top of page
Search

"No Tax on Tips" — Fairness or Folly?

  • Writer: Sandra Lea
    Sandra Lea
  • Jan 17
  • 6 min read
In 2024–2025, Donald Trump pledged to eliminate federal taxes on tips for service workers. He stated that tips would be "100% yours" and that there would be "no taxes on tips".

Beginning in 2025, the “No Tax on Tips” provision creates a federal income-tax deduction letting eligible tipped workers exclude up to $25,000 of qualified tips from federal taxable income for 2025–2028. It’s a deduction, not a tax-free miracle: payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) still apply, state treatment varies, and the deduction phases out for higher earners (modified AGI above $150,000 single / $300,000 joint). The IRS has issued implementation guidance, and the change was enacted as part of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (Public Law 119-21). (See IRS guidance and the law on Congress.gov.)


"No tax tips" - What it does

  • Creates a federal income-tax deduction allowing eligible workers to exclude up to $25,000 in qualified tip income from federal taxable income for 2025–2028. Applies to tips reported on W-2s and 1099s and to tips shared or pooled per IRS rules. (IRS) 

  • Is claimed on annual tax returns rather than via payroll withholding. Employers must separately account for tips to help employees claim the deduction. (IRS)


"No tax tips" - What it doesn’t do

  • It is not a payroll-tax exemption: employees still owe Social Security and Medicare taxes on tip income; employers must continue payroll reporting for those taxes. (IRS) 

  • It does not automatically exempt tips from state income tax; state treatment varies. (IRS) 

  • It excludes mandatory service charges, employer-paid bonuses, and other compensation not classified as tips under IRS rules. (IRS) 

  • The deduction phases out for higher earners, so it isn’t unlimited. (IRS)


"No tax tips" - Why does it matter

Why does "No Tax Tips" tax law changes matter?
Why does "No Tax Tips" tax law changes matter?

For servers, bartenders, hairdressers, valets, hotel staff and others, tips often make or break a paycheck. In low base-wage jobs, tips close the gap to solvency; taxing them chips away at already-thin take-home pay and feels especially unfair because tips come straight from customers. But tips are legally taxable and feed payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, so changing their tax treatment affects workers, employers, federal revenue, and future program benefits.


Arguments in favor

  1. Immediate boost to low-wage incomes — A deduction raises after-tax pay for many who rely on gratuities and can reduce reliance on public assistance. (Economic Policy Institute) 

  2. Labor-market benefits — Higher net pay could cut turnover, lower hiring costs, and make tipped jobs easier to fill without raising base wages. (Tax Policy Center) 

  3. Political appeal — It’s an intuitive, visible benefit for frontline workers that can resonate across constituencies.


Arguments against

  1. Large fiscal cost — Tips are a big slice of compensation in service sectors; broad relief could cost tens of billions over several years, requiring offsets or higher deficits. (Tax Foundation; Tax Policy Center) 

  2. Horizontal inequity — Identical incomes could be taxed differently based solely on whether pay is classified as tips, undermining tax neutrality. (Tax Foundation; National Women’s Law Center) 

  3. Employer wage-shifting — Employers might reduce reported base wages and push more pay into tips to exploit tax advantages. (Economic Policy Institute; Tax Policy Center) 

  4. Tax avoidance and reclassification risk — Bonuses, commissions, or parts of salary could be relabeled as tips to capture benefits, increasing IRS enforcement needs. (National Women’s Law Center; Tax Policy Center) 

  5. Threat to Social Security/Medicare funding — Removing tips from the payroll-tax base without offsets could shrink the funding base and affect future benefits. (Tax Policy Center)


Distributional and economic trade-offs

  • Distributional effects are complex: while the deduction helps many tip-reliant workers, many of the lowest-income tipped workers already pay little or no federal income tax and might benefit more from refundable credits like the EITC. Thus a broad deduction can disproportionately aid mid-income tip earners. (Congressional analyses; Economic Policy Institute)

  • Labor supply and wages: Higher net pay could attract workers and reduce turnover, but employer responses (lower base wages, altered hiring) might offset gains. Evidence on behavioral responses is limited. (Tax Policy Center; Economic Policy Institute)

  • Macroeconomic/fiscal consequences: Revenue losses must be financed by other tax increases, spending cuts, or deficits, each with trade-offs. Modeling the revenue and distributional impacts is essential. (Tax Foundation; Tax Policy Center)


Administrative and implementation challenges

  1. Defining “tips” vs. wages — Precise definitions are needed to avoid reclassification of non-tip pay; alignment with FLSA rules could help but may create overlaps. (IRS; DOL) 

  2. IRS systems and enforcement — New forms, guidance, IT updates, and enforcement resources will be needed; implementation is resource-intensive. (IRS) 

  3. Recordkeeping and compliance costs — Fast-paced, cash-heavy jobs make substantiation burdensome for workers; small businesses may face costly payroll upgrades. (Economic Policy Institute; IRS) 

  4. Tip-pooling complications — Applying deductions across pooled tips, especially when shared with non-tipped staff, raises allocation and eligibility questions. (EPI; IRS)


Behavioral and unintended consequences

  1. Reduced eligibility for other supports — Changes could interact with means-tested programs and refundable credits, possibly reducing benefits for some workers. (Congressional analyses) 

  2. Wage compression and “tip creep” — Employers might expand tipping expectations into previously non-tipped transactions, shifting risk to workers and raising consumer costs. (Economic Policy Institute; Tax Policy Center) 

  3. Compliance gaming — Without strong anti-abuse rules, creative reclassification and inflated tip reports could proliferate, requiring audits and penalties. (National Women’s Law Center; Tax Policy Center)


Policy options

  1. Full exemption/permanent deduction (broad) — Big immediate gains but high fiscal cost and abuse risk. 

  2. Temporary, time-limited deduction (as enacted 2025–2028) — Limits fiscal exposure and allows study, but creates uncertainty and possible short-term gaming. 

  3. Threshold-based exemption or capped refundable credit (targeted) — Better targets low/moderate earners and reduces wage-shifting incentives; needs careful calibration. 

  4. Preserve payroll-tax treatment while reducing income-tax burden — Protects Social Security/Medicare funding but yields smaller immediate take-home increases.


Recommendation

Reject a full unconditional exemption. Favor a narrowly targeted approach that balances relief with fiscal responsibility and program integrity:

  • Offer a modest, threshold-based exemption or refundable credit for the portion of tip income typical of low/moderate earners (a cap well below $25,000 for most). 

  • Preserve payroll-tax treatment or provide an alternative that credits Social Security/Medicare accruals. 

  • Enact clear statutory definitions of “qualified tips,” excluding mandatory service charges and employer-paid compensation; harmonize with FLSA where feasible. 

  • Strengthen reporting: require employers to record and separately report tip pools and allocations; upgrade payroll software and provide small-business transition assistance. 

  • Build anti-abuse provisions: penalties for misclassification, targeted audits, and coordination with states to limit arbitrage. 

  • Make relief permanent only after rigorous revenue and distributional modeling; if temporary, require an independent evaluation with clear extension criteria.


Conclusion

The “No Tax on Tips” provision responds to a real equity concern: service workers rely heavily on tips and resent taxation on customer gratuities. But a blunt, unconditional exemption risks big fiscal costs, employer manipulation, and benefits skewed toward those who may not need them. A better path is targeted relief that protects program funding, limits abuse and directs support to the lowest income tipped workers. Alternatively, an across-the-board income-tax rate reduction would raise net pay for all taxpayers without adding complexity or creating perverse incentives. This story ends the same way it always does; the government will give with one hand while taking much more with the other, another loss for the taxpayers as usual.


Prince John from Robin Hood counting his taxes with Sir Hiss

Sources and further reading

Official law, guidance, and government analysis


Budget, revenue, and distributional analysis


Independent research, policy analysis, and briefs


Academic and empirical studies

  • Katz, Autor, et al. — literature on tipping, employer wage-setting, and labor supply responses (search recent journals 2018–2025) — JSTOR/SSRN/Google Scholar. Example search: “tips wage-shifting turnover tipped workers labor supply.”

  • Empirical studies on tip-reporting compliance and tax enforcement: look for working papers at NBER and SSRN (2015–2025).


State-level treatment and responses


Implementation, payroll, and small-business guidance

  • IRS Employer’s Tax Guide updates and payroll reporting circulars: https://www.irs.gov/publications

  • Small Business Administration (SBA) guidance and transition assistance for payroll systems: https://www.sba.gov

  • Major payroll vendors’ implementation notes (ADP, Paychex, Intuit) — search vendors’ help centers for “No Tax on Tips” implementation.

Comments

bottom of page