Congress Should Extend the Trump Tax Cuts. The Path Won't Be Easy.
Not doing so could be harmful for just about everyone.

The Trump tax cuts are set to expire later this year, and that poses a real challenge for policymakers, businesses, and taxpayers alike. Americans face a $4 trillion tax hike as key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) sunset. The stakes are too high to ignore, and it has to be done right.
Failure to make most of the cuts permanent would be detrimental to economic growth, something we can ill afford. And while Republicans control the White House, House, and Senate, the path is fraught with political and fiscal obstacles.
For budgetary reasons, the tax reductions were made temporary. These included lowering individual income tax rates, nearly doubling the standard deduction, increasing the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, placing a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, and significantly increasing the exemption amount for the estate tax. Without legislative action, these provisions will revert to their pre-2018 levels.
In addition, the TCJA's full expensing provision allowed businesses to immediately deduct 100 percent of the cost of certain capital investments, such as equipment and machinery, instead of spreading the deduction over several years. Its phaseout has already begun, and it is set to be eliminated by 2027.
Not extending the tax cuts could be harmful for just about everyone. First, the cuts have proven their ability to foster gross domestic product (GDP) growth. In 2018, the economy achieved 3 percent annualized growth, with periods nearing 4 percent, even amid trade tensions and tariff wars. This underscores the significant role of a friendly tax climate in creating a robust economy.
The TCJA's expiration also threatens a significant number of jobs. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 6 million could be lost, which would have devastating ripple effects across the economy. The corporate tax reform eventually yielded larger revenue growth than expected after the legislation was passed, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
A new paper by Jonathan Hartley, Kevin Hassett, and Josh Rauh found that by reducing the cost of capital for businesses (a product of the full expensing provision and lower corporate tax rates), the TCJA led to increases in investment which were even larger than previously thought. Industries that saw the largest tax cuts invested the most in the years following the reform. Specifically, a 1 percent reduction in investment costs resulted in a 1.27 percent to 2.39 percent increase in investment, again showing how tax policy can strengthen U.S. businesses and drive economic growth.
In fact, according to the Tax Foundation, the TCJA incentivizes companies to reinvest domestically, bolstering U.S. productivity, innovation, and competitiveness. The end of expensing would threaten these advances.
Despite the Republican trifecta and economic merits of a TCJA extension, there are significant hurdles. The soon-to-be $40 trillion national debt and an impending debt ceiling battle complicate the extension debate. Some Republicans are demanding offsets, and I hope they succeed.
The $10,000 SALT deduction cap remains particularly contentious. In 2017, it caused over a dozen House Republicans to vote against the TCJA. Today, with a slimmer GOP majority, blue state Republicans with high local tax burdens still demand relief. GOP leadership has shown willingness to compromise by raising the cap, but this could cost $1 trillion. And President Donald Trump has reversed positions on key TCJA provisions, including the SALT cap, which could weaken party unity and complicate negotiations.
As for passing extensions, the budget reconciliation process, used successfully with the TCJA in 2017, offers a viable path. It allows tax, spending, and debt limit legislation to pass by simple majority and bypass Senate filibusters, and could be deployed again.
However, reconciliation comes with limitations and requires careful drafting. For example, the "Byrd rule," a Senate guideline, restricts extraneous provisions that do not directly impact the federal budget, meaning any unrelated measures would be stripped out.
Additionally, narrow majorities in both chambers mean every vote counts, leaving precious little room for Republican dissent. Reaching consensus will require delicate negotiations to balance diverse priorities, such as cutting the corporate rate further, paying for cuts by closing tax loopholes, or eliminating inefficient tax carveouts.
Given so many challenges, party unity will require strong leadership and the right combination of compromises. It's unclear whether the GOP will have that.
Extending and making permanent the TCJA is crucial. Its track record of boosting GDP and spurring domestic investment is hard to dispute. While the political and fiscal obstacles are real, legislators can secure the benefits for future generations while maintaining the integrity of America's fiscal house.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
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
I think SALT should go away.
You should not be able to pass off your fair share of state and local taxes to the feds. Don't like heavily taxed states or locales? Move.
Every jurisdiction's budget should be completely isolated. There is no reason why all taxpayers should pay for hurricane relief or fire relief or earthquake relief. If a jurisdiction can't anticipate natural disasters, then people should stop living there. If people in a jurisdiction won't set aside a rainy day fund or buy insurance, then why should anyone else bail them out?
I agree.
The federal government shouldn't be involved in disaster relief at all (other than in times of war); the states are more than competent to handle it. In fact, the promise of federal aid is a moral hazard for states, since they don't feel the need to allocate their own funds to disaster preparation and mitigation or price risk accordingly.
For states like Florida, Texas, California, New York, and Illinois, that works just fine. They are economically successsful states that have the economic activity necessary to cover the expense. But what about Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, South Carolina, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc. these are all economically unsuccessful states who can’t afford to pay for flood, tornado, hurricane, or wildfire recovery. Should we just abandon the bottom 1/3 of states?
Don’t get me wrong, the bottom 1/3 of states in GDP are almost exclusively deep red states, so there is zero chance they will be abandoned by Trump. But if he did? How would the lesser states, economically, recover?
This article doesn't exist. Don't read it and contaminate the narrative in your mind. Move along. Quickly. Close your eyes. Pretend it's not there. Click on something else.
It certainly is the only one I've seen about domestic taxes amongst the 100 or so Tariff articles.
Poor sarc.
Uh huh. Reason is totally fair and balanced you drunken commie faggot.
As usual this is a double-edged sword. Whenever Reason recommends policies as the "lesser-of-two-evils" that allow government to get away with kicking the can down the block for a while longer, it further delays the inevitable reckoning that might force them to change the underlying assumptions of their spendthrift ways, possibly magnifying the eventual catastrophe.
It's also tiring finding no mention of principles, individualism, libertarianism, etc in articles, only ideas on making government more efficient. I don't mind that lack in articles like this that are focused on such detail. I object to it with articles like housing, pollution, climate catastrophe, traffic, and so on, full of platitudes on more efficient ways to administer socialist health care or something else the government should not be doing in the first place.
Articles moaning about the housing crisis are a dime a dozen. Reason is supposed to have principles, unlike the uniparty, yet principles are seldom ever mentioned.
If the government had been limited to a small set of Constitutionally mandated functions and Constitutionally-allowed authorities with spending only on those functions and within the Constitutionally-allowed revenue sources, making government functions and spending as efficient as possible makes a lot of sense. Since none of that is likely to happen any time soon, such articles are what some writers would call "pot-boilers" i.e. providing enough word counts to keep your income source going ...
That's Reason. Don't expect much more here. They cede that Statist ground then quibble over the details
Sounds like National Review in the 1960's
I know! I know!
Offset the DOMESTIC Tax-Cuts with FOREIGN import Tariffs!
Who's suppose to be funding the 'International' affairs government anyways?
Those who deal domestically or those who deal internationally?
Gee, I wonder who pays import tariffs, collected at the port of entry.
People that deal in the international market.
Is that suppose to justify making them Tax-Exempt of the international-affairs government?
Importers pay those import taxes, and they pass them along to customers like every other business expense. This fiction that foreigners pay them is a nice dream, but it contradicts reality. It's also in conflict with the general sneers that when China subsidizes production to lower the prices Americans pay, that's some kind of crime, predatory pricing, intended to drive American manufacturers out of business.
If subsidizing production costs is heinous, why is subsidizing import tariffs noble and proper?
This idea that import tariffs can replace the income tax is ludicrous. The US imported $4 trillion of goods in 2023. Income taxes were $2.3 trillion. You'd need 57% tariff on ALL imports, and guess what, imports would dive because they'd be so much more expensive. And exports would dive just as much, because without income from exporting to us, foreigners wouldn't have as much money to import our exported products.
Trump is an economic ignoramus.
Enter the problem.
"You'd need 57% tariff on ALL imports, and guess what, imports would dive because they'd be so much more expensive."
And what is that 80% Tax on ALL Domestic Production doing?
"and guess what, domestic would dive because they'd be so much more expensive"
The only ignorance on display is yours about Domestic Taxes.
extend and... expand! the closer we get to 0 the better.
Maybe they should demand relief from their states.
Or maybe they have no principles and just want to keep getting elected to the world's most unproductive body.
I am confused. I have been assured by Top Men, Trumps tax cuts only benefited billionaires and the top 1%. How could letting them expire harm "everyone" ?
You're not supposed to notice that new pain in your neck as propaganda-related whiplash. The narrative serves the agenda, not the General Welfare or The Will of the People. When the narrative suddenly changes when the Administration suddenly changes, all you can do is wear a cervical collar and try to keep looking straight ahead.
When this act was passed, Democrats indicated disapproval (very loudly) of it because the sunset provision was unfair to the poor and middle class. Since then they have controlled the House, Senate and White House for a long time. When they didn't have total control they had a Senate and president that would have been amenable to making the cuts permanent.
They did nothing.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Because Democrats don’t actually care about poor and middle class people.
But Republicans are the party we should shit over all the time.
The 2017 TCJA were a bad idea and the time and extending them is just another bad idea. The economy is in good shape and so a tax cut is unnecessary. Tax cuts have value but not when the economy is doing good and they are better used as tool in a problem economy, than as candy for the voters. A tax cut will also only increase the national debt and should be avoided.
This makes no sense. This is not a new tax cut. If "The economy is in good shape" and "the economy is doing good" wouldn't you want to keep the current tax structure in place?
It is not a new tax cut, but it will require new money to continue. That was clear when it was passed in 2017. The economy is good at this time, and it would be better to concentrate on lowering the debt rather than an unnecessary feelgood measure.
The income tax should be removed and replaced with another form of taxation that is fairer and easier to understand...maybe a national sales tax, and the corporate tax needs to be put at five percent...tops.
Then the American economy will boom like no other on this tortured planet.
We already have more than a 5% national sales tax.
They're called excise taxes and nobody even realizes they're paying them.
The bottom line is CUT spending.
How about we cut spending FIRST and then extend the tax cuts?
I agree here whole heartedly.
I suppose it's old fashioned to point out that the deficit isn't going to get any smaller if we extend tax breaks....
It would be what an old fashion fiscal conservative would say.