Donald Trump, who has revealed few details about his planned economic policies for a possible second presidency, has made headlines with his proposal to eliminate the federal tax on tips for service workers. The proposal is aimed at attracting working-class voters, even though only 2.5 percent of all workers receive tips. Of those, 12.6 percent are teenagers who are not eligible to vote, and 37 percent had incomes so low that they did not have to pay federal income tax.

This policy has sparked both enthusiasm and criticism, with Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden even supporting the idea.

As Senate Republicans rapidly advance related legislation, it is critical to examine the broader implications, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Snyder v. United States.

During a campaign rally in Nevada in June, Trump introduced this proposal, which he has since made a central part of his platform. Some Republican senators have introduced the “No Tax on Tips Act.” If the law is passed, taxpayers would be able to deduct 100 percent of their tipped wages from their taxes.

The proposal could result in a significant loss of federal revenue — estimated to be between $150 billion and $250 billion over the next decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these cuts, if extended beyond 2025, would cost nearly $4 trillion between 2025 and 2035. This comes hot on the heels of Trump’s first-term tax cuts, which reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, with the prospect of another 20 percent cut.

Supporters argue that the bill provides much-needed relief for service workers who derive a significant portion of their income from tips. But critics from both camps question the effectiveness and fairness of the proposal. The Wall Street Journal editorial board and experts at the Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution contend that the proposal could ultimately hurt many workers and slow efforts to raise the minimum wage.

To understand the potential legal implications of Trump’s proposal, it is crucial to look back at the Supreme Court’s ruling in Snyder v. United States.

In the June ruling, the court addressed the issue of tax exemptions and the federal tax system itself. The case concerned the legality of paying “gratuities” or “tips” to government officials under the federal bribery law and whether “Section 666 criminalizes gratuities… payments made in recognition of acts the official has already performed or was required to perform, without any agreement for consideration for those acts.”

In its 6-3 decision, the court sent the case back to the lower court, which ruled that Section 666 “prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not make it illegal for those officials to accept rewards for their past actions.”

Echoing former Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s ruling in Citizens United, Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded in his majority opinion that bribes and tips are not the same thing: “Bribes are payments

made or agreed upon prior to an official act in order to influence the official with regard to that future official act.” Gratuities “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.”

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in her dissent, there is simply no difference between bribes and tips when it comes to combating public corruption: “For the interpretation of (section) 666 that prohibits tips – as it has always done – poses no real threat to customary gift-giving, but it does meet Congress’s intent to punish rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in a manner that is functionally indistinguishable from the acceptance of bribes.”

Because the No Tax on Tips Act does not affect a large enough portion of the U.S. population to have a significant impact on the election, and because it ignores the many factors that the law could have on the economy, the question arises whether the law could really be a direct response to these newly legalized “bribes.”

Although the law appears to provide a clear benefit to service workers, the implications are far-reaching. It could result in a major loss of federal revenue and worsen wage stagnation. Most importantly, the ruling in Snyder v. United States raises questions about the law’s intent and its potential for far-reaching legal consequences. As lawmakers and the public consider this proposal, we must weigh the immediate benefits against the long-term consequences for our country’s ethical governance.

Janie Mackenzie is PR Director at Ascendant Group Branding. She wrote this article for InsideSources.com.