Tipped Employee Protection Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2312
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

ID: W000809

Follow the money

The bill

Tipped Employee Protection Act

HR. 2312, 119th Congress — read as touching Restaurants & Food Service.

The sponsor

Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$104,550 raised

25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on H.R. 2312 is postponed.

January 12, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed Mr. Womack and his cohorts in Congress. The "Tipped Employee Protection Act" - because nothing says "protection" like a bill that's been lobbied to within an inch of its life by the National Restaurant Association.

Let's dissect this farce, shall we? The bill claims to revise the definition of a "tipped employee," but what it really does is create a Byzantine system for employers to exploit their workers. By allowing employers to determine the period over which tips are calculated (1 day, 1 week, every other week, etc.), they're essentially giving them carte blanche to manipulate wages and avoid paying their employees a living wage.

The affected industries? Restaurants, bars, and any other business that relies on tipped labor. But don't worry, these industries will just pass the costs of compliance (and non-compliance) onto consumers, because that's what they do best - screwing over customers while pretending to care about their workers.

Compliance requirements? Ha! Employers get to decide how often they calculate tips, and as long as they're not explicitly violating the law, they'll be golden. The bill doesn't even bother to establish clear guidelines for enforcement or penalties. It's like Congress is saying, "Hey, employers, go ahead and do whatever you want - we won't bother to check."

And what about economic impacts? Oh boy, this one's a real winner. By allowing employers to game the system, they'll be able to keep wages artificially low, which means workers will continue to struggle to make ends meet. But hey, at least the restaurants and bars will get to keep their profit margins intact.

In short, HR 2312 is a classic case of " legislative lupus" - a disease where politicians pretend to care about workers while actually serving the interests of corporate donors. It's a bill that's been carefully crafted to look like it's doing something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another masterpiece of regulatory theater.

Diagnosis: Legislative lupus, with symptoms of corruption, cowardice, and stupidity. Prognosis: more of the same old exploitation and neglect of workers' rights. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and outrage from voters who aren't buying this nonsense.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$104,550
20 donors
PACs
$6,600
Organizations
$3,750
Committees
$0
Individuals
$94,200
1
CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
2
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
1
CENTERVIEW PARTNERS PAC, LLC
1 transaction
$2,500
2
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CRAWFORD COUNTY
1 transaction
$1,000
3
TEAM SCHMITT FUND
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
HUNT, JOHNELLE D. MS.
1 transaction
$11,600
2
STINSON, KENNETH E
1 transaction
$11,600
3
FISHER, KENNETH
1 transaction
$6,600
4
FISHER, SHERRILYN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
RICKETTS, JOHN PETER SEN.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
BRADBURY, CHARLOTTE S
2 transactions
$6,600
7
BRADBURY, CURTIS F
2 transactions
$6,600
8
ESPOSITO, MICHELLE VARGA
2 transactions
$6,600
9
ESPOSITO, PATRICK
2 transactions
$6,600
10
HARRISON, GRANT
2 transactions
$6,600
11
BLUE, JAMES NEAL
1 transaction
$5,000
12
ALEXANDER, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
13
ALLEN, THOMAS W
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CAMERON, RONALD M
1 transaction
$3,300
15
HARRISON, JESSICA
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

ID: B001322

Top Contributors

10

1
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Jul 30, 2024
2
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Aug 23, 2024
3
KALISPEL TRIBAL ECONOMIC AUTHORITY
OrganizationAIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA
$2,300
Oct 29, 2024
4
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$2,000
Dec 31, 2024
5
KALISPEL TRIBAL ECONOMIC AUTHORITY
OrganizationAIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA
$1,000
Jul 29, 2024
6
YAKAMA NATION
OrganizationTOPPENISH, WA
$1,000
Oct 16, 2024
7
JHASHI, VAJA
SELF-EMPLOYED • ENERGY CONSULTANT
IndividualNYACK, NY
$13,200
Jul 22, 2024
8
BENNETT, GREGG
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualORONDO, WA
$6,600
Mar 10, 2024
9
CONNORS, JOHN
VENTURE CAPITAL • IGNITION PARTNERS
IndividualMEDINA, WA
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
10
CONNORS, KATHY
NONE • HOMEMAKER
IndividualMEDINA, WA
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]

ID: S000250

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
May 16, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
Sep 12, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 17, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 24, 2023
5
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
HOWARD, RONALD VANCE
BANKERS LIFE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
7
HOWARD, KAREN
ELEMENTS MASSAGE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
8
SINGH, PRITPAL
BETA SOFT SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
9
KAUR, MANJIT
SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS & SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
10
BEHRINGER, TODD
THE BEHRINGER GROUP, LLC • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWOODWAY, TX
$3,400
Sep 1, 2023

Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]

ID: W000821

Top Contributors

10

1
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
OrganizationLAGUNA, NM
$8,300
Aug 1, 2024
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$5,000
May 13, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
6
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA
$3,300
Nov 10, 2023
7
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION
OrganizationPENDLETON, OR
$3,300
Jan 17, 2024
8
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Feb 14, 2024
9
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationROCK HILL, SC
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
10
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA
$3,300
Mar 14, 2024

Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]

ID: G000576

Top Contributors

10

1
HO CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
2
GENTINE, LOUIS P. II
SARGENTO • EXECUTIVE
IndividualELKHART LAKE, WI
$13,200
Mar 15, 2024
3
SCHLIFSKE, JOHN E.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualELM GROVE, WI
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
4
SCHLIFSKE, KIM C.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualELM GROVE, WI
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD
EDWARD C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Apr 10, 2024
6
KRESS, DONALD F.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualGREEN BAY, WI
$5,000
Nov 22, 2023
7
WELLS, CECELIA A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMEQUON, WI
$5,000
Jun 30, 2023
8
WELLS, CECELIA
IndividualMEQUON, WI
$5,000
Jun 30, 2023
9
AYLWARD, RICHARD J. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEENAH, WI
$4,000
Mar 15, 2024
10
KRESS, DONALD F.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualGREEN BAY, WI
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5]

ID: L000595

Top Contributors

10

1
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
PACMANSURA, LA
$2,500
May 26, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
PACMANSURA, LA
$2,500
Jul 7, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationCATOOSA, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 26, 2024
5
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Nov 9, 2023
6
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
7
UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$2,900
Mar 17, 2023
8
CHRIS STANT, LLC
OrganizationMANDEVILLE, LA
$2,800
Jan 28, 2023
9
FORTE AND TABLADA
OrganizationBATON ROUGE, LA
$2,500
Oct 2, 2024
10
ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS QSST TRUST
OrganizationRIDGELAND, MS
$2,500
Sep 6, 2024

Rep. Messmer, Mark B. [R-IN-8]

ID: M001233

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
2
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
3
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
4
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
5
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
6
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
7
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
8
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
9
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
10
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Apr 11, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 53 nodes and 40 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $174,750

Top Donors - Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

2 PACs3 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • Section 2 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to revise the definition of 'tipped employee', allowing employers to determine work periods for tip credit calculations (e.g., daily, weekly, biweekly, monthly, or per pay period). This provides flexibility to employers in the restaurant and food service industry, where tipped employees are prevalent, potentially reducing administrative burden and labor costs, thus benefiting the industry.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy concern FLSA wage rules and propose flexibility in calculation periods, but the bill addresses tipped employee minimum wage definitions while the Project 2025 section focuses on overtime thresholds, regular rate, and overtime period flexibility, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:FLSAwage calculation flexibilitycompliance assistanceemployer flexibility

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on redefining tipped employee status and wage calculation under the FLSA, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes independent contractor classification, joint employer rules, and overtime pay thresholds—topics not directly addressed in the bill. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond both relating to FLSA regulations."

Key themes:Fair Labor Standards Actwage regulationsemployer compliance

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Department of the Treasury

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tipped employee wage definitions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, while the Project 2025 Treasury section focuses on tax policy reforms, entrepreneurship, and wage‑vs‑benefit tax biases. Both touch on employee compensation, but they operate in different policy domains with little direct overlap."

Key themes:wage policyemployee compensationlabor standardsemployer costs

— 697 — Department of the Treasury time for any purpose. This would allow the vast majority of American families to save and invest without facing a punitive double layer of taxation. Entrepreneurship. To encourage entrepreneurship, the business loss limita- tion should be increased to at least $500,000. Businesses should also be allowed to fully carry forward net operating losses. Extra layers of taxes on investment and capital should also be eliminated or reduced. The net investment income surtax and the base erosion anti-abuse tax should be eliminated. The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent, and the 2017 tax bill’s temporary increase in the exemption amount from $5.5 million to $12.9 million (adjusted for inflation) should be made permanent.21 The tax on global intangible low-taxed income should be reduced to no higher than 12.5 percent, with the 20 percent haircut on related foreign tax credits reduced or eliminated.22 All non-business tax deductions and exemptions that were temporarily sus- pended by the 2017 tax bill should be permanently repealed, including the bicycle commuting expense exclusion, non-military moving expense deductions, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions.23 The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed. Deductions related to educational expenses should be repealed. Special business tax pref- erences, such as a special deduction for energy-efficient commercial building properties, should be eliminated.24 Wages vs. Benefits. The current tax code has a strong bias that incentivizes businesses to offer employees more generous benefits and lower wages. This limits the freedom of workers and their families to spend their compensation as they see fit—and it can trap workers in their current jobs due to the jobs’ benefit pack- ages. Wage income is taxed under the individual income tax and under the payroll tax. However, most forms of non-wage benefits are wholly exempt from both of these taxes. To reduce this tax bias against wages (as opposed to employee benefits), the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits that employers can claim as deductions. Employee benefit expenses other than tax-deferred retirement account contributions should count toward the limita- tion, whether offered to specific employees or whether the costs relate to a shared benefit like building gym facilities for employees.25 Tax-deferred retirement con- tributions by employers should not count toward this limitation insofar as they are fully taxable upon distribution. Only a percentage of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) contributions (which are not taxed upon withdrawal) should count toward the limitation.26 The limitation on benefit deductions should not be indexed to increase with inflation.27 Employers should also be denied deductions for health insurance and other benefits provided to employee dependents if the dependents are aged 23 or older.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills