During last year’s presidential campaign, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris seemed to disagree on quite a few things. One thing they agreed on — Trump reiterated his position in a speech in Las Vegas on January 26 — is that the federal government should stop demanding income tax payments on tips.

Allow me to be … well, probably far from the first … person to say what a wonderful idea that is.

Usually the phrase “bipartisan agreement” raises the hairs on the back of my neck. When politicians from both “major parties” agree on something, anything, it’s usually terrible news for the rest of us. “Bipartisanship” has given us everything from the warfare state to the surveillance state to the federal government’s “Make America East Germany Again” immigration approach.

But IF we’re going to have taxes (we shouldn’t), and IF we’re going to have income tax (we shouldn’t), and IF that income tax excludes your gift of up to $19,000 per year per recipient (it does), then common sense tells us that your 15% gift to a restaurant server or $5 gift to a delivery worker, etc. shouldn’t be taxed.

What are tips?

They’re NOT part of the purchase price.

You don’t HAVE to give them, in any amount or at all.

They’re. Gifts.

But the federal government wants to have it both ways. If I put $19,000 in a box under your Christmas tree, no tax. If I add $1.90 to the cost of the burger you serve me, tax.

Libertarians have long recognized this scam for exactly what it is. Advocates for Self Government even offers a handy dandy card for libertarians to leave with their cash gifts:

“THIS IS NOT A TIP! THIS IS A GIFT. IT IS NOT RENUMERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT NOR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. IT IS A GIFT — FROM ME TO YOU. AS A GIFT, IT IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME.”

Since I expect this policy proposal to take a little while (if it passes at all), I just ordered myself a supply.

I already make an extra effort to tip in cash rather than on a card so that hopefully my tips won’t be reported or taxed. So should you.

Ending the scam is a great idea. It’s basic decency and execution of the clear meaning of the Internal Revenue Code vis a vis “gifts.”

Naturally, some disagree. But they have to torture logic beyond repair to justify their disagreement.

At CNN, Alejandra Jaramillo, Kevin Liptak, and Tami Luhby whine that ending taxation of tips would be “costly.”

Citing Republican members of the House Budget Committee, they claim it would “cost $106 billion over 10 years.”

That claim requires a complete re-definition of the word “cost.”

The government taking less of your money doesn’t “cost” them that revenue difference, any more than me not burglarizing your house “costs” me a TV. Your money, and your TV, are yours, not the government’s or mine.

Taxation, not non-taxation, represents “cost.”

The actual “cost” of eliminating income tax on tips would total $0.00.

Consider calling your congresscritter to clarify that point.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

One of newly inaugurated (for a second time) president Donald Trump’s executive orders — “Unleashing American Energy” — promises to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs.”

Let us rejoice! Or at least ask — for my son — whether we can expect old-school incandescent lightbulbs to make a comeback.

While I’m personally a big fan of the newer LED bulbs because they use less electricity, produce less heat, and last longer than the incandescents I grew up with, my son asserts the superiority of incandescent light over LED light. The light is visually warmer, he says. It emits, in a word, “soul.”

Well, more power — pun intended — to him.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 required a minimum bulb efficiency of 45 lumens per watt. Incandescent bulbs don’t meet that standard, and were starting to fade into history by the time Trump announced during his first term, that the standard wouldn’t be enforced.

Then came Joe Biden. Via the US Department of Energy, he  banned the manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs as of August 2023.

By that point, it was kind of difficult to get them anyway. My son paid what I considered scandalous prices to buy “new old stock” online before the ban went into effect.

If Trump’s administration follows through on the goals in the executive order, I honestly don’t expect many people to switch back from LED to incandescent … but that’s not really the point.

The point is that those who prefer one type of bulb over another should be free to buy the kind they prefer, and manufacturers/sellers should be free to serve market demand for whatever people are willing to throw money at.

The Biden administration didn’t, and the Trump administration won’t, buy the light bulbs that gets used in my house.

The Biden administration didn’t, and the Trump administration won’t, pay my electric bill.

My household policy is that I’m OK with my son putting two incandescent bulbs, rather than two LED bulbs, in his bedroom’s ceiling light — but that he has to buy the bulbs. I’ll cover the electric bill increase, but if I’m buying the bulbs, I’ll only spring for LEDs.

Your household policy may be different, and that’s fine. It’s your house. The only house the White House’s residents should be choosing the light bulbs for IS the White House.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 17, outgoing US president Joe Biden belatedly announced the ratification — in 2018 — of the 28th Amendment (the “Equal Rights Amendment”) to the US Constitution.

On January 20, incoming US president Donald Trump issued an executive order claiming that the 14th Amendment (and 8 U.S.C. 1401) no longer mean what they’ve always meant and have always been understood to mean, where that constitutional amendment and that federal law decree that all persons “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are US citizens.

While it’s refreshing to see one president acknowledge the rule of law vis a vis constitutional amendments, even ineffectually and at a late date, it seems far more likely that Trump’s repudiation of that law, and his claim to have unilaterally repealed the 14th Amendment, will prove the more effectual policy move, at least in the near term.

Not because Trump’s right and Biden’s wrong, mind you (the opposite happens to be the case in this instance), but because the US Constitution gets respected or ignored depending on whether those in power prefer to respect it or ignore it.

They respect it when it lets them do whatever they want to do, or at least doesn’t get in the way of whatever they want to do, especially when putting on a big show of respecting it makes for good PR.

They ignore it whenever it says they can’t have something they want, then hope the courts are willing to ignore it too.

Which brings me to my favorite Lysander Spooner quote (regular readers of my column will recognize it):

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Depending on the Constitution to protect us from the US government in general, or from the president in particular, is a fool’s game.

It’s like waving the title to your Audi in a car-jacker’s face, believing he’ll put his pistol away and leave you alone once he sees it.

If Trump moves ahead with his anti-immigration nonsense (which, “birthright citizenship” aside, is constitutionally forbidden in its entirety by Article I, Section 9 and Amendment 10), appeals to the Constitution won’t help.

If we want to defend that particular element of freedom, it’s going to require our active physical resistance.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY