Business
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?
Surcharges that California homeowners have been hit with statewide by insurers defraying the costs of Los Angeles County’s wildfires were ruled legal in a decision released late Tuesday.
L.A. County Superior Court Judge Tiana Murillo turned down a petition by advocacy group Consumer Watchdog to halt the charges, which insurers began levying last year after the state’s insurer of last resort couldn’t pay all its January 2025 fire claims.
The California FAIR Plan, financially backed and operated by the state’s licensed home insurers, needed a $1-billion bailout from the insurers after it was hit with some $4 billion in claims.
Under a deal Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara worked out with the FAIR Plan in 2024, the insurers could seek state approval to surcharge their residential policyholders for up to half of any assessment totaling $1 billion in case the plan needed a bailout in an “extreme worst case scenario” — as it turned out it did.
A total of 105 insurers, including State Farm General — California’s largest home insurer — Farmers and Mercury sought and received approval for the surcharges.
Because the FAIR Plan assessed its member insurers based on their share of the state’s home insurance market, the policyholder surcharges were in the same ballpark. The median fee for homeowners was $28, according to the department of insurance.
The fee can be more or less according to the size of a homeowner’s premium and is split into monthly payments that insurers can spread over one or two years. Condo owners and renters on average were surcharged less.
In a court filing, Consumer Watchdog said $420 million in surcharges were approved.
In its April 2025 lawsuit filed against Lara, the Los Angeles group made a series of arguments in seeking to overturn the residential surcharges, which it deemed an industry bailout. It did not sue over related commercial surcharges.
Consumer Watchdog contended in its lawsuit that the surcharges violated Proposition 103 — the 1988 measure that governs insurer rate hikes — because the proposition does not allow for them.
It also claimed Lara did not follow regulatory protocol in promulgating the new policy.
The group further alleged that the FAIR Plan’s governing statutes do not give Lara the authority to permit the surcharges — and that the statutes require insurers to share in the plan’s profits and losses, and not shift losses to policyholders.
Murillo, and another judge who previously heard the case, turned down all of the consumer group’s arguments in separate rulings, the last of which Murillo issued Tuesday night.
Lara celebrated his legal victory over Consumer Watchdog, which has accused Lara of having close ties to insurers and sought to oust him from office. His terms ends in January.
“This victory sends a loud and clear message: The era of allowing special interests to derail consumer choice is over. We have the momentum, we have the authority, and we will continue to fight until every Californian has access to the coverage they deserve,” Lara said in a statement.
Attorney Will Pletcher, litigation director of Consumer Watchdog, said the group disagreed with the decision and would “consider all options to move this forward.”
“It’s important to try to protect California consumers from these surcharges that we think are in pretty clear conflict with both Proposition 103 and the FAIR Plan,” he said.
Hilary McLean, a spokesperson for the plan, said in a statement it did not have any position on the ruling, given the plan “does not have a role in determining how insurers manage costs associated with assessment.”
Denni Ritter, vice president of state government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., a major industry trade group, said the decision rejected “the reckless lawsuit brought by the self-interested group Consumer Watchdog…”
“This ruling preserves a vital tool to protect the stability of the California insurance market. Blocking cost recovery would have undermined the state’s last-resort coverage option,” she said in a statement.
The 2024 policy was issued in response to the rapid growth of the plan due to a series of wildfires over the last decade that prompted multiple insurers to retreat from the state’s home insurance market.
The plan had 264,000 homeowners on its rolls in September 2022, a figure that rose to 452,0000 in the months before the fires — and its residential policyholders have since increased to 663,000 as of March.
The FAIR Plan offers policies that typically cost more than those issued by regular insurers while offering less coverage.
A Times analysis last year found that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the plan’s rolls nearly doubled to 28,440 from 2020 to 2024.
That concentration of policyholders led to the plan’s large losses during the Jan. 7 wildfires, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures, killing at least 31 people.
It’s been estimated that the insured losses for the wildfires could ultimately total as much as $40 billion, exceeding any past wildfires worldwide. Ritter said that so far insurers have paid $23.7 billion in claims.
The 2025 wildfires were not the only time the FAIR Plan has needed a bailout, though it is the first time its member insurers surcharged policyholders.
In 1993, it assessed carriers after fires in Altadena and Malibu, and in 1994 it did so after the Northridge earthquake. The assessments totaled $260 million.
The plan received approval this year from the insurance department for a 29% rate increase for its homeowner dwelling policy that will take effect in October.
An electric Tesla Semi truck crashed into two vehicles in Dayton, Nev., over the weekend, killing two people and raising questions about the truck’s safety features.
The Lyon County Sheriff’s Office responded to a major collision around 7 a.m. on Sunday at the intersection of Highway 50 and Traditions Parkway about 40 miles east of Reno, the office said.
The office confirmed a semi-truck was involved in the accident, and footage of the scene shows it was a Tesla Semi.
It is the first known crash involving a Tesla Semi, an electric Class 8 truck that Tesla is building in Nevada and plans to ramp up production of. As interest in Tesla’s electric passenger vehicles wanes, the company is betting on the truck to give it a needed boost.
The trucks do not have the Full Self-Driving mode available in Tesla cars, but Tesla’s website says they come standard “with active safety features that pair with advanced motor and brake controls to deliver traction and stability in all conditions.”
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, preliminary statements obtained at the scene suggest the truck driver may have fallen asleep behind the wheel.
The crash is under investigation by the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, which said additional information may be released next week.
The Record-Courier identified the victims as Sergio and Jennifer Villanueva, a couple who got married in 2022.
Tesla has not clarified if its semitruck has an automatic emergency braking system. Federal regulators are currently weighing a mandate for emergency braking systems in vehicles more than 10,000 pounds.
Decades of Hollywood empire-building ended with a quake in 2017 when Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch decided to sell much of his Fox entertainment holdings amid the rise of Netflix and other tech giants.
This week, another titan who has been instrumental in shaping American media and telecommunications began to unwind his Hollywood holdings.
Brian L. Roberts — who with his father built Comcast into a cable TV and internet colossus — announced his company would spin off its prestigious NBCUniversal unit into a separate publicly traded company sometime next year.
The move reverses Roberts’ purchase of NBCUniversal in 2011 — a bold bet that created a behemoth with popular programming and cable pipes to pump that content into consumer homes.
Comcast’s breakup marks the close of a Hollywood era, one dominated for 40 years by a class of maverick moguls: Murdoch, CNN founder Ted Turner, Viacom’s Sumner Redstone, cable titan John Malone and the Philadelphia-based Roberts family.
Now, a new crop of leaders has emerged, reflecting Silicon Valley’s vast influence over the film and and TV business, which has been upended by streaming and, now, artificial intelligence.
“There was a time that Murdoch, Malone and Brian were really industry leaders who could affect change,” said Bank of America managing director Jessica Reif Ehrlich in an interview. “That’s not true any longer.”
Analysts widely believe Monday’s announcement is a prelude to eventual sales of both Comcast and NBCUniversal, a theory that Comcast rejects.
Roberts, 67, told analysts he will remain involved in both NBCUniversal and Comcast after the separation. Still, he plans to relinquish his chief executive role after 25 years and a half century at Comcast. Roberts has picked trusted associates to run each firm, and his family will continue to hold controlling shares of both companies.
But the shift underscores a dramatic loss of clout by Comcast and other traditional media enterprises. Netflix, Apple, Amazon and Google’s YouTube have diminished the industry’s financial pillars — box office receipts and cable programming fees — and given consumers control over when and how they watch programming.
Murdoch was the first to flee. In 2014, he was rebuffed in his $80-billion bid to beef up his 21st Century Fox by buying HBO, CNN and other Time Warner assets. Murdoch’s defeat led to the Fox asset sale to Walt Disney Co.
Last fall, Comcast made a run for the same properties with a plan to unite NBCUniversal with Warner Bros.
Instead, 43-year-old tech scion David Ellison — with help from his billionaire father, Oracle software co-founder Larry Ellison — scooped up the prize for a staggering $111 billion.
The pending blockbuster merger of Ellison’s Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery is expected to reshape the industry and leave NBCUniversal increasingly vulnerable to a takeover.
“It looks like Comcast’s NBCUniversal was left standing on the dance floor without a partner,” MoffettNathanson media analyst Robert Fishman wrote in a Tuesday note to investors.
Paramount’s play for Warner Bros. came a month after Ellison finalized his family’s purchase of cash-strapped Paramount from Shari Redstone. The one-two acquisition punch would propel the Ellison family to top-tier moguls with influence over CNN, CBS News, HBO, Turner Classic Movies and two historic Hollywood studios.
“It’s a flagging industry. … The industry will have to consolidate to survive,” said C. Kerry Fields, a USC Marshall School of Business economics professor. “Those who have content plus [streaming] distribution are going to be the winners.”
Roberts knows distribution. His father in 1963 bought his first cable TV system in Tupelo, Miss. It was a quirky bet for Ralph Roberts, who figured his belts and suspenders business would soon be toast as beltless polyester pants became the rage.
Brian Roberts joined Comcast as a high school intern, setting up supermarket promotions. In 1975, he became a trainee cable installer, climbing poles and stringing cables. He joined Comcast full time in 1981 after graduating the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
For more than 30 years, he worked in tandem with his dad. With key associates, they built the nation’s foremost cable TV service — then the entertainment gateway — and grew stronger by offering internet, phone and then wireless service.
Analysts credit the 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal as a huge success; Comcast rescued a company that was on the ropes due to General Electric’s under-investment.
Over the years, Comcast rebuilt NBC and Spanish-language Telemundo, writing big checks for the best sports rights, including the FIFA World Cup, NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball.
Comcast also recognized value in theme parks and invested heavily, building Universal Studios as a formidable rival to Disney. NBC finished the season in first-place among traditional TV broadcasters and its L.A. film studio is an industry leader.
But the world has changed.
“One of the defining characteristics of this company has always been our willingness to look ahead, embrace change, and position ourselves for the future,” Roberts told analysts during a Monday call.
Reif Ehrlich, the Bank of America analyst, said Comcast needed to do something — or watch its stagnant stock sink farther.
Wall Street has punished the company amid steep losses in its cable TV and broadband internet units, and because NBCUniversal has historically generated its biggest profits from its cable channels.
In January, Comcast spun off those networks, including CNBC, MS NOW, USA Network and Golf Channel, to create a new entity called Versant.
But the move failed to boost Comcast’s battered stock, which dropped 3.3% on Wednesday to $23.73.
Five years ago, Comcast stock topped $50 a share.
“It was just a very challenged market on both sides, and it’s getting worse, not better,” Reif Ehrlich said.
Comcast faces competitors beyond traditional telecommunications firms, including AT&T and T-Mobile. SpaceX’s Starlink provides satellite internet service.
NBCUniversal must jockey alongside other well-capitalized players, including Amazon, Netflix and Disney. NBC’s streaming service, Peacock, has struggled to get traction. It counted 46 million paying subscribers as of the first quarter, a fraction of Netflix’s 325 million and the nearly 132 million subscribers of Disney+.
“It’s kind of a subscale player,” Reif Ehrlich said. “It’s just a real battle, and NBC has expensive sports rights.”
Roberts conceded the difficult landscape on the analyst call.
“The world is changing faster than ever,” Roberts said. “Technology, consumer behavior, competition, capital requirements are all evolving at an unprecedented pace … When we acquired NBCUniversal, more than 15 years ago, the industry looked very different.”
He will retain control for at least three years. The NBCUniversal spin-off is envisioned as a tax-free transaction for shareholders, providing a short-term buffer from deal-making to preserve that structure.
NBCUniversal could be up for grabs by 2029 — a pivotal year when the NFL is expected to open negotiations for a new round of broadcast rights. That auction is expected to draw heavy interest from Amazon and other streamers — not just veterans Fox, NBC, Disney’s ESPN and Paramount’s CBS.
“Brian Roberts has already proven his willingness to play the long game and with continued control should be the end decision maker,” Fishman said.
Much like Murdoch, who is now 95 and partially retired.
“Rupert was the smartest guy in Hollywood — he got out at the top,” Reif Ehrlich said.
He entrusted power to his 54-year-old son, Lachlan, who has been busy remaking Fox after the 2019 sale to Disney, which included Fox’s film and TV studios, streaming service Hulu and the FX and National Geographic channels. Fox also unloaded its regional cable sports networks — a savvy move before that business cratered.
The Murdochs kept Fox Sports, the Fox broadcast network, TV stations, Fox News Channel and the studio lot.
The company has been expanding. Lachlan Murdoch led Fox’s purchase of Tubi, which provides free TV channels and movies for smart televisions, keeping Fox in the streaming game. The company launched Fox News and weather products, and subscription service Fox One, which streams the company’s sports and news.
Earlier this month, Lachlan Murdoch stunned the industry by agreeing to pay $22 billion for Roku, a leading streaming platform that reaches 100 million viewers worldwide. Murdoch called the proposed purchase “a defining moment for Fox.”
-
Lifestyle2 minutes agoL.A. Affairs: He wanted L.A. I wanted New York. A panic attack changed everything
-
Politics6 minutes agoTrump refashions America’s 250th as a celebration of himself
-
Sports21 minutes agoHow Dodgers’ Max Muncy, vying for his third All-Star selection, continues to evolve
-
World33 minutes agoGermany’s Merz defends NATO spending after Trump calls it ‘ridiculous’
-
News56 minutes agoOregon ER doctors win a ‘David and Goliath’ battle against a national company
-
Videos2 hours agoIran gets ready for Khamenei’s funeral • FRANCE 24 English
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours ago2 arrested after 3 LASD deputies injured during East L.A. World Cup celebration
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoEx-girlfriend in custody after Taylor man found fatally stabbed, police say
