That's actually what has to happen with any real tax reform. The tax code right now is insanely complicated. Simplifying the tax code, by definition, means lowering the nominal rates in exchange for reducing or eliminating the credits and deductions. The people who benefit from the existing code are the ones who get the credits and deductions. Take away the credits and deductions, and even the lower nominal rates mean higher overall payments to the IRS for some people. That's the short version, but tax reform is all about tradeoffs. Someone's true tax rate goes up, in exchange for someone else's true rate going down.
On the basis of that, I didn't think the Republicans would do anything like real tax reform. I thought they'd just go for a simple set of tax cuts because... why bother imposing costs on anyone? Pass a budget resolution giving themselves the authority to increase the deficit for 10 years without any Democratic votes, cut some rates, include some spending cuts to allow a few tax cuts to remain permanent, and Bob's your uncle. There's a Republican plan. Doing anything else would mean someone's taxes go up.
Enter Grover Norquist. Norquist is the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and the guy who goes around asking every Republican in the country to sign a pledge indicating that they will never, under pain of execution of their puppies, raise any taxes ever. The Norquist pledge has been a big deal in Republican politics for a loooooong time. And yet... with a Republican tax plan making the rounds that includes a bunch of peoples' taxes going up... Norquist doesn't seem to be a factor. What's the deal? Possibilities to consider.
1) Maybe Norquist was more a product of his times than a driver of politics. After Poppy Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, the GOP reacted, and Norquist was a part of that reaction, but a symptom rather than a cause.
2) Maybe when Obama got the GOP to break the Norquist pledge during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, he broke Norquist! When the Bush tax cuts expired in 2011 (and then again in 2013 after they were extended for two more years), Norquist tried to push the GOP to insist that all of Bush's tax cuts were retained. Obama negotiated a $400K cutoff. The cutoff itself was pointless because anybody making more than that does it through capital gains rather than salary, and capital gains are taxed separately anyway, but maybe all it took was breaking the pledge once and suffering no consequences.
3) Maybe the GOP is simply willing to prioritize some tax cuts over Norquist's pledge. The plan is really about the corporate tax cuts. Norquist is a straight-up ideological purist. He, and others, thought that there was real alignment between his goals and the Republican Party, but the Republican Party may actually have more of an ability to prioritize than I thought, or than Norquist thought. This is basically the Chamber of Commerce versus the ideological purists, and the Chamber of Commerce is winning. Bigger tax cuts for the corporations under reconciliation rules require raising some taxes on individuals, and if that's what it takes for the Chamber of Commerce to win the intra-party fight, then so be it. The Chamber of Commerce-- or at least that mentality-- has more sway within the GOP than many of us thought. Is this about conflict between groups? Conflict between principles? Who knows? I'm not going to fall back on that bullshit about Republicans just being bought off. Lazy argumentation, irreconcilable with political science research. Regardless, perhaps corporate tax cuts just matter more to them than the ideological principle. Who knew?
4) This ain't over yet. The bill could still fail, or be modified.
With healthcare, I marveled/gawked that the GOP chose the hardest path: a "repeal-and-replace" scheme rather than simply passing a bunch of piecemeal, small-bore bills that would allow them to declare victory repeatedly. They're... doing it again. They have a better chance this time, for many reasons, but where the fuck is Grover Norquist?