As lawmakers debate the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate, a new Epoch Times poll of 12,973 readers shows strong backing for many of the bill’s core provisions—including permanent tax cuts and banning Medicaid funding for gender-transition procedures—but more cautious views on its long-term fiscal impact.
The sweeping, 1,000-plus-page bill combines permanent tax relief with major spending reductions and entitlement reforms. It would make permanent the individual income and estate tax cuts enacted under President Donald Trump’s first term, exempt tips and overtime pay from federal taxes, and temporarily increase the standard deduction and child tax credit.
To help offset what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates as $3.8 trillion in lost revenue through 2034, the bill proposes a series of savings measures. These include what the Tax Foundation projects could be $851 billion in savings from repealing or phasing out green energy tax credits tied to former President Joe Biden’s InflationReduction Act, as well as CBO-estimated savings of $698 billion from tighter Medicaid eligibility rules, $267 billion less in federal spending on food stamps, and $64 billion less for all other purposes.
The bill also authorizes a $4 trillion increase in the U.S. debt limit—something Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said is essential to avoid default later this year.
Republicans have pitched the bill as a commonsense fix for what they see as soaring Medicaid costs, declining military readiness, border chaos, and inflation.
90 Percent of US Companies Plan to Reshore Amid Tariffs, Allianz Survey Finds
Democrats call it a giveaway to the rich, arguing it slashes vital aid to struggling families to fund tax breaks for billionaires—a possible preview of their campaign message in the 2026 mid-term election.
Trump has, on balance, endorsed the bill. He has, however, offered a somewhat mixed review of the details, saying he was “thrilled” with some parts of the bill but not entirely happy with others. He has also urged the Senate to move quickly to pass the measure, highlighting provisions like making his 2017 tax cuts permanent, exempting tips and overtime from taxes, increasing pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, funding a “Golden Dome” missile defense system, and “Trump Savings Accounts” for newborns.
Elon Musk, who headed Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative on its mission to cut wasteful and fraudulent government spending, has said the bill falls short of his hopes for deficit reduction. “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” Musk said, “but I don’t know if it can be both.”
The bill passed the House last week and is now under Senate consideration. As deliberations continue on Capitol Hill, readers of The Epoch Times have weighed in with broad support for many of the bill’s provisions—though not without some reservations about its long-term fiscal tradeoffs.
Strong Support for Key Provisions on Taxes, Benefits, and National Security
Readers overwhelmingly back core elements of the bill, from tax relief and Medicaid work rules to border funding and military investments.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes sweeping restrictions on federal funding for gender-transition procedures, banning the use of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for “gender-affirming care” across all age groups. While the original draft applied only to minors, a late-stage amendment extended the prohibition to adults.
Under the bill, federal funds could not be used for hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or gender-transition surgeries intended to modify a person’s body to align with their so-called gender identity. The legislation would also amend the Affordable Care Act to remove gender-transition procedures from the list of essential health benefits.
Poll results show overwhelming reader support for these provisions. A total of 89 percent strongly agree that the bill is right to prohibit Medicaid funding for gender-related medical procedures. An additional 3 percent somewhat agree, while only 6 percent express any level of disagreement. Just 2 percent are neutral—indicating near-unanimous backing for this measure.
The bill seeks to permanently extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), a centerpiece of Trump’s first-term agenda. Without congressional action, key provisions of the TCJA—including lower income tax rates—are set to expire in 2026, resulting in automatic tax hikes for most Americans. For instance, the current 12 percent marginal tax bracket would revert to 15 percent, hitting earners with as little as $12,150 in taxable income. The 22 percent bracket would rise to 25 percent for incomes around $50,000. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act aims to prevent these increases by locking in the current rates.
Reader sentiment strongly backs the extension. A combined 90 percent support the measure, with 81 percent saying they strongly agree and 9 percent somewhat agreeing. Just 6 percent oppose it, and 4 percent remain neutral—underscoring widespread support for keeping the TCJA tax cuts in place.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes sweeping reforms to the food stamp program—formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—aiming to reduce spending by $267 billion over the next decade. Chief among these reforms is a plan to tighten work requirements. The bill raises the age limit for work requirements from 54 to 64 for able-bodied adults without dependents. It also narrows exemptions for parents, only allowing those with children under age 7 to qualify.
The proposed changes received overwhelming support from readers. A combined 91 percent said the work rules are an acceptable way to cut spending, including 80 percent who strongly agree. Just 6 percent opposed the measure, and 3 percent were neutral.
Republicans are also proposing to tie Medicaid coverage to work. The bill would require able-bodied adults without dependents to work at least 80 hours a month to keep their Medicaid benefits—a policy aimed at curbing costs and encouraging employment. Federal Medicaid spending has nearly doubled over the past decade to $614 billion, raising concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability.
The proposal has strong support among poll respondents. Seventy-nine percent strongly agree with the requirement, while another 11 percent somewhat agree. Just 6 percent oppose the measure, and 4 percent are neutral.
As part of the Trump administration’s immigration reform thrust, the bill commits $12 billion to reimburse border states for money they’ve spent on border security since the beginning of the Biden presidency. This is part of an overall $150 billion boost to immigration enforcement, including hiring more border patrol agents, restarting wall construction, and expanding deportations of illegal immigrants.
Readers strongly back the move. Seventy-nine percent say the investment in border security is worth it, with another 11 percent somewhat agreeing. Just 7 percent oppose it and 3 percent are undecided.
From missile defense to military readiness, the bill directs $150 billion toward national security priorities. That includes $25 billion for the Golden Dome missile shield, $34 billion for naval expansion, and billions more for ammunition, new weapons systems, and servicemember benefits like housing and health care.
Poll respondents broadly support the investment—64 percent strongly agree it’s necessary for national security, while another 19 percent somewhat agree. Just 10 percent express any level of disagreement, and 7 percent remain neutral.
Broad Backing for Business Tax Relief, Spending Cuts, and Budget Rebalancing
Readers back provisions aimed at stimulating investment, boosting small businesses, and shifting federal priorities—even as some concerns were expressed over Medicaid coverage losses.
To encourage business investment, the bill temporarily restores 100 percent bonus depreciation—allowing companies to fully deduct the cost of qualifying equipment and machinery in the year of purchase from 2025 through 2029. The Tax Foundation projects that 100 percent bonus depreciation—paired with expanded research and development expensing and a higher Section 179 expensing cap—would substantially enhance economic growth.
The proposal has widespread support among readers. Eighty-six percent agree that letting businesses fully deduct equipment costs in the year of purchase will boost investment, including 61 percent who strongly support it. Just 5 percent disagree, while 9 percent are neutral.
The bill introduces a new tax break aimed at helping working-class Americans. It allows workers in traditionally tipped industries—such as servers, bartenders, delivery drivers, and hairstylists—to deduct 100 percent of their tip income from federal taxes between 2025 and 2028.
The deduction applies to individuals earning up to $160,000, with future adjustments for inflation. Supporters say the measure could provide meaningful relief for millions of service workers while simplifying tax compliance in tip-heavy industries.
This idea enjoys solid backing from Epoch Times readers. Eighty-two percent support it, including 60 percent who strongly agree. Just 8 percent oppose it, and 10 percent are neutral.
To help offset the cost of extending and expanding Trump-era tax cuts, Republicans propose phasing out alternative energy tax credits that were introduced or expanded under the Biden administration.
The bill would end key incentives for wind, solar, and battery storage projects by 2028 and limit eligibility to those that begin construction within 60 days of passage. The Tax Foundation estimates up to $851 billion in savings from repealing or phasing out all the Biden-era green energy tax credits. At the same time, the bill preserves or expands credits for nuclear energy, reflecting a shift in priorities toward more stable, long-term power sources.
A strong majority of respondents—78 percent—support removing alternative energy tax credits as part of reprioritizing the federal budget. Thirteen percent are neutral, and 9 percent disagree.
Under the bill, the deduction for qualified business income is increased to 23 percent and made permanent. This lets owners of pass-through businesses—like sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations—subtract a bigger portion of their income before calculating their taxes, effectively lowering their tax bill.
Supporters say the deduction boosts reinvestment and hiring by raising the after-tax income of business owners, aligning with the Trump administration’s broader strategy of positioning the private sector—not the government—as the main engine of economic growth.
Poll results show strong support for raising to 23 percent and making permanent the deduction for qualified business income. A combined 83 percent of respondents agree that this will significantly promote economic growth, including 56 percent who strongly agree. Just 6 percent disagree, while 11 percent are neutral.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would permanently raise the federal gift, estate, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption to $15 million per person, up from the current $13.99 million. The exemption would also continue to rise with inflation.
The increase would allow individuals to pass on more assets tax-free, easing pressure to make large gifts under current limits. Estate planners say it would also make it easier to fund trusts that preserve family wealth across generations.
A total of 65 percent of poll respondents support raising the estate tax exemption to $15 million, though only 45 percent strongly agree. Twenty-two percent are neutral, while 13 percent express disagreement.
The bill would cut $698 billion from federal Medicaid spending over the next decade, which would come from tighter eligibility rules, reduced federal contributions for expansion enrollees, and changes to provider payments.
While this would save taxpayers billions and help lower deficits—a central goal of the Trump administration—it would also mean millions could lose coverage. The scale of the proposed cut is close to one of the mid-range scenarios modeled by the Congressional Budget Office, which found that $798 billion in reductions would lead to roughly 5.8 million people losing Medicaid, including an estimated 2.9 million who would become uninsured.
Despite the potential coverage losses, a combined 65 percent of poll respondents said cutting $700 billion from Medicaid is an acceptable tradeoff to reduce government spending. Twenty percent were neutral, and 15 percent opposed the measure.
Cautious Confidence in Growth Projections, Broad Rejection of ‘Tax Cuts for the Rich’ Narrative
Readers expressed measured optimism on economic impacts while dismissing claims the bill favors the wealthy.
The bill’s architects argue that tax cuts and deregulation will spur enough investment and productivity to counterbalance deficit concerns, with poll respondents cautiously optimistic that this will indeed be the case.
A combined 64 percent of respondents say they are confident the bill’s provisions will generate sufficient economic growth to offset its fiscal impact—including 30 percent who only somewhat agree. At the same time, 20 percent remain neutral, and 16 percent express doubt, pointing to a degree of fiscal anxiety and some apparent skepticism about the math that underpins the package.
One of the more contentious parts of the tax bill is the revision of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. After pushback from lawmakers in high-tax states like New York and California, negotiators agreed to raise the deduction limit to $40,000 for taxpayers earning less than $500,000, starting in 2025. The cap would gradually phase down for higher earners.
Fifty-two percent of respondents say the SALT cap change makes the tax code fairer, while 25 percent are opposed and 23 percent are neutral. This suggests the SALT revision is less of a rallying point than other provisions in the bill.
Senate Republicans may seek to amend the House-passed package as they begin vetting the bill under the Byrd Rule, which restricts non-budgetary provisions in reconciliation legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has made clear the upper chamber intends to leave its “imprint,” but with only a narrow majority, sweeping changes could prove risky. Senators may pursue committee markups, especially on tax provisions, but each adjustment risks losing GOP support in the House.
Reflecting this uncertainty, 65 percent of Epoch Times readers said they expect the Senate to significantly revise the bill, though only 30 percent strongly agreed. Another 26 percent were neutral, suggesting many are unsure how far senators will go in reshaping the legislation.
Estimates vary widely on how much the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add to federal deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $3.8 trillion increase over a decade, while the Tax Foundation estimates $2.6 trillion on a conventional basis and $1.7 trillion when factoring in economic growth. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the potential cost as high as $5.1 trillion if temporary provisions are made permanent.
Nearly half of the respondents—49 percent—express concern that the bill’s deficit impact could jeopardize future economic stability. Yet with 25 percent in disagreement and 26 percent neutral, the overall response suggests that fiscal risks are not a dominant worry for many.
One of the biggest flashpoints in the debate over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is who benefits. Democrats argue it’s a tax giveaway to the rich, funded by cutting Medicaid and food stamp benefits for the poor. Citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis, they note that households in the bottom 10 percent would see a decline in net resources, while the wealthiest 10 percent gain from reduced tax burdens.
Republicans say that view overlooks broader gains. They highlight the bill’s expanded child tax credit, higher standard deduction, and exemptions for tips and overtime pay—measures they say deliver the biggest percentage tax savings to working- and middle-class families. The Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that most households will see a tax cut, with the largest benefits as a share of income concentrated in the middle brackets.
In the Epoch Times poll, only 12 percent of respondents said the bill favors the wealthy at others’ expense. A solid 73 percent rejected that view, including 51 percent who strongly disagreed. Fifteen percent said they were neutral.
Write-In Responses Show Strong Demand for Simpler, Fairer Tax Relief
In the final question of the survey, readers were asked to describe what tax break they would most like to see for American workers. More than 7,000 responded, with strong themes emerging around Social Security, tax code simplification, and incentives for hard work.
The most common request was to end federal taxation of Social Security benefits. Thousands argued the policy amounts to double taxation—once when income is earned, and again in retirement—and urged full exemption. Many called the bill’s additional $4,000 deduction for seniors for tax years 2025 through 2028 inadequate.
Simplifying the income tax system ranked second. Some advocated replacing the income tax with a flat or consumption-based system, while others proposed expanded zero-tax brackets, especially for incomes under $100,000. Many called the current code unfair, overly complex, and skewed toward special interests.
Property taxes drew significant criticism, with hundreds calling them unjust or tantamount to “perpetual rent.” Many expressed frustration that homeownership still comes with ongoing tax burdens even after a mortgage is paid off.
A strong call also emerged to eliminate taxes on overtime pay, which many said penalizes hard work. Readers working in trades, health care, and other hourly roles said putting in extra shifts often doesn’t translate into meaningful increases in take-home pay, because taxes eat up much of the additional earnings.
Other recurring themes included eliminating taxes on retirement income, such as 401(k) and IRA withdrawals, expanding tax relief for child-care costs, and abolishing the estate tax, which many viewed as unfair to families.
Across the board, responses revealed frustration with what many view as a punitive and confusing tax system—and a desire for changes that reward work, respect retirees, and restore fairness.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have been threatened, arrested, and assaulted, but our commitment to independent journalism has never wavered. This year marks our 25th year of independent reporting, free from corporate and political influence.
That’s why you’re invited to a limited-time introductory offer — just $1 per week — so you can join millions already celebrating independent news.
