Donald Trump is wrong: his tax plan isn't nearly as big as he says it is.
Mitch McConnell is also wrong: it's not "very much oriented" toward the middle class, nor does it "bring significant relief" to "every segment of taxpayers.”
Not even close, writes the Washington Post, which did a historical comparison of the current House and Senate bills to past tax laws.
We can say the Republicans’ $1.4 trillion tax plan isn’t the biggest in history. It’s not even the biggest in the past decade.
It’s probably the most regressive tax cut in the past 50 years, but there’s not enough data to speak with absolute confidence. The Bush tax cuts were pretty regressive too.
That said, it is hard to find a tax plan that has done less for the middle class.
Here are a couple of charts showing how well different tax filers would fare in 2019 and 2027 under the Senate bill (the House bill tracks similarly). Note two things: 1.) how much the share of the benefits for income earners in the highest brackets (teal bars) exceeds their share of the population (black outlines) in both charts; 2.) how the benefits for anyone earning less than $75,000 almost completely disappear and even go negative by 2027.
The Senate plan’s 2027 estimate is below.