Instead of Vote-Buying Tax Promises, Let's Have Real Plans for Tax Relief
Lower taxes are better taxes, but they should be part of well-considered plans.

Three months after proposing to end federal taxing of tips—an idea promptly confiscated without compensation by Kamala Harris's campaign—Donald Trump doubled down by saying "we will end all taxes on overtime" if he's elected president. Without a doubt, millions of Americans who resent government's ravenous bite out of their paychecks immediately began contemplating just how much of their income they could shield from the tax man that way.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Tips and Overtime for Everybody!
"Can someone get paid in primarily tips and overtime?" quipped the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome. "Asking for a few million friends."
On a more serious note, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Sean Higgins thought exempting overtime pay "wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea…but, overall, it is not likely to make that much of a difference to most workers because overtime isn't that common." He'd been more strongly supportive of exempting tips because that "would put more money directly in the pockets of working Americans without either costing employers more or raising prices for customers." He also liked that freeing tips from taxation would "keep tipping out of the reach of the regulatory state."
But what if overtime pay becomes more common precisely because it's not taxed?
The people at the Tax Foundation expect that's exactly what will happen, just as Lincicome joked. Thinking through the implications of exempting overtime pay from taxation, Garrett Watson and Erica York warned that "exempting overtime pay from income tax would significantly distort labor market decisions. Employees would be encouraged to take more overtime work, and hourly or salaried non-exempt jobs may become more attractive if the benefit is not extended to salaried employees who are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime rules."
The Tax Foundation's Alex Muresianu had a similar reaction to the proposals to exempt tips from taxes from both Trump and Harris. He thinks "the proposal would make more employees and businesses interested in moving from full wages to a tip-based payment approach." He foresaw "substantial behavioral responses, such as previously untipped occupations introducing tipping."
Of course, a world in which more Americans receive their pay beyond the reach of the tax man is a welcome prospect to many of us. If politicians want to phase out income taxes, even unintentionally, who are we to complain? Hang on a minute while I set up my virtual tip jar. In fact, there's precedent for government policy around wages to cause major unintended consequences. Take, for example, employer-provided healthcare coverage.
Government Policy Has Distorted Compensation Before
"One of the most important spurs to growth of employment-based health benefits was—like many other innovations—an unintended outgrowth of actions taken for other reasons during World War II," according to the 1993 book, Employment and Health Benefits: A Connection at Risk. "In 1943 the War Labor Board, which had one year earlier introduced wage and price controls, ruled that contributions to insurance and pension funds did not count as wages. In a war economy with labor shortages, employer contributions for employee health benefits became a means of maneuvering around wage controls. By the end of the war, health coverage had tripled."
Given that health benefits became a substitute form of compensation to escape a wage freeze, it's not difficult to imagine the United States moving toward a situation in which a lot more people receive the bulk of their pay from untaxed tips and overtime pay.
But if income taxes are effectively phased out for millions of Americans as an unintended consequence of presidential promises intended to please crowds and buy votes rather than as thought-through tax policy, the result could be chaos—and panicked reactions from the political class.
The Tax Foundation expects exempting overtime pay to reduce federal revenues by anywhere from $680.4 billion to $3.1 trillion over 10 years. That's a very wide range because of uncertainty as to just how broadly the exemption would be applied and the potentially massive degree to which worker compensation could change as Americans seek to benefit from taking their pay in untaxed form.
Similarly, exempting tips would reduce revenues by at least $107 billion over 10 years, though the amount could be much larger as tipping becomes more widespread.
A Lost Opportunity for Real Tax Relief?
Personally, I don't mind in the least contributing to lower federal revenue collections; it's not like the clowns in Washington, D.C. are on track to control spending or address the looming debt disaster. But we should worry about restructuring our entire system of worker compensation around yet another ill-considered effort to buy votes. Worse, the political class will almost certainly respond to plunging revenues with draconian and even more poorly considered schemes to scrutinize our finances and pick our pockets to refill federal coffers. We could lose the opportunity for real tax reform such as an extension and expansion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed when Trump was in the White House.
"Trump is losing the tax plot by promising all sorts of costly tax giveaways that will make it hard and maybe impossible to extend the pro-growth components of his reform," The Wall Street Journal editorial board cautioned about the Republican candidate's overtime pay and tips exemption proposals, as well as his recent scheme to remove the cap on state and local tax deductions for residents of high-tax states. It added that Trump's promises "undermine a major goal of tax reform, which is to make the code more efficient so it raises revenue with the least economic distortion."
People are entitled to keep the money they earn, and lower taxes are better taxes. But like all uses of state power, proposals for tax relief should be more than candy tossed to the crowd in hopes of winning favor. They should be thought through as part of a larger plan to fund whatever about the government needs funding (not so much, I would suggest), without driving businesses, organizations, and individuals into contortions to take advantage of poorly conceived changes to the tax code.
Maybe federal officials and those aspiring to the job could even fit their tax ideas into a larger framework that matches revenues to expenditures and pays down debt. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?
By all means, let's see more proposals for tax reform, especially tax reduction. Perhaps exempt overtime and tips as part of an overall plan. But let's see these ideas proposed as policy, not just payoffs for votes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The bigger problem is the spending.
Yes, that's a bigger problem, but taxes are a close second. Suppose you managed to get the US federal government, or any state or nation's government, to cut spending so much they'd be running a surplus. Would you be so naive as to think they'd then cut taxes commensurately? So take any opportunity to cut taxes or spending any time you can, any way you can.
Many Americans don’t pay net taxes, they instead are free riders. The spending needs to be cut sharply. The US govt has already borrowed $35.4T (which gets passed off vis higher prices).
Yes, I’d also like to pay the taxes that an illegal Haitian does.
The Haitians are here legally.
There are about 110,000 here illegally per Pew’s 2024 report using the most current data, from 2022.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/07/SR_24.07.22_unauthorized-immigrants_table-1.xlsx
Back to the original comment: I’d also like to pay the taxes that an illegal Haitian does.
3/4 of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, and interest on the national debt. By how much would you cut Social Security benefits? What diseases and treatments that Medicare covers would you no longer cover? What weapons systems would you cancel? Be specific. If you don't make huge cuts in these three you aren't making spending cuts that matter.
Eliminate federal programs that individuals and/or private sector previously handled. That includes providing retirement for non-govt employees and health insurance coverage.
Close all foreign military bases and stop gifting any materiel to any foreign nation. Stop all financial packages to foreign nations. If individuals want to give away their money to nation X, Y, or Z they should be allowed to do so.
OT: Remember when the RNC sued Google for listing ads as spam.
Well my phone is non stop spam for political ads. Thanks RNC for being once again on the wrong side of another issue. They may have lost the lawsuit but seems to have won the war. Fucking dicks.
Adblock.
Just for the record, the RNC sued because their ads and emails were called spam, but not the democrat ads.
Oh, so they had good intentions, nevermind I withdraw my objections because I didn't realize (I did) that they had good intentions. Afterall good intentions are the foundation of noble causes and no one could have predicted that problems would arise (I did).
I'm glad you were able to make sense of "Well my phone is non stop spam for political ads." because it makes no sense to me.
"Every time I open democrats.org on the browser on my phone I get a goddamned political ad! Thanks you Republican asshats!"
I got a text message from the Steve Garvey campaign yesterday. Apparently he's running for US Senate in California. I live in Missouri.
He wanted to show you. Voila.
OK. Here's my plan.
Eliminate all cabinet level positions, and the entire bureaucracy that supports it, which do not have a clear constitutional authorization.
The taxes to support the remaining government would be miniscule, and selling off the real estate those bureaucracies use could reduce the national debt.
Because all cabinet position were created by Congress, they are constitutional. Where in our Constitution does it say you cannot create cabinet positions? In fact, no cabinet is addressed in the Constitution rather it is inferred as advisors to the President.
I wonder how my precinct will react to the "Longtobefree" write in they're going to get.
It will probably get counted as "Harris" - - - - - -
Yeah, the GOP shouldn't try to buy stupid people's votes with THEIR OWN MONEY. Only Democrats are allowed to do that with someone else's money. Or more correctly, some else's grandkid's money.
As long as people vote for duopoly candidates who refuse to address entitlement spending, it doesn’t really matter.
Not voting is the real answer.
Fuck it, take tax cuts any way you can get them. Don't try to be government's efficiency consultant.
Tax cuts aren't tax cuts without spending cuts unless they are the tipping point for catastrophic financial collapse
Tax cuts without spending cuts return as tax hikes in the form of inflation and an otherwise depressed economy. So if you make a lot in tips and overtime, good for you. The rest of us will pick up the tab though.
Paraphrased:
“Hey man… I’m not rolling over on Libertarian principles like a dog in heat because I posted an image of JUST TRUMP (the auto-excuse) on the top of my article and proceeded to sell leftard self-projection in the idea that citizens being able to keep their earnings was ?costly?”
“So please: beware of the Trump monster when voting. He might sell you voters on an idea that keeping your *earnings* is a good thing but it might ‘cost’ the [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire less public institutions.”
Boehms add-lib, "..besides tax-cuts don't really exist unless they're tax-cuts for foreign markets."
Americans whether they like to admit it or not are undertaxed. Cutting taxes simple means increasing the amount of government debt. People don't support spending cuts because they are getting services at bargain rates for taxes paid. Increase taxes to an appropriate level for the services government provides and then see if people still want the services.
^ this person's vote counts as much as yours. Let that sink in.
paraphrased, "[WE] mob of Gov-Gun packing Democrats haven't STOLEN enough from you 'icky' people yet because you keep voting for us."
The 'icky' people don't vote for Democrats so apparently it's only the [WE] mob gang-of-theft who is "under-taxed". And so you are indeed correct. Democrats are under-taxed.
Thus the very curse of [WE] mob THEFT politics. People have to shovel over their earnings (by Gun-Force) to the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] because the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] out number whether they deserve or want to or not. Otherwise; Justice might be ensure on a free-market and every Individual could CHOSE what Service they wanted to buy and which Service wasn't worth it.
Holy shit, you almost had me.
Well, think some more and you will see my point. Why cut services when they are bargain priced.
Says the same one who lobbies for MORE 'armed-theft'.
What you're really saying is 'armed-theft' of your neighbors are a bargain price!
Screw Liberty. Screw Justice. STEALING for my 'bargain price' is what government is all about.
And that my friends is exactly why Democrats are the evil/criminal party.
All of the government services I would actually voluntarily pay for come from state and local government.
You will die from lack of health care if you are elderly and get a serious disease were it not for Medicare. Elderly people are uninsurable.
"You're all going to DIE if you don't become [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] who STEAL from other people!!!" /s
A few decades later...
Oh whoops; Apparently 'Guns' don't actually make sh*t.
Guess you're all going to die anyways because there's no more people providing Healthcare.
Holy Crap you leftards are the most greedy, stupid and selfish P.O.S. on the planet.
Please move to some other maximum tax paradise nation.
Indeed +100000000000000000 ^THIS^.
Add-lib: If you're too much of a baby to pay your own way you don't belong in a free nation.
This is true in that government doesn’t tax enough to cover what it spends. The American people wouldn't stand for the level of taxation it would take. So it borrows to make up the difference. This is fucking why we fucking need to fucking cut fucking spending!
I repeat my first comment. 3/4 of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, and interest on the national debt. By how much would you cut Social Security benefits? What diseases and treatments that Medicare covers would you no longer cover? What weapons systems would you cancel? Be specific. If you don’t make huge cuts in these three you aren’t making spending cuts that matter.
HUGE CUTS.
Anything not specifically an Enumerated Power of the Federal Government.
Why it would be almost be like having a USA instead of a Nazi-Empire.
Eliminate the income tax. This is essential for returning america to a land of the free.
>>Lower taxes ... should be part of well-considered plans.
been seeing well-considered plans go nowhere my whole fucking life I'd prefer across the board sweeping change today.
Well, you (reluctantly) voted against lower taxes, so shut up.
What about taxes on unrealized overtime?
Amendment as to the main points and headline. To achieve the writer's goal, however, we need to decide how much the federal government MUST spend to meet the country's essential needs including, even better infrastructure than Biden got Congress to approve. Most spending waste is in defense, but some defense needs may actually be underfunded (better recruiting, training and deployment strategies, for example) so focus on unneeded weapons systems. Once we decide what we have to spend, then we take on the tax system reforms needed to generate the revenue and pay down something on the national debt.
"Most spending waste is in defense"
True. The F-35 alone was an unnecessary trillion or so. But it creates jobs! Even Bernie Sanders is a supporter, because a few jobs in Vermont depend on it!!! The purpose of the Defense budget is pork for members of Congress and corporate welfare for defense contractors. Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.
However, all the libertarians here will oppose the solution. The US government used to build a lot of its on weapons and ships. Kennedy and McNamara ignored Eisenhower and closed the armories and shipyards, turning everything over to Big Corporate America. No surprise, McNamara was a Republican who was an auto executive. He believed the religion that claims that the private sector is always more efficient than the government. That is a religious belief, not a fact. When Big Business spends its lobbying money to get weapons programs funded that the government itself would not otherwise build, you aren't saving money.
"some defense needs may actually be underfunded (better recruiting"
If we return to the Trump 14% unemployment rate we had in 2020 this won't be necessary. Low unemployment makes it hard for volunteer armies to recruit.
False. DoD is only 14.43% of the total budget.
https://www.usaspending.gov/agency
Businesses do not pay taxes. Ever. The only entities that pay taxes are individuals. Businesses collect taxes from some combination of their investors (as lower returns on investment), their employees (as lower wages and fewer benefits), and/or their customers (as higher prices).
So, eliminate all taxes on businesses.
Or just eliminate their “I’m a business so don’t tax me” exceptions/deductions.
What’s a business anyways if it isn’t but a group of Individuals?
You don’t think Individuals pass-off their tax-bill on demanded wages or what?
Maybe we should not penalize people for being productive and then penalize them more for being really productive.