Republicans are scheduled to vote today on a tax bill designed to please their donors, not the middle class. Their bill would increase taxes on, and take billions from, the middle class, while giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations.

The Republican tax bill would take more than $5 billion from middle-class families to give to the rich.

New York Times: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.”

Over 80% of households would have their taxes increase or see no change, while about 60% of households making over $1 million would get a tax cut.

Wall Street Journal: “By 2027, after the individual tax cuts expire, most households would see little effect, as 61% would have either tax increases or tax cuts below $100. In that year, 16% of households would have tax cuts exceeding $100 while 23% would pay more.”

Washington Post Wonkblog: “But by 2027, just 16 percent of Americans would get a tax cut of at least $100.”

Wall Street Journal: “By 2027, when corporate tax cuts are the largest remaining policy, the tax cuts would be concentrated at the top of the income scale, with about 60% of households making over $1 million getting a tax cut, though 38% of them would pay more.”

The Republican tax bill is designed to please their wealthy donors, not the middle class.

Former Chief of Staff at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation: “It’s not aimed at growth. It is not aimed at the middle class. It is at every turn carefully engineered to deliver a kiss to the donor class.”

New York Times Editorial: “These policy changes, smuggled into the bill to please big Republican donors, would never survive a more transparent process. History will remember them for what they are: smaller scams aimed at winning support for a much bigger one.”

Nobel Laureate Economist: “Either it’s a religious belief, a belief where no amount of evidence would change that, or they are using the argument cynically and they just want more money for themselves.”