mean, remember when

0:05:50.240 --> 0:05:52.800
<v Speaker 1>we we began this whole process, it was said that

0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:56.040
<v Speaker 1>the only thing that was going to be allowed when

0:05:56.279 --> 0:05:59.240
<v Speaker 1>was going to be charity in mortgage interest. We are

0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:03.279
<v Speaker 1>talking with Richard Schmallback, a professor at Duke University Law School,

0:06:03.279 --> 0:06:06.159
<v Speaker 1>and Tim Space, a partner at Eisner Amper, about the

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:11.239
<v Speaker 1>House Tax bill, which will lower corporate tax rates, have passed,

0:06:11.839 --> 0:06:17.599
<v Speaker 1>consolidate individual tax rates, eliminated number or phase out some taxes,

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:20.800
<v Speaker 1>and eliminated phase out some deductions, the whole host of

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>different things which we've been talking about, and we're gonna

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>let's let's turn to some of the specific things that

0:06:27.000 --> 0:06:31.039
<v Speaker 1>are in the bill. Tim, One of the more interesting

0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:33.760
<v Speaker 1>issues that I think the bill raises is how it's

0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:37.520
<v Speaker 1>dealing with passed through corporations. This is a this is

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:41.479
<v Speaker 1>a place where the U It appears that the House

0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:44.760
<v Speaker 1>bill is trying to give a break to people who

0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:50.680
<v Speaker 1>have passed through corporations, but UM prevent sort of predictable

0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:54.040
<v Speaker 1>abuse of the of the of a lower pass through rate.

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Explain what's going on here and what the bill does

0:06:56.680 --> 0:06:59.200
<v Speaker 1>about it, right, And that's a great question. Has been

0:06:59.240 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 1>a lot of talking about this the whole legislative cycle.

0:07:01.960 --> 0:07:05.920
<v Speaker 1>So basically, what it what the provision provides that UM

0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:09.840
<v Speaker 1>a portion of net income distributions from pass through when ities.

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:12.320
<v Speaker 1>We should talk about what that is. But that's going

0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 1>to be tax of the maximum rate of instead of

0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:20.680
<v Speaker 1>the normal normal graduated systems presently in place, which goes

0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>off all the way up to third nine point six UM.

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>And that would be for effective starting in. The bill

0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:34.280
<v Speaker 1>has provisions to prevent individuals from converting wage income and

0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 1>to pass through distributions, and so that's the rate UM.

0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:42.720
<v Speaker 1>It's the concern is that you're going to have nonintended

0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>income be taxed at this favorable rate UM. And that's

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>really that's really going to remain remain an element of

0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:57.160
<v Speaker 1>concern probably until we have regulations that better define it um.

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:00.480
<v Speaker 1>Income from non passive business activities, which we had those

0:08:00.520 --> 0:08:03.760
<v Speaker 1>already owners and shareholders would be able to elect to

0:08:03.840 --> 0:08:07.640
<v Speaker 1>treat say thirty percent of the income for the rate.

0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:10.760
<v Speaker 1>So this this, I think we think at Irina was

0:08:10.800 --> 0:08:13.520
<v Speaker 1>going to deserves for further scrutiny, but right now, that's

0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 1>what the legislative says, a favoral tax rate at pass

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:22.280
<v Speaker 1>through en rich The provision to scrap most abductions for

0:08:22.360 --> 0:08:26.200
<v Speaker 1>state and local taxes has been the most fiercely contested,

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:30.880
<v Speaker 1>uh so far, given that Republicans can only lose two

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:34.640
<v Speaker 1>votes and still pass the bill, what's the likelihood that

0:08:34.720 --> 0:08:37.840
<v Speaker 1>this might be a whole stand out as one of

0:08:37.840 --> 0:08:41.160
<v Speaker 1>the things holding up the bill. Well, I'm sure it

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:45.880
<v Speaker 1>is a concern. Um, there are Republican congressmen in California,

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:49.600
<v Speaker 1>New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, some other high tax states,

0:08:49.679 --> 0:08:52.960
<v Speaker 1>and they'll they'll have a tough choice to make. There

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:56.319
<v Speaker 1>aren't a large number of congressmen from those states though

0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:58.719
<v Speaker 1>those are basically blue states, and most of their congressmen

0:08:58.880 --> 0:09:02.360
<v Speaker 1>and I think virtually all of their senators are Democrats,

0:09:02.520 --> 0:09:07.160
<v Speaker 1>and the administration and the House leadership is not counting

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:10.920
<v Speaker 1>on much support from Democrats anyway, but there will be some. Uh,

0:09:11.120 --> 0:09:13.560
<v Speaker 1>that's one of several sources that could be chipped off.

0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:16.000
<v Speaker 1>You've got the deficit talks, You've got the people from

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:20.120
<v Speaker 1>the blue states, even if they're Republicans. Uh. You've got

0:09:20.160 --> 0:09:23.120
<v Speaker 1>people who will be listening to the National Association of

0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:27.720
<v Speaker 1>home Builders because that's important to their particular constituency. So

0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:31.760
<v Speaker 1>there are lots of ways that the bill could lose support.

0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:35.760
<v Speaker 1>But um, exactly how the math will break out remains

0:09:35.800 --> 0:09:40.079
<v Speaker 1>to be seen. Tim. You know, in any tax bill,

0:09:40.120 --> 0:09:41.760
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna have a lot of policy, right, It's not

0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:44.960
<v Speaker 1>it's not the numbers game. It's making decisions about what

0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:49.360
<v Speaker 1>kind of activities you want to provide credits for, what

0:09:49.480 --> 0:09:52.200
<v Speaker 1>you want to tax how much? Um. One of the

0:09:52.240 --> 0:09:54.360
<v Speaker 1>things that's kind of interesting here is what the bill

0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:57.439
<v Speaker 1>does about energy tax credits. You know, there's been a

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:01.160
<v Speaker 1>lot of alternative energy tax credits in the code for

0:10:01.200 --> 0:10:04.160
<v Speaker 1>a while. Now what does what does it do in

0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:09.320
<v Speaker 1>terms of oil and gas and uh, alternative energy? Right, Well,

0:10:09.760 --> 0:10:12.880
<v Speaker 1>we're going to be looking at that most more closely.

0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:15.400
<v Speaker 1>I should say, there's there's really nothing if you look

0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:18.400
<v Speaker 1>in the in the top end provisions of the legislation.

0:10:18.920 --> 0:10:20.880
<v Speaker 1>And let's keep in mind this is going to be

0:10:21.520 --> 0:10:23.800
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be a short course, but as somewhat

0:10:23.920 --> 0:10:27.080
<v Speaker 1>in depth course to get anything signed in the law

0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 1>in context of the oil and gas industries and so forth.

0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:34.280
<v Speaker 1>But the real the real credit focus. UM. And I'm

0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:36.760
<v Speaker 1>sure I'm sure everyone's ready to release the persons on

0:10:36.800 --> 0:10:40.160
<v Speaker 1>this call is really I don't I can't speak to that.

0:10:40.240 --> 0:10:45.000
<v Speaker 1>As far as the energy industry and provisions and so forth,

0:10:45.520 --> 0:10:48.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure, I'm sure that's going to be a consideration.

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:51.719
<v Speaker 1>The items that are going to be affecting most, if

0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:55.880
<v Speaker 1>not all, but most percentage of the population US persons

0:10:56.160 --> 0:10:58.199
<v Speaker 1>is going to be the various credits that have been

0:10:58.240 --> 0:11:01.080
<v Speaker 1>repealed and those that are to be increased. I mean,

0:11:01.080 --> 0:11:03.480
<v Speaker 1>the good news here is the child tax credit is

0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:07.080
<v Speaker 1>going to be increased from A thousand and six, the

0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:10.800
<v Speaker 1>American Hope, American oputuate tax credit. May we remember this.

0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:13.760
<v Speaker 1>We looked at this really that's that's really designed to

0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:18.280
<v Speaker 1>provide education benefits. A lot of these are going to

0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:20.959
<v Speaker 1>be still in place, by the way, so that's rather important.

0:11:21.000 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 1>But as far as the oil and gas industry and

0:11:23.520 --> 0:11:28.320
<v Speaker 1>some of the other industries, um, we haven't looked at

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:31.160
<v Speaker 1>that yet, but that was becoming in the later analysis.

0:11:32.400 --> 0:11:36.320
<v Speaker 1>Rich just in about thirty seconds. Is this bill even

0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:41.720
<v Speaker 1>likely to have a future with the Senate? You know,

0:11:41.760 --> 0:11:45.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm not a political scientist, so I don't know. They

0:11:46.000 --> 0:11:48.000
<v Speaker 1>don't have much of a margin in the Senate at all.

0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:50.440
<v Speaker 1>So I mentioned the several different groups that could be

0:11:50.480 --> 0:11:53.080
<v Speaker 1>sources of votes being stripped off, and they just don't

0:11:53.080 --> 0:11:56.320
<v Speaker 1>have much margin to work with. So um, it seems

0:11:56.320 --> 0:12:00.679
<v Speaker 1>like a long shot to me. I think, uh, possibilities

0:12:00.760 --> 0:12:03.600
<v Speaker 1>exist for for maybe some compromises on some of these

0:12:03.640 --> 0:12:07.559
<v Speaker 1>things that might make the bill acceptable to enough people

0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:09.880
<v Speaker 1>to pass it. It's going to be very difficult though.

0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:13.800
<v Speaker 1>Thank you very much to Rich Smallbacker, professor at Duke

0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Law School, and Tim Spice of Eisner Amper for being

0:12:16.520 --> 0:12:19.800
<v Speaker 1>here on Bloomberg Law. Coming up, is the Department of

0:12:19.840 --> 0:12:22.120
<v Speaker 1>Justice going to suit a block of the time Warner

0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:24.439
<v Speaker 1>a T and T merger or are they just trying

0:12:24.480 --> 0:12:28.720
<v Speaker 1>to be tougher negotiations. That's coming up on Bloomberg Law.

0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:31.359
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg