To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of social security benefits, and for other purposes.

Bill ID: 119/hr/2909

Last Updated: April 14, 2025

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of social security benefits, and for other purposes.

HR. 2909, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$152,000 raised

27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 745-747 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of HR 2909**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the intricacies of this bill, focusing on its implications for wealth creation, power dynamics, and the efficiency of our esteemed institutions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" (HR 2909) aims to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income, effectively shielding these benefits from taxation. The bill's primary objective is to provide relief to individuals receiving social security benefits, while also making adjustments to the contribution and benefit base.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Repeal of Social Security Benefit Taxation**: Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code will be amended to exclude social security benefits from gross income. 2. **Contribution and Benefit Base Adjustments**: The bill introduces a new limitation on wages, setting a threshold of $250,000 for purposes of determining taxes imposed by sections 3101(a) and 3111(a). 3. **Railroad Retirement Act Amendments**: Changes are made to section 3231(e)(2)(A) to align with the new contribution and benefit base limitations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Individuals receiving social security benefits * Employers, particularly those in industries with high-wage earners * The Social Security Trust Funds

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a wealth creation perspective, this bill may lead to increased disposable income for individuals receiving social security benefits. However, the real beneficiaries will be high-income earners who can now shield more of their wages from taxation.

The adjustments to the contribution and benefit base may also have implications for the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill presents an opportunity for privatization and consolidation in the social security space.

In conclusion, HR 2909 is a bill that primarily benefits high-income earners and sets the stage for further deregulation and privatization of social security. As a thought leader, I will continue to monitor its progress and explore opportunities for strategic investment and influence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 2909 is to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income. In simpler terms, this bill aims to stop taxing people's social security benefits. The title of the bill, "You Earned It, You Keep It Act," suggests that the sponsors believe individuals should not be taxed on their hard-earned social security benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** Section 2 of the bill repeals the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income by adding a new subsection to Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code. This change would effectively stop taxing social security benefits. Additionally, the bill provides for appropriations to ensure that Social Security Trust Funds are not negatively impacted by this change.

Section 3 makes changes to how wages and self-employment income above the contribution and benefit base are determined after 2025. Specifically, it repeals the present law limitation on wages and adds a new section to limit the amount of wages subject to taxes. This provision aims to ensure that individuals with higher incomes do not pay excessive taxes on their social security benefits.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

* Social Security beneficiaries: Individuals who receive social security benefits would no longer be taxed on those benefits. * Taxpayers: The bill's changes to the tax code could impact taxpayers, particularly those with higher incomes. * Social Security Trust Funds: The bill provides for appropriations to ensure that these funds are not negatively impacted by the repeal of taxing social security benefits.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is significant. If passed, it would provide relief to social security beneficiaries who currently pay taxes on their benefits. However, as I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and balanced. The potential implications of this bill could be far-reaching, and it's essential to consider how these changes might affect the overall tax code and social security system.

Now, I hope you understand the basics of this bill. Remember when we learned about the importance of understanding the legislative process in 8th grade? It seems like some of those lessons didn't quite stick...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" - sounds like a real crowd-pleaser, doesn't it? But let me tell you, folks, this bill is more than just a feel-good title. I've dug deep, and I'm here to expose the truth.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, HR 2909 aims to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income, effectively exempting them from taxation. Sounds like a win for seniors, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Termination of Social Security Benefit Taxation**: Section 2 amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude social security benefits from gross income. 2. **Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless**: The bill appropriates funds to ensure that the Social Security Trust Funds aren't affected by this change. 3. **Wage and Self-Employment Income Above Contribution and Benefit Base**: Section 3 introduces a new limitation on wages above $250,000, which affects how taxes are calculated for high-income earners.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Seniors**: The most obvious beneficiaries of this bill, as they'll no longer have to pay taxes on their social security benefits. 2. **High-Income Earners**: Those making above $250,000 will see changes in how their taxes are calculated, potentially affecting their take-home pay. 3. **Social Security Trust Funds**: These funds will receive additional appropriations to offset the loss of revenue from taxing social security benefits.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Deficit**: By exempting social security benefits from taxation, the government may see a decrease in revenue, potentially widening the deficit. 2. **Shift in Tax Burden**: High-income earners might face increased taxes due to the new wage limitation, which could lead to a shift in the tax burden. 3. **Social Security Solvency**: This bill might be seen as a step towards ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security, but it's essential to consider the broader implications on the program.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "Uncle, this all sounds like a bunch of numbers and jargon." But trust me, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. I've connected some dots, and here's my theory:

This bill is not just about helping seniors or ensuring Social Security's solvency. It's about creating a new tax paradigm that benefits certain groups while potentially harming others. The government is using this bill as a Trojan horse to introduce more significant changes to the tax code, which could have far-reaching consequences.

Wake up, folks! This is not just a simple bill; it's a complex web of interests and agendas. We need to stay vigilant and question everything, especially when it comes to our hard-earned money.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of smugness) Folks, we've got a doozy for you tonight! The "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" - sounds like music to my ears, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income, effectively shielding seniors from paying taxes on their hard-earned benefits. Now, I know what you're thinking - "Isn't this just a handout to the wealthy?" Ah, but no! This is about freedom, folks! The freedom to keep your own money, earned through decades of hard work and dedication.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, adding a new subsection that terminates the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income. It also makes changes to the Social Security Trust Funds, ensuring they're held harmless from any potential losses due to this repeal.

But wait, there's more! The bill also tweaks the way wages and self-employment income are calculated above the contribution and benefit base after 2025. Essentially, it raises the cap on taxable wages to $250,000, which - let's be real - is a small price to pay for the freedom to keep your own money.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Seniors, of course! They're the ones who'll directly benefit from this bill. But we can't forget about the "elites" - you know, those wealthy folks who might just see their tax bills decrease. (smirk) Oh, and let's not forget about the Social Security Trust Funds, which will be held harmless.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know some of my liberal friends will say this bill is a "giveaway to the rich" or that it'll "bankrupt" social security. (chuckle) But we all know that's just fear-mongering! The truth is, this bill will put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans - seniors who deserve to keep their own earnings.

Of course, there are some potential implications to consider. Will this bill lead to increased government spending or decreased revenue? (shrug) Who knows? But one thing's for sure: it's a step in the right direction towards freedom and limited government intervention.

So, what do you think, folks? Are you ready to take back your hard-earned social security benefits from the clutches of big government? (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant piece of legislation from our esteemed leaders in Congress. The "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" - a title that screams "we're trying too hard to be catchy and relatable." Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income, making them tax-free. Oh, how noble. The sponsors claim it's about giving seniors a break, but I'll get to the real motivations later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. Repeals Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently taxes social security benefits. 2. Amends Section 3121(a) to remove the limitation on wages subject to Social Security tax (currently $147,000). 3. Introduces a new subsection (aa) to limit the amount of wages subject to tax, but only if the contribution and benefit base is less than $250,000. 4. Makes conforming amendments to the Railroad Retirement Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Seniors receiving social security benefits (the supposed beneficiaries). 2. The Social Security Trust Funds (which will allegedly be "held harmless" by appropriations from the Treasury). 3. High-income earners who will no longer have their wages subject to Social Security tax above $250,000. 4. Lobbyists and special interest groups who likely had a hand in crafting this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Revenue loss:** The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repealing the taxation of social security benefits will cost around $150 billion over 10 years. Someone's gotta make up for that lost revenue... probably through increased taxes on someone else. 2. **Increased income inequality:** By removing the tax on high-income earners' wages above $250,000, this bill further widens the wealth gap. Because what we really need is more money in the pockets of the already wealthy. 3. **Social Security Trust Fund implications:** The "held harmless" provision might sound reassuring, but it's just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. This bill doesn't address the underlying issues with Social Security funding; it merely kicks the can down the road.

Now, let's get to the real motivations behind this bill:

* **Election-year pandering:** The sponsors want to appear sympathetic to seniors and working-class Americans while actually serving their wealthy donors. * **Special interest group appeasement:** Lobbyists for high-income earners and corporations likely pushed for these changes to reduce their tax burden.

In conclusion, the "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. Beneath its feel-good title lies a bill that benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Just another day in the sausage factory that is Congress.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: HR 2909 - "You Earned It, You Keep It Act"**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2909 is to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income for tax purposes. The bill aims to ensure that individuals who have paid into the social security system do not have their benefits taxed.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Repeal of Social Security Benefit Taxation**: Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently taxes up to 85% of social security benefits, would be repealed. 2. **Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless**: The bill appropriates funds to ensure that the Social Security Trust Funds are not negatively impacted by the repeal of taxation on social security benefits. 3. **Changes to Contribution and Benefit Base**: The bill increases the contribution and benefit base for social security taxes from $147,000 (2025) to $250,000.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Social Security Beneficiaries**: Individuals receiving social security benefits would no longer have their benefits taxed. 2. **Taxpayers**: Taxpayers who contribute to the social security system through payroll taxes may see an increase in their tax liability due to the increased contribution and benefit base. 3. **Social Security Trust Funds**: The bill aims to ensure that the Social Security Trust Funds are not negatively impacted by the repeal of taxation on social security benefits.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Benefits for Recipients**: Repealing the tax on social security benefits would result in increased take-home pay for beneficiaries. 2. **Revenue Loss for Government**: The repeal of taxation on social security benefits could lead to a loss of revenue for the government, potentially impacting other programs or services. 3. **Impact on Social Security Trust Funds**: While the bill aims to hold harmless the Social Security Trust Funds, there may be long-term implications for the solvency of these funds due to changes in contribution and benefit base.

Overall, HR 2909 aims to provide relief to social security beneficiaries by repealing the tax on their benefits. However, it also raises questions about the potential impact on government revenue and the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" (HR 2909) is all about repealing the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income. The main objective is to ensure that folks who've worked hard and earned their social security benefits don't have to pay taxes on 'em.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some significant changes to existing law:

1. **Repeal of Social Security Benefit Taxation**: Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended to exclude social security benefits from gross income. 2. **Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless**: The bill ensures that the Social Security Trust Funds won't be affected by this change, and any reduction in transfers will be made up for with appropriations. 3. **Wage Limitation Changes**: The contribution and benefit base (the amount of wages subject to social security taxes) is increased to $250,000. This means that employers and employees won't have to pay social security taxes on wages above this threshold.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. **Social Security Beneficiaries**: Folks receiving social security benefits will no longer have to pay taxes on those benefits. 2. **Employers**: Employers won't have to pay social security taxes on wages above the new $250,000 threshold. 3. **Government Agencies**: The Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service will need to adjust their policies and procedures to implement these changes.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is significant:

1. **Increased Disposable Income**: Social security beneficiaries will have more money in their pockets, which could lead to increased spending and economic growth. 2. **Reduced Tax Burden**: Employers and employees won't have to pay social security taxes on wages above the new threshold, reducing their tax burden. 3. **Long-term Solvency of Social Security Trust Funds**: The bill's provisions aim to ensure that the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent in the long term.

However, it's worth noting that this bill could also lead to:

1. **Reduced Revenue for Social Security**: The repeal of social security benefit taxation and the increased wage limitation threshold could reduce revenue for the Social Security Trust Funds. 2. **Increased Inequality**: Some critics argue that this bill could exacerbate income inequality, as higher-income individuals may benefit more from these changes.

Anyway, dude, that's a wrap on HR 2909! It's a complex bill with some far-reaching implications.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 2909: "You Earned It, You Keep It Act" - A Bill with Hidden Motivations**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2909 is to repeal the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income, effectively exempting these benefits from federal taxation. The bill's sponsors claim that this will provide relief to seniors and individuals with disabilities who rely on social security as a significant source of income.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by adding a new subsection, which terminates the inclusion of social security benefits in gross income for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. Additionally, it makes changes to the Social Security Act and the Railroad Retirement Act to ensure that the trust funds are held harmless from any revenue loss resulting from this change.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill appear to be seniors and individuals with disabilities who receive social security benefits. However, a closer examination reveals that this bill may also benefit high-income earners, as it removes the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes (Section 3121(a)(1)). This provision is likely to disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, which could lead to increased income inequality.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's sponsors claim that this will provide relief to vulnerable populations, a more nuanced analysis suggests that it may have unintended consequences. By removing the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes, high-income earners may see significant tax savings, potentially leading to reduced revenue for the Social Security trust funds. This could exacerbate existing funding challenges and threaten the long-term solvency of the program.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** A review of campaign finance data reveals that several sponsors and cosponsors of this bill have received significant donations from organizations with a vested interest in reducing taxes on high-income earners, such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These groups have long advocated for policies that benefit their corporate members, often at the expense of working-class Americans.

**Committee Capture:** The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, which is notorious for its close ties to special interest groups. The committee's chairman, Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), has received significant donations from organizations that stand to benefit from this legislation, including NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In conclusion, while HR 2909 may appear to be a straightforward bill aimed at providing relief to seniors and individuals with disabilities, a closer examination reveals hidden motivations and potential consequences that could ultimately harm the very populations it claims to help.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$152,000

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$20,000

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$5,800

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

1 transaction

$3,300

THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

HAWKINS, BLANCHE

3 transactions

$19,800

IMRAN, MIR

2 transactions

$13,200

FISCHER, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

MAKOWER, JOSH

1 transaction

$6,600

BOWEN, DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

MACLENNAN, DAVID W.

1 transaction

$6,600

VOGELSTEIN, JOHN LUDWIG

1 transaction

$6,600

BRIGHT, JASON

1 transaction

$6,600

DETOLEDO, PHILIP

1 transaction

$6,600

HARING-SMITH, WHITNEY

1 transaction

$6,600

KANNINEN, REBECCA

1 transaction

$6,600

KOHN, VICTOR

1 transaction

$6,600

MATUSEVICH, ALEX

1 transaction

$6,600

NIEMCZYK, CAROLINE

1 transaction

$6,600

SELDIN, ABIGAIL

1 transaction

$6,600

SIMONS, ELIZABETH DIANE

1 transaction

$6,600

TORRES, TOMAS M

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 56 nodes and 27 connections (70 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $152,000

Top Donors - Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 3 harmed.

+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a)(1)(A) repeals the limitation on wages subject to Social Security tax, effectively raising the taxable wage base to $250,000 and eliminating the cap on wages above that amount, which increases payroll tax revenue and benefits Social Security, a program strongly supported by labor unions.
−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.75
Section 3 increases payroll taxes on high-wage earners (those earning over $250,000) by eliminating the wage base cap and applying OASDI tax to all wages, which increases labor costs for high-paying industries like big tech platforms that employ many high-salary workers.
−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.70
Section 3 increases payroll tax liability on wages over $250,000 by removing the taxable maximum and applying the OASDI tax to all remuneration, increasing costs for banks that pay high salaries to executives and professionals.
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.70
Private equity and hedge fund firms pay high compensation to partners and employees; Section 3's elimination of the wage base cap increases payroll tax burden on such earnings, raising labor costs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Labor Unions$900
from 3 contributions
- LEHTO, BRADLEY$900

Industries this bill HARMS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$24,850
from 9 contributions
- BEKENSTEIN, JOSHUA$6,600
- KLARMAN, SETH ANDREW$6,600
- LAVINE, JONTHAN$6,600
- LIPPE, DAVID$3,300
- SIEGEL, DAVID$1,500
Big Tech Platforms$3,340
from 5 contributions
- WALKER, KENT$3,300
- ROBINS, MARC$40
Commercial Banks$2,100
from 5 contributions
- LIEBERMAN, RON$1,100
- HAMMOND, PAUL$250
- KOCH, KYLE$250
- MATTHEWS, LACIE LYNN$250
- NIBLETT, TED$250

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2909 aligns with Project 2025's broader tax reform goals by seeking to eliminate taxation on Social Security benefits, reflecting a conservative principle of reducing tax burdens on individuals, particularly retirees. However, the bill does not directly reference or implement specific Treasury Department proposals from Project 2025, such as consumption tax shifts or corporate tax reforms, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."

Key themes:tax reliefSocial Security reformreducing individual tax burden

— 712 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. For a detailed discussion, see David R. Burton, “Tax Reform: Eliminating the Double Taxation of Corporate Income,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3216, May 18, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-05/BG3216.pdf. 18. One hundred dollars in corporate income less an 18 percent tax leaves $82. A 15 percent capital gains tax or qualified dividends tax is $12.30, which leaves $69.70, for an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. This, of course, abstracts away from certain timing issues. 19. Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117–169. 20. Ibid. 21. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115–97, § 11061, amending Internal Revenue Code § 2010(c). The amounts before inflation adjustments are $5 million and $10 million, respectively. See also Internal Revenue Service, “What’s New: Estate and Gift Tax, Basic Exclusion Amount for Year of Death,” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/whats-new-estate-and-gift-tax (accessed March 22, 2023). 22. The effective tax rate on foreign-derived intangible income should remain equal to the tax rate on global intangible low-taxed income. 23. For miscellaneous itemized deductions, see Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 67). Business deductions that were suspended by the 2017 tax bill (other than those related to depreciation) should also be extended. This includes the local lodging expense deduction and entertainment expense deductions. The 2017 tax bill’s modifications to the deduction for personal casualty and theft losses should be made permanent. The Pease limitation on itemized deductions should be permanently eliminated. 24. Bonus depreciation provisions applied to specific industries should be maintained. 25. Employer-provided childcare expenses should also count toward the limitation on benefit deductions. 26. HSAs are flexible and portable, and they help contain costs by giving health care consumers skin in the game. 27. For additional revenue to fund pro-growth tax cuts, lawmakers could gradually phase down the limitation on benefit deductions. 28. Early versions of the 2017 tax bill envisioned reforming the corporate income tax into a destination-based cash flow tax, a form of consumption tax. A tax system that taxes labor and capital-factor incomes equally— and only once—results in higher output and higher incomes. Usually, in the modern public finance literature, this is called a consumption tax. On the economic superiority of consumptions taxes, see N. Gregory Mankiw et al., “Optimal Taxation in Theory and Practice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 4 (2009), pp. 147–174, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.4.147 (accessed March 19, 2023); Alan J. Auerbach, “The Choice Between Income and Consumption Taxes: A Primer,” NBER Working Paper No. 12307, June 2006, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12307/w12307.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023); and Charles E. Walker and Mark A. Bloom eld, eds., The Consumption Tax: A Better Alternative? (Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row, Ballinger, 1987). 29. Hoover Institution, “Simplifying the Tax System: The History of the Flat Tax,” March 1, 2019, https://www. hoover.org/research/simplifying-tax-system-history-flat-tax (accessed March 20, 2023). 30. David R. Burton, “Four Conservative Tax Plans with Equivalent Economic Results,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2978, December 7, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/four-conservative-tax- plans-equivalent-economic-results. Consumption tax plans generally include carveouts that exempt very low-income Americans from federal tax liability. 31. Daniel J. Mitchell and Chris Edwards, Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2008); Preston Brashers, “Like Constitutional Checks and Balances, Tax Competition Is a Bulwark Against Growth of Government,” March 17, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/ taxes/commentary/constitutional-checks-and-balances-tax-competition-bulwark-against-growth (accessed March 19, 2023). 32. James M. Robers et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): What America Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3593, March 16, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2021-03/BG3593.pdf; Preston Brashers. “The OECD Crusade To Raise Taxes,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, February 4, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-oecd-crusade- raise-taxes; David Burton, “How the OECD is Promoting More Identity Theft, Crime, Industrial Espionage, and Suppression of Political Dissidents,” July 15, 2016, Heritage Foundation Commentary, https://www.heritage. org/taxes/commentary/how-the-oecd-promoting-more-identity-theft-crime-industrial-espionage-and; — 713 — Department of the Treasury David R. Burton “Towards a Global Tax Cartel?” Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 2002–2003), Center for Independent Studies (Australia), https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/policy- magazine/2002-summer/2002-18-4-david-r-burton.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 33. Roberts et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).” 34. See Inflation Reduction Act, § 10301. See also Preston Brashers, “IRS and Allies Downplay 87,000-Person Hiring Binge,” The Daily Signal, August 12, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/12/the-irs-and-its- allies-downplay-87000-person-hiring-binge/ (accessed March 19, 2023). 35. U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, May 2021, pp. 88–89, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf (accessed March 19. 2023). 36. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 37. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Policy and Supporting Positions, December 2020 (the “plumb book”), p. 127 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/ pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 38. Internal Revenue Service, “Organization and Top Officials,” https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/marketing/ internet/irs-organization-chart.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). See also Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 7803(a)–(b)). 39. For a summary of various GAO reports on various IRS IT problems, see Vijay A. D’Souza, “Information Technology: IRS Needs to Address Operational Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Management,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October 7, 2020, GAO–21–178T, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-178t. pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Charles O. Rossotti was named IRS Commissioner by President Bill Clinton primarily so that Rossotti could address widely acknowledged IT issues. He made some improvements between 1997 and 2002, but despite large investments, he did not really resolve the IT problems at the IRS. Since that time, the problems have worsened. 40. D’Souza, “Information Technology,” figure 1, p. 5. 41. Internal Revenue Service, IRS Integrated Modernization Business Plan, April 2019, https://www.irs.gov/pub/ irs-pdf/p5336.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 42. See, for example, the Omnibus Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, Public Law 100–647, Subtitle J of Title VI of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988; Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168; IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105–206, Title III; Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 114–113, Title IV, Subtitle A (adding Internal Revenue Code § 7803(a)(3) and other changes); and Taxpayer First Act, Public Law 116–25, Title I. 43. For a list of 68 proposed reforms, see National Taxpayer Advocate, 2022 Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and Improve Tax Administration, December 31, 2021, https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ARC21_PurpleBook.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Most, though not all, of these proposals have merit. Regarding penalty reform, see Jeremiah Coder, “Achieving Meaningful Civil Tax Penalty Reform and Making It Stick,” Akron Tax Journal, Vol. 27 (2012), https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=akrontaxjournal (accessed March 19, 2023). 44. Internal Revenue Service, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification & Annual Performance Report and Plan, Rev. 3–2022, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/Internal-Revenue-Service-FY-2023-CJ.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 45. Internal Revenue Service, 2021 IRS Data Book: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, table 11, p. 26, https:// www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 46. Ibid., 2021 IRS Data Book, table 2, p. 4. 47. Scott A. Hodge, “The Compliance Costs of IRS Regulations, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 512, June 2016 https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_FF512.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 48. Organization for Economic Cooperation, The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-multilateral- convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters_9789264115606-en#page1 (accessed March 20, 2023).

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing individual tax burdens and simplifying the tax code, but does not address the broader consumption tax, supermajority, IRS reform, or tax competition themes emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:tax burden reductiontax simplificationSocial Security taxation

— 698 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Fundamental Tax Reform. Achieving fundamental tax reform offers the prospect of a dramatic improvement in American living standards and an equally dramatic reduction in tax compliance costs. Lobbyists, lawyers, benefit consul- tants, accountants, and tax preparers would see their incomes decline, however. The federal income tax system heavily taxes capital and corporate income and discourages work, savings, and investment. The public finance literature is clear that a consumption tax would minimize government’s distortion of private economic decisions and thus be the least eco- nomically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues.28 There are several forms that a consumption tax could take, including a national sales tax, a business transfer tax, a Hall–Rabushka flat tax,29 or a cash flow tax.30 Supermajority to Raise Taxes. Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates to create a wall of protection for the new rate structure. Many states have implemented such a supermajority vote requirement. Tax Competition. Tax competition between states and countries is a positive force for liberty and limited government.31 The Biden Administration, under the direction of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has pushed for a global minimum corporate tax that would increase taxation and the size of government in the U.S. and around the world. This attempt to “harmonize” global tax rates is an attempt to create a global tax cartel to quash tax competition and to increase the tax burden globally. The U.S. should not outsource its tax policy to international organizations. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Organi- zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with the European Union, has long tried to end financial privacy and impose regulations on countries with low (or no) income taxes. In fact, on tax, environmental, corpo- rate governance and employment issues, the OECD has become little more than a taxpayer-funded left-wing think tank and lobbying organization.32 The United States provides about one-fifth of OECD’s funding.33 The U.S. should end its finan- cial support and withdraw from the OECD. TAX ADMINISTRATION The Internal Revenue Service is a poorly managed, utterly unresponsive and increasingly politicized agency, and has been for at least two decades. It is time for meaningful reform to improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration, better protect taxpayer rights, and achieve greater transparency and accountability. A substantial number of the problems attributed to the IRS are actually a function of congressional action that has made the Internal Revenue Code ridiculously complex, imposed tremendous administrative burdens on both the public and the IRS, and given massive non-tax missions to the IRS. But the culture, administrative practices, and management at the IRS need to change. — 699 — Department of the Treasury Doubling the IRS? The Inflation Reduction Act contains a radical $80 billion expansion of the IRS—enough to double the size of its workforce.34 Unless Congress reverses this policy, the IRS will become much more intrusive and impose still greater costs on the American people. The Biden Administration has also sought to make the tax system’s adminis- trative burden much worse in other ways. For example, it has proposed creating a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime that would apply to all business and personal accounts with more than $600. Banks would be required to collect the taxpayer identification numbers of and file a revised Form 1099-K for all affected payees, as well as provide additional information.35 This massive increase in the scope and breadth of information reporting should be unequivo- cally opposed. Management. The IRS has approximately 81,000 employees.36 Of those, only two are presidential appointments—the Commissioner and the Chief Counsel.37 As a practical matter, it is impossible for these two officials to overcome bureau- cratic inertia and to implement policy changes that the IRS bureaucracy wants to impede. That is why, notwithstanding decades of sound and fury, almost nothing has changed at the IRS. For the IRS to change and become more accountable, more transparent, and better managed, there is a need to increase the number of Presidential appoint- ments subject to Senate confirmation, and not subject to Senate confirmation, at the IRS. At the very least, Congress should ensure that the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Commissioner of the Wage and Investment Division, the Commissioner of the Large Business and International Division, the Commissioner of the Small Business Self-Employed Division, and the Com- missioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division are presidential appointees.38 Information Technology. Despite the investment of billions of dollars for at least two decades, IRS information technology (IT) systems remain deficient.39 The IRS inadequately protects taxpayer information, its IT systems do not ade- quately support operations or taxpayer services, and its matching and detection algorithms are antiquated. These problems are not primarily about resources. The IRS has spent approxi- mately $27 billion on IT during the past decade, with $7 billion of that designated as “development, modernization and enhancement.“40 The problem is one of man- agement. The bureaucracy is not up to the task, and neither Congress nor a long line of IRS commissioners has forced changes. A Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support with strong IT management skills should be appointed by the IRS Commissioner or the President (once the position is made a presidential appointment). The various subordinates to the

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2909 seeks to repeal taxation on Social Security benefits and adjust the contribution base, which aligns broadly with Project 2025's goal of reducing taxes, but the bill does not address the specific tax reforms (e.g., consumption tax, business loss limitations, OECD withdrawal) emphasized in the Treasury section."

Key themes:tax reductionrevenue impacttax base adjustmentSocial Security trust fund

— 697 — Department of the Treasury time for any purpose. This would allow the vast majority of American families to save and invest without facing a punitive double layer of taxation. Entrepreneurship. To encourage entrepreneurship, the business loss limita- tion should be increased to at least $500,000. Businesses should also be allowed to fully carry forward net operating losses. Extra layers of taxes on investment and capital should also be eliminated or reduced. The net investment income surtax and the base erosion anti-abuse tax should be eliminated. The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent, and the 2017 tax bill’s temporary increase in the exemption amount from $5.5 million to $12.9 million (adjusted for inflation) should be made permanent.21 The tax on global intangible low-taxed income should be reduced to no higher than 12.5 percent, with the 20 percent haircut on related foreign tax credits reduced or eliminated.22 All non-business tax deductions and exemptions that were temporarily sus- pended by the 2017 tax bill should be permanently repealed, including the bicycle commuting expense exclusion, non-military moving expense deductions, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions.23 The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed. Deductions related to educational expenses should be repealed. Special business tax pref- erences, such as a special deduction for energy-efficient commercial building properties, should be eliminated.24 Wages vs. Benefits. The current tax code has a strong bias that incentivizes businesses to offer employees more generous benefits and lower wages. This limits the freedom of workers and their families to spend their compensation as they see fit—and it can trap workers in their current jobs due to the jobs’ benefit pack- ages. Wage income is taxed under the individual income tax and under the payroll tax. However, most forms of non-wage benefits are wholly exempt from both of these taxes. To reduce this tax bias against wages (as opposed to employee benefits), the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits that employers can claim as deductions. Employee benefit expenses other than tax-deferred retirement account contributions should count toward the limita- tion, whether offered to specific employees or whether the costs relate to a shared benefit like building gym facilities for employees.25 Tax-deferred retirement con- tributions by employers should not count toward this limitation insofar as they are fully taxable upon distribution. Only a percentage of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) contributions (which are not taxed upon withdrawal) should count toward the limitation.26 The limitation on benefit deductions should not be indexed to increase with inflation.27 Employers should also be denied deductions for health insurance and other benefits provided to employee dependents if the dependents are aged 23 or older. — 698 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Fundamental Tax Reform. Achieving fundamental tax reform offers the prospect of a dramatic improvement in American living standards and an equally dramatic reduction in tax compliance costs. Lobbyists, lawyers, benefit consul- tants, accountants, and tax preparers would see their incomes decline, however. The federal income tax system heavily taxes capital and corporate income and discourages work, savings, and investment. The public finance literature is clear that a consumption tax would minimize government’s distortion of private economic decisions and thus be the least eco- nomically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues.28 There are several forms that a consumption tax could take, including a national sales tax, a business transfer tax, a Hall–Rabushka flat tax,29 or a cash flow tax.30 Supermajority to Raise Taxes. Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates to create a wall of protection for the new rate structure. Many states have implemented such a supermajority vote requirement. Tax Competition. Tax competition between states and countries is a positive force for liberty and limited government.31 The Biden Administration, under the direction of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has pushed for a global minimum corporate tax that would increase taxation and the size of government in the U.S. and around the world. This attempt to “harmonize” global tax rates is an attempt to create a global tax cartel to quash tax competition and to increase the tax burden globally. The U.S. should not outsource its tax policy to international organizations. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Organi- zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with the European Union, has long tried to end financial privacy and impose regulations on countries with low (or no) income taxes. In fact, on tax, environmental, corpo- rate governance and employment issues, the OECD has become little more than a taxpayer-funded left-wing think tank and lobbying organization.32 The United States provides about one-fifth of OECD’s funding.33 The U.S. should end its finan- cial support and withdraw from the OECD. TAX ADMINISTRATION The Internal Revenue Service is a poorly managed, utterly unresponsive and increasingly politicized agency, and has been for at least two decades. It is time for meaningful reform to improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration, better protect taxpayer rights, and achieve greater transparency and accountability. A substantial number of the problems attributed to the IRS are actually a function of congressional action that has made the Internal Revenue Code ridiculously complex, imposed tremendous administrative burdens on both the public and the IRS, and given massive non-tax missions to the IRS. But the culture, administrative practices, and management at the IRS need to change.

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2909 focuses on eliminating taxation of Social Security benefits and adjusting payroll tax bases, while the Project 2025 Treasury section emphasizes reducing investment taxes, eliminating certain deductions, reforming business loss treatment, and capping untaxed employee benefits. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address entrepreneurship, investment taxation, or wage-benefit equity as outlined in the policy."

Key themes:tax reformSocial Securityrevenue policy

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on repealing the taxation of Social Security benefits, an individual tax relief measure, while the Project 2025 Treasury section primarily addresses corporate tax reform, consumption taxes, and related business tax provisions. Both share a general theme of reducing taxes, but the specific policy areas do not directly overlap."

Key themes:tax reductiontax reformeliminating taxation

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Back to All Bills