Workers who earn too little to pay taxes (A) will not benefit from a tax cut (B).
But workers who earn enough (not A) may still not benefit (not B), for example because their employer indirectly pockets the difference. That is actually being argued in the article.
So this is indeed the appropriate way of formulating the statement: at least 40% of workers will demonstrably not benefit from this.
Some tipped workers, like bartenders, can make more in tips than a junior software engineer lol. Less taxes definitely helps their cause.
If you are concerned with indirect effects, there's quite a few pros and cons that you could extrapolate from the no tax on tips policy. These arguments are far less compelling in general.
> Some tipped workers, like bartenders, can make more in tips than a junior software engineer lol. Less taxes definitely helps their cause.
neat, but you can only deduct up to $25k and the benefits phase out if you earn more than $150k (single filers).
If someone earned $125k salary + $25k in tips. Their taxable income would decrease by about $6k (or $500/mo, 4% overall).
I just turned on reader mode in Firefox and then refreshed the page and got the article. I'm surprised how often it works. It often doesn't but sometimes it does.
That seems correct. It's a pretty useless statement, but it is true.
The whole "I get taxed whether you tip me or not", "I have to pay to serve you if you don't tip"? No, not so much. If you can show (there's even a hugely burdensome IRS form that might take as much as 3-4 minutes a month for cash tips) that you earned less than that 8% average, then that's what you get taxed. But most servers don't want to fill that form out, because they get ... rather more than that, and are being undertaxed already.
servers are treated like absolute garbage
And either way, if you wanted to believe the merit-based approach, you're talking maybe the top 5% of servers anywhere making "good" money. Wage theft in the industry is colossal.
I will be pleasantly surprised if the removal of tax on tips does absolutely anything to move the needle for the bottom 95% of servers.
The restaurant industry has been lobbying for this to further avoid the pressure of raising wages and the complication of reporting taxes — the reasoning is out there in the open.
This is the sort of modern shell game where corporate interests further obscure costs to trick the lower class into thinking it's a good deal. It's akin to the math on maintenance Uber drivers tend to fail to do when they're calculating their wages... they're absolutely getting hosed and most of them don't even understand how.
Waiters in the US make significantly more than their British and French counterparts, due to tipping: the US minimum wage is lower than the British and French minimum wages, and despite American waiters being paid at an even lower hourly rate than the US minimum wage, they end up making more due to tips, performing the same job.
The upper 25% of waiters in the US make over $40k a year. Your 95% estimate is very off base.
> waiters make more in America
By apparently 1.5k€ per year? Not a strong argument as it stands and we haven't even begun talking about the lifestyle and workplace differences between the two countries.
And that's before even factoring in the tax benefits, which is exactly what this article is about! No tax on tips means nearly all of that income is untaxed. French waiters pay 11% taxes, and British ones are in a 20% tax bracket. The difference widens even further.
Tips allow American waiters to earn more, and no tax on tips makes them take home even more. Hand-wringing about how the American system pays less than the European one is innumerate.
no tax on tips reduces pressure for employers to support higher minimum wages, that's why the restaurant lobby supports it
No tax on tips will positively affect American waiter wages at basically every level. It's pretty simple math.
You can make that argument about literally anything that reduces the tax burden on people who's primary income is useful income.