Individual AMT in the final Senate tax bill

[FIREchiefsr]

I wanted to start a dedicated thread for this topic, as it is somewhat off the main path and being lost elsewhere.  I believe that the approved Senate bill contains erroneous numbers for the revised AMT.  I'll illustrate below:

Example:  married, filing jointly, no deductions beyond the new $24K standard deduction

Normally, we would not expect such a person to be subject to the AMT, as it is intended to claw back excessive deductions and loopholes to ensure everybody pays a "fair" tax.  The approved Senate bill provides two updated numbers:

AMT exemption:  $109,400 (up from $86,200 otherwise scheduled for 2018)
AMT exemption phaseout threshold:  $208,400 (up from $164,100 otherwise scheduled for 2018)
The bill is silent on the threshold for the 28% AMT bracket, so we'll assume it remains at the inflation adjusted 2018 value of $191,500

I set up a spreadsheet to calculate regular tax and AMT tax at various AGI values for the hypothetical taxpayer outlined above.  My analysis shows that such a taxpayer will pay AMT for all incomes between $294265 and $758443.


This can't be correct, can it?  We already know through the media that they messed up the corporate AMT (making the AMT calculation the same as the normal tax rates).  I would like to believe that they did the same with the individual AMT and will have to "fix" it in committee.  Otherwise, the cuts to all of the normal brackets are worthless to a MFJ taxpayer, with no deductions, making between $294K and $759K.  Maybe that's middle class.  Maybe not.  But it is a huge swath of taxpayers who would see little benefit other than the moderately expanded AMT exemption.

I would greatly welcome hearing what others, interested in the AMT, have learned about this.

[jean]

I couldn't find anything specific in the media addressing this.  I also assume it WILL change before anything becomes law. 

I think that it doesn't raise it to 109,400 today, but there is a substitution in the original tax code of 109,400 in place of 78,750.  That is an increase of ~40%.  So, I would take the 2018 numbers and inflate them by ~40% to see what happens.  It is totally unclear how inflation is being handled, and this could be wrong and I can't figure out exactly WHAT they are saying in the paragraphs about inflation - but that is how I'd approach the analysis.

I did some quick math when you first questioned this in the other thread, and still had it show the AMT would still hit some who only take the SD. I don't think that is true today. I wasn't confident in my result, so I didn't reply and I haven't had time to build the same spreadsheet you did. 

I assume this will change, as will the tax brackets, so it is really hard to figure out what incomes ultimately will be subject to an AMT.

[Undecided]

I did some quick math when you first questioned this in the other thread, and still had it show the AMT would still hit some who only take the SD. I don't think that is true today. I wasn't confident in my result, so I didn't reply and I haven't had time to build the same spreadsheet you did. 

Under the current system, you can get there through personal exemptions, but they’re to be eliminated under the Senate proposal.

[FIREchiefsr]

I couldn't find anything specific in the media addressing this.  I also assume it WILL change before anything becomes law. 

I think that it doesn't raise it to 109,400 today, but there is a substitution in the original tax code of 109,400 in place of 78,750.  That is an increase of ~40%.  So, I would take the 2018 numbers and inflate them by ~40% to see what happens.  It is totally unclear how inflation is being handled, and this could be wrong and I can't figure out exactly WHAT they are saying in the paragraphs about inflation - but that is how I'd approach the analysis.

I did some quick math when you first questioned this in the other thread, and still had it show the AMT would still hit some who only take the SD. I don't think that is true today. I wasn't confident in my result, so I didn't reply and I haven't had time to build the same spreadsheet you did. 

I assume this will change, as will the tax brackets, so it is really hard to figure out what incomes ultimately will be subject to an AMT.

I had also considered that the 109,400 and 208,400 would simply be replacing the original numbers (78,750 and 150,000) in the current tax code, and thus subject to inflation adjustment to 2018 values.  The current 2018 AMT thresholds, inflation adjusted to 2018 values, are 86,200 and 164,100.  This reflects a 9.4% cumulative inflation effect (from the 78,750 and 150,000 values).  If we are optimistic, and apply those same adjustments to the new numbers, the 2018 values become 119,800 and 228,000.  Running those through my spreadsheet still shows the MFJ taxpayer with only standard deduction paying AMT on all AGI's between 333,000 and 758,000.  So, it eliminated the AMT between 294,000 and 333,000; but otherwise doesn't eliminate the AMT.

This still seems way out of whack.  I wish I could agree with you that, as written, the AMT will not impact SD taxpayers, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  While AMT calculations can get very complicated, in the simplistic example I gave, the calculations (exemption phaseouts, AMT calculation, etc.) are very straightforward.  I still think/hope the Senate just bungled this one and slipped back in a revised individual AMT strategy that had been drafted around the tax brackets in their original bill (which were reduced in the very first amended version published days before the final vote). 

[jean]

  I wish I could agree with you that, as written, the AMT will not impact SD taxpayers, but the numbers suggest otherwise.

Well, that's not what I said, I agreed with you.  Albeit maybe not clearly, I said I came up with the same thing (SD = AMT at some income threshold that I didn't save) in a quick calculation. I agree the AMT is much simpler than people make it out to be, so as long as we really understand what is in the bill, I am willing to believe your math. I agree it would be quite odd to have a big range where you are always stuck with the AMT and possibly not what was intended?

Today there is a not-so-small range where you are (nearly) guaranteed to owe the AMT if you live in a high tax state, because the deduction you get for state taxes.  This starts around $245k taxable income in Cali, not sure how high it goes because at some point the Pease Limitation comes into play and complicate things.

Mostly, I am saying that this provision is almost surely going to change or be removed.

This lack of clarity is pretty ridiculous though - congress owes it to the public to clearly explain what is the bill they passed. 

[FIREchiefsr]

Well, that's not what I said, I agreed with you. 

I agree it would be quite odd to have a big range where you are always stuck with the AMT and possibly not what was intended?

This lack of clarity is pretty ridiculous though - congress owes it to the public to clearly explain what is the bill they passed.

My mistake.

Yep, this is all very odd and the silence is deafening.  I'm surprised (well, maybe not) that we haven't been able to find anything about this blazing anomaly in the financial press.  There have been numerous commentaries on how honked up the Corporate AMT part of the bill is, but the individual AMT resurrection is not mentioned (beyond general statements that it will impact less taxpayers, which may not be at all true).

[jean]

I totally agree. 

Here is an article:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/senate-would-keep-individual-amt-turn-it-very-different-tax

The WSJ also has something behind a paywall. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hated-tax-that-just-wont-die-1512734400

Maybe it was intentional? Or they knew it was temporary so didn't worry about it.

Philosophically I do believe in progressive structures to ensure the wealthy (and at 325k AGI, that is quite deathly) pay taxes, but this is a convoluted way to do it.

[FIREchiefsr]

I totally agree. 

Here is an article:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/senate-would-keep-individual-amt-turn-it-very-different-tax

The WSJ also has something behind a paywall. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hated-tax-that-just-wont-die-1512734400

Maybe it was intentional? Or they knew it was temporary so didn't worry about it.

Philosophically I do believe in progressive structures to ensure the wealthy (and at 325k AGI, that is quite deathly) pay taxes, but this is a convoluted way to do it.

Excellent.  That first linked article is the first I've seen in print that aligns with the numbers I've found through my spreadsheet.  Glad this is getting out there so that the public has an opportunity to understand while there is still time for the committee to fix this mess.

[foobar]

Maybe it was intentional? Or they knew it was temporary so didn't worry about it.

Philosophically I do believe in progressive structures to ensure the wealthy (and at 325k AGI, that is quite deathly) pay taxes, but this is a convoluted way to do it.

It is probably intentional. You have to remember these tax reforms don't have the goal of simplifying things or making tons of sense. The goals of this reform are to cut taxes on business, give a big tax cut to wealthy people (see the pass through tax law and the efforts to exclude upper middle class professionals from it), and give enough tax cuts to everyone else to cover for it. Claiming you cut rates from say 33% to 25% is great PR. Nobody will care about the asterik that the due to AMT most people still pay 28%.  . AMT was a tax designed to catch a couple of multimillionaries (in 1970 dollars) who didn't pay any income taxes. It grew into this system that traps upper middle class people. People constantly talk about getting rid of AMT but it just raises too much money. And since it isn't a tax on the rich or the poor, there really isn't anyone interested in really getting rid of it (versus talking about getting rid of it).

See the doubling of the deduction for another example of this game playing. Sounds great. Until you factor in how much you lose in personal exemptions. A family of 4 goes from having a 28.9k deduction to a 24k one. It is a marginal change at best but it sure sounds good in advertising when you can claim you doubled the deduction.

This is just how politics work these days. If the democrats don't run ads about peoples whose taxes went up 50% (i.e. from 1k to 1500) and compare them to some rich guys getting 20% cuts, they are incompenent.:)

[FIREchiefsr]

Maybe it was intentional? Or they knew it was temporary so didn't worry about it.

Philosophically I do believe in progressive structures to ensure the wealthy (and at 325k AGI, that is quite deathly) pay taxes, but this is a convoluted way to do it.

It is probably intentional. You have to remember these tax reforms don't have the goal of simplifying things or making tons of sense. The goals of this reform are to cut taxes on business, give a big tax cut to wealthy people (see the pass through tax law and the efforts to exclude upper middle class professionals from it), and give enough tax cuts to everyone else to cover for it. Claiming you cut rates from say 33% to 25% is great PR. Nobody will care about the asterik that the due to AMT most people still pay 28%.  . AMT was a tax designed to catch a couple of multimillionaries (in 1970 dollars) who didn't pay any income taxes. It grew into this system that traps upper middle class people. People constantly talk about getting rid of AMT but it just raises too much money. And since it isn't a tax on the rich or the poor, there really isn't anyone interested in really getting rid of it (versus talking about getting rid of it).

I hope that you are wrong, but fear that you are correct.  Even though the lower rates won't benefit many due to the lingering AMT, they will still benefit those above the AMT because the cumulative taxes prior to entering the top bracket will be lower.  Really strange, creative, insulting strategy.

[jean]

Excellent.  That first linked article is the first I've seen in print that aligns with the numbers I've found through my spreadsheet.  Glad this is getting out there so that the public has an opportunity to understand while there is still time for the committee to fix this mess.

Well, no mainstream outlets have picked it up (aside from paywall WSJ) so I don't think the general public is paying attention.  And even if they were, what then? We call our reps and complain?  You need to have a republican wiling to make this a sticking point.  Not saying people shouldn't call, it is just unlikely to be very effective.

Also, this doesn't seem like it would play well in the media in general - no one will have sympathy for the $300k - $700k people.  Other issues are more compelling. 

Not that people shouldn't hear about this, but I can see why it is being ignored.

[FIREchiefsr]

Well, no mainstream outlets have picked it up (aside from paywall WSJ) so I don't think the general public is paying attention.  And even if they were, what then? We call our reps and complain?  You need to have a republican wiling to make this a sticking point.  Not saying people shouldn't call, it is just unlikely to be very effective.

Also, this doesn't seem like it would play well in the media in general - no one will have sympathy for the $300k - $700k people.  Other issues are more compelling. 

Not that people shouldn't hear about this, but I can see why it is being ignored.

I think you are right.  Just saying "AMT" looses most of the general public audience, so unless there is some sensational punch line, it is likely of little interest.   It's just ironic that the GOP was spouting "lower brackets" and "no more AMT" at the beginning of this and now, for many upper middle class (but not the bazilloinaires) it may wind up being just the opposite.

[jean]

I think you are right.  Just saying "AMT" looses most of the general public audience, so unless there is some sensational punch line, it is likely of little interest.   It's just ironic that the GOP was spouting "lower brackets" and "no more AMT" at the beginning of this and now, for many upper middle class (but not the bazilloinaires) it may wind up being just the opposite.

Tangent - "Upper middle class" is a stretch even for high cost areas - that income range is wealthy/affluent/rich. I do agree it is not bazillionaires / super rich or people who will never have to worry about money, and there is a big distinction. I'm also not saying taxes should be raised for that group  - esp. in order to give breaks to corps and ultra rich!  Still, no matter how much someone in that group may feel like they are living a middle class life, that isn't middle class.  Our household makes a fair amount less than that (in a HCOLA), yet I've still recently come to the terms with the fact that I can't realistically call us middle class.  I feel very middle class.

Anyway, I also think/fear foobar is correct that this was an intentional strategy.

What a freaking mess.

[foobar]

I think you are right.  Just saying "AMT" looses most of the general public audience, so unless there is some sensational punch line, it is likely of little interest.   It's just ironic that the GOP was spouting "lower brackets" and "no more AMT" at the beginning of this and now, for many upper middle class (but not the bazilloinaires) it may wind up being just the opposite.

Tangent - "Upper middle class" is a stretch even for high cost areas - that income range is wealthy/affluent/rich. I do agree it is not bazillionaires / super rich or people who will never have to worry about money, and there is a big distinction. I'm also not saying taxes should be raised for that group  - esp. in order to give breaks to corps and ultra rich!  Still, no matter how much someone in that group may feel like they are living a middle class life, that isn't middle class.  Our household makes a fair amount less than that (in a HCOLA), yet I've still recently come to the terms with the fact that I can't realistically call us middle class.  I feel very middle class.

Anyway, I also think/fear foobar is correct that this was an intentional strategy.

What a freaking mess.

People will debate forever what the definitions of middle or upper middle class is.  The people in this group have a lot more in common with the groups below them then the ones above them. You get a bunch of 2 earner professional couples (say 2 engineers each making 150k, or a doctor lawyer couple making 600k). The income is higher than the middle class (some where under 100k) but they still have the same concerns (i.e. will I lose my job, can I buy a house, pay for college,..) just on a grander scale (they can buy a bmw instead of a accord), can afford a 2500 sq ft house and not a 1200 sq ft one, and so on). And yes nobody has any sympathy for them but they are basically paying the highest marginal rates. Above them the rates drop as more and more income comes from LTGC. Below them people don't pay much in taxes because of a combo of deductions, exemptions and those low marginal rates.

I would love to know how much AMT is actually caused by preference type items (ISO option exercise, ineligible muni bonds,  and the like) versus deduction loss (SALT, lots of kids). My impression is that the first group is the exception while the second group is the rule.  Seems like adjusting the brackets could solve pretty much all the second case if anyone wanted to do it.

[jean]

My opinion: many would do well to be realistic where they fall in wealth distributions in this country, and look down instead of up.  "Not middle class" doesn't mean free from money worries. But I won't push my opinion further, it isn't super relevant here. 

I do not think increase taxes on those in this range to give to corps & the very rich breaks is good policy. 

[Undecided]

My opinion: many would do well to be realistic where they fall in wealth distributions in this country, and look down instead of up.  "Not middle class" doesn't mean free from money worries. But I won't push my opinion further, it isn't super relevant here. 

I do not think increase taxes on those in this range to give to corps & the very rich breaks is good policy.

Using qualitative labels seems to be an agreed construct. I don’t think it’s useful, but if we’re stuck with it, the border skirmishes regarding the terms just lead to more finely distinguished class warfare. I can assure you that a family making $300,000/year doesn’t see itself having much in common (economically) with one making $6 million (and vice versa). Lumping then together for discussion seems odd to me. I find it very odd that Republicans don’t have to defend the absence of additional marginal brackets at, say $3 million/year and $12 million/year.

[FIREchiefsr]

Respectfully, I will ask that we keep this thread focused on the AMT changes.  I started it because it was becoming impossible to separate the signal from noise in the big thread.

Now, for a newsflash from the NYT:

"The conference bill will preserve the individual alternative minimum tax, which the House bill had eliminated and the Senate bill retained in a watered-down form. The conference version will apply to even fewer taxpayers than the Senate bill would have, the congressional aide said."

This appears to suggest that the revised AMT exemptions and exemption phase-out thresholds in the Senate bill have been further increased.  This, if true, would mitigate the effects of the AMT I outlined earlier in the thread.  If/when we see some new numbers I'll rerun the calcs and post here.  Thanks for the meaningful discussion on the AMT changes.  :)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.html

[jean]

I will focus on the AMT changes as long as no one claims the new AMT is hurting the middle class!  (Just kidding, I won't comment on that again either - I shared my perspective, and that is enough.)

Very interesting/surprising  that it is likely to stay in the conference.  It is hard to figure out any impacts until they release the thresholds and finalize the new tax brackets.  Even under the current tax code, the AMT was much much more likely hit people in 300-750k range more than those in the $1M+ range.  The Senate version shifted the income level of people it is likely to hit higher (Tax Policy Center link upthread), so I see that as a step in the right direction.  Is your main concern that it hits SD filers?

[ZiziPB]

Respectfully, I will ask that we keep this thread focused on the AMT changes.  I started it because it was becoming impossible to separate the signal from noise in the big thread.

Now, for a newsflash from the NYT:

"The conference bill will preserve the individual alternative minimum tax, which the House bill had eliminated and the Senate bill retained in a watered-down form. The conference version will apply to even fewer taxpayers than the Senate bill would have, the congressional aide said."

This appears to suggest that the revised AMT exemptions and exemption phase-out thresholds in the Senate bill have been further increased.  This, if true, would mitigate the effects of the AMT I outlined earlier in the thread.  If/when we see some new numbers I'll rerun the calcs and post here.  Thanks for the meaningful discussion on the AMT changes.  :)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.html

There goes the promised "reform and simplification"...  I've been an AMT taxpayer for a number of years now and it was the one thing I was hoping would go.  Not because it forces me to pay more tax but because of how complicated it is.  If you want me to pay more tax, fine, but do it some other way (like setting the tax brackets at the right levels)!

[FIREchiefsr]

Very interesting/surprising  that it is likely to stay in the conference.  It is hard to figure out any impacts until they release the thresholds and finalize the new tax brackets.  Even under the current tax code, the AMT was much much more likely hit people in 300-750k range more than those in the $1M+ range.  The Senate version shifted the income level of people it is likely to hit higher (Tax Policy Center link upthread), so I see that as a step in the right direction.  Is your main concern that it hits SD filers?

Since I will be a SD filer going forward, yes that is my personal area of focus.  Having AMT hit a SD filer just doesn't make logical sense (yeah, I know, IRS.....).  I will add that somebody doesn't need to have a 300K to 750K annual income to get hit by the AMT in this scenario.  I wish we all had that "problem."  It can also come into play for somebody with an inflated AGI for only one or several years due to things like aggressive Roth conversions.

[FIREchiefsr]

There goes the promised "reform and simplification"...  I've been an AMT taxpayer for a number of years now and it was the one thing I was hoping would go.  Not because it forces me to pay more tax but because of how complicated it is.  If you want me to pay more tax, fine, but do it some other way (like setting the tax brackets at the right levels)!

+1.  I wasted many hours adding AMT functionality to my master financial planning spreadsheet.  It works well (as verified against TurboTax results), but it is really, really complicated.

[jean]

Yup, we had a one-time AMT year due to some job change reasons, and if I tried to pre-pay my property taxes 2018, we'd hit it this year too.  It is now one of those things I monitor, although haven't been convinced it is terrible policy yet.

It does seem pretty silly that a SD filer would be hit by it.  I was curious if your concern was about the new AMT, or the AMT in general.  Sounds like the answer is yes (meaning both) :)

[FIREchiefsr]

Yup, we had a one-time AMT year due to some job change reasons, and if I tried to pre-pay my property taxes 2018, we'd hit it this year too.  It is now one of those things I monitor, although haven't been convinced it is terrible policy yet.

It does seem pretty silly that a SD filer would be hit by it.  I was curious if your concern was about the new AMT, or the AMT in general.  Sounds like the answer is yes (meaning both) :)

I had accepted the old AMT for what it was, and I worked around and/or within it strategically. 

With the elimination of most SALT, and the doubling of the SD, I was mainly concerned that the "new" AMT was unduly punitive and drifted far from the original intent.  I'm with the other poster in asking "why not just modify the brackets so that the same taxes are collected without the complexity of an AMT?"

[foobar]

Very interesting/surprising  that it is likely to stay in the conference.  It is hard to figure out any impacts until they release the thresholds and finalize the new tax brackets.  Even under the current tax code, the AMT was much much more likely hit people in 300-750k range more than those in the $1M+ range.  The Senate version shifted the income level of people it is likely to hit higher (Tax Policy Center link upthread), so I see that as a step in the right direction.  Is your main concern that it hits SD filers?

Since I will be a SD filer going forward, yes that is my personal area of focus.  Having AMT hit a SD filer just doesn't make logical sense (yeah, I know, IRS.....).  I will add that somebody doesn't need to have a 300K to 750K annual income to get hit by the AMT in this scenario.  I wish we all had that "problem."  It can also come into play for somebody with an inflated AGI for only one or several years due to things like aggressive Roth conversions.

People doing 500k of ROTH conversions have 500k of income. They new limits are much higher than in the past where you could have 4 kids, a bunch of state taxes and a 125k income and get hit with AMT.

Again you are looking for logic in a place where it doesn't exist. Rates are set by marketing not by logic.

And yes the AMT goes away for people making much over 750k or so unless you have some big AMT preference items (i.e. ISO options, private muni bonds are the two common ones). It is a tax that has outlived its purpose but as you can see nobody wants to give up that revenue.

[Undecided]

AMT apparently only applicable to singles making over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.amp.html

[FIREchiefsr]

AMT apparently only applicable to singles making over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.amp.html

I saw that.  I've also seen at least one other report that suggests that the $500K/$1M numbers will be the new AMT exemption amounts.  The later makes much more sense in the context of the AMT as historically executed.  AMT has never really tied directly to an AGI level, but is instead incurred with varying combinations of income and deductions.  The exemption amount, threshold for exemption phaseout and threshold for the 28% AMT bracket are the three numbers updated by the IRS each year that really determine AMT applicability.

[foobar]

AMT apparently only applicable to singles making over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.amp.html

I saw that.  I've also seen at least one other report that suggests that the $500K/$1M numbers will be the new AMT exemption amounts.  The later makes much more sense in the context of the AMT as historically executed.  AMT has never really tied directly to an AGI level, but is instead incurred with varying combinations of income and deductions.  The exemption amount, threshold for exemption phaseout and threshold for the 28% AMT bracket are the three numbers updated by the IRS each year that really determine AMT applicability.

It doesn't make sense either way. It is hard to give exact numbers since the details are so sketchy but in with a 550k/1 million dollar exemption, it would be tough for the AMT tax to catch up to income in the 35%+ bracket even with the lower 25% rates.  If the AMT only hits people with income over 500k, I would also expect it to be a narrow tax (i.e. you need to make between 500k and 700k to get hit by it). Obviously it is hard to say much of anything until we get final tax brackets and exemption numbers.

[FIREchiefsr]

AMT apparently only applicable to singles making over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.amp.html

I saw that.  I've also seen at least one other report that suggests that the $500K/$1M numbers will be the new AMT exemption amounts.  The later makes much more sense in the context of the AMT as historically executed.  AMT has never really tied directly to an AGI level, but is instead incurred with varying combinations of income and deductions.  The exemption amount, threshold for exemption phaseout and threshold for the 28% AMT bracket are the three numbers updated by the IRS each year that really determine AMT applicability.

It doesn't make sense either way. It is hard to give exact numbers since the details are so sketchy but in with a 550k/1 million dollar exemption, it would be tough for the AMT tax to catch up to income in the 35%+ bracket even with the lower 25% rates.  If the AMT only hits people with income over 500k, I would also expect it to be a narrow tax (i.e. you need to make between 500k and 700k to get hit by it). Obviously it is hard to say much of anything until we get final tax brackets and exemption numbers.

I've ran some models, and if the $1M is really the new AMT exemption amount for MFJ, it would only hit in extreme situations (e.g. a MFJ with AGI of $900K who has $800K of deductions such as losses, medical expenses, etc. that are disallowed under the AMT; would pay $14K regular taxes and $4K of AMT).  Inflate those numbers and the "new" AMT becomes the bulk of that person's tax bill.  This is consistent with the original intent of the AMT.

With the new numbers, there are zero instances of the AMT affecting anybody using only the standard deduction (at any income level).

[FIREchiefsr]

Bill text is now out:

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20171218/CRPT-115HRPT-466.pdf

At first glance, it appears that the $1M figure (for MFJ) is the new exemption phase out threshold, NOT a greatly increased exemption.  More to come...