I know that if there had been 60 yea votes for Trump's Tax Reform (Byrd Rule), that regular people would have also had their tax cuts made permanent along with corporations. What I want to know, instead, could the people's tax cut have been made permanent, while corporations were not, and then a new bill such as Senator Ted Cruz's has proposed to make the cut permanent? Also, was there a reason that one was made permanent and the other was not, or how was it decide which would be?
The reasons that corporation tax cuts are permanent and personal ones aren't is math. Corporations don't pay that much tax compared to total revenue, so cutting them even by significant amounts doesn't create a significant change. Personal income taxes on the other hand is the largest source of revenue for the government so even small changes have a significant impact.
The Byrd Rule would prevent permanent changes to personal income tax cuts because its basically impossible for them to not be considered significant according to how these calculations are done. Corporate income taxes aren't enough to actually trigger this so they could be made permanent. A future bill could make the cuts permanent, but that would require 60 votes which is not possible given the current environment of obstruction and refusing to compromise.
None of this really matters beyond creating political talking points. The system used to calculate increases/decreases in deficits isn't really grounded in reality to start with, and changes will happen that make any predictions totally irrelevant anyway well before a 10 year time frame is met.
You ask several questions. Some answers
- They could have done it the other way around if they wanted.
- Yes, a subsequent bill with 60 votes in the Senate could make the currently temporary tax cuts permanent. In fact, that's the stated plan. Someday.
The reason they did it this way is that they don't believe there are 60 votes for a permanent corporate tax cut. So they made the unpopular changes (tax increases and tax cuts for unsympathetic recipients) permanent and made the popular changes temporary with the idea that they would later fix the popular changes.
This was in large part a response to what happened with the "Bush" tax cuts. They were passed via reconciliation and 75% of them were made permanent. But 25% were not. They don't want their tax cuts to disappear like that again. They are confident that they can get 60 votes whenever necessary for the tax cuts that were temporary.