As arguments for repealing the estate tax go, Chuck Grassley certainly … has one. Actually, the senator from Iowa has two, one on principle and the other based on scolding people over how they use their own money. Guess which one got the most attention this weekend? 
 
 In comments published by the Des Moines Register on Saturday, Grassley explained why the Senate version of tax reform includes a traditional Republican repeal of the estate tax: 
 
 Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 If Grassley wants to stop boozers and womanizers, he’d have his hands full just focusing on his Capitol Hill colleagues. Nothing says “I’m a man of the people” like attempting to craft laws to punish people for their social activities, amirite? 
 
 This is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell. His first argument on the estate tax is dead-on correct. The estate tax’s true offense to ordered liberty is that it double-dips. Accumulated wealth exists from earnings already subject to taxation, and further taxation by passing the estate to one’s heirs is an injustice that in some cases needlessly complicates an already emotional process. It’s a form of double jeopardy, at least in principle. 
 
 In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it. The point of limited taxation is that the money belongs to the people who earned it, not the government elected by those people. If I want to spend my money on dinner with a woman, the latest Roman-numeral cookie-cutter superhero flick, followed up by a few drinks at the local bar, that’s my business and not that of Chuck Grassley. (In my case specifically, it would also be my wife’s business, and I’d face a very different kind of taxation.) Those choices should neither be abetted nor punished through the federal tax system. 
 
 Conservatives have argued for decades to eliminate the kind of social engineering Grassley endorses here. A decade ago, we had competing tax proposals for either a flat tax or a repeal of the 16th Amendment and the use of a consumption tax to replace the current income tax. Now that Republicans finally have control of Washington, the best that they can do is merely an adjustment to the existing labyrinthine system — especially true of the Senate version — that leaves in place all of the manipulative capabilities for social engineering in both the corporate and individual tax systems. 
 
 Finally, while eliminating the estate tax is a theoretically principled step, it should have been waaaaaaay down the list for true reform. As the DMR points out, it doesn’t actually impact very many taxpayers anyway, thanks to a high threshold for its application (currently $5 million in estate assets for single heirs, $11 million for married). In Iowa, that would impact perhaps 10% of all farms before allowable deductions that would raise the threshold even higher. And the Senate bill doesn’t even repeal the tax — it only raises the thresholds to $11 million/$22 million. That also is an adjustment, not a reform, so Grassley can’t even stand on the principle he proposes. 
 
 Republicans had an opportunity to be bold; instead, they’re perpetuating the problem. In honor of that, I think I’ll get a case of Jameson’s, a shelf of new Blu-Ray films, and celebrate the victory of the swamp until the 2018 elections. As for the womanizing, Grassley has no worries. My wife is all over that one. ||||| Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) questions Neil M. Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post) 
 
 As Republicans continue to sell the details of their tax bill, some are reaching for more colorful language to liven up complex policies that tend to put the average voter to sleep. 
 
 Case in point: Over the weekend, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) hashed over the plan with his home state’s largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register. Turning to the party’s idea of doing away with the estate tax, Grassley framed the current law as a hindrance to responsible saving. 
 
 “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley told the Register in a story published Saturday. “As opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 The estate tax, often described by Republicans as the “death tax,” is levied only on the very rich, passing on assets of more than $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for married couples. The current tax on estates is 40 percent of an individual’s wealth at death. 
 
 Grassley, a Senate Finance Committee member responsible for writing the tax proposal, was immediately slammed by critics over the comments. 
 
 The suggestion — that anyone not socking away their savings in the bank or investments must be profligately throwing their money away — played directly into the critique that Republicans are disconnected from the majority of working Americans. 
 
 [Analysis: Why aren’t you paying the estate tax? Maybe because you bought 311,000 bottles of whisky.] 
 
 “Darn straight, Sen. Grassley,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote on Twitter. “If we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” 
 
 Said Holly O’Reilly, a national “March for Truth” organizer: 
 
 Dear @ChuckGrassley You spelled “food and childcare” wrong. Pull it together. Sincerely, America 
 
 On Monday, Grassley said his point about the estate tax had been taken out of context and sought to expound on his thoughts. 
 
 “My point regarding the estate tax, which has been taken out of context, is that the government shouldn’t seize the fruits of someone’s lifetime of labor after they die,” he said in a statement. “The question is one of basic fairness, and working to create a tax code that doesn’t penalize frugality, saving and investment. That’s as true for family farmers who have to break up their operations to pay the IRS following the death of a loved one as it is for parents saving for their children’s college education or working families investing and saving for their retirement.” 
 
 [Democrats fume over ‘absurd’ GOP tax bill full of last-minute handwritten edits] 
 
 Under the Senate tax plan passed early Saturday morning along partisan lines, the exemptions are raised to $11 million per individual and $22 million per couple. The House version of the bill does the same but also axes the tax completely in 2024. 
 
 In Grassley’s home state of Iowa, the estate tax has been particularly fraught with controversy. Republicans have often argued that the 40 percent government tax creates a cost-prohibitive situation for farmers hoping to pass their farms on to heirs. 
 
 “Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation,” Rep. David Young (R), a Des Moines-area congressman, wrote on Friday in a newsletter to constituents. 
 
 But according to the Register, the actual numbers do not support that narrative. Citing 2016 data from the IRS, the newspaper determined 5,219 tax returns were affected by the current estate tax. Only 682, or 13 percent, of the tax filers owned farm assets. 
 
 The paper also referred to a 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service noting that only 65 farm estates in the United States annually are touched by the estate tax. 
 
 Grassley and other congressional Republicans have long maintained that even if farmers are not affected by the tax directly, the planning involved is an additional strain. 
 
 “[M]any are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he told the Register. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
 
 This post has been updated. 
 
 More from Morning Mix: 
 
 Billy Bush says there were 8 witnesses to Trump’s ‘Access Hollywood’ comments 
 
 James B. Comey, Sally Yates and Eric Holder defend FBI after Trump’s Twitter attack ||||| Grassley: Ending Estate Tax Recognizes Investors Over Spenders 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP 
 
 Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, commenting on the GOP tax overhaul, tells The Des Moines Register that ending the estate tax is about rewarding people who invest over those who spend everything they earn on "booze or women or movies." 
 
 A promise to end the so-called death tax has been a bulwark of Republican electoral politics for decades. A House version of the bill would do just that by 2024; however, the Senate's version of the tax overhaul, which narrowly passed the chamber early Saturday, would keep it, but instead double the current exemption to $11 million from $5.5 million per individual. For married couples, the current exemption is already at $11 million. 
 
 "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies," Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told the Register on Saturday. 
 
 The senator's remarks elicited a harsh response on social media, with one Twitter user commenting: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." 
 
 The elimination of the estate tax benefits a tiny fraction of taxpayers. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that for 2017, fewer than 2 in 1,000 estates will owe any estate tax, or about 0.2 percent. 
 
 Grassley has been an especially strong proponent of ending the estate tax, claiming that it hurts Iowa families trying to pass their farms from one generation to the next. But in an editorial published over the weekend, the Register wrote: "a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming." 
 
 The Hill writes: ||||| CLOSE Here is the full audio of Chuck Grassley's answer to a Des Moines Register reporter's question concerning the estate tax. The "booze or women or movies" quote begins at the 4:10 mark. Jason Noble/The Register 
 
 Reporters wait for the arrival of senators for vote on the tax bill on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on December 1, 2017. (Photo: MARI MATSURI, AFP/Getty Images) 
 
 If the tax reform packages that have now passed the U.S. House and Senate become law, at least one thing appears likely: The federal estate tax will be slashed and perhaps eliminated altogether. 
 
 That will represent a victory for Republicans in Iowa’s congressional delegation, who have consistently opposed the tax and argued it unfairly lumps in the state’s farmers with some of the country’s richest families. 
 
 But a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming. 
 
 The number of Iowans paying the estate tax actually numbers in the dozens each year, out of roughly 1.4 million who file federal tax returns each year. IRS data from the last five years shows the number of Iowa taxpayers owing estate taxes ranged from 32 in 2012 to 61 in 2015, and that the vast majority of those probably were not farmers or small business owners. 
 
 Buy Photo Protesters gather outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
 
 Despite that evidence, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee in the Senate, has long presented the estate tax as a potentially ruinous burden on farmers and small business owners. 
 
 “The federal estate tax may force family members to liquidate to pay the death tax,” Grassley said in a statement released earlier this year. “It’s harder than ever for families to pass down the family-run farm or business from one generation to the next. The death tax creates financial hardship for family businesses to survive and thrive.” 
 
 The estate tax is a 40 percent tax on wealth assessed when a person dies, and currently is applied to assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. The House and Senate bills double those exemptions to $11 million and $22 million, and the House version abolishes the tax completely in 2024. 
 
 ““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”” U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa 
 
 In a statement after the House bill passed, U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa’s ag-heavy 4th District, cheered the changes, arguing the estate tax “often falls hardest on family-owned farms and small businesses.” 
 
 Likewise, U.S. Rep. David Young, a Republican whose district includes the Des Moines metro, has highlighted changes to what Republicans often call the “death tax.” 
 
 In a newsletter sent on Friday, Young called it a "myth" that "repealing the estate tax is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans." 
 
 Rather, he wrote, "The estate tax (sometimes called the death tax) negatively impacts farms and businesses all over the 3rd District. ... Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation." 
 
 That view, in fact, has been a GOP talking point for a generation or more. President George W. Bush made the exact argument in 2001 when pushing tax cuts that raised the estate tax exemption and lowered rates. 
 
 “To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax,” Bush declared back then. 
 
 CLOSE Senate Republicans have approved a massive tax overhaul that provides more than $1 trillion in tax cuts over ten years. USA TODAY 
 
 Few farmers affected 
 
 The arguments from Grassley, Young, King and others, however, don’t match the reality found in federal tax data – particularly for Iowa. 
 
 The estate tax applies to around 5,000 taxpayers across the entire country each year, and very few of them come from Iowa. Of the Iowans subject to the tax, only a fraction are actually farmers, and a vanishingly small number of them face a tax bill requiring them to sell off farmland or other assets. 
 
 Buy Photo Paula Egan of Des Moines stands with protesters gathered outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
 
 No data is available breaking down the occupations or asset types held by the Iowans subject to the estate tax. But national data shows farmers and owners of farm assets make up a tiny share of estate tax payers. 
 
 According to IRS data from 2016, just 682 tax filers in the entire country who owed estate taxes owned any farm assets. That represents about 13 percent of the 5,219 estate tax returns in which taxes were owed. 
 
 And even that figure likely overstates the number of primarily farm operations subject to the tax. A 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service projects that just 65 farm estates annually across the U.S. face an estate tax liability. Less than a quarter of these, the congressional report finds, have insufficient cash to pay their tax bills. 
 
 A U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis published earlier this year found a somewhat higher number of farm estates owed the tax in 2016: 0.4 percent, or about 160 nationwide. 
 
 Kristine Tidgren, the assistant director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, said she’s not aware of any Iowa estates forced to sell land since the estate tax exemption was raised to its current level in 2012. 
 
 Buy Photo Protesters gather outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
 
 “I haven’t come across any examples of an Iowa family that had to sell the farm to pay the estate tax,” Tidgren said. “I don’t think the current estate tax system threatens family farmers.” 
 
 The USDA report puts hard numbers to the tax liability faced by the few farms subject to the estate tax. 
 
 Operations the USDA classifies as small family farms (those with annual income under $350,000) face an average tax bill of about $620,000, or 11 percent of their total value of the estate. For mid-size farms (with annual income between $350,000 and $1 million), the average bill is $3.7 million, or about 24 percent of the estate’s value. 
 
 Tidgren said the farmers facing such a bill are typically diversified — perhaps with an off-farm job or business and liquid assets like stocks and bonds in addition to real estate and equipment. 
 
 “With the price of land, there are some farms in Iowa that definitely have to worry about the estate tax, and they might end up having to pay some,” she said. “But generally those are larger operations and oftentimes they have other assets outside of the farm property.” 
 
 The number of small businesses impacted by the estate tax is similarly small. That same Congressional Research Service report finds about 94 estates annually that hold half or more of their assets in a small business that heirs will continue to operate after the owners die. And fewer than half of these don’t have the cash on hand to pay the tax. 
 
 All this means, in essence, is that lawmakers’ argument for abolishing a tax that generates tens of billions of dollars annually is based on the challenges faced by perhaps a few dozen farm estates and a few dozen more small businesses across the entire country. 
 
 When asked for data supporting Grassley’s view, his Senate office offered a report from the American Farm Bureau Federation, which showed that rising land values in recent years have increased the number of farms potentially subject to the estate tax. 
 
 That report found Iowa farms with as few as 625 acres — encompassing as much as 30 percent of farms in the state — could be subject to the tax in 2016. 
 
 This analysis overlooks key factors, however. For one, it applies an exemption level of $5 million, which is roughly the exemption for an individual. For married couples, the first $11 million in assets are exempt from the tax. Using the Farm Bureau’s analysis but applying an $11 million exemption suggests only farms with more than about 1,400 acres might face the estate tax. Ten percent or less of Iowa farms are that size. 
 
 The Farm Bureau analysis also does not account for various deductions available that can drive an estate’s taxable value below the $5 million threshold. Of the 120 Iowa taxpayers who filed an estate tax return in 2016, 118 claimed deductions and 44 actually owed taxes. 
 
 Young, King and 1st District U.S. Rep. Rod Blum voted for the House version of tax reform containing the estate tax repeal. Grassley and Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst likewise voted for the Senate version, and Grassley this year co-sponsored standalone legislation to permanently abolish the estate tax. 
 
 In a Nov. 29 interview, Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. 
 
 An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. 
 
 “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 The seven-term senator runs an operation in Butler County with his son and grandson and frequently describes himself as a farmer. When asked if his own family farm would be subject to the estate tax, Grassley initially said it would not. 
 
 Then, after mulling it over a moment, he backtracked, noting that if he and his wife died on the same day the estate would be subject to the $5.5 million exemption rather than the $11 million exemption and likely would have to file an estate tax return. 
 
 What the changes might mean 
 
 Should the tax reform package ultimately pass with language doubling the exemption or ending it all together, Tidgren said one likely effect would be simplifying farmers’ financial planning. That’s particularly true for those who end up owing little or nothing, but must take complicated steps to get there. 
 
 U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Dec. 2, 2017 (Photo: David R. Lutman, Special to Courier Journal) 
 
 “There is a lot of expensive planning going on to try to reduce any liability that you have. That’s just smart business,” she said. “So the one thing I would say about the proposals on the table is they would definitely reduce the need for the vast majority of our farmers to worry about it at all.” 
 
 Grassley echoed that point in a statement to the Des Moines Register, citing estate tax-related planning as a major headache for farmers and business owners. 
 
 “Family farmers, small businesspeople and others that may be affected by the estate tax understand that it is law, so many are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he said. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
 
 Beyond that, of course, pulling back or eliminating the estate tax would save billions for the richest Americans. Seventy-two percent of estate tax payments come from the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers; 42 percent comes from the top 0.1 percent. 
 
 How the estate tax works 
 
 The estate tax is a 40 percent tax on assets assessed when a person dies. The rate and income levels subject to the tax have bounced around a lot over the last two decades, but under current law it kicks in on assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. 
 
 How might that play out in real life? Imagine a couple with assets — property, stocks, cash savings, etc. — valued at $21 million. When the surviving spouse dies, the estate would owe $4 million in estate taxes — 40 percent of the $10 million above the $11 million exemption. 
 
 (This is just an example; there are several available deductions that could drive down the tax liability even further.) 
 
 The tax bill that passed the Senate last week doubles the exemption to the tax, so that it’s applied only to an individual’s estate above $11 million or a couple’s estate over $22 million. In the example given above, the couple would no longer be subject to the estate tax at all; their assets are below the $22 million exemption. 
 
 The House’s tax reform package, passed in November, is even more generous: It doubles the exemptions starting in 2018 and then abolishes the tax altogether in 2024. 
 
 The Senate version would reduce government revenues by $83 billion between 2018 and 2027, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The House approach would reduce government revenues $150.7 billion over that time. 
 
 The House and Senate must now reconcile the differences between their bills and send a final version to President Donald Trump. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2nnLxD2 ||||| Republicans were joyful Friday as they finalized their tax plan, bridging differences between the House and Senate bills and moving another step closer to getting legislation to President Trump by Christmas. 
 
 They also appear to have locked down the votes they need to pass the measure through the House and Senate after Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) pledged their support. 
 
 Overall, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act represents the largest one-time reduction in the corporate tax rate in U.S. history, from 35 percent down to 21 percent. The bill also lowers taxes for the vast majority of Americans, as well as small-business owners — at least until the cuts expire after eight years. 
 
 Last-minute changes to the GOP's big plan give a larger tax break to the wealthy and preserves certain tax savings for the middle class, including the student-loan interest deduction, the deduction for excessive medical expenses and the tax break for graduate students. A change made Friday morning to win over Rubio expands the child tax credit even further to give more money to working-class families. 
 
 Here's a rundown of what's in the final bill. (If you want to read all 505 pages, click here.) 
 
 What is changing 
 
 A new tax cut for the rich: The final plan lowers the top tax rate for top earners. Under current law, the highest rate is 39.6 percent for married couples earning over $470,700. The GOP bill would drop that to 37 percent and raise the threshold at which that top rate kicks in, to $500,000 for individuals and $600,000 for married couples. This amounts to a significant tax break for the very wealthy, a departure from repeated claims by Trump and his top officials that the bill would not benefit the rich. The new tax break for millionaires goes beyond what was in the original House and Senate bills, with Republicans seeking to ensure wealthy earners in states such as New York, Connecticut and California don't end up paying substantially higher taxes as a result of the bill. 
 
 A massive tax cut for corporations: Starting on Jan. 1, 2018, big businesses' tax rate would fall from 35 percent to just 21 percent, the largest one-time rate cut in U.S. history for the nation's largest companies. The House and Senate bills originally had the big-business tax rate falling to 20 percent, but Republicans were not able to make the math work to keep the rate that low and start it right away in the new year, so they compromised by moving the rate to 21 percent. It still amounts to roughly a $1 trillion tax cut for businesses over the next decade. Republicans argue this will make the economy surge in the coming years, but most independent economists and Wall Street banks predict only a modest and short-lived boost to growth. 
 
 You can deduct just $10,000 in state, local and property taxes: One of the most controversial parts of the GOP tax plan is the push to greatly scale back how much state and local taxes Americans can deduct on their federal income taxes. Under current law, the state and local deduction (SALT) is unlimited. In the final GOP plan, people can deduct up to $10,000 (married couples are also limited to just $10,000). The House initially restricted the $10,000 deduction to just property taxes, but the final bill allows any state and local taxes to be deducted, whether for property, income or sales taxes. The move is widely viewed as a hit to blue states such as New York, Connecticut and California, and there are concerns it could cause property values to fall in high-tax cities and leave less money for public schools and road repairs. 
 
 Most Americans will pay less in taxes until 2026. The final plan lowers the tax rates for each income level and nearly doubles the standard deduction (while also scrapping the personal exemption). The result is that the vast majority of Americans will see their tax bills drop next year. Trump is fond of saying the "typical" family will save $2,000, but the reality is the amount will vary greatly depending up the size, location and circumstances of each family. The bill will also increase the number of Americans who owe nothing in taxes from 44 percent today to 47.5 percent after the plan tax effect on January 1, 2018. But all of the individual tax cuts are scheduled to go away after 2025. Republicans opted to make tax cuts for families temporary and reductions for businesses permanent. 
 
 Working-class families get a bigger child tax credit: Thanks to a late push by Rubio and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), the child tax credit would be more generous for low-income families and the working class. The current child tax credit is $1,000 per child. The House and Senate bills expanded the child tax credit, with the Senate going up to a maximum of $2,000 per child. The final bill keeps the $2,000-per-child credit (families making up to about $400,000 get to take the credit), but it also makes more of the tax credit refundable, meaning families that work but don't earn enough to actually owe any federal income taxes will get a large check back from the government. Benefits for those families were initially limited to about $1,100, but through changes Rubio and Lee pushed for, it's now up to $1,400. 
 
 The individual health insurance mandate goes away in 2019: Beginning in 2019, Americans would no longer be required by law to buy health insurance (or pay a penalty if they don't). The individual mandate is part of the Affordable Care Act, and removing it was a top priority for Trump and congressional Republicans. The final bill does not start the repeal until 2019, though. The Congressional Budget Office projects the change will increase insurance premiums and lead to 13 million fewer Americans with insurance in a decade, while also cutting government spending by more than $300 billion over that period. Some Republicans hope to make other changes to health care to prevent insurance costs from rising dramatically by the time the repeal kicks in. 
 
 You can pass your heirs up to $22 million tax-free: In the end, the estate tax (often called the “death tax” by opponents) would remain part of the U.S. tax code, but far fewer families will pay it. Under current law, Americans can pass on up to $5.5 million tax-free (that threshold is $11 million for married couples). The House wanted to do away with the estate tax entirely, but some senators felt that was too much of a giveaway to the mega-rich. The final compromise was to double the threshold, so now the first $11 million that people pass on to their heirs in property, stocks and other assets won't be taxed (and yes, that means $22 million for married couples). 
 
 “Pass through” companies get a 20 percent reduction: Most American businesses are organized as “pass through” companies in which the income from the business is “passed through” to the business owner's individual tax return. S corporations, LLCs, partnerships and sole proprietorships are all examples of pass-through businesses. In the final GOP bill, the majority of these companies get to deduct 20 percent of their income tax-free, a large reduction that mirrors what was in the Senate bill. The changes, however, expire after 2025. The National Federation of Independent Business initially opposed the House version, arguing that it didn't do enough for small businesses. But the NFIB later endorsed the House and Senate plans. Service businesses such as law firms, doctor's offices and investment offices can take only the 20 percent deduction if they make up to $315,000 (for married couples). 
 
 No corporate “AMT” tax: The final GOP bill gets rid of the corporate alternative minimum tax, a big relief to the business community. The Senate included the corporate AMT in its version of the bill, but the House did not. The corporate AMT makes it difficult for businesses to reduce their tax bill much lower than 21 percent. CEOs complained that this was a backdoor tax that would make them less likely to build new plants, buy more equipment and invest in more research, since the corporate AMT made the tax credits for those investments essentially null and void. 
 
 Fewer families will have to pay the individual AMT: The AMT for individuals started in 1969 as a way to prevent rich families from using so many credits and loopholes to lower their tax bill to almost nothing. But what started out as a way to prevent the wealthiest Americans from tax dodging started to hit more and more families over time. Currently, the AMT kicks in fully for individuals earning over $120,700 and married couples earning over $160,900. Under the final Senate bill, that threshold is lifted to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples. (Some families in the $200,000 to $500,000 range will still have to pay AMT, but they will pay far less than they were before). 
 
 The mortgage interest deduction gets smaller: Under the current tax code, taxpayers can deduct any interest they pay on up to $1 million worth of mortgage loans. House Republicans tried to cap that at $500,000 for new loans (existing mortgages are unaffected by the plan) but in the final version of their, Republicans have settled on a $750,000 cap. 
 
 The final bill costs $1.46 trillion: Republicans decided it would be all right to go into debt up to $1.5 trillion to fund the tax cut. In the end, they nearly hit that mark. The official estimate -- released Friday evening alongside the bill -- came in at $1.46 trillion. 
 
 What is NOT changing: 
 
 The bill keeps in place the student loan deduction, the medical expense deduction and the graduate student tuition waivers. The House bill got rid of these popular deductions, but the Senate bill kept them, and the final bill even makes the medical deduction a bit more generous for awhile (dropping the threshold to take the deduction from expenses over 10 percent of income to expenses over 7.5 percent of income for 2017 and 2018). After that, the medical deduction threshold reverts to 10 percent). In the end, Republicans decided it was better to allow millions of middle-class families to continue using these breaks if they qualify for them. 
 
 Retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans stay the same. No changes to the tax-free amounts people are allowed to put into 401(k)s, IRAs and Roth IRAs. 
 
 Churches, synagogues, mosques and other nonprofits (the Johnson Amendment stays in place) can't get political and endorse candidates in elections. Trump and conservative Republicans wanted to “totally destroy” (Trump's words) the Johnson Amendment, which has been in place since 1954 and prevents religious institutions and nonprofits from getting involved in elections via fundraising or endorsements. The House bill included a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, but Democrats were able to get the Senate parliamentarian to determine that including the repeal in the bill didn't comply with the rules of the Senate. 
 
 Correction: An earlier version of this post misstated the CBO's estimates for the number of uninsured Americans in 10 years. It predicts 13 million fewer people will have health insurance if the individual mandate is lifted. ||||| President Donald Trump is eager to sign into law big changes to the tax code. 
 
 The House approved its tax rewrite on Nov. 16, and the Senate is trying to clear its version with a full vote this week. 
 
 If the Senate passes the measure, the two chambers will have to iron out their differences in a version that can pass both chambers. 
 
 Here are the key details you need to know about both bills. 
 
 What are the big ideas of the House, Senate bills? 
 
 Both plans lower individual income tax rates for the middle class. However, they use a slower-growing inflation measure than the one used now, which causes income bracket thresholds to grow more slowly and thus eventually pushes more people into higher tax brackets. 
 
 Both bills reduce the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 20 percent. 
 
 They also switch the United States to a territorial system, which only taxes income earned within a country's borders. The Senate bill is more favorable to multinationals, with provisions that increase taxes on intangible income earned abroad while incentivizing the re-entry of intangible assets. 
 
 What are the key differences? 
 
 The House-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act collapses the current seven-bracket system to four and eliminates many itemized deductions — medical and classroom expenses as well as state and local taxes, for example — in favor of higher standard deductions. 
 
 Both the House and Senate bills double the current estate tax exemption for individuals to $11 million, which the House bill eventually repeals in 2024, but the Senate bill keeps. The Senate version scraps the Obamacare individual mandate, while the House doesn’t mention it. 
 
 The Senate version is different because of the chamber’s rules. To pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 60, the bill cannot drive up the long-term deficit. So the Senate measure terminates the individual tax provisions designed to benefit the middle class, including the doubled child tax credit and lower tax rates at each income brackets, by 2026. 
 
 The House version drives up the deficit by 1.08 trillion over the next 10 years -- about double the Senate version, according to the Tax Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank. 
 
 Share the Facts 2017-11-07 21:20:10 UTC PolitiFact 4 1 7 PolitiFact Rating: Half True PolitiFact Rating: "Teachers spend $1.6 BILLION per year on school supplies. The Republican tax bill ELIMINATES their ability to deduct those expenses." Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senator, D-Calif. https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/927644500398432256 a tweet Monday, November 6, 2017 2017-11-06 Read More info 
 
 What is the impact for poor and working-class Americans? 
 
 Many lower- and moderate-income households already owe no federal income taxes. Those who qualify for the earned income tax credit designed for low-income working Americans may get some money back from the government at tax time. 
 
 People on the lower end of the income spectrum could benefit from an approximate doubling of the standard deduction to $24,000 for joint filers, and from an expansion of the child tax credit. But if they use itemized deductions -- such as deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest or unreimbursed medical expenses -- they could end up worse off. 
 
 Meanwhile, the Senate bill gets rid of the individual mandate penalty, which falls disproportionately on lower- and moderate-income households. 
 
 A family could drop their health coverage and end up with what they would have otherwise paid as a penalty -- 2.5 percent of income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, up to a family maximum of $2,085, whichever is higher. But truly coming out ahead would require being lucky and not getting any serious illnesses or injuries. 
 
 All told, an analysis of the House bill by the nonpartisan Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, found that in 2018, households in the lowest 20 percent of the income spectrum would see an average tax cut worth $60. The next 20 percent would see a cut of $310, and the middle 20 percent would get an average of $830 in savings. 
 
 By 2027, these groups would all continue to see cuts, but smaller ones. For instance, the middle quintile would see its cut shrink by more than half, to $360. 
 
 Not every taxpayer in those groups would see a cut. But in all the income ranges we cited, and in both years, a clear majority of taxpayers in a given income group would see a decrease, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. 
 
 The general distribution of cuts is broadly similar for the Senate bill. 
 
 Share the Facts 2017-11-04 20:17:20 UTC PolitiFact 4 1 7 PolitiFact Rating: Half True PolitiFact Rating: "With this plan, the typical family of four will save $1,182 a year on their taxes." Paul Ryan House Speaker https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/11/02/tax-reform-speaker-ryan-typical-family-of-4-will-save-1182-in-taxes.html a speech Thursday, November 2, 2017 2017-11-02 Read More info 
 
 What does it mean for the wealthy? 
 
 Several elements of the tax bills would disproportionately benefit wealthy taxpayers. 
 
 These include the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, which requires that taxpayers with many deductions pay at least a minimum amount of taxes; the creation of lower rates for "pass-through" income, which covers business income that is taxed on a business owner’s personal filing; and more generous exemptions (in the Senate bill) or outright elimination (in the House bill) of the estate tax. 
 
 According to the Tax Policy Center analysis of the House bill, the second-highest quintile of taxpayers would see a gain of $1,610 -- well above any of the lowest three quintiles -- while the highest 20 percent of households would get an even bigger tax cut of $4,860 in 2018. That works out to about 1.9 percent of their income -- the highest of any quintile. 
 
 The top 1 percent would do even better, saving $37,100 in 2018, or 2.4 percent of their income. And the top one-tenth of a percent of the income spectrum would see a cut of $174,620, or 2.5 percent of their income. 
 
 What is the impact for the Trump family? 
 
 It’s impossible to say with certainty without seeing the president’s tax returns. However, independent analyses, working from bare-bones public information about a leaked 2005 return, suggest that President Donald Trump stands to benefit in the short term by somewhere in the low tens of millions of dollars. 
 
 An analysis by the New York Times found that Trump’s taxes could be cut by $42 million, mainly from the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, along with the lowering of the pass-through tax rate for certain types of business income, offset to a certain extent by tax hikes from eliminating existing deductions. 
 
 Another analysis, commissioned by NBC, found by net savings of $22.5 million, based on a similar mix of provisions. 
 
 But the biggest impact would come from fully eliminating the estate tax, as the House bill would do. Both analyses found a family gain of $1.1 billion. However, the Trump family could only take advantage of this after both Trump and his wife, Melania, have passed away, which could be decades down the road.
– Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley is taking flak over comments he made about why the GOP aims to scrap or least mitigate the estate tax. In speaking to the Des Moines Register, Grassley said the tax often derided by Republicans as the "death tax" is unfair because it taxes earnings twice, first when people earn the money and again when they die and try to pass it on to their heirs. Then came the more controversial part: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies." As NPR notes, that triggered a flurry of online criticism from those who viewed Grassley's remarks as elitist. This tweet is typical of the reaction: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." The Washington Post notes that it also caught the attention of former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson, who tweeted, "[I]f we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” But it wasn't just Democrats taking issue. At the conservative Hot Air site, Ed Morrissey says the comment "is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell." Grassley's first criticism of the "double dip" problem with the estate tax is spot-on correct, he writes. "In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it." The House tax plan would eliminate the tax entirely in 2024, while the Senate version would double exemptions to $11 million for individuals and $22 million for couples.