and we pointed out what mr. bart hold said to us this morning, that there's going to be a tax increase. and we have it in this -- i will just repeat it. 24.6% of the taxpayers between 75 and $100,000 will see a tax increase. 21% between 50 and 75% will see a tax increase. and it gets even worse in 2025. that was 2023. and the problem you face is is that a lot of the people that you represent and that i represent are in the top 50% but not in the top 1% or 5% or 10%. and so that's the policy trap that you are in. >> will the gentleman yield? >> so i say to the gentleman who says look at the facts, let's look at these facts. i was going to yield to mr. neil. and then i'll yield the balance of my time. >> if there is. mr. neil. >> thank you very much mr. levin. and my friend mr. meehan said that this information from the americans against double taxation that they were using dated information, it wasn't up to date, i have in my hand the immediate release, dated november. let me read the first two paragraphs. the new ana

mr. barthold about the latest jct distributional analysis. now, let me just ask you this question. does anything in the mark reduce the availability of premium subsidy tax credits? >> mr. chairman, your modified mark leaves in place the existing premium subsidy credit structure, leaves it in place, no change. >> okay. does anything in the mark suggest or direct individuals in any income bracket to not purchase health insurance or to forego the use of available subsidy tax credits? >> no, it does not, sir. >> is the impact we're seeing in the distributional analysis relating to decreased utilization of the premium subsidy tax credits the result of voluntary taxpayer behavior that is not mandated under the mark? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. all the analysis we try to provide to the members, the conventional revenue estimates and the distributional analysis accounts for taxpayer behavior. the specific example you're referring to includes a lot of taxpayer behavior in the analysis. >> i appre

let me just ask you this question, mr. bart old. does anything in the mark lee deuce the availability of premium subsidy tax credits? >> mr. chairman, you're modified mark leaves in place the existing premium subsidy credit structure. leaves it in place. no change. >> okay. >> does anything in the mark suggest or direct individuals in any income bracket to not purchase health insurance orator forego the use of available subsidy tax credits it. >> no, it does not sir. >> is the impact we're seeing in the distributional analysis relating to decreased utilization of the premium subsidytach credits the result of voluntary taxpayer behavior that is not mandated under the mark? >> that's correct, mr. chairman. all the analysis that we try to provide to the members in the revenue stims, the conventional revenue estimates and in the distribution analysis accounts for taxpayer behavior. the specific example that you're referring to includes a lot of taxpayer behavior in the analysis. >> thanks, mr. bart old. i appreciate you and the work you'

mr. bartold, is it guaranteed those with the states over 11 million will get a tax break from this bill? >> is it guaranteed? >> gauaranteed if this bill becomes law they will get a tax break? >> the bill retains the top individual rate. it's not guaranteed. there will be benefits as we measured them. >> is it guaranteed with an estate over $11 million. >> i thought you were talking income tax. my apologies. in doubling the exemption amount, any large estate would benefit, sir. >> i think that's the point here. the point that we're trying to make. i will restate again. i think you're all honorable people and all care about. that's why we're asking you not to do this. that's why we're asking that we go back to the status quo so we don't have senior citizens paying for estate tax relief. >> tax is expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lar sen. all those in favor signified by saying aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. pursuant to comm

and this is one of those mr. bartold i'm going to need y help on this because i actually want us all to think through some of the interactive effects here of the change in tax rates, the value of the credits and also the fact that -- so let's actually walk through some of this. mr. bart hoholbarthold, the lowx credits, those still exist, are we changing those? >> there's no change in the chairman's mark to section 2. >> so that part of the equation is staying. what we're talking about right here is private activity bonds side. who are the primary purchasers of this tax exempt debt? >> private activity bonds are generally purchased by individuals. >> and the -- >> some corporations but primarily individuals. >> so the basic incentive of this is if i'm a high income individual i'll purchase this if i'm able to basically use the tax exempt for i'm getting the same yield as a corporate bond, if i'm actually in a world where my tax rates, my tax liabilities have changed, do we expect tax rate to be any effects on interest

mr. bart hold, you've already said when we've doubled the standard deduction, i realize there are some districts, like connecticut has a unique situation, but on average how many people when you double the standard deduction will itemize? >> mr. renee said, it was the combination of doubled standard deduction and the itemized deductions that are still permitted under hr 1 and that was 6%. >> so we'll have 6/% of the people and you also said the majority of those people are primarily the wealthier people. >> top half of the income distribution. >> so again, this bill is once we do what this bill does, we are effecting people who are not able to itemize before, were not able to get the opportunity, not able to get this credit and now they'll get an opportunity to save taxes and that includes state and local income taxes, casualty losses, interest on home mortgages, that includes all this stuff, so if we're going to keep talking about this, can we at least -- can we at least make sure we're talki

>> i will yield. >> mr. bart southeast hold i would like to ask you this because we've heard constantly from inside this analysis and i keep on turning to you, let me ask you this: just because people no longer would be able to itemize, just because they would no longer -- and that's what the question assumes that this bill would go into law and they would no longer be able to itemize, does that mean that they would be as well off as they were under current law under all circumstances? or is it a mixed bag? >> no, sir, as we discussed yesterday there's many moving pieces in the overall reform of hr 1. so if you're just comparing -- >> that's what i thought you were getting to. all they're saying is this just means that this is the only remaining option. >> mr. is that biker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and this may be one of those moments where i actually want to think through this, mr. kind, and i may come across a little bit disharm nous to my brothers and sisters on both sides. let's think this through and let

mr. bart: hold: no changes to thed me care program. -- to the medicare program. mr. portman: i understand my colleague from pennsylvania has an amendment, but when he proceeds it by saying this is all about being sure that we're not continuing to provide these larger tax cuts for the wealthy, people making over d 1 million a year, just to know what we're doing in this bill, which is providing middle class tax relief. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i just wanted to resfond my friend. because -- respond to my friend. because the fact is that in the budget resolution, it brought us to this point on this bill and others. ms. stabenow: the budget resolution, which is the larger overall priorities put in place does, does have a cut. in fact, i would ask our staff, jtc -- now if this is j.t.c. or if someone would like to respond or answer the question. in the budget resolution, is there a $1 trillion cut in medicaid? n the budget resolution? i don't mean to say actually cut it. that's something that would come before the committee. ut is a $1 trillion cut in medi

i also want to commend mr. bart old of his staff and the things we ask of him in the crucible to have to bring forward a bill with absolutely no expert witnesses. everybody claims they want to be about the facts but we have not one expert witness who can talk bought those facts. however, we do find ourselves in a situation where as president lincoln would say a house divided cannot stand. we find in states like connecticut, pennsylvania if you're in the pittsburgh area, you find that your house is divided in that one set of middle income tax payers is paying more than another. as peter king said, this is a massive tax shift from one group of taxpayers in the middle class to another group of taxpayers in the middle class. a lot of those shifts occurred blue states to red states. i'm not shocked by that. i get it. this is a political document. this is what it's intended for. that's what the facts are. i want to thank jct for taking a look at specifically, factually a zip code 06117. that's in my district in west hartf

projections, but with rate reductions and with full expensing, do you expect this would encourage growth, mr. barts cbar barthold? >> as i mentioned earlier, there are things that would be pro growth and there's other considerations to consider. >> the tax foundation says it will increase gdp by.4%, and i have seen estimates as far as 5%. . >> thank you, mr. chairman, as i'm juggling all these coffee cups. mr. barthold, just a handful of quick things, i just want to make sure i'm getting my head around and then i thought it would be appropriate to share sort of a personal fixation, as your modeling, at this point, if our tax reform legislation were to become law today as the house side has it written, you see only 6% of americans having to itemize anymore? >> that would be our projection for next year, that's correct. >> so 94% of americans would be just using the standardized deductions? >> that's correct, sir. >> have you ever taken a quick look to see, would that actually change tax compliance because of it becoming so dramatically simpler for so many more people? >> actually compliance is part

chairman thank you very much, i want to start with mr. bart hold on a question that i think a lot of us are wondering about today. i'm holding the modified mark here. page 10. at the top where it begins the section on repealing the individual mandate. here's my question -- have you had the opportunity to analyze this section of the chairman's modified mark? >> senator casey, yes. i mean that's -- it's included in our revenue analysis in jcx 57. >> and how long will it take to you conduct a full analysis, full analysis of the provision and its impact on health insurance coverage and premiums? >> some of that analysis has already been provided based on joint work with the congressional budget office that was commented on earlier today in some of the questions. reported that the congressional budget office projects that on average, because of adverse selection, premiums will increase by 10% above what they would be under baseline projectio projections. that by the year 2020, there would be approximately 13 million households or individuals rather

bart. city college students -- is that it? >> thank you. yeah. mr. steve zeltzer. >> united public workers for action. first of all, i'm outraged really that the city has spent millions of dollars of city manage to push this developer they've not come to the union or the staff and asked them their opinion. that's a lie. you are using money, our public money, for the developers, that want this site, who want to make money off this site. that's what this is about. the fact of the matter is, city college is a treasure and it should be protected. you are putting the developers first, not the people of san francisco and students that need city college. last night the san francisco labor council unanimously -- almost unanimously voted it should be turned over to city college for their development and not the privateers that want million-dollar condos. ocean avenue is already crowded. bring u1,300 units, it will be gridlock. you are not helping the students or the community. you talk about policy. is it the policy of the board to privatize public space snz

mr timeout on the rails. all of that is good news for those who rely on muni every day . >> as far bart's new train cars, the agency will miss his goal of 10 new cars by thanksgiving. two weeks ago the new cars failed the safety test with the state public utilities commission. bart is pushing back the timeline while they fix the problem. the train cars are expected to be in service no later than december 15. >>> a dog walker and her young son crashed into a home in san francisco. this happened at 26th and santiago. the truck was double parked when it started rolling backward down the hill. and hit another car and crashed into a house. the woman and her son were taken to the hospital. three jerk of the nine dogs ran off but have been found to be united with their owners. >>> san francisco police are looking for to armed women -- two armed women. investigators say the 37-year- old woman was walking home with groceries when two female suspects came up from behind.>> one female suspects held a knife to her body as the other suspect stood there with a handgun. >> people who live nearby say it's usually a quiet ne

hold,arr told -- bart we need to review with the changes are. >> let's move on. >> mr. chairman, that's the first i've heard of it. >> that's not my problem. >> that's not true,, our staff did not have it. nobody had it! >> the clerk will call the role. >> are you kidding? >> mr. chairman, you asked -- >> i'm sorry, i'm so upset, let's do this. >> mr. chairman, members of this committee, the modification begins with a modification to transition rule to the change in a mark on section 162 that relates to binding contracts. that makes a clarification that the excise tax on investment income of private colleges and universities, it clarifies the related party rule provision of the underlying provision in the mark. it makes another clarifying amendment with respect to partner shares of charitable contributions and foreign taxes. it also adds a clarification that the limitation on production of net interest expense for which there is an expense for regulated public utilities also applies in the case of certain electric co-ops. excludes thator the accumulated earnings from th

bart, caltrain and others. i'll now turn it over to present the actual findings and we'll look forward to hearing your questions after the presentation. >> director: thank you, mrs. smith. mr. canapari. >> thank you, christen. i appreciate being able to present the filings. i have presented before and i'm looking forward to presenting again. i won't spend a lot of time on our firm. we're a local firm here in san francisco. we specialize in customer research such as the one i'll be presenting to you. it's a little bit of a background on how we did the study. there's additional information that will be available in a full report provided to sfmta and available to all board members as well. first a little bit of a background. it's a telephone survey conducted in san francisco among residents. we used the hybrid sample with cell phone numbers. the of interviews was 553. that is an adequate sample size for a study of this kind. it's on par or larger than other city surveys you see. the folks we spoke to were muni users. to qualify for the survey, you would have said you used muni within the past six months. we ask specific questions about muni service. so as i presen