> New deduction: Effective for 2025 through 2028, employees and self-employed individuals may deduct qualified tips received in occupations that are listed by the IRS as customarily and regularly receiving tips on or before December 31, 2024, and that are reported on a Form W-2, Form 1099, or other specified statement furnished to the individual or reported directly by the individual on Form 4137.
I think one aspect that is understated: "No Tax on Tips" is only a deduction for the purposes of federal income tax. W-2 workers still owe FICA and other payroll taxes on such income, and similarly self-employed workers would still owe self-employment tax.
To me, a more appropriate name is "Some taxes on tips".
I don't like the idea of even more expectations for tips, since we're already tip-fatigued. Despite that, I'd rather have less rules and taxes and have them actually enforced than have a situation where people pocket the cash portion of their tips untaxed anyway, which only punishes honest people.
It's pernicious. I've been to places that add "service charge" by default now to relieve tipping, then still give you the option to tip on top of that, which some people do because they think maybe the service charge isn't going to the server (in the places I've been to, it is). Tipping needs to die and it's frustrating to see it starting to proliferate in some European countries.
With a small amount of sadness, this is the conclusion I'm starting to end up with. Yes I think waitresses and service workers should make more money. But tipping in the US has become opaque, expanding everywhere, and the expectations around tipping seem to be getting ratcheted up constantly. A business is not viable if customers have to pay your employees separately. I'm close to hitting the nuclear button and just defaulting to zero.
"no tax on tips" was a pandering move to the mostly financially-illiterate populace that still don't understand progressive tax systems. Singling out certain types of income makes no sense and is very unfair. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually ends up resulting in less tip income over the long term due to people going "wait my income is taxed but theirs isn't, why should I tip as much?"
Extending the 2017 tax policies, specifically continuing the capping of SALT deductions, leads to higher taxes for high income earners. That deduction was worth $100K to a $1M/year income in a 10% State income tax state earner. Even more when you add in property taxes.
If they had not been extended the taxes for those high earners would have dropped for 2025 and beyond.
The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
> That deduction was worth $100K to a $1M/year income in a 10% State income tax state earner.
What? Income deductions are only worth the marginal tax rate on that income -- ~40% on $100k of income deducted is worth ~$40k. (With the $10k SALT cap, he can still deduct $10k, worth about $4k.) The top bracket being reduced from 40% to 37%, and starting at a higher income threshold, likely saved the same high earner more than $36k.
You’re over mathing here - GP is simply saying that if someone lives in a 10% income tax state and makes 1m, they can deduct $100k from their income (presumably because it was never really theirs).
> The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
This tells us nothing unless we know how their relative income shares. If the bottom 50% earns only 20% of all income (just an example) this is quite fair. If they earn 60%, it's unfair.
The number of people who just trot out this statistic without context is quite tiresome.
And of course everyone pays sales tax, property tax (even if they're a renter), payroll tax and so on.
What do you think should happen to you if your house is more valuable in a year than the year before, even if you aren't selling or otherwise leaving that house?
But do they do income-like taxes on the added value? This seems to be what people (GGP) are wanting from the increase in stock values, ie, unrealized capital gains.. which is frankly terrifying.
That doesn't answer the question I posed. First off it conflates "high-earning" with "wealthy". Plenty of early career doctors are high earners but have a negative net worth. They pay more taxes than someone with millions in net worth but lower "income".
Secondly, just because the median earner pays a 2% average income tax rate while the top 1% pays on average 21% doesn't tell us anything about its fairness. It ignores income share.
> The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers.
7.65% of your check until you hit the cap. Employer pays a similar amount.
Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden on the top 1% of wage earners so it’ll never happen.
> By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages.
Who is charged the tax and who pays it are different things.
> Singling out certain types of income makes no sense
Actually it makes sense based on what income can be reliably taxed. Impossible to verify how much that person actually tipped, so better write $0 on the tax form. As someone else wrote, that only punishes honest people.
Two decades back, if you told me someone wanted to dramatically raise tariffs, and have the government take a stake in Intel, I'd have assumed this was someone who labeled themselves a Socialist.
After all, the government taking ownership of industries matches common definitions of Socialism.
Well, it's a very populist move and the extremes of either party will go down that road to get votes. Far right parties are generally for social programs as long as the wrong people don't get them.
It has broad bipartisan support and was one of very few policy changes promised by the Harris Walz campaign.
Conservatives like it, because it is effectively a de minimus exemption on taxes, simplifying the tax collection process, and liberals like it because it results in more progressive taxes, with tip earners overrepresented amongst low-income earners.
It does nothing to simplify the tax code, and it opens up a universe of loopholes. The concept may have some merit, but the implementation is sloppy and lazy.
I think ultimately very few people really care about simplifying the tax code. The cost of a complex tax code is the $19.95-$200 cost of preparing your taxes, which everyone would gladly eat if it meant they could take advantage of tax deductions on pages 1,455, 19,210 and 245,908 of the tax code totaling > the cost of tax prep.
If it's free for all users, and you don't provide any benefit to those "tipping", it's already an untaxed gift in the US, if no individual gifts more than $19,000, and even then, the gift giver would pay any taxes. Tips require a customer relationship to exist.
I used to try practicing no tips. I live in a state with no different tipping wage. To me that makes the argument of "they get paid nothing" impotent. But, culturally, people will perceive you as a prick for not tipping at restaurants. It's not fair and I don't like it but, that is the culture that has spread from tipping wage states.
Now that I have given up on that battle I do scale my tip for how good the service is.
> No nonsense on dividing tips between people that I did not interact with
It is true that in some contexts, a good waiter elevates the experience. But in most restaurants the waiter adds nothing to my experience. If anything they're a hindrance. So I'm very much in favor of forced tip sharing with the people who actually made the food I enjoyed.
"No Tax On Tips" is so stupidly regressive and yet another addition to the complex tax law. Somehow we decided a waiter making 100k with tips needs more help than a stock worker at Walmart.
It isn't "no tax on tips" that's regressive, it's tips themselves. If tips are a gift, then they should be taxed as gifts are taxed. End tips and raise wages, and the taxes cease to be confusing or controversial.
For example, half of parents are transferring an average of $1,500/month, tax-free, to their adult children.* Why do they get to do this?
Or to take it to absurdity, why aren't my donations to charities taxed? What's the reason for the carveout? Should I instead donate earmarked cash to a charity that provides assistance to underpaid waitstaff?
Well, this year I suppose it will be $1,583.33. That's just the gift tax exclusion ($19k this year) at work. I don't really see a problem with it. People should be able to give money to family members without penalty.
> End tips and raise wages, and the taxes cease to be confusing or controversial.
Some businesses have tried this, but often it doesn't work out. To make this financially feasible, it would require action at the federal and state levels to 1) eliminate different tipped vs. regular tax rates (some places have done this already), 2) and modify how payroll taxes work to even things out a bit. It sounds like "oh, no problem we'll just raise prices by 20% to cover the extra salaries". But no, that doesn't work, because businesses and individuals are responsible for payroll tax on non-tipped salaries.
And there's a collective action problem at play: take two identical restaurants. One follows the now-standard model of accepting tips, and ~20% is customary. Their identical competitor won't accept tips, pays their staff better, and charges 20% more for their food. Fun outcome: people get sticker shock at the second place and go to the first place instead, even though in the end they pay exactly the same amount. Human psychology is dumb, and restaurants know this, so they won't do this unless all their competitors are also required to do it. (This is also why in the US prices are advertised tax-excluded; pricing that includes tax is viewed as more expensive, even if the final charge is the same.)
For example, half of parents are transferring an average of $1,500/month, tax-free, to their adult children. Why do they get to do this?
For the same reason we have a generous gift tax exemption applicable to any gift from anyone to anyone: If you’re not receiving something of monetary value in return, what you’re providing isn’t “income” in the sense Congress has built income tax policy to capture.
That survey is stupid in this context, as it include everyone 18+ as an ‘adult child’, which includes a lot of college students. There’s nothing malicious about supporting your kid in college, nor would it make any sense to tax that.
Truly bizarre how this is playing out - was the digital creator carve out requested by the various right wing streamers that are part of Trumps’s core sycophant club? Doesn’t make any sense.
"No Tax on Tips" meant for low income taxpayers so most of the major digital creators won't qualify.
Low income digital creators can deduct upto 25k in tips, so if their income from tips and other sources is below $150k a year, their taxable income will be 25k less.
I have no measure of scale on 150k dollars a year in terms of creators scale...
I remember something like 2k$ youtube ad revenue for 1M views, so that's like 1M video every 4 days? or was it 2M views per 1k dollars, then it's 1M video every day?
I've seen that same figure for YT ad revenue alone. sponsorships can range from $0.015-0.030 per video for channels with 1k to 50k subscribers.
at a biweekly cadence, they'd need ~6M views per video to hit $150k with ads alone. if you figure another $0.025 per view for sponsorships, then they would need 6M views per year or about 240K per video.
looking at Patreon stats, it seems reasonable to assume that a channel with 25K subscribers could pull in about 1K Patreon subs with effort. if each is paying $5/mo, then that would add another $60K/yr in revenue (though I imagine a lot of that would get eaten up by fees and extra costs.
Generally correct, low income digital creators will benefit the most since "No Tax on Tips" will reduce their taxable income by 50% or more in comparison to someone who earns close to 150k which isn't a low income according to BLS as you pointed out.
If you look at tax brackets plus the standard deduction lowering the bracket it affects, it will be a flat or regressive change in take home income amongst the cohort until at $90K or maybe a bit more, double median income, where you can start writing off against the 22% bracket. Assuming 50% tips.
Not that I'm a fan of tipping culture or the "creator" economy, but it seems like tips and donations to your favorite youtuber are obviously gifts to me? From irs.gov:
> You make a gift if you give property (including money), or the use of or income from property, without expecting to receive something of at least equal value in return.
Which is obviously true for tips and donations. If it is a gift, then the giver owes taxes, and there is a $19k/year/recipient exclusion, so small gifts like this would always be exempt.
The employers already had all kinds of bizarre tricks to keep tipped workers down.
My girlfriend works for a local chain restaurant. Some of the things she tells me about seem like they shouldn’t be legal (forcing everyone’s cash tips to be pooled with non tipped teenagers they don’t want to pay, for example. Pretty sure the company has had previous class actions against them. This was just a small local chain in a middle/upper middle class suburb.
I saw a post on Nextdoor the other day where another restaurant closed, laying off the workers without paying them for hours worked. The general consensus about how to get the money you worked for: you don’t. The state has no labor board and there was little option for recourse.
Towards what? No taxes at all? That's not desirable if you want things like public schools and rule of law.
And if you want more progressive taxation, then support more progressive taxation. Treating classes of workers differently is not a way to get to more equitable progressive taxation.
I suspect much of the attacks against property taxes aren't to right any historical wrongs, but is part of the attack against public education, since property taxes are a major source of funding.
> No, you're renting the physical space -- a scarce part of the commons -- from your community.
Property law in the US and most western democracies doesn’t remotely agree with that. Land is not a communal or solely government owned resource, and the govt doesn’t ‘rent’ it out.
PSA: the "No Tax On Tips" provision expires:
> New deduction: Effective for 2025 through 2028, employees and self-employed individuals may deduct qualified tips received in occupations that are listed by the IRS as customarily and regularly receiving tips on or before December 31, 2024, and that are reported on a Form W-2, Form 1099, or other specified statement furnished to the individual or reported directly by the individual on Form 4137.
* https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-tax-...
There's also a maximum of $25k/year (~$2k/mo).
Is that maximum $25k in tips, or in total income that includes tips?
Tips. The AGI phaseout starts at 150k (300 married).
In tips
I think one aspect that is understated: "No Tax on Tips" is only a deduction for the purposes of federal income tax. W-2 workers still owe FICA and other payroll taxes on such income, and similarly self-employed workers would still owe self-employment tax.
To me, a more appropriate name is "Some taxes on tips".
I don't like the idea of even more expectations for tips, since we're already tip-fatigued. Despite that, I'd rather have less rules and taxes and have them actually enforced than have a situation where people pocket the cash portion of their tips untaxed anyway, which only punishes honest people.
It's pernicious. I've been to places that add "service charge" by default now to relieve tipping, then still give you the option to tip on top of that, which some people do because they think maybe the service charge isn't going to the server (in the places I've been to, it is). Tipping needs to die and it's frustrating to see it starting to proliferate in some European countries.
Just hit the zero tip option and move on with life. If a seller can’t advertise the price sufficient to sustain their business, that is their problem.
With a small amount of sadness, this is the conclusion I'm starting to end up with. Yes I think waitresses and service workers should make more money. But tipping in the US has become opaque, expanding everywhere, and the expectations around tipping seem to be getting ratcheted up constantly. A business is not viable if customers have to pay your employees separately. I'm close to hitting the nuclear button and just defaulting to zero.
I guess the good news is now we can ask the server their marginal tax rate and reduce our tips accordingly
$1 subscription, but "This content is only available for my top 1,000,000 fans" ranked by tips.
I like the idea. How to implement in transparently in away you aren't always the 1,000,001 one?
Oooh, I like this. Reminds me of charity auctions.
That must be where Onlyfans was inspired to emulate the business model.
"no tax on tips" was a pandering move to the mostly financially-illiterate populace that still don't understand progressive tax systems. Singling out certain types of income makes no sense and is very unfair. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually ends up resulting in less tip income over the long term due to people going "wait my income is taxed but theirs isn't, why should I tip as much?"
Don't worry, no tax on tips actually phases out relatively quickly (2028) while the tax cuts enacted for the 1% are there to stay.
edit: fixed year typo
Extending the 2017 tax policies, specifically continuing the capping of SALT deductions, leads to higher taxes for high income earners. That deduction was worth $100K to a $1M/year income in a 10% State income tax state earner. Even more when you add in property taxes.
If they had not been extended the taxes for those high earners would have dropped for 2025 and beyond.
The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
> That deduction was worth $100K to a $1M/year income in a 10% State income tax state earner.
What? Income deductions are only worth the marginal tax rate on that income -- ~40% on $100k of income deducted is worth ~$40k. (With the $10k SALT cap, he can still deduct $10k, worth about $4k.) The top bracket being reduced from 40% to 37%, and starting at a higher income threshold, likely saved the same high earner more than $36k.
You’re over mathing here - GP is simply saying that if someone lives in a 10% income tax state and makes 1m, they can deduct $100k from their income (presumably because it was never really theirs).
> The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
This tells us nothing unless we know how their relative income shares. If the bottom 50% earns only 20% of all income (just an example) this is quite fair. If they earn 60%, it's unfair.
The number of people who just trot out this statistic without context is quite tiresome.
And of course everyone pays sales tax, property tax (even if they're a renter), payroll tax and so on.
Varies by year, but top 1% share of income is around 21% right now in the US:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before...
i.e. the US tax system is still fairly progressive despite what many people think.
See this chart: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/co...
True, though it's irksome how the chart conflates "Rich" with "High taxable income."
These are not the same, which is exactly the problem!
eg: The #1 most wealthy American is Larry Ellison, whose net worth increased $89B today with zero tax implications.
Capital gains absolutely have tax implications. Just like my house rising $100K in (unrealized) value over a year.
What do you think should happen to you if your house is more valuable in a year than the year before, even if you aren't selling or otherwise leaving that house?
This varies wildly depending state you live in - some states adjust property taxes for current value, some don’t (or do but with severe limits)
But do they do income-like taxes on the added value? This seems to be what people (GGP) are wanting from the increase in stock values, ie, unrealized capital gains.. which is frankly terrifying.
That doesn't answer the question I posed. First off it conflates "high-earning" with "wealthy". Plenty of early career doctors are high earners but have a negative net worth. They pay more taxes than someone with millions in net worth but lower "income".
Secondly, just because the median earner pays a 2% average income tax rate while the top 1% pays on average 21% doesn't tell us anything about its fairness. It ignores income share.
Well, other than it's impossible for the bottom 50% of income earners to ever earn 60% of the income without weird communism in place...
> the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes
No. They pay 40% of Federal income tax, specifically.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1...
> The bottom 50% pay no taxes
Same mistake here. They pay plenty of payroll etc. tax.
The numbers from your link are:
The top 1% pays 24% of Federal taxes, and the bottom 50% pays somewhere between 7% (bottom 40%) and 16% (bottom 60%).
Yes, that sounds about correct. It's a lot more than "bottom 50% pay no tax".
Also I'm unclear if that source includes only the "employee half" of the 15% FICA.
That’s a crystal clear sign that the top 1% have way too much money.
no, employees do not pay payroll tax, employers do.
I assure you we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contribution...
> The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers.
7.65% of your check until you hit the cap. Employer pays a similar amount.
Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden on the top 1% of wage earners so it’ll never happen.
And stores pay sales tax.
> By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages.
Who is charged the tax and who pays it are different things.
2008?
> Singling out certain types of income makes no sense
Actually it makes sense based on what income can be reliably taxed. Impossible to verify how much that person actually tipped, so better write $0 on the tax form. As someone else wrote, that only punishes honest people.
No tax on tips is the kind of policy you’d come up with if you were creating a caricature of the far left.
And yet, in today’s America that’s the major economic policy of the leader of the Republican Party.
Two decades back, if you told me someone wanted to dramatically raise tariffs, and have the government take a stake in Intel, I'd have assumed this was someone who labeled themselves a Socialist.
After all, the government taking ownership of industries matches common definitions of Socialism.
In contrast, tariffs and the government taking stakes in private companies reminds me of fascist Italy under Mussolini: https://www.historyfromonestudenttoanother.com/a-level/a-lev...
> Charter of Labour, 1927
> He recognised private enterprises as the most efficient, gaining him support from rich industrialists.
> The charter also stated that the state could take control of, manage or encourage enterprises that were considered inefficient.
> if you were creating a caricature of the far left
Yes. And a big round of applause to welcome Mr. Zohran Mamdani.
Well, it's a very populist move and the extremes of either party will go down that road to get votes. Far right parties are generally for social programs as long as the wrong people don't get them.
> of the leader of the Republican Party.
You have too much partisanship on your mind.
Harris (Democratic party leader) endorsed it: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/12/politics/taxes-on-tips-elimin...
That may have been a strategic endorsement, to keep it from becoming a campaign issue.
Correct, she stole a bad idea
It has broad bipartisan support and was one of very few policy changes promised by the Harris Walz campaign.
Conservatives like it, because it is effectively a de minimus exemption on taxes, simplifying the tax collection process, and liberals like it because it results in more progressive taxes, with tip earners overrepresented amongst low-income earners.
It does nothing to simplify the tax code, and it opens up a universe of loopholes. The concept may have some merit, but the implementation is sloppy and lazy.
I think ultimately very few people really care about simplifying the tax code. The cost of a complex tax code is the $19.95-$200 cost of preparing your taxes, which everyone would gladly eat if it meant they could take advantage of tax deductions on pages 1,455, 19,210 and 245,908 of the tax code totaling > the cost of tax prep.
Okay, so if I had some employees working jobs that are part of this, could I give them a tip? Could I give them 25000 dollars of tax free tip.
I think the tip here is defined as customer directly to employees. I'm sure an enterprising tax attorney can come up with ways to help your idea.
An employer is an employee’s customer.
As a contractor my customer pays me $2k a day. Instead they could pay me $20 a day and $1800 a day in tips. Everyone wins.
In 14 days, you hit the cap. In 75 days, you start to hit the phase out band.
I use "tipping" in my Hacker News app Hack. Basically users can tip an amount they pick. Would such "no tax on tips" apply to that too?
If it's free for all users, and you don't provide any benefit to those "tipping", it's already an untaxed gift in the US, if no individual gifts more than $19,000, and even then, the gift giver would pay any taxes. Tips require a customer relationship to exist.
Does the opposite movement exist?
Like "No Tips".
Pay your employees, pay your taxes.
No nonsense on dividing tips between people that I did not interact with, minimum tipping, or with automated machines.
Tipping also means that if I want to know how much I'll spend in your restaurant I will have to decide how much I tip even before I walk in.
This is all just tax evasion with extra steps, enabling exploiting of people that have less contractual power.
I used to try practicing no tips. I live in a state with no different tipping wage. To me that makes the argument of "they get paid nothing" impotent. But, culturally, people will perceive you as a prick for not tipping at restaurants. It's not fair and I don't like it but, that is the culture that has spread from tipping wage states.
Now that I have given up on that battle I do scale my tip for how good the service is.
> No nonsense on dividing tips between people that I did not interact with
It is true that in some contexts, a good waiter elevates the experience. But in most restaurants the waiter adds nothing to my experience. If anything they're a hindrance. So I'm very much in favor of forced tip sharing with the people who actually made the food I enjoyed.
> Does the opposite movement exist?
Japan?
Sort of, but they chose to outsource instead of paying people/taxes
"No Tax On Tips" is so stupidly regressive and yet another addition to the complex tax law. Somehow we decided a waiter making 100k with tips needs more help than a stock worker at Walmart.
It isn't "no tax on tips" that's regressive, it's tips themselves. If tips are a gift, then they should be taxed as gifts are taxed. End tips and raise wages, and the taxes cease to be confusing or controversial.
For example, half of parents are transferring an average of $1,500/month, tax-free, to their adult children.* Why do they get to do this?
Or to take it to absurdity, why aren't my donations to charities taxed? What's the reason for the carveout? Should I instead donate earmarked cash to a charity that provides assistance to underpaid waitstaff?
[*] If you didn't hear that the other half are getting this, now you know: https://www.savings.com/insights/financial-support-for-adult...
Well, this year I suppose it will be $1,583.33. That's just the gift tax exclusion ($19k this year) at work. I don't really see a problem with it. People should be able to give money to family members without penalty.
> End tips and raise wages, and the taxes cease to be confusing or controversial.
Some businesses have tried this, but often it doesn't work out. To make this financially feasible, it would require action at the federal and state levels to 1) eliminate different tipped vs. regular tax rates (some places have done this already), 2) and modify how payroll taxes work to even things out a bit. It sounds like "oh, no problem we'll just raise prices by 20% to cover the extra salaries". But no, that doesn't work, because businesses and individuals are responsible for payroll tax on non-tipped salaries.
And there's a collective action problem at play: take two identical restaurants. One follows the now-standard model of accepting tips, and ~20% is customary. Their identical competitor won't accept tips, pays their staff better, and charges 20% more for their food. Fun outcome: people get sticker shock at the second place and go to the first place instead, even though in the end they pay exactly the same amount. Human psychology is dumb, and restaurants know this, so they won't do this unless all their competitors are also required to do it. (This is also why in the US prices are advertised tax-excluded; pricing that includes tax is viewed as more expensive, even if the final charge is the same.)
For example, half of parents are transferring an average of $1,500/month, tax-free, to their adult children. Why do they get to do this?
For the same reason we have a generous gift tax exemption applicable to any gift from anyone to anyone: If you’re not receiving something of monetary value in return, what you’re providing isn’t “income” in the sense Congress has built income tax policy to capture.
That isn’t the case with tips for waitstaff.
That survey is stupid in this context, as it include everyone 18+ as an ‘adult child’, which includes a lot of college students. There’s nothing malicious about supporting your kid in college, nor would it make any sense to tax that.
https://archive.is/8T9t0
Truly bizarre how this is playing out - was the digital creator carve out requested by the various right wing streamers that are part of Trumps’s core sycophant club? Doesn’t make any sense.
"No Tax on Tips" meant for low income taxpayers so most of the major digital creators won't qualify.
Low income digital creators can deduct upto 25k in tips, so if their income from tips and other sources is below $150k a year, their taxable income will be 25k less.
I have no measure of scale on 150k dollars a year in terms of creators scale...
I remember something like 2k$ youtube ad revenue for 1M views, so that's like 1M video every 4 days? or was it 2M views per 1k dollars, then it's 1M video every day?
$1 per 1000 views is a good estimate. Depends wildly on content.
I've seen that same figure for YT ad revenue alone. sponsorships can range from $0.015-0.030 per video for channels with 1k to 50k subscribers.
at a biweekly cadence, they'd need ~6M views per video to hit $150k with ads alone. if you figure another $0.025 per view for sponsorships, then they would need 6M views per year or about 240K per video.
looking at Patreon stats, it seems reasonable to assume that a channel with 25K subscribers could pull in about 1K Patreon subs with effort. if each is paying $5/mo, then that would add another $60K/yr in revenue (though I imagine a lot of that would get eaten up by fees and extra costs.
Median single income in the US was around $45,000 in 2024. $150K is not low income. It goes to $300K if filing jointly.
Major creators may still not get much since it's a power law distribution, but the tips thing is in no way limited to low income.
Generally correct, low income digital creators will benefit the most since "No Tax on Tips" will reduce their taxable income by 50% or more in comparison to someone who earns close to 150k which isn't a low income according to BLS as you pointed out.
If you look at tax brackets plus the standard deduction lowering the bracket it affects, it will be a flat or regressive change in take home income amongst the cohort until at $90K or maybe a bit more, double median income, where you can start writing off against the 22% bracket. Assuming 50% tips.
Love this. Step in the correct direction. Property Taxes are coming under fire next, and given their long racist history, it's about time.
Is it?
Why should tip income not be taxed but other income should be? How is that fair? What principle makes that just?
Are bartenders and servers more deserving of avoiding taxes than cooks and janitors, for some reason?
Not that I'm a fan of tipping culture or the "creator" economy, but it seems like tips and donations to your favorite youtuber are obviously gifts to me? From irs.gov:
> You make a gift if you give property (including money), or the use of or income from property, without expecting to receive something of at least equal value in return.
Which is obviously true for tips and donations. If it is a gift, then the giver owes taxes, and there is a $19k/year/recipient exclusion, so small gifts like this would always be exempt.
It's not about benefitting the employees, but the employers. It's meant to push back against livable wages.
The employers already had all kinds of bizarre tricks to keep tipped workers down.
My girlfriend works for a local chain restaurant. Some of the things she tells me about seem like they shouldn’t be legal (forcing everyone’s cash tips to be pooled with non tipped teenagers they don’t want to pay, for example. Pretty sure the company has had previous class actions against them. This was just a small local chain in a middle/upper middle class suburb.
I saw a post on Nextdoor the other day where another restaurant closed, laying off the workers without paying them for hours worked. The general consensus about how to get the money you worked for: you don’t. The state has no labor board and there was little option for recourse.
Progress, not perfection.
Towards what? No taxes at all? That's not desirable if you want things like public schools and rule of law.
And if you want more progressive taxation, then support more progressive taxation. Treating classes of workers differently is not a way to get to more equitable progressive taxation.
Agreed. Why aren’t capital gains taxed at a higher rate than income?
(Please don’t give me bullshit answers based on hundred year old economic theories just because you’re a wanna be libertarian)
Because rich people earn more from capital gains than income?
What is you idea for how to collect revenue for government services? Import taxes?
Ideally: nothing.
Places like that exist. You should try living there, see how you like the quality of life.
I can't because people wont leave me alone.
What do you mean? Who is stopping you from moving to Dubai?
I suspect much of the attacks against property taxes aren't to right any historical wrongs, but is part of the attack against public education, since property taxes are a major source of funding.
No. It’s the idea that you’re renting your paid off home from the government. And the government gets to decide what it’s worth.
No, you're renting the physical space -- a scarce part of the commons -- from your community.
(I do think property taxes should be a land-value tax and not include improvements you've built.)
> No, you're renting the physical space -- a scarce part of the commons -- from your community.
Property law in the US and most western democracies doesn’t remotely agree with that. Land is not a communal or solely government owned resource, and the govt doesn’t ‘rent’ it out.