You can read the full report here: budgetlab.yale.edu/research/how...

The OBBBA also reduced the number of 'simple filers' that would candidates for a direct file program:

Here's a simple table:

The 'No Tax On' provisions in the OBBBA add to the complexity of the tax code and increase the time burden for many filers as compared to simple TCJA extension. For the lowest 2 quintile groups, OBBBA is worse than TCJA expiration in terms of time burden.

It is important to note that any projection of the debt depends on future interest rates. Our analysis does not include any increase in interest rates due to higher debt.
~fin~

Over the 2025-2055 window, the scenarios of the bill (as written and perm, and w/ and w/o Byrd provisions) have costs from $19.4T (1.14% of GDP) to $21.7T (1.27% of GDP).

Overall, we find a similar 10 year "as written" budget cost as JCT found: $4.1T. If you make temporary provisions permanent the cost goes up to $4.5T. If provisions that are judged to violate the Byrd Rule are removed, we find the cost rises to $4.3T for "as written" and $4.6T for the perm scenario.

3.) If the provisions become permanent, the debt-to-GDP ratio would hit 200 percent in 2055. The only countries that currently have a higher debt-to-GDP ratio are Sudan and Japan.

2.) If temporary provisions became permanent, the cost over the 2025-2034 window is $5.0 trillion and over the 2025-2055 window is $23.7 trillion. ($2.5 trillion and $13.5 trillion respectively, if possible tariff revenue is taken into account.)

Key takeaways from the report:

1.) As written, the tax bill under consideration by the House would add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the 2025-2034 window and $15.3 trillion from 2025-2055.

There are challenging tradeoffs between revenue, competitiveness, and burden. Full implementation of pillar 2/BEPS yields the most revenue. Coupling this change with business friendly modifications could ease any competitiveness or burden concerns.