GOP bill could shift wealth from young to older generations, study finds
The Republican budget package aims to make President Donald Trump's tax cuts permanent while offering a host of new financial breaks. Yet the "big, beautiful bill," as the legislation is dubbed, could also effectively transfer wealth from younger generations to older Americans over their lifetimes, a recent study finds.
Long-term, the primary beneficiaries of the GOP bill would be older, wealthier Americans, while younger, middle- to low-income people would see fewer benefits, according to the analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a University of Pennsylvania think tank that studies the fiscal issues.
The group's projection assesses the impact of proposed tax cuts under the bill, as well as reductions in federal programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, better known as food stamps. Penn Wharton also factors in the long-term fiscal impact of the debt the U.S. would likely have to issue to pay for the bill's tax cuts, the group said.
"Somebody has to pay"
Younger Americans would bear the brunt of the nation's spiraling debt, Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, told CBS MoneyWatch.
"Somebody has to pay — nothing is for free. In this case, that's the future generations," he said. "We have finally reached this inflection point where under any reasonable estimation, younger people are going to be worse off in the future" if the current version of the bill is passed.
For example, the bill would cost an infant born into a low-income family $14,100 over their lifetime. This loss stems from factors including reduced social safety net benefits and lower wages resulting from slower economic growth driven by increased national debt and deficits.
On the other hand, a high-income 70-year-old stands to gain $120,000 over his remaining years due to the proposed legislation's tax cuts and other benefits, the analysis found.
The House narrowly passed the legislation in May. Senate lawmakers are pressing to vote on the measure by the end of the week.
The White House took issue with Penn Wharton's analysis.
"So-called 'experts' panning the One, Big, Beautiful Bill without a smidge of humility should remember that they made these same exact gloomy predictions about President Trump's tax cuts during his first term – tax cuts that helped usher in historic job, wage, investment and economic growth along with the first decline in wealth inequality in decades," White House spokesman Kush Desai told CBS MoneyWatch.
Biggest winners
Like Penn Wharton, other researchers have said the Republican bill is likely to benefit wealthy Americans at the expense of people lower down the ladder.
The measure would likely reduce the financial resources available to the lowest-earning 10% of U.S. households by $1,600 per year, or almost 4% of their annual income, according to a report published earlier this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. White House officials have previously questioned the CBO's scoring of the bill.
But the highest-earning 10% of households would see a gain of $12,000 per year in resources, while middle-income households would see a gain of $500 to $1,000, the CBO projected. Its analysis is based on the bill's tax breaks, as well as reductions for federal programs and reductions in state funds for safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.
In considering the impact of higher U.S. debt on future generations, the cost would come in the form of lower wages and higher costs, such as more expensive mortgages, Smetters said.
Already, the U.S. is spending more than $1 trillion a year to service its debt — almost double the amount it was paying five years ago, according to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data. That's more than the nation currently spends on defense, data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows.
Clock ticking
Taking on more debt to pay for the GOP bill could make it tougher for the federal government to pay for programs like Social Security as more of its budget is eaten up by interest payments. Higher debt would also likely result in higher interest rates, as well as slowing economic growth, the Yale Budget Lab projects.
Elements of the bill are still under debate on Capitol Hill, with congressional Republicans racing to meet a self-imposed July 4 deadline to send the package to President Trump for his signature. The last scheduled day in session for both the House and Senate before they leave town for the holiday is Friday, leaving little time to reach a deal.
Some Republicans are at loggerheads over certain provisions, such as the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, with House lawmakers pushing for a bigger deduction than in the Senate.
If the bill moves ahead, the long-term combination of benefit reductions and swelling federal debt could outweigh the benefits of tax cuts for younger Americans, the Penn Wharton analysis said.
"Sometimes people say, 'If I'm in 40th-60th [percentile of income], I won't get SNAP or Medicaid,' but actually there is a chance that you could still," Smetters said. "There is a chance anybody could be unemployed or be on food stamps."
Young Cuban girl asks Trump to lift travel ban stopping her from joining mom in U.S.
Hegseth gets heated over reporting on Iran strikes initial assessments
Supreme Court allows South Carolina to block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would "love" if Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were to resign, and the president also said he wanted interest rates cut to 1%. KEY QUOTES "I'd love him to resign if he wanted to, he's done a lousy job," Trump said, also labeling the Fed chair as "stupid." "I think we should be paying 1% right now, and we're paying more because we have a guy who suffers from, I think, Trump Derangement Syndrome," Trump added. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Trump has long attacked the Federal Reserve chair over interest rates that the U.S. president wants lowered. Fed chairs have long been seen as insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct, but Trump has threatened to test that legal premise with frequent threats to fire Powell. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months. CONTEXT Trump said he will name as successor to Powell someone who will lower rates. Last week, the Fed decided to leave short-term borrowing costs in the 4.25%-4.50% range.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House
The Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' is facing serious headwinds in the House with The Hill learning that at least six House Republicans are currently a 'no' on the framework, a daunting sign for GOP leadership as the Senate races towards a vote. Those six House Republicans, some of whom requested anonymity, are enough opposition to tank the package, as GOP leaders grapple with a razor-thin majority. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was one of two GOP lawmakers to oppose the House version of the bill last month, is also likely to oppose the Senate's edition, deepening the pocket of resistance in the lower chamber. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still clear the legislation, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. 'I support the reasonable provisions in H.R. 1 that protect Medicaid's long-term viability and ensure the program continues to serve our most vulnerable, but I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments, or any provisions that punish expansion states,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) wrote in a statement on Saturday. 'President Trump was clear when he said to root out our waste, fraud, and abuse without cutting Medicaid and I wholeheartedly agree,' he continued. 'I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 — otherwise I will vote no.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) told The Hill that he is also opposed to the bill because of the Medicaid provider tax provision. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) is currently a 'no' on the measure because of the Medicaid language, rollback of solar energy credits and public lands provisions, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, told The Hill that he is against the current version of the package because of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap proposal. The legislation would increase the currently $10,000 SALT cap to $40,000 for individuals making $500,000 or less for five years, then snap back to the original number. 'While I support the President's broader agenda, how could I support the same unfair $10k SALT cap I've spent years criticizing?' LaLota said. 'A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote.' It is not, however, just moderates who are signaling issues with the Senate bill: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, posted an ominous message on X that suggested he was not pleased with the package. 'I will not negotiate via X. But it's important to know that jamming us with a bill before we've had any chance to review the implications of major changes & re-writes, fluid scores, a high likelihood of violating the house framework (deficits) , & tons of swamp buy-offs is bad,' he wrote. The opposition is rising to the surface as Senate Republicans inch closer to holding an initial vote on the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would officially kick off the consideration process and eventually tee up a final vote in the House. It remains unclear, however, if Senate GOP leaders have the votes to move forward. If the motion to proceed passes by a simple majority, the chamber would hold a series of unlimited amendment votes called a vote-a-rama, which could result in changes to the measure. Senate GOP leaders are also still talking to holdouts and could make changes to the bill as written. In the meantime, House Republicans — beginning to review the revised Senate text unveiled overnight — are expressing resistance to the measure, prompting serious questions about whether top GOP lawmakers will be able to enact the legislation by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) convened a call with the House Republican Conference Saturday afternoon and urged lawmakers to keep their concerns with the Senate bill private, and instead speak directly with their senators and the White House, two sources told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told members that it is unlikely they will have to return to Washington on Monday, the sources said. Tuesday or Wednesday is more realistic, he told lawmakers. One source told The Hill that the call was brief and leadership did not take questions. The main qualm among House Republicans appears to be the Medicaid language in the bill. The Senate's legislation includes a proposal that would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The decrease was initially supposed to begin in 2027, with a 0.5 percent phase down annually, but Senate Republicans overnight changed the text to delay the implementation to 2028. The upper chamber also inserted a provision to create a $25 billion rural hospital relief fund that would be distributed over five years to assuage those concerns. The changes, however, do not seem to be solving all of the GOP's problems, with House Republicans still voicing opposition to the language. Aside from Medicaid, the Senate bill's rollback of green-energy tax credits is an issue for some House Republicans. The revised legislation for the upper chamber slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) would not say how he plans to vote on the bill, but signaled that he is not happy with the Medicaid provisions and green-energy tax credit language. 'Instead of improving the Medicaid and energy portions of [the] House bill it appears the Senate went backwards,' he told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.