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.
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.
The Democrat's point isn't that workers shouldn't get tax cuts, but that he gave a $6,000 tax break to top earners, and gave even larger cuts to the wealthy overall.
That's...not how it works, like, at all. It's a tax credit, not actual money that you pocket additionally from your existing paycheck. It also only lasts until 2028.
> I can't read this article because of the paywall
I just turned on reader mode in Firefox and then refreshed the page and got the article. I'm surprised how often it works. It often doesn't but sometimes it does.
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.
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.