Do you get paid overtime or tips? Here's how the GOP tax bill could impact your money.
The massive Republican-backed budget bill — called "one big, beautiful bill" by President Trump — includes several new tax rules that could have a big financial impact on millions of workers who earn tips or overtime pay.
While the heart of the bill is an extension of Mr. Trump's 2017 tax cuts, the legislation also includes several provisions that were part of the president's campaign last year, such as his vow to eliminate taxes on tipped income.
The bill could deliver savings of about $1,700 for each tipped worker as well as employees who earn overtime, the House Ways and Means Committee said on May 20. But there are some restrictions in the bill that could limit the financial boon for these workers, with some policy experts saying that the tax breaks may not be as useful as they first appear.
For instance, almost 4 in 10 tipped workers earn so little that they pay no federal income tax, according to the Brookings Institution. Consequently, the tax break is likely to provide a bigger helping hand to higher-paid tipped workers, while leaving some low-income workers behind.
"If your goal is to help the poorest service workers, this is probably not the way to do it," said Michael Lynn, a professor of services marketing at Cornell University whose research largely focuses on tipping and other consumer behavior.
The 1,100-page bill, which squeaked through the House on Thursday by a single vote, will now go to the Senate, where more changes are likely. Here's what to know about the provisions as they now stand.
How would the "No Tax on Tips" provision work?
Called the "No Tax on Tips" provision within the House bill, the rule would create a new tax deduction that eliminates federal income taxes on tips for people who work in jobs that have traditionally received them.
There are about 4 million people in the U.S. who work in tipped occupations, or about 2.5% of all U.S. workers, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
The tax break includes some restrictions:
Only those who earn less than $160,000 in 2025 would qualify.
Only workers with Social Security numbers can qualify, and if they are married, their spouse must also have a Social Security number.
Tips must be reported to the employer and included on the worker's W-2 tax form.
The provision would go into effect in 2025, but expire after 2028, making it a short-term tax break.
The deduction would only apply to certain jobs: The Trump administration must publish a list of occupations that qualify for the provision within 90 days of the bill's passage.
"The tip exemption will significantly increase take-home pay for most tipped workers, many of whom are low- to middle-income taxpayers," the White House's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), a group that advises the president on economic issues, said in a report published earlier this month.
The CEA's report estimates that the average take-home pay for tipped workers would increase by $1,675 per year under the provision.
Would it help all tipped workers?
No, because 4 in 10 tipped workers earn too little to pay federal income taxes, which means they wouldn't see any benefit. There's also a concern that some employers could reclassify some workers as tipped workers by arguing they would receive a tax break, according to Brookings.
The minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 per hour, versus $7.25 an hour for non-tipped workers.
One Fair Wage, an advocacy group representing service workers, criticized the measure, noting that the GOP bill also includes cuts to social safety net programs that many tipped workers rely on. "It also slashes Medicaid, putting 1.2 million restaurant workers at risk of losing health care," One Fair Wage posted on social media.
What about the Senate's No Tax on Tips Act?
A separate, standalone bill called the No Tax on Tips Act, which is solely focused on giving a tax break to tipped workers, was passed by the Senate on May 20, with bipartisan support. That bill will now move to the House for a vote.
The Senate bill offers similar benefits and restrictions as the "one big, beautiful bill" when it comes to taxes and tips, but with one major difference: The bigger GOP bill requires workers, as well as their spouses, to have a Social Security number.
That requirement appears to be aimed at excluding some immigrants from tapping the tax break, while the Senate bill doesn't stipulate that taxpayers who claim this break, or their spouses, must have a Social Security number.
Senator Jackie Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, urged lawmakers to pass the Not Tax on Tips Act arguing in a statement that the bigger GOP bill combines the tax break with cuts to vital programs like Medicaid and food stamps.
"We shouldn't be forcing working families to choose between keeping their health care or keeping their tips, which is why we want this bipartisan bill on its own — on its own — not part of a harmful, extreme budget bill," Rosen said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.
How does the "No Tax on Overtime" provision work?
The GOP bill includes a tax break for workers who receive overtime, another one of Mr. Trump's campaign promises.
About 8% of hourly workers and 4% of salaried workers receive overtime pay on a regular basis, according to the Yale Budget Lab. About 70% of salaried workers don't qualify for overtime pay, it noted.
The legislation would enable workers to claim a deduction on their taxes for the amount they earned in overtime pay during the tax year, although there are some restrictions:
Workers would need a Social Security number to claim the tax break, and if married, their spouses would also need a Social Security number.
The tax break would go into effect in 2025 but expire after the 2028 tax year.
But more guidelines about the provision would still need to be determined by the Treasury Department, according to tax firm Wolters Kluwer in a May 22 publication about the tax bill.
The average overtime worker would see a tax cut between $1,400 to $1,750 per year through the new break, according to the Council of Economic Advisers.
Aimee Picchi
Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.
contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up
Tesla faces fresh risks to a big income stream: sales of regulatory credits to other automakers under vehicle emissions and efficiency rules. Why it matters: Tesla's credit sales were $595 million last quarter and totaled $3.36 billion in the five quarters through Q1 of 2025. The credits are awarded to companies like Tesla that exceed emissions standards. Producers of gas-powered vehicles buy them to help meet various CO2 and mileage standards. The latest: Republicans on the Senate's commerce committee late last week proposed ending civil penalties under the Transportation Department's fuel economy rules. It's part of the committee's portion of the budget "reconciliation" bill — the top GOP and White House legislative priority. The provision would "modestly" cut auto prices by ending penalties on automakers that now "design cars to conform to the wishes of DC bureaucrats rather than consumers," a GOP summary states. The intrigue:"This Senate action would effectively end the market for CAFE credits," Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, tells Axios via email. Dan Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, noted: "Why buy credits if Trump gives you a get out of CAFE free card?" Driving the news: Separately, DOT on Friday issued an "interpretive rule" that bars consideration of EVs when it sets these mileage rules. It's a step toward crafting replacement standards, DOT said. This paves the way for less aggressive requirements — and less need for buying credits. State of play: Several buckets of credits benefit Tesla, the dominant U.S. EV seller. EPA emissions standards, Transportation Department fuel economy mandates, and California's ambitious clean cars program all provide opportunities. European emissions rules also generate credits. The big picture: The regulatory credit market was already facing risks before all the news late last week. EPA is planning to rescind Biden-era EPA carbon emissions rules for model years 2027 and onward. The House-passed reconciliation bill and the Senate GOP proposal would also nix them. And the House bill pulls back Biden-era DOT mileage rules. Both chambers have passed measures that end EPA's approval of California's auto emissions rules. Threat level: Potential loss of credit revenues comes at a perilous time for Tesla. Its sales have slumped in recent quarters, and CEO Elon Musk's rightward turn and alliance with Trump are among the reasons why, analysts say. The House plan ends $7,500 consumer purchase subsidies for EVs under the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. By the numbers: Credit revenues exceeded Tesla's overall profit last quarter — in other words, it would have been in the red without them. Yes, Q1 was atypically weak for Tesla, but consider Q4 of 2024, when Tesla reported $2.13 billion in profits that were helped along by $692 million in credit sales. In Q3, those numbers were $2.17B and $739M, respectively. Friction point: More broadly, the meltdown of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's relationship with Trump also creates new and unpredictable risks for the billionaire entrepreneur's business empire.
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Five Ways Medicaid Supports Main Streets Across America
Business district of Marquette, Michigan Gerald Bernard - In May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes significant cuts to Medicaid. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would lead to more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and nearly 11 million people losing coverage, including nearly 8 million people who rely on Medicaid. The bulk of these reductions would come through work requirements. A common misconception about Medicaid is that it is simply a standalone program that provides health insurance to Americans living below or near the federal poverty level. In reality, communities and small businesses rely on the stability it brings. Here are five ways Medicaid supports Main Streets across America. 1. Employee Health and Productivity Many small businesses have tight budgets and struggle to provide basic benefits, much less comprehensive health insurance to all employees. This is especially true in underserved communities, with part-time or low-wage workers being impacted the most. Medicaid provides coverage to employees who may not qualify for employer-sponsored insurance. This ensures that workers have access to preventive care, which reduces absenteeism and improves productivity. It also lowers the burden of medical debt among workers, giving them better financial stability. 2. Expanded Labor Pool Medicaid's healthcare safety net allows more people to enter or remain in the workforce. This also allows more entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting a business, knowing their families are covered. In addition, this support also increases the number of individuals they can hire in their communities. 3. Reduced Hiring and Training Costs Access to quality healthcare coverage is generally a factor every American weighs when making a career decision. However, when workers have consistent healthcare through Medicaid, they are less likely to leave jobs for health insurance elsewhere. In turn, small businesses can save money on recruiting and training new staff and focus on growth instead of turnover-related challenges. 4. Empowered Entrepreneurs For self-employed individuals or those starting a business, Medicaid provides crucial health coverage during the startup phase when income is uncertain. Perhaps more importantly, it also empowers them to pursue their dream of entrepreneurship instead of staying in a job just for the health insurance. 5. Stronger Local Economies When people don't have to spend all of their income on healthcare, they have more money to spend at local businesses. These Medicaid dollars also support healthcare providers, including rural clinics and pharmacies, that serve as small businesses themselves. In addition, Medicaid also indirectly benefits businesses by creating jobs in areas that include retail, construction, and landscaping. It is estimated that the proposed Medicaid cuts could lead to nearly 450,000 job losses in 2026 with roughly half coming in healthcare and the rest in other business sectors. The strength of the economy in many ways boils down to the health of its workforce and entrepreneurs. Medicaid supports workforce stability, entrepreneurship, economic mobility, and small business growth. In a future column, I will explore the impact of these proposed cuts on Main Streets and their communities.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies
In October 2020, two months before Covid-19 vaccines would become available in the US, Stanford health policy professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and two colleagues published an open letter calling for a contrarian approach to managing the risks of the pandemic: protecting the most vulnerable while allowing others largely to resume normal life, aiming to obtain herd immunity through infection with the virus. They called it the Great Barrington Declaration, for the Massachusetts town where they signed it. Backlash to it was swift, with the director-general of the World Health Organization calling the idea of allowing a dangerous new virus to sweep through unprotected populations 'unethical.' Bhattacharya later testified before Congress that it – and he – immediately became targets of suppression and censorship by those leading scientific agencies. Now, Bhattacharya is the one in charge, and staffers at the agency he leads, the US National Institutes of Health, published their own letter of dissent, taking issue with what they see as the politicization of research and destruction of scientific progress under the Trump administration. They called it the Bethesda Declaration, for the location of the NIH. 'We hope you will welcome this dissent, which we modeled after your Great Barrington Declaration,' the staffers wrote. The letter was signed by more than 300 employees across the biomedical research agency, according to the non-profit organization Stand Up for Science, which also posted it; while many employees signed anonymously because of fears of retaliation, nearly 100 - from graduate students to division chiefs - signed by name. It comes the day before Bhattacharya is due to testify before Congress once more, in a budget hearing to be held Tuesday by the Senate appropriations committee. It's just the latest sign of strife from inside the NIH, where some staff last month staged a walkout of a townhall with Bhattacharya to protest working conditions and an inability to discuss them with the director. 'If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe,' said Dr. Jenna Norton, a program officer at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a lead organizer of the Declaration, in a news release from Stand Up for Science. She emphasized she was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the NIH. The letter, which the staffers said they also sent to US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, urged Bhattacharya to 'restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue,' citing work in areas including health disparities, Covid-19, health impacts of climate change and others. They cited findings by two scientists that said about 2,100 NIH grants for about $9.5 billion have been terminated since the second Trump administration began. The NIH budget had been about $48 billion annually, and the Trump administration has proposed cutting it next year by about 40%. The research terminations 'throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars,' the NIH staffers wrote. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million.' They also urged Bhattacharya to reverse a policy that aims to implement a new, and lower, flat 15% rate for paying for indirect costs of research at universities, which supports shared lab space, buildings, instruments and other infrastructure, as well as the firing of essential NIH staff. Those who wrote the Bethesda Declaration were joined Monday by outside supporters, in a second letter posted by Stand Up for Science and signed by members of the public, including more than a dozen Nobel Prize-winning scientists. 'We urge NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership to work with NIH staff to return the NIH to its mission and to abandon the strategy of using NIH as a tool for achieving political goals unrelated to that mission,' they wrote. The letter called for the grant-making process to be conducted by scientifically trained NIH staff, guided by rigorous peer review, not by 'anonymous individuals outside of NIH.' It also challenged assertions put forward by Kennedy, who often compares today's health outcomes with those around the time his uncle John F. Kennedy was president, in the early 1960s. 'Since 1960, the death rate due to heart disease has been cut in half, going from 560 deaths per 100,000 people to approximately 230 deaths per 100,000 today,' they wrote. 'From 1960 to the present day, the five-year survival rate for childhood leukemia has increased nearly 10-fold, to over 90% for some forms. In 1960, the rate of measles infection was approximately 250 cases per 100,000 people compared with a near zero rate now (at least until recently).' They acknowledged there's still much work to do, including addressing obesity, diabetes and opioid dependency, 'but,' they wrote, 'glamorizing a mythical past while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research does not enhance the health of the American people.' Support from the NIH, they argued, made the US 'the internationally recognized hub for biomedical research and training,' leading to major advances in improving human health. 'I've never heard anybody say, 'I'm just so frustrated that the government is spending so much money on cancer research, or trying to address Alzheimer's,' ' said Dr. Jeremy Berg, who organized the letter of outside support and previously served as director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. 'Health concerns are a universal human concern,' Berg told CNN. 'The NIH system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but has been unbelievably productive in terms of generating progress on specific diseases.'
