[kyralis]

No. The total tax bill over the next five years was X, given the current laws. Then a bill was passed that reduced that total tax bill over the next five years. This is a tax cut. It's a little absurd to try to claim otherwise.

[WalterBright]

Failing to increase taxes is not a tax cut.

[kyralis]

This is the same as saying that a tax cut with an expiration date should be treated as if it were permanent.

Are you not aware that these things are different? That there is a difference between an adjustment to a proposed budget and a budget that has been enshrined in law?

What's the magical time horizon that changes this? If I change the taxes due for 2026, is that a tax cut? How about 2027? Where's the line between a change in law that is or is not a tax cut with this philosophy?

If you want consistency, a change in law that adjusts the tax burden downward from what the burden would be without the change in law is a tax cut. Therefore, a change in the law that makes previously temporary reduced tax levels into permanent reduced tax levels is a tax cut.