Restaurant workers say ‘no tax on tips' undermined by benefits cuts
The Senate bill passed on Tuesday, which mirrors the House bill passed last month, would deliver this campaign promise from Trump and had also been proposed by his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris.
The House plan lets workers deduct all reported tips from their taxable income, while the Senate version sets limits — $18,500 for individuals or $25,000 for joint filers — and phases it out for higher earners. The tax break would expire at the end of 2028.
If this bill passes, filers could deduct some or all of those tips starting in 2026.
Economists forecast that cutting tax on tips could increase the federal deficits by $100bn over the next decade.
Many restaurant workers continue to earn the federal tipped minimum wage, or subminimum wage, of just $2.13 per hour nationally. It is slightly higher in places like New York at $3.55 per hour. The law assumes that tips will bridge the gap to reach the $7.25 federal minimum wage.
A survey cited by the White House and conducted by a fintech firm found that 83 percent of restaurant workers support a no-tax-on-tips policy. Trump's plan has been endorsed by the National Restaurant Association.
'The inclusion of the No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime provisions recognises the value of our dedicated workforce. More than two million tipped servers and bartenders stand to benefit, while the overtime measure rewards the commitment of over 13 million hourly team members across the sector,' Michelle Korsmo, president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association, told Al Jazeera in a statement.
The bill at the surface promises to put more money in the pockets of servers, bartenders, and other tipped workers. But it has been criticised by worker-centric advocacy groups and restaurant workers themselves, who caution against embracing it too quickly because it also comes with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, which workers in the restaurant industry disproportionately rely on.
'That is like one of like the biggest fears I have right now. I rely on SNAP myself. I rely on Medicaid. At one point, I didn't have insurance because of the whole sub-minimum wage, ' Jessica Ordenana, a server at a Chili's Restaurant in Queens, New York told Al Jazeera.
According to One Fair Wage, about 66 percent of tipped workers in the US don't earn enough to pay federal income tax, so eliminating tax on tips wouldn't help the majority of restaurant workers.
To put this in perspective, a worker earning $2.13 per hour, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, would earn just $4,430.40 annually. Employers are legally required to make up the difference if tips don't bring workers to $7.25/hour, totalling $15,078 per year. Federal income taxes must be paid by those who make more than $14,600 annually. Many workers still fall short due to inconsistent schedules and unreliable tipping.
Work requirements complications
Restaurant tipped workers overwhelmingly rely on services like SNAP and Medicaid, and will now face new work requirements to get them.
For instance, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' includes a Medicaid work requirement that obligates able-bodied adults aged 19 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month to remain eligible.
For many restaurant workers, this is simply not feasible. Not because of unwillingness, but because their hours depend on consumer demand.
According to Harvard Kennedy School's The Shift Project, which studies workplace trends, one in five service sector workers reported having not as many hours as they would like and saw a 34 percent fluctuation in the number of hours week to week.
'I'm actually having a hard time at Chili's because they went from giving me my full like four or five days a week, to now just one day a week. It really varies week to week,' Ordenana said.
'When I ask for another day on the schedule [the manager] tells me, yeah, yeah sure. And then they don't even put me on the schedule. So last week, I didn't work at all,' Ordenana said.
Demand for eating out has started to slump as Americans tighten purse strings in the face of a slowing economy and uncertainty over the impact of Trump's tariffs.
Consumer Price Index data showed that spending on eating out was flat for three months from February to April and has started to decline heading into the middle of the year.
Consumer spending is projected to drop by 7 percent over the middle of the year, according to KPMG's Consumer Pulse report.
As a result, One Fair Wage estimates that 45 percent of restaurant workers currently enrolled in Medicaid could lose their health insurance because of the possible downturn in hours because of slumping demand.
'More tipped restaurant workers would lose their Medicaid than would gain small tax benefits. This is not the right solution,' Saru Jayaraman, founder of the advocacy group One Fair Wage told Al Jazeera.
'Why are these workers on Medicaid to begin with? Because they earn a sub-minimum wage and can't afford to take care of themselves.'
SNAP benefits face a similar threat. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, forecasts that the tax bill could lead to as many as 11 million people, including restaurant workers, losing access to critical benefits. The House bill would cut $300bn from SNAP over the next 10 years and the Senate bill would cut $211bn.
'Those cuts have to come out of benefits or eligibility. There is just no way that cuts to administrative costs, to streamline waste, fraud, and abuse, or whatever the talking points are about thinking. Those are benefits to eligible people. To achieve that kind of savings, you have to cut benefits to people. There's no way around it. And that's devastating,' Ed Bolen, director of SNAP State Strategies at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Al Jazeera.
Nationwide, 18 percent of restaurant workers rely on SNAP benefits, including Ordenana.
'How am I going to eat? How am I gonna survive? How am I going to pay rent? And then on top of that, I might lose benefits? How is this happening in America?' Ordenana asked rhetorically.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Migrants in US detention lose appeal against deportation to South Sudan
Eight migrants in United States custody have lost a last-ditch attempt to avoid deportation to South Sudan, a country facing ongoing criticism for human rights abuses. On Friday, Judge Brian Murphy of Boston denied the eleventh-hour appeal, which has been the subject of a flurry of legal activity throughout the day. The appeal argued that repeated efforts under President Donald Trump to deport the men to South Sudan was 'impermissibly punitive'. It pointed out that the US Constitution bars 'cruel and unusual punishment'. In the past, the US Department of State has accused South Sudan of 'extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cases of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment'. It advises no American citizen to travel there due to an ongoing armed conflict. But the US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the Trump administration could indeed deport the men to countries outside of their homelands. Its latest decision was issued on Thursday. The US Department of Justice indicated that the eight men were set to be flown to South Sudan by 7pm US Eastern Time (23:00 GMT) on Friday. They hailed from countries like Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam. The last-ditch appeal was filed on Thursday night, shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Initially, the case was assigned to US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, DC, who signalled he was sympathetic to the deportees' request. He briefly ordered the deportation to be paused until 4:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT), but ultimately, he decided to transfer the case back to Murphy, the judge whose decisions helped precipitate the Supreme Court's rulings. Murphy had previously issued injunctions against the deportations to South Sudan, leading to successful appeals from the Trump administration. The eight men, meanwhile, had been held at a military base in Djibouti while the courts decided their fate. Before he transferred the case back to Murphy, however, Judge Moss said it was possible the deportees could prove their case that the Trump administration intended to subject them to abuse. 'It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical wellbeing is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others,' Moss said during the hearing. Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, argued that the deportation's continued delay would strain relations with countries willing to accept migrants from other countries. Murphy, who denied Friday's request, had previously ruled in favour of the deportees, issuing an injunction against their removal to South Sudan and saying they had a right to contest the deportation based on fears for their safety. The Supreme Court first lifted the injunction on June 23 and clarified its ruling again on Thursday, giving a subtle rebuke to Judge Murphy. The Trump administration has been pushing for rapid removals as part of its campaign of mass deportation, one of President Trump's signature priorities. Opponents have accused the administration of steamrolling the human rights of undocumented people in order to achieve its aims, including the right to due process under the law. But the Trump administration has framed undocumented migration as an 'invasion' that constitutes a national security crisis, and it argued that its strong-armed efforts are needed to expel criminals. The eight migrants slated to be sent to South Sudan, it said, were 'barbaric, violent criminal illegal aliens'. It added that they had been found guilty of crimes, including first-degree murder, robbery and sexual assault. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release on Thursday.
Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump claims victory as he signs controversial budget and tax bill into law
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has signed his signature tax and spending bill, capping a months-long push to codify his top policy priorities into law. The sweeping bill has prompted controversy among both Democrats and members of Trump's own Republican Party for its deep cuts to social safety programmes and the hefty sum its tax cuts and spending are expected to add to the national debt. Recent polls have also shown tanking public support for the legislation – which Trump calls the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' – as many of its provisions come to light. Still, Trump on Friday took nothing short of a victory lap, hosting a White House signing ceremony aligned with the Independence Day celebrations in Washington, DC. The address began with a flyover from a B-2 Spirit bomber, the same jet used in US strikes on Iran last month. 'The last two weeks, there has never been anything like it as far as winning, winning, winning,' Trump said from the White House balcony. 'I want to tell you that I've never seen people so happy in our country, because so many different groups of people are being taken care of.' He also took a moment to revisit his victory in the 2024 election and reiterate his belief that voters gave him an ironclad mandate to carry out his policy agenda. He signed the bill flanked by Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson and Representative Steve Scalise. 'The American people gave us a historic mandate in November,' Trump said. 'This is a triumph of democracy on the birthday of democracy.' Opponents, meanwhile, used the occasion to again condemn the bill, with the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, again saying that the sweeping legislation is 'betraying' US citizens. 'This bill isn't freedom. This bill isn't independence. This bill is betrayal,' Schumer wrote on the social media platform X. A months-long journey The legislation represents the most substantial salvo yet in Trump's policy blitz, in which he has mostly relied on more presidential orders than on congressional action. The passage of his mega-bill underscores the president's deep hold on the Republican Party, which has largely been remade in his likeness since his first term from 2017 to 2021. The party currently controls both chambers of Congress. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is set to add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the national debt, an increase that might once have been considered a sacrilege for the party's fiscal hawks. It also tightens eligibility for the low-income healthcare programme Medicaid and the food assistance programme SNAP, in a move that could hurt Republicans facing tough re-election campaigns. Still, in the end, only three Republicans in the Senate and two in the House were willing to break from Trump, in both cases leaving opponents just short of the votes needed to scuttle the bill. For their part, Democrats were unified in their opposition. In a last-ditch and largely symbolic effort on Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries embarked on a record-breaking speech to delay any voting on the bill. Over the next eight hours and 45 minutes, Jeffries condemned Republicans for rushing to meet Trump's July 4 deadline, accusing them of fast-tracking a bill that many conservatives had publicly voiced discomfort towards. 'We don't work for Donald Trump. We work for the American people,' he said at one point. 'That's why we're right here now, on the floor of the House of Representatives, standing up for the American people.' He maintained Republicans would be punished at the ballot box over the bill during the midterm elections in 2026. A wide-ranging bill The legislation covers a range of issues, from immigration to tax reforms. For example, it extends sweeping tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump's first term, amounting to a total of $4.5 trillion in tax reductions. It also allows taxpayers to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US, while raising exemptions on estate taxes. It also extends a child tax credit. The administration has hailed the cuts as a victory for working-class Americans, although several analyses have found that wealthier taxpayers are most likely to benefit. Gains for lower-income taxpayers are likely to be offset by healthcare and food assistance cuts, according to Yale University's Budget Lab. All told, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about 11.8 million more Americans will be uninsured over the next 10 years due to the Medicaid cuts, with another 4.2 million to lose health insurance due to cuts to pandemic-era subsidies. The legislation also peels back green energy and electric vehicle tax incentives, part of Trump's wider push to pivot away from clean energy and towards the influential fossil fuel industry. It allocates $170bn for immigration and border enforcement funding, in what the American Immigration Council calls the 'largest investment in detention and deportation in US history'. Nonpartisan analysts have said the increase in the national debt from the spending has the potential to slow economic growth, raise borrowing costs and crowd out other government spending in the years ahead. But on Friday, Trump dismissed the criticism. 'They [Democrats] have developed a standard line: 'We can't let them get away with it. It's dangerous. Everybody's going to die,'' Trump said. 'It's actually just the opposite. Everybody's going to live.' 'After this kicks in, our country is going to be a rocket ship, economically.'
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Zohran Mamdani's New York primary win sparks the ire of Modi's supporters
If he wins the general election in November, Zohran Mamdani could become New York City's first South Asian mayor and the first of Indian origin. But the same identity that makes him a trailblazer in United States politics has also exposed him to public outcry in India and within its diaspora. Ever since Mamdani achieved a thumping win in the Democratic mayoral primary on June 24, his campaign has weathered a flood of vitriol – some of it coming from the Hindu right. Experts say the attacks are a reflection of the tensions that have arisen between supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and critics of the human rights abuses under his leadership, particularly against religious minorities. A number of those attacks have fixated on Mamdani's religion: The 33-year-old is Muslim. Some commenters have accused the mayoral hopeful of being a 'jihadi' and 'Islamist'. Others have called him anti-Hindu and anti-India. Kayla Bassett, the director of research at the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH), a Washington-based think tank, believes the attacks against Mamdani are a vehicle to attack the Muslim community more broadly. 'This isn't just about one individual,' she said. 'It's about promoting a narrative that casts Muslims as inherently suspect or un-American.' Backlash from Modi's party That narrative could potentially have consequences for Mamdani's campaign, as he works to increase his support among New York voters. Mamdani will face competition in November from more established names in politics. He is expected to face incumbent mayor Eric Adams in the final vote. His rival in the Democratic primary, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, has also not yet ruled out an independent run. The mayoral hopeful has vocally denounced human rights abuses, including in places like Gaza and India. That unabashed stance has not only earned him criticism from his rival candidates but also from overseas. Members of Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), for example, have been among the voices slamming Mamdani's remarks and questioning his fitness for the mayor's seat. BJP Member of Parliament Kangana Ranaut posted on social media, for example, that Mamdani 'sounds more Pakistani than Indian'. 'Whatever happened to his Hindu identity or bloodline,' she asked, pointing to the Hindu roots of his mother, director Mira Nair. 'Now he is ready to wipe out Hinduism.' Soon after Mamdani's primary win, a prominent pro-BJP news channel in India, Aaj Tak, also aired a segment claiming that he had received funding from organisations that promote an 'anti-India' agenda. It also warned of a growing Muslim population in New York City, an assertion it coupled with footage of women wearing hijabs. But some of the backlash has come from sources closer to home. A New Jersey-based group named Indian Americans for Cuomo spent $3,570 for a plane to fly a banner over New York City with the message: 'Save NYC from Global Intifada. Reject Mamdani.' A critic of human rights abuses Much of the pushback can be linked to Mamdani's vocal criticism of Hindu nationalism and Modi in particular. In 2020, Mamdani participated in a Times Square demonstration against a temple built on the site of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya that was destroyed by Hindu extremists in 1992. He called out the BJP's participation in and normalisation of that violence. 'I am here today to protest against the BJP government in India and the demolition of the Babri masjid,' he said. Then, in 2023, Mamdani read aloud notes from an imprisoned Indian activist ahead of Modi's visit to New York City. That activist, Umar Khalid, has been imprisoned since 2020 without trial on terrorism charges after making speeches criticising Modi's government. More recently, during a town hall for mayoral candidates in May, Mamdani was asked if he would meet with Modi if the prime minister were to visit the city again. Mamdani said he wouldn't. 'This is a war criminal,' he replied. Mamdani pointed to Modi's leadership in the Indian state of Gujarat during a period of religious riots in 2002. Modi has been criticised for turning a blind eye to the violence, which killed more than a thousand people, many of them Muslim. In the aftermath, Modi was denied a US visa for 'severe violations of religious freedom'. 'Narendra Modi helped to orchestrate what was a mass slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat, to the extent that we don't even believe that there are Gujarati Muslims any more,' Mamdani told the town hall. 'When I tell someone that I am, it's a shock to them that that's even the case.' Barriers of class and religion It's that 'fearless' and consistent criticism of Modi that has made Mamdani the target of outrage from the Hindu right, according to Rohit Chopra, a communications professor at Santa Clara University. 'Among the Hindu right, there is a project of the political management of the memory of 2002. There's this silence around Modi being denied a visa to enter the US,' said Chopra. The professor also said class fragmentation among Hindu Americans may also fuel scepticism towards Mamdani. Hindu Americans are a relatively privileged minority in terms of socioeconomic status: The Pew Research Center estimates that 44 percent Asian American Hindus enjoy a family income of more than $150,000, and six in 10 have obtained postgraduate degrees. That relative prosperity, Chopra said, can translate into social barriers. 'They don't necessarily even identify with other Hindu Americans who may come from very different kinds of class backgrounds – people who might be working as cab drivers, or dishwashers, or other blue-collar jobs,' he explained. Meanwhile, Suchitra Vijayan, a New York City-based writer and the founder of the digital magazine Polis Project, has noticed that many lines of attack against Mamdani centre on his identity. 'Mamdani is an elected leader who is unabashedly Muslim,' she said. She pointed out that other Muslim politicians, including US Congress members Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, have sparked similar backlash for reproaching Modi over the Gujarat violence. But Mamdani's family ties to the region make the scrutiny all the more intense. 'In Mamdani's case, he's Muslim, he's African, but also his father is of Gujarati descent and has openly spoken about the pogrom in Gujarat,' Vijayan said. A 'seismic' victory Despite the online backlash, experts and local organisers believe Mamdani's campaign can mobilise Indian American voters and other members of the South Asian diaspora who traditionally lean Democratic. The Pew Research Center estimates that there are 710,000 Indians and Indian Americans living in the New York City area, the most of any metropolitan centre in the US. Preliminary results from June's mayoral primary show that Mamdani scored big in neighbourhoods with strong Asian populations, like Little Bangladesh, Jackson Heights and Parkchester. A final tally of the ranked-choice ballots was released earlier this week, on July 1, showing Mamdani trounced his closest rival, Cuomo, 56 percent to 44. 'I've heard his win described as 'seismic',' said Arvind Rajagopal, a professor of media studies at New York University. 'He can speak not only Spanish but Hindi, Urdu, and passable Bangla. A candidate with this level of depth and breadth is rare in recent times.' Rajagopal added that Mamdani's decision to own his Muslim identity became an asset for him on the campaign trail, particularly in the current political climate. With President Donald Trump in office for a second term, many voters are bracing for the anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies that accompanied his first four years in the White House. Back then, Trump called for a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States', saying they represented an 'influx of hatred' and 'danger'. 'The moment of Trump is something that Mamdani answers perfectly,' Rajagopal said. He called Mamdani's success 'a big reality check for the Hindu right'. Whatever backlash Mamdani is facing from Hindu groups, Jagpreet Singh is sceptical about its influence over New York City. 'I can assure you – it's not coming from within the city,' said Singh, the political director of DRUM Beats, a sister organisation to the social justice organisation Desis Rising Up and Moving. That group was among the first in the city to endorse Mamdani's candidacy for mayor. Since early in his campaign, Singh pointed out that Mamdani has reached out to Hindu working-class communities 'in an authentic way'. This included visiting the Durga Temple and Nepalese Cultural Center in Ridgewood and speaking at events in the Guyanese and Trinidadian Hindu communities, Singh pointed out. During his time as a state assembly member, Mamdani also pushed for legislation that would recognise Diwali – the Hindu festival of lights – as a state holiday. At a Diwali celebration last year, Singh said Mamdani 'took part in lighting of the diyas, spoke on stage, and talked about his mother's background as being somebody who is of Hindu faith'. To Singh, the message was clear. South Asian groups in New York City, including Hindu Americans, 'have adopted him as their own'.
