Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Rand Paul is not happy with Republican leaders’ current tax reform plan

“Possibly 30% of middle class gets a tax hike?” Paul tweeted.

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty
Andrew Prokop
Andrew Prokop is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He’s worked at Vox since the site’s launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker’s Washington, DC, bureau.

Republicans don’t even have a tax reform bill yet, but the grumbling over their plans has already begun.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), whose objections to the Graham-Cassidy bill helped doom Republicans’ latest attempt at Obamacare repeal last month, expressed incredulity Monday that the GOP’s tax reform framework could end up raising taxes on many in the middle class.

The framework itself, crafted by top Trump administration officials along with congressional leaders and committee chairs and released last week, punts on many controversial details that need to be resolved for any bill to be released.

But it’s clear that Paul finds what’s already in the framework troubling enough. He links to a Tax Policy Center report that finds that according to what we know is in the plan so far, “by 2027, taxes would rise for roughly one-quarter of taxpayers, including nearly 30 percent of those with incomes between about $50,000 and $150,000.”

Part of this is because the GOP plan would repeal the current deduction for state and local taxes. But part of it, per the TPC, is because the framework “would replace personal exemptions, which are indexed for inflation,” with other new credits that are not indexed for inflation. As a result, they write, “the number of taxpayers with a tax increase rises over time.” (Dylan Matthews has more on the report here.)

It seems like dangerous politics for Republicans to propose raising taxes on many middle-class taxpayers while cutting them for corporations and the top 1 percent of income earners. And if that is indeed how the party’s eventual bill looks, Paul surely won’t be the only one with concerns.

As it is, he’s sounding the alarm early, and signaling that he won’t go along with just anything party leaders sell as “tax reform.” That’s bad news for Republican leaders in Congress, who have little margin for error as they seek to round up the votes necessary to get something passed.

See More:

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters