You shouldn't  believe everything you read on liberal trash websites. Just sayin'.

He already did.

"U.S. economy accelerated during first full Trump quarter"
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/28/news/economy/gdp-second-quarter-trump-economy/index.html

I'm quite annoted at the substance of the original post, or the lack thereof. Let's fix that.

First off is a direct link to the paper: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf [1]

All emphases going forward are added by me, to denote a direct quote. Bolding is for emphasis.

Page 3:

In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline. Taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution would see average after-tax incomes increase between 0.5 and 1.2 percent. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent (incomes above $730,000), would receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit; their after-tax income would increase an average of 8.5 percent. Between 2018 and 2027, the average tax cut as a share of after-tax income would fall for all income groups other than the top 1 percent. In 2027, taxpayers between the 80th and 95th percentiles of income (between about $150,000 and $300,000) would experience a slight tax increase on average.

In other words, all groups will receive a boost in after-tax income. It's just that the rich would receive most of the benefit (though getting billionaires to relocate to America and (ideally) preventing them from using offshore tax havens would actually be a reasonable revenue-raising plan in my eyes; ditto with corporations and their offshore subsidiaries)

The WaPo article appears to be referring to the referring to Table 3, in particular the columns under "Tax units with tax cut or increase."
In particular, the average tax increase for certain tax units is larger than the average tax cut for other tax units. The issue with using that as a metric is that the percentage of tax units is already given - and the fact is that they still get a tax cut, contrary to what the OP states.

EDIT: The article actually refers to the (upper) middle class - those within the 80th to 95th percentiles.
And, the paper does, indeed state this, a net tax increase.

In 2018, about 12 percent of taxpayers would face a tax increase of roughly $1,800 on average. More than a third of taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would pay more, mainly because most itemized deductions would be repealed.

In 2027, the overall average tax cut would be smaller than in 2018, increasing after-tax incomes 1.7 percent (table 3). Taxpayer groups in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution—those making less than about $150,000—would receive average tax cuts of 0.5 percent or less of after-tax income. Taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would on average pay about $800 more in taxes than under current law. About 80 percent of the total benefit would accrue to taxpayers in the top 1 percent, whose after-tax income would increase 8.7 percent. An alternative presentation of the distributional effects of the framework is available in appendix B.

Remember when Trump said anything? Yeah, that was a lie.

Conned and unable to see it until later due to dissonance. How absolutely pathetic.

I feel very sorry for the above half of america that didn't vote for him, but theres alot of cancers holding america back and this is just the result of one of them. The conservative party and religion will be the death of the USA, as Islam was the death of the Ottoman empire. Religion holds back progress. The lack of education leads to lack of critical thinking wich leads to people getting easily conned. It's a vicious cycle. 

For the half of america that is still free, i wish you all the luck. It's not gonna be easy.

The economy also benefited during the second quarter from increased federal government spending.

What do you figure that means? See, by constructing things and spending money, for example a wall, you will create alot of jobs. That is a way to expand the economy. But you know, that doesn't last forever and it will just increase the debt. So, the investments better be good, and a wall certainly won't be giving any ROI.

So, who do you figure will pay for all that increased debt? Mr Trump will have ran away by then, i assure you. 

Personally if I were to make a tax plan it would be dramatic. This ~5% tax cuts are retarded and barely do anything but make GOP look bad on paper. GOP for years talked about flat tax, but they are a bunch of fake cowards who do not really stand on conservative values. 

Trump and tax cuts are good, but I really voted for immigration control, some veteran benefit increase to the budget, and to keep the supreme court from going far left. Tax cuts are simply a bonus, but yes it is possible for tax cuts to be bad if done in a half assed and corrupt manner. I really need to see both sides on this before jumping on a position though because both sides cherry pick and it always requires three levels of back and forth before I can make up my mind. 

Also, let's not pretend Hillary would be any better. Cruz would probably have done something closer to my vision given that he would be more about cutting taxes further and across the board. Bernie has a track record of being unsuccessful at almost everything he proposed in terms of authored policy change. The bank and corporate greed system is an issue and I'm on the right wing saying that, but both parties are rigged in this regard. It's hard to do anything but move the tax rate inches in one direction at this point. 

I remember when I saw the first debate between Hillary and Trump, it all made sense then and there. Trump talked about how Obama ruined the country, how there's a huge debt. His solution? Lower taxes. Brilliant.

Probably hoping that trickle down economics will do it's thing.

Lower taxes is a brilliant idea, but the GOP never does it at the level needed to actually accomplish anything.