Brace for Big Tax Hikes in 2026 Unless Congress Acts
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expires at the end of 2025, with a high price tag for most Americans.

Most Americans face tax hikes starting in 2026, and the increased federal tax bite will come about without Congress lifting a finger. That's because 2017's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) expires at the end of 2025, and despite some politicians' contrary claims, a majority of Americans benefited from that law. The end of tax cuts for so many people necessarily results in corresponding increases to come.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Tax Cuts for Most, but With a Time Limit
"Unless Congress acts, the vast majority of Americans will see higher, more complicated taxes beginning in 2026 as major provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 expire," warns the Tax Foundation. "The TCJA reduced average tax burdens for taxpayers across the income spectrum and temporarily simplified the tax filing process through structural reforms. It also boosted capital investment by reforming the corporate tax system and significantly improved the international tax system."
The widespread benefits of the TCJA shouldn't be a matter for debate. But there's confusion because Team Biden and fans of high taxes fibbed about the law leading up to the 2020 presidential election.
"Biden's false claim that no one but the rich got Trump's tax cuts," headlined a 2019 Washington Post Glenn Kessler piece about the debate over the law. "Most Americans received a tax cut," he added.
"About 65 percent of households paid less in individual income taxes in 2018 as a result of the TCJA," wrote the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman. "About 6 percent paid more. The rest paid about the same."
Adjusting for all federal taxes under pre-TCJA law, the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards commented, "lower‐ and middle‐income groups received the largest relative individual income tax cuts."
So, there's widespread agreement that a law which cut taxes for most Americans is poised to expire, resulting in higher taxes. But, just as the benefits of the tax cuts varied across the population, so will the size of the bite taken by tax increases starting in 2026.
Tax Hikes for All
"The largest average tax hikes would be experienced by taxpayers who reside in California's congressional districts," note the Tax Foundation's Garrett Watson and Erica York. "For example, the congressional district covering the San Francisco area would see an average tax hike of $16,127 per taxpayer, the highest in the U.S. By contrast, northern New York City would see an average tax increase of $807 per taxpayer under TCJA expiration."
That link takes you to a tool that lets you look up the estimated impact of TCJA expiration on taxpayers in states and congressional districts across the country.
Separately, the Tax Foundation published a tax calculator that lets you estimate the impact of TCJA expiration on you and your family, given specifics such as marital status, income, number of children, and choice of standard or itemized deductions. The calculator accounts for "most aspects of the federal individual income tax code except provisions related to business and self-employed income."
That said, extending the TCJA's tax cuts has high costs of its own since that would reduce the amount of money collected by the federal government to spend on its projects.
Tax Cuts and Tradeoffs
"Federal tax revenues would fall by more than $4 trillion on a conventional basis and by nearly $3.5 trillion on a dynamic basis over the coming decade; and without spending cuts, debt and deficits would increase," concedes a May Tax Foundation report on options regarding the law.
"By the year 2050, permanent extension of TCJA laws would reduce federal revenues from 18.4 percent to 17.1 percent of annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP)," Jagadeesh Gokhale and Mariko Paulson of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model specify. "Federal debt held by the public would rise from 226.0 percent of GDP to 261.1 percent by 2050."
But that decrease in revenue and corresponding rise in debt and deficits may matter only if it hampers a serious plan to control the federal government's ongoing spending spree. Separately, the Penn Wharton Budget Model predicts that "a maximum debt-GDP ratio of 200 percent can be sustained even if investors believe (maybe myopically) that a closure rule will then prevent that ratio from increasing into the future." They say the real ceiling on federal debt is more like 175 percent of GDP before the financial markets entirely lose faith in the U.S. economy. Debt as a percentage of GDP above that point is disastrous, whether at 226 percent or 261 percent.
It makes sense, then, for Americans to submit to significant tax hikes only if those increases go to balancing the federal budget, eliminating deficits, and controlling debt. Otherwise, we're going to pay more for what is essentially the same very bad outcome.
A Need for Serious Reform
Benefits of extending the TCJA, on the other hand, operate independent of faith in a sudden surge in responsibility among the political class. Extending the law's provisions "would boost long-run GDP by 1.1 percent and employment by 913,000 full-time equivalent jobs," according to the Tax Foundation.
For extending the TCJA, the Tax Foundation considers two options, both including modifications that seek to reduce the hit to federal revenues while maximizing gains for individuals. Option 2, for example, "broadens the individual income tax base by ending the income tax exclusion for employer-provided fringe benefits, most notably health insurance."
That's a matter of tweaking the current system around the edges to maintain relief for individuals and a faster-growing economy. Tax Foundation experts also propose possible fundamental changes, including entirely dumping the income tax system in favor of a consumption tax. That has the potential to significantly boost personal income as well as GDP and reduce the national debt. Of course, the gains really apply only if the government also reduces spending.
But such fundamental reform is a lot to ask of a political class that spent us into a corner and now wants tax hikes so there's even more of our money to spend. Letting the TCJA expire requires placing enormous faith in people who got us into a fiscal mess to begin with.
Fundamental reforms to the federal government's finances are absolutely necessary. Until that happens, we should resist stealth tax hikes so we can keep our hard-earned money for ourselves.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe this time don't vote so reluctantly, but vote for the better policies?
Remember, remember the fifth of November!
Please Explain these references to “remember remember the fifth of November”
A Google turns up a British holiday called Guy Fawkes Day and a plot to kill the King called the gunpowder plot.
Is that what is being referenced here?
Could you explain it to me like I am five years old how that is pertinent
One does not expect rational thought from mindless, blank-name anarco-sockpuppets.
You’re an expert on irrational thought, you senile old hippie.
Hank accusing anyone of not being rational is the height of unintentional comedy.
The smear of anarcho-capitalist at the end is the cherry on top.
Funny how my Google turns up election day in the USA - - - - - -
Nov 5 1605 is indeed a reference to Guy Fawkes Day, a failed attempt to overthrow an intolerant and oppressive (in that case, on religious grounds) government.
The modern connection is that Nov 5 2024 is Election Day when US citizens will have a chance to throw off their own intolerant and oppressive government (though what basis there is for calling it oppressive depends on your starting political party).
And replace it with an even more intolerant guy who had made campaign promise after campaign promise to be more oppressive and more corrupt.
"more corrupt"
If he couldn't even partially 'Drain the Swamp' last time, how the hell is he supposed to pull off this feat?
It would be basically impossible to be MORE corrupt than the current empty suit in the WH.
Strength through uniti, unity through faith, America prevails! Yes, this year it is time to close my nose and vote GOP.
"extending the TCJA's tax cuts has high costs of its own since that would reduce the amount of money collected by the federal government to spend on its projects."
Tax cuts don't 'cost' anything.
Cut down on the 'projects'. Cut spending in general.
Problem is no one wants to cut spending either.
You are incorrect. Minadin wants to. So do I .
I do also. We only have about 3.4M more to convince.
Only 3.4 million? Shouldn’t be hard.
Perhaps the ranks of your fellow democrats should be significantly thinned. To round the numbers down.
Then you should hate the democrats.
They are trying to shore up the economy with taxpayer funded positions. They are planning on spending more, not less.
Democrats in Congress thought they were going to spend, spend, spend when Biden took office. But Manchin put a wrench in their plans.
“Then you should hate the democrats.”
^This^
$37,000/yr each working citizens isn’t enough to maintain the [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire?
F’En Nazi’s.
P.S. No I don't think your 'armed-theft' robber-plans are ?charity?.
That's an average. Most working citizens don't pay that. Only the special ones that don't work at minimum wage jobs as a career choice get to pay it
'That's because 2017's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) expires at the end of 2025, and despite some politicians' contrary claims, a majority of Americans benefited from that law.'
But Orange Man bad, and more taxes good. Especially since taking more taxes from more people, especially them evil rich people, means the ruling class has more money to dole out to favored peasants.
The reason it is so easy to say that the 2017 TCJA benefitted the wealthiest is that the tax cut for the average person was so small as to be almost unnoticeable. It is true that the 65% paid less but the amount was spread so thin as to be almost unnoticeable. The cut did not produce jobs either as most of the money went for stock buy backs that built up the wealth of the richest Americans. There was no reason for the 2017 TCJA other than to please Republican donors. It was Trump's friends at Mar a Lago he told
"You all just got a lot richer,”, not the average American. I say let them expire.
I’m sure the people in San Francisco feel like they can give up $16k.
As my financial advisor told me the change is a reversion back to older tax rates which are about a 2% change. So, it that cost you $16K you are making good money already. I am estimating a yearly income of about $800K. The other thing to consider is to better manage your money to avoid going into the regions of higher rates.
Oh that’s right, we are supposed to punish the successful. No wonder you don’t care how high tax rates are, you have nothing at stake.
Then either your financial advisor is a hack or your personal situation is highly unusual. The average taxpayer received a tax benefit from the TCJA of approximately one paycheck.
And, oh by the way, "manage your money to avoid going into the regions of higher rates" is just stupid. We went down that road in the 1970s. It was phenomenally destructive to the economy and triggered all sorts of counter-productive 'strategies', most of which the IRS eventually made illegal.
Tax rates were much higher in the 1950s and they weren't a problem.
Growth in the 1950's was minimal too.
But that's what the big corporations wanted to keep the small guy little and not be able to grow and compete with the big boys.
But if you like a tax rate of about 90% in the top earners, then you would absolutely love the 1950's as well as a stagnant economy.
The ‘50’s were great! As long as you were a straight white man. Everyone else, not so much.
“The other thing to consider is to be lazy and produce nothing for you fellowman to avoid going into the regions of higher rates.”
Fixed that for you and if you think that’s not already a HUGE factor in this [Na]tional So[zi]alist invaded nation already then you’re dreaming. 'Guns' don't make sh*t by any other means than THEFT (zero-sum game) or human slavery.
In absolute or relative terms? Because as the article points out (and the linked article has the details), "Adjusting for all federal taxes under pre-TCJA law, the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards commented, 'lower‐ and middle‐income groups received the largest relative individual income tax cuts.'"
I could show you any number of articles on the failures of the 2017 TCJA. The Forbes article is an example.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2019/05/30/the-2017-tax-cuts-didnt-work-the-data-prove-it/?sh=1030f9de58c1
The largest amount of the cut went to middle and lower classes, but it was spread so thin on people in those groups as to be almost unnoticed.
Well, when you’re already not paying any income taxes, cutting income taxes doesn’t mean much to you. And since some 45% or so already don't pay any income taxes...
Once again you jumped on the small amount of the tax savings for the least wealthy while ignoring the statement that the least wealthy got the biggest share of the tax cuts relative to their incomes. Maybe you hoped that no one would notice your omission or maybe you are just mediocre at reading comprehension and understanding moderately difficult concepts ...
the big reason is the common modern practice of not using words according to their definitions and warping them to fit emotions. if you give a 10% tax break to someone making $50k and $500k, it is fair and it is proportional..... and it is a bigger quantity for the rich guy. yeah, if you only pay a few thousand in taxes, a couple hundred does not seem like much... but that does not make it disproportional or unfair.
beyond that, several provisions did still cut the percentage by more for low and middle class, but 10% of a $6k bill is still less than 5% of a $100k bill.
Ah the democrat line without data. Even though the author showed numerous references, you know better.
Guess I was a donor since my taxes went down 1 to 2 thousand.
I'm also not a rich guy.
Most people live paycheck to paycheck. An extra 50 dollars a check makes a big difference to them. Maybe not you and the dem elites but to originally people.
Here is some data. That $50/paycheck amounts to $13K/year. We are talking about a 2% increase in the tax rates and that suggests that the people you are talking about are making an income in the multiple six figures, about $650K. If a couple is making a combined income in the multiple six figures and living paycheck to paycheck, they have a bigger problem than taxes going up.
Correct. The TCJA was a payoff to Trump's cronies. He just last week promised payoffs to the oil industry and will probably make more such promises. Let them expire. Americans will be better off with the lower budget deficits.
Had Al Gore been elected we might be paying off the national debt now.
Had Al Gore been elected, we would be submitting to the whims of the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas by now.
I dare you to go into a bar filled with working people after their shift and tell them they should all pay higher taxes. You might also tell them how inflation does not matter and has already been whipped.
I dare you to go into a cocktail lounge filled with tech sector working people after their shift and tell them they should all pay higher taxes.
FIFY - makes more sense now
You mean in a progressive tax system the people that pay more taxes see a bigger percentage when they get cut?
We have soaring deficits. People want lower taxes, fine, but only after the deficit has been eliminated. Deficits is forcing the future tax payers to pay for our lower taxes now. That is wrong.
Cut spending .
Yes. I meant that we need to cut spending to eliminate the deficit.
Something we actually agree on.
It blows my mind that there are those out there that think "Ya, lets just borrow trillions (or any amount) of dollars with no end in sight."
I am a fan of higher taxes, but we can't tax ourselves out of this mess, we need to cut spending by a lot.
Two problems with being "a fan of higher taxes" - you can't increase taxes, you can only increase tax rates. The actual tax revenues generated in every year over the last eighty years has not changed as a percent of GDP in any tax year regardless of marginal tax rates ranging all the way from thirty percent to ninety percent. And no matter how much you actually raise tax revenues, spending has exceeded revenues in every one of those years.
That’s hard to do when you position yourself where government spending is necessary for economic growth.
Okay most of the government spending is for healthcare, social security, and national defense. You could probably cut defense a bit because most of it is corporate welfare for defense contractors, but cutting Medicine and Medicaid will cause humongous disruption in healthcare with most small hospitals going out of business. Cutting social security is a perennial non starter. And the defense cuts won't be nearly enough to make a big difference.
...so there is no fix. Got it. Medicare was such a great idea, was it not? Lived up to all expectations.
Find: unless Congress acts.
Replace: unless libertarian spoiler votes reshuffle a lot of Congressional races. The data show that for that we need to reboot to a pre-Anschluss platform and return infiltrated girl-bullying MAGAts to sender. What data? Search "Neutralizing Libertarians" outside the Wordfence barbed wire enclosure...
MAGA deficit $700B-800B.
[D]-Trifecta deficit $1.4T-$2.8T.
It's amazing how you dismiss the 3-TIMES spender party and peg all your blame on the other party.
The inflation will continue until the economy improves.
Ron Paul has and continues to place the blame entirely where it belongs: The Federal Reserve. As long as the Fed continues to exist, it will allow the government to act irresponsibly and recklessly to do what ever it wishes as long as the Fed prints more fiat currency to support one failed foreign policy after another.
End the Fed and the taxation will be taken down along with it.
I don't like the Fed but I don't think they are are fault. Government needs to get it spending under control for inflation to go down. They keep pumping free money into the system or creating unneedy government jobs.
Just my opinion. I'm fine getting rid of the Fed, Dept of Ed, toss in Dept of Energy, and Dept of Transportation since Pete showed you don't need to be there
Yeah, blame the drug dealer for the drug addiction. ROFL!
The revenue we have today was sufficient to cover the spending of about 5 years ago…this pattern is broken a bit by COVID stimulus, but holds up pretty well over the last few decades.
We can’t possibly live with the spending we had just a few years ago? We need the fortitude to simply NOT SPEND MORE for 5 years or so. Actually cutting spending would be so much better though.
Table may not come out great, but track the annual outlay with the revenue from 5 years later. In most years, the revenue covers the spending level of 5 years prior or leaves a very small deficit (i.e., maybe 6 years is needed).
...........Receipts....Outlays...... 5-year lag Receipts
1990 1,031,958 1,252,993 1995 1,351,790
1991 1,054,988 1,324,226 1996 1,453,053
1992 1,091,208 1,381,529 1997 1,579,232
1993 1,154,334 1,409,386 1998 1,721,728
1994 1,258,566 1,461,752 1999 1,827,452
1995 1,351,790 1,515,742 2000 2,025,191
1996 1,453,053 1,560,484 2001 1,991,082
1997 1,579,232 1,601,116 2002 1,853,136
1998 1,721,728 1,652,458 2003 1,782,314
1999 1,827,452 1,701,842 2004 1,880,114
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 2005 2,153,611
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 2006 2,406,869
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 2007 2,567,985
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 2008 2,523,991
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 2009 2,104,989
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 2010 2,162,706
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 2011 2,303,466
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 2012 2,449,990
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 2013 2,775,106
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 2014 3,021,491
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079 2015 3,249,890
2011 2,303,466 3,603,065 2016 3,267,965
2012 2,449,990 3,526,563 2017 3,316,184
2013 2,775,106 3,454,881 2018 3,329,907
2014 3,021,491 3,506,284 2019 3,463,364
2015 3,249,890 3,691,850 2020 3,421,164
2016 3,267,965 3,852,615 2021 4,047,111
2017 3,316,184 3,981,634 2022 4,897,339
2018 3,329,907 4,108,981 2023 4,440,947
People running government couldn’t run a lemonade stand.
Not without government subsidies.
I’m not sure why you’re even trying to figure out how to make lawless ‘armed-theft’ work when all that really needs to be done is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all by OBEYING the US Constitution; the Supreme (peoples) law over their government.
The Constitution specifically give the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes.
Tarrifs, not income taxes.
16th amendment changed that though, to all our detriment, but it's right there.
Income taxes are inherently immoral.
Probably why they weren’t included in the list of ways the government could collect taxes and required a constitutional amendment.
For Constitutional Authority ONLY.
Which amounts to 13% of it's current spending?
That's right folks. Federal spending splits as follows.....
22% SS, 14%Health, 13%Debt-Interest, 12%Medicare, 11%Income-Security?WTF is this?, 5%Veterans, 3%Indoctrination, 2%Roads, 2%Housing, 3%Other
= 87% for the UN-Constitutional [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire.
13% for a *real* USA defined by the US Constitution.
I remember a few years ago the GOP wanted to "only" increase the budget 2-3%.
Dems and media were the world is ending, old people will die, society will crumble.
This wasn't even a cut but they treated as such. It's crazy.
(Note- both sides are to blame but the dems are the drunks at the table)
Four consecutive surpluses under Clinton.
And tax rates weren’t high.
So then, you advocate for tax cuts?
Four consecutive surpluses under a 90’s republican Congress.
^THIS. There is definitely something to be said about [D]Presidents and a full [R]Congress course putting Nazi's on the Supreme Court pretty much voids that minor better point.
"Four consecutive surpluses under Clinton."
...yet the debt increased every single year.
Interesting definition of "surplus"
Clinton ended up with a 1.4 trillion deficit. His last year in office more revenue was collected than spent or it would have been higher. Bush sent the excess back to the people to stimulate the economy Clinton left in recession.
Should that be Bush left in a recession? The last three Republican Presidencies ended in a recession and yet Republicans are thought to be better at the economy? Boggles the mind.
Isn't it amazing how every-time you pretend that's the case it's a [D] taking over and never another term of [R] while [D] literally carried the longest Great Depression to ever exist.
Pure partisan BS blame shifting is all you leftards know.
...and Clinton had nothing but a full [R] in Congress working against his 'big plans'. The deficit was going in that direction long before Clinton took the presidency.
Fuck you, cut spending.
Just as you say, the answer is to stop the bleeding, not try to pump in more fluids. Why is this so hard?
"Why is this so hard?" -- Ref; Civil War. When people start to think they're entitled to slave-labor ('armed-theft of labors') it's amazing how much they'll fight to keep their UN-deserved 'entitlements'.
Might as well print more money.
And so much for the lie that President Trump only cut taxes on the "rich."
Yeah, that was always a lie.
There isn't much the left says that isn't.
Pretty much. Since they’ve completely taken over the media they’ve gotten very bold about their bullshit propaganda.
Even better --- the Left BRAGGED about gaslighting about it.
Now, now, let’s not be so harsh. “Team Biden and fans of higher taxes fibbed about….”
Dems never lie. They merely “fib”. And it’s ok, because they know what’s best for us.
Is there any point in charging taxes at all these days? At what point does the money printer go so completely off the rails that charging people taxes exists only as a social control mechanism to punish/"reward" favored groups and serves virtually no actual role in funding the government's operations?
That’s exactly what taxes are for nowadays. Control.
Sigh...
Fuck you, cut spending.
The Constitution specifically give the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes.
...Never-mind all those enumerated powers that are allowed to be taxed-for in the EXACT same article. /s
Nothing better than P.O.S. criminal minds cherry-picking starting sentences of the Supreme Law and pretending they can just fill-in all the rest however their [WE] mob RULES wants to in complete contrast to the rest of the article.
Hey, here's some ideas.
Eliminate the income tax, replace with a national sales tax.
Lower the corporate tax to about two percent.
Have the feds stop spending so damn much money since they can't handle money in the first place.
Oh, wait.
Those ideas make sense.
No republican or democrat will incorporate those grandiose ideas.
What was I thinking?
A national sales tax is just hiding the armed-theft in more sheeps clothing. There is actually already a federal sales tax on gas which amounts to close to 1/2 the price of gasoline.
How many people actually acknowledge that?
Somebody has to pay for the forever wars and the accelerated social spending.
Grow your own food. Process your own firewood. Unplug from the broken boomer groomer failed pyramid scheme.
As shown above the 'forever wars' is only 13% of the budget.
The tax calculator that the Tax Foundation had was interesting. It showed that virtually all of the tax breaks for working class and middle class families came from the higher child tax credit.
This is my favorite part:
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1786470157675544957
That stuttering incoherent intersectional diversity-hire no-knowing useless wasteland that's paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of our own dollars to LIE STRAIGHT TO OUR FACES when we clearly know it's an open brazen bald-faced lie.
I would give my left-arm to get a WH Press Pass for just one day. Because I'd use my right-arm to hurl an egg at her face on live television. The fact that NOBODY in the WH Press Corps does that, on a daily basis, shows us just how worthless our 1A Press is.