If you left the U.S. for a summer vacation, you may have encountered a strange and refreshing custom: not tipping. Or at least not tipping everyone in sight.

Americans have long been among the world’s most profligate tippers. “We tip more occupations than any other country, and we tend to tip larger amounts than other countries,” says Michael Lynn, a professor of consumer behavior at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration whose research focuses on tipping. “We’re kind of the tip-happiest country out there.”

Just wait. American tipping culture is poised to get even more intense. In a rare case of bipartisan agreement, presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris both advocate exempting tips from federal income taxes. It’s a popular stance with many potential voters, notably in Nevada, a swing state whose many casino, hotel and restaurant workers rely heavily on tips.

The idea would be bad news for customers — and perhaps even for tipped workers themselves.

Consumers are already weary of the way tip expectations have expanded since the pandemic. As people curbed their restaurant dining to avoid COVID-19, they increased the size of the tips they left, whether for dining in, takeout or delivery. Meanwhile businesses gravitated toward machines for cashless, no-contact transactions.

Soon tip jars that once collected loose change at cash registers morphed into touch screens suggesting significantly larger tip amounts, even for small purchases. Restaurants without waiter service — and takeout coffee places — now come with pressure to tip.

A Pew Research Center survey last November found that 72% of U.S. adults believe tipping is expected at more places than five years ago. You have to wonder how often the other 28% get out of the house.

It’s all a bit much. In a February WalletHub survey, three out of four respondents said tipping has gotten out of control. Tipping isn’t just a financial burden. It creates psychological stress. Is a tip optional or expected? How much is enough? Am I a bad person if I say no?

Excluding tips from federal income tax might simplify employer paperwork and erase the difference between easily tracked credit card charges and cash gratuities, which often go unreported. The exemption could also allow employers to pay lower (taxed) wages, because workers would have the hope of keeping more (untaxed) tips.

All of those factors would encourage even more transactions to come with real or virtual tip jars. If your barista, tattoo artist and massage therapist get tips, why not the supermarket cashier, dental hygienist and plumber? Tipping in those situations might seem odd, even unseemly today, but tax-free income is hard to resist.

Vice President Harris has specified that the exemption would apply to “service and hospitality workers,” but they aren’t the only people who currently receive tips. It’s hard to imagine those limits surviving the political pressure to include at least all tipped workers below a given income threshold.

Either way, however, the proposal picks winners. To help all workers in low-paid jobs, presidential candidates might propose increasing the standard deduction or the earned income tax credit. That would be fairer. But the tip loophole isn’t about a general increase in take-home pay; it’s about winning votes in Nevada.

Like the tax credits that oil companies get for blending ethanol with gasoline, thereby subsidizing demand for Iowa corn, making tips tax free offers big benefits to a concentrated group while spreading the costs over the general public. Nobody’s likely to vote against a candidate because they dread proliferating tip jars, but workers who make a lot of tips might vote for them.

If either proposal came to pass, the revenue forgone by the Treasury would have to come from somewhere else. But that would be a “next year” problem, an unpleasant reality not destined to get much attention this fall or sway many votes in November.

That’s why we see two fiercely opposed candidates rushing to agree on this harebrained scheme. We can only hope that they cancel each other out and that whoever is elected drops the idea.

Virginia Postrel is a contributing editor for WorksinProgress.co and writes a newsletter at vpostrel.substack.com. Her most recent book is “The Fabric of Civilization: How Textiles Made the World.”

A South Los Angeles woman is suing Starbucks for negligence, alleging she was scalded at a drive-through window in Lynwood.

Muriel Evans filed a complaint Wednesday with the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Compton. She alleges that a faulty coffee cup lid and the excessive heat from her beverage led to severe burns after a barista spilled coffee into her lap.

Evans is asking for general and special damages, including her medical, hospital and incidental expenses, and punitive damages to “set an example” of Starbucks. She alleges the corporation is indifferent “to the obviously dangerous mixture of excessively hot temperatures combined with defective lids.”

“Starbucks has shown a reckless disregard for the safety of its customers, continuing to serve scalding hot coffee in defective cups despite countless reports and warnings,” Evans’ attorney Nick Rowley said in a statement.

A Starbucks representative responded briefly: “We take pride in ensuring our beverages are crafted with care and delivered to customers safely. We take all claims seriously, but we will not be commenting on pending litigation.”

Evans pulled into the Starbucks drive-through on Aug. 25, 2022, and ordered a coffee, according to the lawsuit.

A Starbucks employee then “mishandled” the coffee and spilled it onto Evans’ lap, with the hot liquid rolling down her left leg, according to the lawsuit.

Evans said she suffered severe burns to her body along with nerve damage and disfigurement.

Evans’ legal team believes the coffee’s temperature was 190 degrees, just a little less than boiling.

Previous Starbucks guides have listed most hot beverages at between 150 and 170 degrees.

Water heated to 120 degrees takes five to 10 minutes to cause a third-degree burn; at 131 degrees, it’s 10 to 30 seconds; and at 140 degrees, it’s two to five seconds, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

As for the lids, there have been various media articles and threads and videos complaining about Starbucks’ lids and their ease in falling off, including on Reddit and TikTok.

Starbucks is facing similar lid lawsuits.

A San Fernando Valley teen filed a suit in June against the company, alleging she was burned by hot tea. The teen’s drink was double-cupped, but the lid popped off, the lawsuit alleges.

“Muriel Evans suffered severe burns because Starbucks prioritized cost-cutting over basic customer safety,” Rowley said. “We intend to hold Starbucks fully accountable for their blatant disregard and gross negligence.”

A Los Angeles appeals court has denied an attempt by Michael Jackson’s mother to prevent the singer’s estate from selling a portion of his songs to Sony Music Group for about $600 million.

The appeals court on Wednesday upheld a prior ruling by a probate court that Katherine Jackson’s objections to the transaction do not hold water.

The appeals court determined that Michael Jackson’s will grants the musician’s executors “broad powers to buy and sell estate assets in the estate’s best interests” while stipulating that “all of the estate’s assets will be distributed to the trust” — of which the performer’s mother and children are beneficiaries.

Katherine Jackson had tried to argue that those provisions were contradictory, but the appeals court disagreed.

The appeals court also rejected Katherine Jackson’s challenge on grounds that she “forfeited her contention that the proposed transaction violates the terms of Michael’s will because she did not make that contention” in a lower court.

According to court documents, Katherine Jackson had previously complained that selling assets from Michael Jackson’s catalog would violate her son’s wishes, but acknowledged that executors had the power to do so. The appeals court also noted that Katherine Jackson was the only family member and beneficiary of the trust to formally object to the sale.

An attorney for Katherine Jackson did not immediately respond Thursday to The Times’ request for comment.

“We conclude that the provisions are not inconsistent: Read together, they give the executors broad powers to manage estate property while the estate remains in probate, and they provide for the transfer of all estate property to the trust when the probate action is concluded,” Wednesday’s opinion reads.

“The proposed transaction is consistent with the terms of Michael’s will as so interpreted, and thus the probate court did not abuse its discretion by granting the executors’ petition.”

In February, Sony Music Group closed a deal to purchase half of Michael Jackson’s masters for at least $600 million, according to Billboard.

Times news researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this report.