Some individuals would see tax increases as a result of the Senate and House bills’ treatment of state and local tax deductions. The Senate would kill them entirely. The House would maintain them only for property taxes and cap the deduction at $10,000 a year. Economists generally say that those tax breaks are inefficient. But eliminating them, in the context of the House bill, would add up to a large geographic transfer of income, according to research by Carl Davis, the research director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington.

The House bill would raise personal taxes on Californians and New Yorkers by a combined $16 billion in 2027, Mr. Davis found, while cutting personal taxes on Texans and Floridians by more than $30 billion in total.

His analysis finds so-called red states, which Mr. Trump carried in 2016, would receive more than twice as much in personal tax benefits under the plan than the blue states won by his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, when adjusting for the size of each state’s economy. Only one red state — Utah — would receive lower personal tax benefits under the bill than would be expected, given how much it contributes to the national income; the average blue state, by contrast, would receive lower benefits than expected.

“It’s not unusual for a tax bill to have varying impacts in different parts of the country,” Mr. Davis said. “But the degree to which this bill makes winners and losers out of different states is remarkable.”

Curtailing state and local deductions helps finance a core feature of both the House and Senate bills, which happens to be one of the few provisions Mr. Trump has called nonnegotiable in tax discussions: cutting the corporate income tax to a flat 20 percent rate, down from a top rate of 35 percent today. Republicans have kept those cuts permanent, even as the Senate applied an expiration date to the individual cuts and to a key tax credit for families preserved in the House bill. The Senate bill also sets an expiration date on breaks for so-called pass-through businesses, whose owners pay taxes on profits through the tax code for individuals.

In Washington, Republicans have stressed that cutting corporate taxes will supercharge economic growth, accelerating job creation and raising wages in the process. By that theory, making such cuts permanent is essential.

The gamble is apparent. Polls show that voters want corporations to pay higher, not lower, taxes and that they doubt corporate rate cuts will show up in their own paychecks, as the White House has claimed. Perhaps not coincidentally, Republican leaders have pitched their bills largely as middle-class tax cuts, stressing the benefits for the typical American family during television appearances and news conferences.