Business

Column: Trump says Harris stole his idea for exempting tips from tax, but her version beats his

Published

1 year ago

August 13, 2024

Column: Trump says Harris stole his idea for exempting tips from tax, but her version beats his

Every four years, the just-toss-an-idea-out-there phase of the presidential race precedes the serious campaigning that starts after Labor Day.

The flavor of the moment is the idea of exempting tips from federal taxes. Donald Trump proposed it during an appearance in June in Las Vegas (home to a lot of restaurant and hotel workers who depend on tips).

Kamala Harris offered her version a few days ago during a rally of her own, also in Las Vegas. That prompted Trump to whine on social media that she had poached his idea.

A meaningful share of tipped workers already pay zero federal income tax.

— Ernie Tedeschi, Yale Budget Lab

Are you tired of this yet?

Hang on, because there’s more to say, starting with the fact that a tax exemption for tips on its own won’t do much good for the many low-income workers who count tips as an important part of their income.

Second, this is hardly a new idea — it has been kicking around the political world since at least the 1980s. California exempted tips from state tax (with some conditions) in 2015.

A tax exemption for tips is a crowd-pleaser, but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Trump’s version, and a bill introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) to put meat on its bones, are half-baked.

Harris paired hers with a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage, which is a much better policy.

If all this jockeying is the two parties vying to be more family-friendly, the crown goes to the Democrats, hands down.

Let’s place the issue under a microscope.

Since Trump hasn’t given any details, we have to use the Cruz/Donalds No Tax on Tips Act as a signpost for the GOP approach. The measure exempts tips from federal income tax, but not from the payroll tax that funds Social Security and part of Medicare. It applies only to households that pay federal income taxes — it’s not refundable, meaning that it doesn’t provide any benefit to households whose income is so low they don’t owe federal taxes.

That leaves out all but “a small sliver” of American workers, according to economist Ernie Tedeschi of the Yale Budget Lab. He counts the number of workers in traditional tipped occupations, including wait staff, barbers and hairdressers, at about 4 million, or just 2.5% of all workers.

“A meaningful share of tipped workers already pay zero federal income tax,” Tedeschi notes.

U.S. census data drive home his point: More than a third of tipped workers earned so little in 2022 that they owed no federal income tax. In other words, they’d receive zero benefit from the Republican act.

Another flaw of the bill is its lack of guardrails to ensure that only low-income tipped workers receive its benefits. Nowhere in the three-page measure are tips defined, nor is there a phase-out of the tax break based on income. This raises the possibility that higher-income households could game the system by defining some of their earnings as tips and pocketing the deduction.

Nothing would “prevent high-income professionals such as hedge fund managers from shifting their compensation to a tax-free tipping model,” observes Brendan Duke of the liberal Center for American Progress.

That mention of “hedge fund managers” shows that the folks at CAP know how their audience would react to another giveaway to plutocrats, but it’s hard to deny that the wealthy are masters of exploiting any tax break that could conceivably save them money.

The biggest problem with the Republican approach is that it operates in a vacuum, as if exempting tips from income tax is all that needs to be done to vest the GOP with pro-family cred. It’s not. Far more gains would be achieved by extending enhancements to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit that were enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan of 2021.

The EITC and Child Tax Credit enhancements expired at the end of 2021. Efforts by the Biden White House and its Democratic allies on Capitol Hill to extend them failed, due mostly to Republican opposition. Under the Rescue Plan, the child tax credit was increased to an annual $3,000 per child ($3,600 for children under age 6), from $2,000 per child. The measure raised the maximum age of children eligible for the credit to 17 from 16.

Even more important, the credit was made fully refundable, meaning that it went to families regardless of whether or how much they paid in federal income taxes. The American Rescue Plan also eliminated the preexisting program’s work incentives, which reduced the credit for lower-income families. When the enhancements expired, the child credit fell back to $2,000 per child and reduced the refundable portion to $1,700.

As CAP calculates, many of the low-income households that would receive nothing from the No Tax on Tips Act — a single parent with one child, living on $24,000 income mostly from tips, a student working part-time or a married couple earning less than $30,000 — would receive benefits of up to $2,600 from restoration of the American Rescue Plan credits.

The enhanced Child Tax Credit reduced the child poverty rate by about 30%, keeping as many as 3.7 million children out of poverty by the end of 2021. When the enhancements expired in January, the child poverty rate spiked to 17% from 12.1%, plunging 3.7 million children back under the poverty line. The impact was much worse on Black, Latino and Asian children than on white ones.

In other words, if the Republicans wished to be pro-family really, not just rhetorically, they would have clamored to extend the credits.

Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, whose mouth writes checks his campaign can’t cash, says he’s in favor of the child tax credit and even wants to raise it as high as $5,000 per child. Couple of problems here: First, he surely knows that his Republican colleagues in Congress would never support such a large grant to families, and second, when a more modest increase came up to the Senate floor two weeks ago, Vance didn’t even show up to vote.

How about Harris’ proposal?

What she said in Las Vegas was this: “We will continue our fight for working families of America, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.” Nestled within that statement are two very important distinctions from the Trump or Republican proposal.

First is a raise in the federal minimum wage, which has been frozen at $7.25 an hour since 2009. Had the minimum kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.79 today. In seven states, the federal wage applies — five that have not enacted a minimum wage of their own (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee) and two (Georgia and Wyoming) where the state minimum is lower than $7.25, meaning that the federal wage is the law.

Harris also specified service and hospitality workers, which obviously means she would exclude professionals gaming the law. Whether she would do so by phasing out the benefit by income or specifically identifying eligible occupations isn’t clear.

Despite her careful phrasing, conservative commentators and not a few actual journalistic organizations fell into the trap of treating Harris’ proposal as a copycat of Trump’s.

The right-wing pundit Mary Katherine Ham, whose determination to tell it like it is was hampered by her lack of knowledge, tweeted that if Harris is “just gonna copy and paste Trump’s site, she doesn’t need another week or two to debut it.”

Obviously, if Ham spent two minutes examining the proposals, she wouldn’t have made this claim. But her error matched those of, for example, CBS News, which reported in headline syntax that Harris was “echoing Trump proposal.”

The distinction was also lost on the Wall Street Journal, which accused Harris of “borrowing a Trump idea.” Never mind that the idea wasn’t Trump’s in the first place. The Times, I’m sorry to say, picked up an Associated Press account that described Harris as “echoing a pledge that her opponent, Republican Donald Trump, has made, and marking a rare instance of political overlap from both sides.”

Budget deficit hawks have also weighed in. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a watchdog group that is an offspring of the late hedge fund billionaire Pete Peterson, wrung its hands over the potential cost of Harris’ plan, based on a conjecture that she would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

The committee estimated that, combined with an income tax exemption, her plan would cost the federal government as much as $200 billion over 10 years. Is that a lot?

The Congressional Budget Office projects that annual federal budgets will total about $19.6 trillion over the next 10 years, making the cost of the minimum wage and tip exemption come to about 1% of federal outlays during that time.

You make the call. Two of the most expensive tax breaks in federal law are the exemptions for contributions and earnings for pension and individual retirement accounts, and the preferential tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Both disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Combined, they come to $680 billion a year; the minimum wage increase and tip exemption would cost an average $20 billion a year.

Some people might think that an important goal of the federal government should be providing for the most vulnerable members of society. The current system, especially after a massive tax break was enacted by the Republicans and signed by Trump in 2017, is heavily skewed toward comforting the wealthy.

If the parties and their candidates want to play the pro-family card, one can’t really blame them for seizing on a policy that sounds great on TV. Only one of the parties has gone beyond a tax exemption on tips and has favored truly comprehensive pro-family policies. Can you see which one?

Business

Bay Area semiconductor testing company to lay off more than 200 workers

Published

6 hours ago

January 11, 2026

Press Room

Bay Area semiconductor testing company to lay off more than 200 workers

Semiconductor testing equipment company FormFactor is laying off more than 200 workers and closing manufacturing facilities as it seeks to cut costs after being hit by higher import taxes.

The Livermore, Calif.,-based company plans to shutter its Baldwin Park facility and cut 113 jobs there on Jan. 30, according to a layoff notice sent to the California Employment Development Department this week. Its facility in Carlsbad is scheduled to close in mid-December later this year, which will result in 107 job losses, according to an earlier notice.

Technicians, engineers, managers, assemblers and other workers are among those expected to lose their jobs, according to the notices.

The company offers semiconductor testing equipment, including probe cards, and other products. The industry has been benefiting from increased AI chip adoption and infrastructure spending.

FormFactor is among the employers that have been shedding workers amid more economic uncertainty.

Companies have cited various reasons for workforce reductions, including restructuring, closures, tariffs, market conditions and artificial intelligence, which can help automate repetitive tasks or generate text, images and code.

The tech industry — a key part of California’s economy — has been hit hard by job losses after the pandemic, which spurred more hiring, and amid the rise of AI tools that are reshaping its workforce.

As tech companies and startups compete fiercely to dominate the AI race, they’ve also cut middle management and other workers as they move faster to release more AI-powered products. They’re also investing billions of dollars into data centers that house computing equipment used to process the massive troves of information needed to train and maintain AI systems.

Companies such as chipmaker Nvidia and ChatGPT maker OpenAI have benefited from the AI boom, while legacy tech companies such as Intel are fighting to keep up.

FormFactor’s cuts are part of restructuring plans that “are intended to better align cost structure and support gross margin improvement to the Company’s target financial model,” the company said in a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week.

The company plans to consolidate its facilities in Baldwin Park and Carlsbad, the filing said.

FormFactor didn’t respond to a request for comment.

FormFactor has been impacted by tariffs and seen its growth slow. The company employs more than 2,000 people and has been aiming to improve its profit margins.

In October, the company reported $202.7 million in third-quarter revenue, down 2.5% from the third quarter of fiscal 2024. The company’s net income was $15.7 million in the third quarter of 2025, down from $18.7 million in the same quarter of the previous year.

FormFactor’s stock has been up 16% since January, surpassing more than $67 per share on Friday.

Business

In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam

Published

18 hours ago

January 10, 2026

Press Room

In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam

Two people allegedly used $100 counterfeit bills at dozens of In-N-Out Burger restaurants in Southern California in a wide-reaching scam.

Glendale Police officials said in a statement Friday that 26-year-old Tatiyanna Foster of Long Beach was taken into custody last month. Another suspect, 24-year-old Auriona Lewis, also of Long Beach, was arrested in October.

Police released images of $100 bills used to purchase a $2.53 order of fries and a $5.93 order of a Flying Dutchman.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged Lewis with felony counterfeiting and grand theft in November.

Elizabeth Megan Lashley-Haynes, Lewis’s public defender, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Glendale police said that Lewis was arrested in Palmdale in an operation involving the U.S. Marshals Task Force. Foster is expected in court later this month, officials said.

”Lewis was found to be in possession of counterfeit bills matching those used in the Glendale incident, along with numerous gift cards and transaction receipts believed to be connected to similar fraudulent activity,” according to a police statement.

A representative for In-N-Out Burger told KTLA-TV that restaurants in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties were also targeted by the alleged scam.

“Their dedication and expertise resulted in the identification and apprehension of the suspects, helping to protect our business and our communities,” In-N-Out’s Chief Operations Officer Denny Warnick said. “We greatly value the support of law enforcement and appreciate the vital role they play in making our communities stronger and safer places to live.”

The company, opened in 1948 in Baldwin Park, has restaurants in nine states.

An Oakland location closed in 2024, with the owner blaming crime and slow police response times.

Company chief executive Lynsi Snyder announced last year that she planned to relocate her family to Tennessee, although the burger chain’s headquarters will remain in California.

Business

Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items

Published

1 day ago

January 10, 2026

Press Room

Newsom’s budget includes 0 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday doubled down on California’s commitment to electric vehicles with proposed rebates intended to backfill federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration.

The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.

EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.

Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.

“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”

Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.

During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.

“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”

Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”

While the budget proposal does not include significant new spending proposals, it contains other line items relating to climate and the environment. Among them are plans to continue implementing Proposition 4, the $10-billion climate bond approved by voters in 2024 for programs geared toward wildfire resilience, safe drinking water, flood management, extreme heat mitigation and other similar efforts.

Among $2.1 billion in climate bond investments proposed this year are $58 million for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects in vulnerable communities, and nearly $20 million to assist homeowners with defensible space to prevent fire. Water-related investments include $232 million for flood control projects and nearly $70 million to support repairs to existing or new water conveyance projects.

The proposal also lays out how to spend money from California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. State lawmakers last year voted to extend the program through 2045 and rename it cap-and-invest.

The spending plan includes a new tiered structure for cap-and-invest that first funds statutory obligations such as manufacturing tax exemptions, followed by $1 billion for the high speed rail project, $750 million to support the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and finally secondary program funding such as affordable housing and low-carbon transit options.

But while some groups applauded the budget’s broad handling of climate issues, others criticized it for leaning too heavily on volatile funding sources for environmental priorities, such as special funds and one-time allocations.

The Sierra Club called the EV incentive program a crucial investment but said too many other items were left with “patchwork strategies that make long-term planning harder.”

“Just yesterday, the Governor acknowledged in his State of the State address that the climate risk is a financial risk. That is exactly why California needs climate investments that are stable and ongoing,” said Sierra Club director Miguel Miguel.

California Environmental Voters, meanwhile, stressed that the state should continue to work toward legislation that would hold oil and gas companies liable for damages caused by their emissions — a plan known as “Make Polluters Pay” that stalled last year amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure.

“Instead of asking families to absorb the costs, the Legislature must look seriously at holding polluters accountable for the harm they’ve caused,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California Environmental Voters’ chief strategy officer.

Sarah Swig, Newsom’s senior advisor for climate, noted that the state’s budget plan came just days after Trump withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major global treaty signed by nearly 200 countries with the aim of addressing global warming through coordinated international action.

“California is not slowing down on climate at a time when we continue to see attack after attack from the federal government, including as recently as this week with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC,” Swig told reporters Friday. “California’s leadership has never mattered more.”