No tax on tips: Why politicians love it, and economists don't
npr.org
npr.org
What is the difference between a discretionary bonus and a tip? What if I add a tip line to my business invoices?
The best solution is an income and deduction limit, e.g. you can't claim if you earn more then 2x median wage ($85,600 [1]) and/or the deduction is capped at the greater of $10,000 and 20% of your AGI.
Without an income deduction, I assure you, I will figure out how to get tipped.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
For example, this helpful primer on the “differences between the offense of bribery and the offense of accepting a gratuity” was last updated in 1998: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
You should consider reading legal news that doesn’t lie to your face.
You don't have to help them try to make it make sense, it isn't intended to make sense.
A completely sensible proposal is to lower taxes on the middle class. But that's also entirely uncontroversial and furthermore they repeatedly say it and then don't do it so no one believes them and therefore no one pays attention to them if they say that.
"No tax on tips" gets people excited because a) there are a lot of service workers (which is the point; that's a lot of votes) and b) anybody can see that it's a tax loophole so large that even non-service workers can concoct a way to get in on it, but c) they haven't heard it before and it sounds like the kind of thing that could pass, because it won't cost the government too much revenue if the only people getting it would be a couple of waitresses and they themselves who will, unlike other people, come up with an ingenious plan to use this to avoid paying taxes anymore.
In other words, it's a silly proposal with extremely high memetic fitness. Don't try to fix it, just realize that what working people actually want you to do is lower their taxes.
Specifically, Nevada.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-averag...
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html
Using those numbers for the payroll tax rates, the median combined rate was 19.66% in 1979 and 17.7% in 2019. And this is slightly overestimating the rate in 1979 because the self-employed payroll tax was less than the combined employer+employee rate in 1979. So there hasn't been a significant reduction in 40 years, and the rate on small businesses has actually increased.
But that's not all. The start of that table was a high point. The median effective tax rate in 1950 was 5.5%:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/80inintravmatr.pdf
That probably doesn't include FICA, but FICA in 1950 was only 1.5%/3% (and again less than the combined rate for self-employed back then), so the median federal effective tax rate would have been <8.5% in 1950 compared to 17.7% in 2019. And 1950 isn't even the low point, it's just the earliest number in that document.
The federal government dramatically raised taxes on the middle class in the early to mid 20th century and they've been stuck there since.
I happen to agree with you about who’s “really” paying for employer FICA, but there are many other taxes not directly assessed on the middle class that they’re likely paying for anyway. You can’t just tack on the full rate; not everyone in the middle class is paying FICA on every dollar of their income, there are many middle-class retirees.
Yes, the government is much, much larger than it was 75 years ago, and some of the burden for paying that has fallen on the middle class.
But the fact remains: Every major tax reform package from Reagan to Bush II to Obama to Trump has either lowered middle class rates, increased middle class deductions, or made significant new credits available to the middle class. Usually more than one of these.
Wouldn't it make more sense to bump standard deduction to $85,600. If someone is making more than $85,600, they pay taxes whether its tips or not.
What we should be doing is tipping better for great service and tipping less or not at all for poor service!
Who tracks this? Either it's unenforceable or you lose Nevada because you de facto banned tax-exempt tipping on business meals.
If you are a service worker earning less than $44,725 (the Federal 12% bracket) your first $10,000 of tips are tax free.
This would mean that an income of $40,000 including $10,000 tips would owe roughly $1,748 Federal tax vs. $2,820 tax.
Plenty of bar tenders make >$100k/yr with <$30k in non-tip income. Taxing "only" $60k+ of their $70k in tip income looks pretty silly. You're going to save them at most $1200 when their taxes are already well over $12k.
I just don't get why one would want to promote tipping culture with financial incentives, when it's already fairly exploitative of the workers.
Because a lot of professional stuff is considered service occupations.
Excessive taxation is bad but I have never seen anywhere near excessive taxation in the US. The general ailments and downtrends in American society started right around the time when taxation (especially the corporate kind) started getting cut and we moved away from the gold standard for our money.
For once I'd like to see a politician promise to raise taxes and use that revenue to fix things and actually win. Perverse financial incentives are ruining everything.
1. San Jose Failed To Adequately Track $300 Million In Homelessness Spending
https://sd15.senate.ca.gov/news/mercury-news-audit-san-jose-....
2. U.N. Has Flown More Than $2.9 Billion in Cash to Afghanistan Since the Taliban Seized Power, Diverting U.S. Funds https://www.propublica.org/article/united-nations-cash-afgha...
3. California put hundreds of millions of homelessness dollars at risk because of its “disorganized” and “chaotic” anti-fraud policies, according to a critical federal audit released today. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/08/hud-hcd-...
> For once I'd like to see a politician promise to raise taxes and use that revenue to fix things and actually win. Perverse financial incentives are ruining everything.
No. We should vote for no more new taxes (not a single cent more) till we audit at all levels of government and find out how much fraud and waste is there and have a plan to fix it.
Anything else would be illogical.
You don't think that is possible? Why?
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833#:~:text=What%20GA....
> GAO estimated total direct annual financial losses to the government from fraud to be between $233 billion and $521 billion, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022. The range reflects the different risk environments during this period
That is just fraud. Wastage will be probably be higher lol.
It is morally wrong to pour more water into a container with holes in the middle of water shortage.
The first is purposeful waste. That is, a corrupt program that diverts tax dollars into the coffers of some corporation with lobbyists. This is extremely common in the DoD, for example, and identifying these has extremely high gains because the program can be deleted wholesale.
Then there is simple inefficiency. The government's website is incapable of doing something it should be capable of doing and then the government has to employ an army of clerks to do it by hand. These can be pretty big gains too. If you can reduce the number of clerks by 80%, that's a lot of money.
Then there is unnecessary complexity. Most of this comes directly from Congress. Somebody needs to go through all the existing laws and do a cost/benefit analysis to see which ones are still relevant and have a net positive effect, and get rid of the ones that don't. More than that, look at the laws as a whole and see if they make sense. We have a slew of programs that all have the same ostensible purpose, e.g. to provide assistance to the poor, but then they all have different applications and qualification conditions and phase outs and benefits. Combine them all into a single system that provides a cash benefit and you can eliminate a lot of bureaucracy. And for both of these, the savings isn't just to the government -- it's also to the citizens who have to interact with the government. So even though the savings in terms of tax dollars might be smaller than the other categories, the value here gets doubled because it's also a savings to the public in time and paperwork.
We have to start doing these things.
While I think the system is in a major need of a cleanup I don't expect it to free up money.
I also agree our legal system needs a rewrite. Unfortunately, it's an impossible task because things change. To *some* extent it could be handled by having judges actually change the law (provisional while appeals are pending) but sometimes one judicial ruling will invalidate many laws. (The one that I think probably changed the most laws was the 10th Circuit Court's ruling on top equality. Six states became topfree with the stroke of a pen and there's an awful lot of local laws involved. Roe affected more people but since those were generally state laws there probably were fewer jurisdictions involved.)
I would like to see a system in which unclear law is automatically unconstitutional. The defendant should get to choose the most favorable interpretation of what the law says. And if it's not clear to the average person to whom it applies (thus, for example, a law regulating doctors needs to be clear to doctors, but need not be clear to the average person) it's also unconstitutional.
And, in addition to the purposeful waste you refer to there is purposeful exploitation. A nice chunk of change could be freed up from the Medicaid system this way. The problem is the federal government pays a *percentage* of the Medicaid costs. Thus you see drug companies colluding with states. Cover our expensive drug X but don't cover the generic, we will rebate you more than the state share of the price difference.
The scenario you're laying out is one in which, for example, a program is currently dispensing $100B in benefits but if everyone who qualified for it actually received the benefits it would be dispensing $200B. A platonic ideal would then have the program costing $200B (i.e. more), but we don't have to beat the platonic ideal, we only have to beat the status quo.
And that program dispensing $100B is spending another e.g. $10B just doing the eligibility determinations. Moreover, the program is then dispensing vouchers that can only be used for specific things, which are less valuable than money.
So if we take the $100B and distribute it as unconditional cash (i.e. a tax credit) instead, the intended recipients get the same $100B as they get now. But the government saves $10B in administrative costs, the recipients save all the time and effort of applying for the program, and $100B in cash is worth more than $100B in vouchers because it e.g. gives you the option to live with your parents while using the money to eventually save up a down payment on your own home rather than being required to use the subsidy to pay rent to a landlord forever.
> I also agree our legal system needs a rewrite. Unfortunately, it's an impossible task because things change.
That doesn't make it an impossible task, it makes it a continuous task. The problem is we haven't been doing it at all, so laws keep accumulating rather than anyone going through and removing the bad ones after things change or we realize that the law was ill-conceived to begin with.
It would probably help quite a bit to make laws expire and have to be renewed every e.g. 10 years. Not only would it invite reconsideration of dusty rules, it would get Congress to spend some time arguing over whether those rules should stay instead of spending all of their time accumulating new ones.
> I would like to see a system in which unclear law is automatically unconstitutional. The defendant should get to choose the most favorable interpretation of what the law says.
This is nominally already the case. There is a rule of interpretation that ambiguous laws are to be construed in favor of a criminal defendant. The problem is judges are human and prosecutors are not, so the prosecutor will purposely bring the precedent-setting case against the most vile scum in the dungeon and force the judge to choose between resolving the ambiguity in favor of the prosecution or letting the child-murderering cartel hitman go free. Then the same precedent gets used against everybody whenever the prosecution couldn't otherwise prove a case against them.
> And, in addition to the purposeful waste you refer to there is purposeful exploitation.
The best solution to this would be to stop forcing the states to fund half of federal programs and let each program be funded entirely by one or the other. The existing system is the federal government screwing the states out of billions of dollars because the states either have to fund a federal program they may not even like or they don't get the federal program but their people still have to pay the taxes that fund it. A ruling that the existing arrangement is unconstitutional wouldn't do a lick of harm.
The deficit is so absurdly high at this point that we need to both cut spending (and yes, any obviously wasteful spending is a good place to start) and increase revenue.
> It is morally wrong to pour more water into a container with holes in the middle of water shortage.
I have no clue what you are trying to say with this analogy, so I'll just take it at face value and point out that a human being is a container with holes.
1: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
Did I say anywhere no other fraud or wastage is there? Did I say no new taxes at all?
I said no new taxes without addressing waste.
You can do two things in sequence.
and why this is inefficient?
Zero US tax payer money should go to the Taliban.
From an economic standpoint, it makes sense not to tax income because income is production, and taxing production reduces the incentive to produce, which is the last thing we need. If we have to tax something, it makes more economic sense to tax consumption, for example with a national sales tax.
> The general ailments and downtrends in American society started right around the time when taxation (especially the corporate kind) started getting cut and we moved away from the gold standard for our money.
I don't think this historical narrative is correct. First, the two things you mention did not happen at the same time; tax cuts, at least if we are talking about income taxes, more or less started with Reagan in the 1980s, but the US went off the gold standard in 1933 under FDR. (Technically the US still claimed to support converting dollars to gold internationally until 1971, but that's a relatively minor change compared to what happened in 1933.)
Second, "general ailments and downtrends" is very broad and I don't think one can pin down a particular time when they started.
Third, as I believe pg pointed out in one of his essays, US government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has varied very little over decades even while tax rates have varied a lot.
> Perverse financial incentives are ruining everything
I don't disagree with this as a general statement, but I think the tax code is a fairly minor contributor to the perverse financial incentives as compared with the government (via the Fed) printing money. Historically, monetary debasement has always led to civilizational decline.
But unearned income enjoys a dramatically lower tax rate (the capital gains rate is lower than income rate, and capital gains are not subject to FICA/self-employment taxes)
That said, if no income were taxed at all, any disparity between how the various kinds of income were taxed would go away.
My proposal (in the GP of the post you responded to) was to tax consumption, i.e., a national sales tax or something like it.
> Capital seems to me a viable choice.
What would count as "capital"?
Whatever the answer is, this would seem to me to have the same issue as income taxes have: you would be taxing production instead of consumption, hence lowering the incentive to produce.
It's not an ideological framing. The IRS calls it that.
A simple example, we have periodic checks for bicycle lights. If yours doesn't work you get a fine. If you have plastic or cash it would be a good idea if the government employee would fix your light and/or sell you a new one. You are supposed to walk while holding your bike. Everyone does that until they are around the corner. They can fix car lights too, deliver food and drive for uber. etc
It should come with a corresponding reduction in government waste. The existing government budget contains a level of inefficiency which is difficult to comprehend. The scale of it is so large it's hard to wrap your head around it.
> I would even say the more taxes you pay, the more invested in politics and civic responsibilities you would become.
This doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it tends to go the other way. The people who have lives and just want to go about their business (i.e. the middle class) are taxed heavily specifically because they don't have time to get involved in politics and then are poorly represented when politicians are slicing up the pie. The super-rich, meanwhile, are highly involved and then avoid paying.
> The general ailments and downtrends in American society started right around the time when taxation (especially the corporate kind) started getting cut and we moved away from the gold standard for our money.
US government revenue has been stable as a percent of GDP since the end of WWII and growing over time in real dollars per capita. Taxation per capita, even adjusted for inflation, is now higher than it was during WWII. That level of taxation is... high.
As to your point, multinational corporations avoid paying those taxes: Since real government revenue has been going up rather than down, guess who pays?
> For once I'd like to see a politician promise to raise taxes and use that revenue to fix things and actually win.
Doing this is not really possible. Between state and federal income, payroll, sales, property and other taxes, the average person in many states is already paying more than 50% of their compensation in tax.
Even if all you care about is tax revenue, there comes a point at which increasing taxes lowers government revenue. If you raise total taxes from 5% to 10% and that causes the economy to contract by 10%, that's maybe not great for wage earners, but government revenue has increased by 80%. If you raise total taxes from 55% to 60% and it causes the economy to contract by 10%, even government revenue goes down because 55% of 100 is more than 60% of 90.
The problem isn't that the government doesn't have enough revenue, it's that most of that money might as well be set on fire because it spends it so inefficiently. And whether you think it should instead be returned to the taxpayer or spent in some other way, the status quo is absurd and unsustainable.
Debt should be reduced by reducing government spending, not by higher taxes.
I don‘t know where you get the idea that paying taxes somehow makes you more invested in politics. Switzerland has very low taxes and yet the whole political system is based on civic involvement with all but the top political offices being done by people as a sidegig rather than a career. Meanwhile Germany is a high tax country where most people are just fed up with politics and government because politicians are so far removed from civic society.
The 2000 election was a debate over whether to use the budget surplus to reduce taxes or increased government spending. The "reduce taxes" side narrowly won, and then a year later the death of 3000 people provoked us into increasing spending by several hundred billion doallars per year. That doesn't completely explain the current unsustainable deficit ($1.5T or about 5% of GDP !!), but it's a good chunk of it.
Of course the Bush tax cuts were largely retained under Obama with a bipartisan bill that made them permanent with no corresponding cut to spending.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-pay...
Plenty of third-world business arrangements work like this. The problem is it incentivises extrajudicial enforcement.
Once upon a time, quite a long time ago, most government spending was public services, e.g. roads and constables and teachers. Government assistance was not a major expenditure. Maybe they would have operated a homeless shelter but there were no food stamps, no social security, no EITC. Then you were faced with the government needing to pay the constable but if you took the money from someone who was already close to starvation, they would starve, so the proposal comes to take more of the money from doctors and lawyers. Okay, sure, so make the marginal rates lower on the poor then. Progressive rate structure.
Then we added food stamps and all the rest of it. Now, most of these programs would be better as cash, but either way they have phase outs so you're not giving food stamps to Jeff Bezos. Except that phase outs and marginal tax rates are really the same thing. So we built a whole complicated system to impose lower marginal tax rates on lower income people, and then a separate whole complicated system to impose means testing and phase outs for government benefits, and these systems cancel out because one of them lowers the marginal tax rate of lower income people and the other one raises it.
This is dumb. Get rid of both complicated systems, make the benefits simple unconditional cash and then use a uniform tax rate.
Also, even if you close the loophole in the law, enforcing it is a nightmare, since the tax office needs to process every single tip now, otherwise someone could slip a few thousand dollar tips through the gaps in enforcement.
Several large car dealerships immediately advertised that they were no longer selling cars, but expensive potatoes. If you bought a $12,000 potato from them (no tax), they'd throw in a free car.
You can imagine how long the government put up with that.
If any portion of tips is declared tax-free, I believe the practice of tipping will be locked into American society forever.
A national ban on taxing tips would disproportionately benefit, for example, a South Carolina server who earns a reduced minimum wage and makes a large portion of their income through tips. While a server in California, where tips make up a smaller portion of their income, would benefit less.
And California is one of the few states without a separate tipped minimum wage [1].
Do you propose we make it illegal to tip?
If customers know the workers get paid decently, they probably wouldn't feel obliged to leave a tip. And business owners might switch to a no-tip policy since a better customer experience could attract more customers.
Before services are rendered? Yes, I think I'd be ok with that.
Really I'd like to see a groundswell of people refusing to tip but that's the catch-22, stopping tips hurts the person without fixing the underlying issue (being underpaid/dependent on tips). How do you take away the crutch without knocking the person down? I don't have a good answer but tipping currently is out of control and something needs to change.
I would like to see it made illegal to pay someone lower with the expectation that tips will bring up their income to make up the difference
And at the same time I would like to make it illegal for companies to automatically add an expected gratuity to your bill, and illegal for them to insert a tip solicitation into payment processes
No more "how much would you like to tip" screens on checkout
But make it illegal for POS systems to have a default tip and prompt for a tip.
I just finished Seeing Like A State, so my rationale here is that a cashless society is a measurable (legible) society.
To be clear, it seems like most tips have moved to CC already (at least in the areas I find myself in), but if there were any regions where cash tips are still used to hide from taxation, this could be a nudge to do less of that?
I'm definitely dubious of the impact of anything like that, just a thought that came to mind when I saw this.
Although even if they really wanted something e.g universal healthcare or no taxes on tips, a bill needs to go through house and senate.
That’s 100-ish representatives who need to vote yay on a bill to go through.
Unlikely it gets passed if there’s a 50/50 split in senate and house.
If you try and make your stock broker commission a “tip” and get handed a bundle of cash, it’ll look really bad and hopefully you’ll get caught
> Ultimately, he said, it would distort the labor market.
This is exactly what is wrong with the government pandering to sub-interest groups. Let the free market decide, and only implement some very light, universal, guardrails.
Already the CoL factor has made so many policies make no sense. $5 an hour in place that has $200K houses is better than $15 an hour where they start at $800K, but the former person is treated as "poorer" by the government.
Most people don’t treat taxes like paying money, they treat it as making money. That should change too. People should be angry when the government wastes money. It might change the political makeup of government too, which is why change is unlikely to happen.
I think a few European countries also have a similar system.
On the other hand, if tips stop being taxable, can I tip less? Like maybe 18% instead of 20%?
In sane countries, there's no such bullshit: I just take the bill to the cashier, take out my card, and pay it.
Just estimate whatever a "reasonable" tip is. It doesn't have to be a precise process.
Rounding is OK.
If the tab is $38.43, and a reasonable tip for the service in the area is 20%, then: Just round the total, slide the decimal over, and double it.
$38.43 rounds to $40. The decimal slides over, and makes $40 into $4 (ie, 10%). But 20% is the target, so $4 * 2 = $8.
The tip is thus $8. Write $8 on the tip line.
Then add $8 to $36 to get $44. Write $44 on the total line.
And then carry over the change: 43 cents. Just append ".43" to the tip line, and scribble something on the signature line, and: You're done.
You tipped 21.81%, and that's fine. Nobody cares. And these are easy steps.
If you round down (from $34 to $30, say) instead of up, and wind up paying around 17% instead instead of a target of 20%, then: That's also fine. Nobody cares. The wait staff isn't going to lose any sleep over this wondering what they did wrong or have to deal with buying only one new shoe for their kid to wear instead of a whole pair of them.
Don't sweat it.
Tip culture is a vestige of a feudal and racist past.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/17/william-b...
What does this mean? Flat tax? How do you define income? Do unrealised gains count? How granular do we get with livability?
Ad absurdum, would this scheme work across the entire planet? If not, why would it work in Mississippi and Massachussetts?
Your principles are solid. But "similarly" and "livable" econmpass the entire Overton window.
Imagine a world where a hairdresser (for example) tells you the price of the service. You pay that number. The worker is paid a fixed wage. (Ideally a wage high enough that you can live on 1 job.) That person starts paying tax on income once they reach a certain level etc.
It may surprise you that most of the world uses this system. What happens in Mississippi et al is already the "weird exception".
You're describing every OECD country. The only novelty America adds is the sales tax after, which is a labelling matter.
> may surprise you that most of the world uses this system
What did you describe that amounts to a system? My point is fair and similar isn't a system description, it's a vision statement at best.
Also, are you seriously arguing about the livability of American wages on a quality of life basis relative to the entire planet? Because if you look at the poorest 10% of Americans, their average disposable income is positive [1]. That doesn't mean there aren't huge issues, nor that the average explains every high-COL city. But having any dispoable income, by definition, means your income is high enough to live on.
[1] https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/distribution-of-pers...
Livable really means, someone on minimum wage should be able to afford housing and food/etc in a given area. Whether that means gov subsidized housing (e.g. HK residents pay like 300USD/mo rent) or a higher minimum wage is an implementation detail.
Taken together, these would greatly reduce the income inequality (Gini coefficient) and lead to a more fair and stable society.
While there are pros and cons for tipping, as a consumer I vastly prefer our system here (basically tipping is only expected in restaurants and 10% is considered plenty.)
Other people are tipped occasionally, but its rare and mostly unexpected. People are paid on the basis that they aren't tipped.
In the US it seems the opposite. As an employer I can reduce wages claiming "you'll make it up in tips". Patrons, aware of this, make random (20%+) donations to assist. Now the employer can use the "tips are better, no tax" argument.
I get that everyone wants to pay less tax. I'm not sure that tax policy which encourages "taxing" customers on an individual basis to the detriment of workers getting a standard, living, wage is necessarily in anyone's best long-term interest.
This approach will have long-term unexpected consequences. And I suspect that will be good for employers, bad for servers and patrons.
Here, it's simple: the restaurant has a menu. Items on the menu each have a price that includes sales tax. You order items and eat them. When you're done, they give you a bill with a list of the items, the advertised prices, and the total of those prices. You then pay the bill.
The main exception (and it is annoying) is some places that have "otoshi", which is some small, cheap dish of something you didn't ask for that you get when you sit down, and they tack onto the bill. It's basically a table charge. But there's a warning on the menu about it.
If you want social dynamics you want a world of SMEs not giant corps/conglomerate/* if you want social dynamics you want free education for anyone NOT to form useful idiots, Ford-model workers, but Citizens.
The reality is that the current Agenda 2030 want anyone but a small set of nazi criminals "without ownership" to manage them in "smart cities" modern labor camp for prisoners/slaves as WELL described times ago by a historical thief behind the Bank if NY silver scam: https://dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/sciencegovernme00roo... read it, it's strange but short and you'll have a very good idea of the present world.
A campaign staffer who isn't allowed to speak to the press singing her praises behind her back. Who buys this stuff?
Economists don't like it because it's unfair? Economists?
Everyone loves this idea. Tip workers love it. People who tip love it. People tip with cash when they can just to help tip workers avoid taxes. Tip workers prefer cash so they can get away with not declaring them. Of course the vice president adopted this for political reasons, the proposal by her opponent is just too damn popular not to. Her opponent did so too in case anyone's frothing at the mouth over me saying it.
I just got done watching a horribly made movie called "Jones Plantation". Terrible, terrible movie with a very interesting premise. Watching people argue about how to better pay taxes really drives that premise home for me.
In New York with honest friends who report their tips. They don't like cash. On card, it's automatically documented. With cash, they have to (a) manually enter and (b) deal with distrusting coworkers.
Granted, they work at high-end bars and restaurants. I can imagine this varies regionally.
(Blamed on unspecified employees, naturally.)
I certainly don’t. And I’m tired of having to think of someone’s wages every time I go out for dinner.
Some people, I would call them “old fashioned”, who do love it, because it gives them some sort of reassurance that the service will be good, did tell me that if I don’t like tipping, I shouldn’t go out. That was a couple years ago. Guess what, I took their advice and now I don’t eat out as much. Same goes for many others in my environment. People are getting fed up of paying $80 just in tips with subpar food.
Honestly, I hope that not eating out becomes a trend. I know those who depend on others subsidizing their labor force with tips won’t take the hint, but I won’t shed a tear for those closing down.