Big Beautiful Bill

[Anonymous]

Eliminating taxes on tips (not “executive bonuses”, as some here try to claim)

I think what people are trying to explain to you is that if you don’t carefully write the language around what a tip is and/or limit the benefit to those with an income lower than what a high earning waiter makes, executives will ABSOLUTELY get in line to use whatever verbiage ends up in the bill to redefine their bonuses so they don’t get taxed.

Also, no tax on tips will f**k servers when it comes to collecting Social Security later.

[Anonymous]

We could easily lower taxes on people with low incomes. There is zero reason to do it for people who work for tips. It is just going to create weird incentives and problems. Just lower the rate for lower income people. Or exempt a certain amount if your AGI is below $x, and step it up so it isn’t all or nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We could easily lower taxes on people with low incomes. There is zero reason to do it for people who work for tips. It is just going to create weird incentives and problems. Just lower the rate for lower income people. Or exempt a certain amount if your AGI is below $x, and step it up so it isn’t all or nothing.

We already do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eliminating taxes on tips (not “executive bonuses”, as some here try to claim)

I think what people are trying to explain to you is that if you don’t carefully write the language around what a tip is and/or limit the benefit to those with an income lower than what a high earning waiter makes, executives will ABSOLUTELY get in line to use whatever verbiage ends up in the bill to redefine their bonuses so they don’t get taxed.

Also, no tax on tips will f**k servers when it comes to collecting Social Security later.

DP

we have a lot more servers and tipped workers than executives. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

So, as I said, limit the income for the benefit or write the language so it can’t be loopholes like the executives will want to. Executives not paying taxes on their bonuses - when they will redefine their entire compensation package as a bonus - will eliminate a whole lot more revenue - or “bathwater” - than tips for servers will.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminating taxes on tips (not “executive bonuses”, as some here try to claim), taxes on overtime earnings, and allowing tax deductions for payments and interest on US-manufactured vehicles all sound like things that would benefit working class and middle class Americans, as well as spur massive growth in the US manufacturing economy, with the associated spill-over effects that would be seen in other industries connected to it.

Many DCUM posters praise themselves as champions of lower income people, so why do these same posters decry proposals like the three above?

Can one of you please explain this? Because those are the sort of ideas that seem like the type that would be supported by people who insist they are champions for lower income people. People like most of you here.

But instead, those proposals are castigated here. And I’d like to understand why so many of you feel that way?

Is it simply because Trump proposed them? Is that the only reason? Because unless there’s some other compelling reason, it seems like an absurdly childish act.


So…. why, then?

Have any of those things been added to this piece of legislation? Or are they just things Trump says at rallies?

No legislative proposals on them yet . House cannot afford them in their reconciliation instruction so we’ll see what they do next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We could easily lower taxes on people with low incomes. There is zero reason to do it for

people who work for tips. It is just going to create weird incentives and problems. Just lower the rate for lower income people. Or exempt a certain amount if your AGI is below $x, and step it up so it isn’t all or nothing.

This. Republicans actually made the tax code simpler in 2017. This would be terrible especially since Trump wants to fire 40% of IRS staff.

[Anonymous]

They won’t even get rid of the carried interest loophole which Trump has been saying he wants to get rid of for a decade. Everything they say they want to do to help the working class won’t get done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We could easily lower taxes on people with low incomes. There is zero reason to do it for

people who work for tips. It is just going to create weird incentives and problems. Just lower the rate for lower income people. Or exempt a certain amount if your AGI is below $x, and step it up so it isn’t all or nothing.

This. Republicans actually made the tax code simpler in 2017. This would be terrible especially since Trump wants to fire 40% of IRS staff.

They did not make the tax code simpler in 2017. They layered on additional complexity, while cutting tax rates. Anyone who has actually worked in public accounting on the tax side of things will disagree with this statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eliminating taxes on tips (not “executive bonuses”, as some here try to claim)

I think what people are trying to explain to you is that if you don’t carefully write the language around what a tip is and/or limit the benefit to those with an income lower than what a high earning waiter makes, executives will ABSOLUTELY get in line to use whatever verbiage ends up in the bill to redefine their bonuses so they don’t get taxed.

Also, no tax on tips will f**k servers when it comes to collecting Social Security later.

DP

we have a lot more servers and tipped workers than executives. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

So, as I said, limit the income for the benefit or write the language so it can’t be loopholes like the executives will want to. Executives not paying taxes on their bonuses - when they will redefine their entire compensation package as a bonus - will eliminate a whole lot more revenue - or “bathwater” - than tips for servers will.

Just set a max on the exclusion and tie it to non-salary workers.

[Anonymous]

I'll continue. National debt 103K per person and 323K per worker. Interest on the national debt per year is more than defense spending per year.

#gottastartsomewhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'll continue. National debt 103K per person and 323K per worker. Interest on the national debt per year is more than defense spending per year.

#gottastartsomewhere

So you have no idea how much this bill is going to add to the deficit and debt then? Do you actually think that the Republican trifecta is going to cut spending?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll continue. National debt 103K per person and 323K per worker. Interest on the national debt per year is more than defense spending per year.

#gottastartsomewhere

So you have no idea how much this bill is going to add to the deficit and debt then? Do you actually think that the Republican trifecta is going to cut spending?

It adds trillions more! https://www.cato.org/blog/senate-plan-trap-house-lawmakers-shouldnt-fall-it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'll continue. National debt 103K per person and 323K per worker. Interest on the national debt per year is more than defense spending per year.

#gottastartsomewhere

We will have to start somewhere cuz this bill will make of those numbers worse. They’re making these cuts and proposing a national car tax to help give more tax cuts to billionaires.

[Anonymous]

GOP balks at approving even a fraction of Musk’s DOGE cuts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/02/musk-doge-cuts-congress-budget/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F425e853%2F6814f0b1b82e315dbf135a10%2F596bc2b7ae7e8a44e7dcaab7%2F13%2F61%2F6814f0b1b82e315dbf135a10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP balks at approving even a fraction of Musk’s DOGE cuts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/02/musk-doge-cuts-congress-budget/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F425e853%2F6814f0b1b82e315dbf135a10%2F596bc2b7ae7e8a44e7dcaab7%2F13%2F61%2F6814f0b1b82e315dbf135a10

So does that mean everything goes back to the status quo ante? Did they cut USAID? (Article behind paywall)