Comment by aaplok

2 days ago

Beware the logical fallacy. "A implies B" does not mean that "not A implies not B".

Workers who earn too little to pay taxes (A) will not benefit from a tax cut (B).

But workers who earn enough (not A) may still not benefit (not B), for example because their employer indirectly pockets the difference. That is actually being argued in the article.

So this is indeed the appropriate way of formulating the statement: at least 40% of workers will demonstrably not benefit from this.

13 comments

aaplok

Reply
Izkata  1 day ago

Pretty sure they are aware, they included the qualifier "a sizeable majority" instead of implying it applied to all.

wakawaka28  2 days ago

I can't read this article because of the paywall. Are they saying that taxable tips are subject to payroll taxes (which employers pay out of pocket)? That would actually benefit both employers and employees in some sense.

Some tipped workers, like bartenders, can make more in tips than a junior software engineer lol. Less taxes definitely helps their cause.

If you are concerned with indirect effects, there's quite a few pros and cons that you could extrapolate from the no tax on tips policy. These arguments are far less compelling in general.

swagmoney1606  2 days ago

But it would be true to say not B implies not A right? (contrapositive?)

  • delusional  2 days ago

    In that case B would be "is not taxed on the income" and A is "part of the 40%" making the statement not B implies no A: "If you are taxed on your tips that implies you are not part of the 40%".

    That seems correct. It's a pretty useless statement, but it is true.