Booker Pushes Bill to Make $75,000 in Income Tax Free

[applegrove]

Booker Pushes Bill to Make $75,000 in Income Tax Free

March 9, 2026 at 8:28 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 102 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2026/03/09/booker-pushes-bill-to-make-75000-in-income-tax-free/

Sen. Cory Booker, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, told NBC News he’ll introduce a tax bill this week to significantly expand the standard deduction, effectively lowering taxes on low- and middle-income earners.

[leftstreet]

1. No. Just no n/t

[moose65]

6. Why not?

Wouldn't this have been a better thing to do that the ridiculous "no tax on tips"? If the standard deduction were larger, servers would automatically have no taxes on their tips.

[NoRethugFriends]

9. How about an explanation of your "no". Not real useful otherwise

[leftstreet]

18. Tax higher incomes, slash pork spending

The effective tax rate for $75k and less isn't enough to do much with. You can't buy a car. It won't cover your healthcare. Maybe float 2 months rent.

It slides more people into a subsidized income mentality that removes them from the agency and participation necessary for an informed and engaged population.

[SergeStorms]

20. I don't know what neighborhood you live in....

but federal taxes on 75K would be well over 10K. 2 months rent?

[leftstreet]

21. That's not the effective rate for most

Current brackets and exemptions make it much less

But you're right, no one would say $10k is anything to sneer at. Of course not!

[at140]

2. Yes please!

It will be a great relief for me, a middle class American taxpayer.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. Squirrel!

Why isn't he pushing a bill to undo all the oligarch tax breaks in the one big ugly bill?

[displacedvermoter]

5. Or to raise, or eliminate, the cap on Social Security

taxable income, that would secure SS for many years to come?

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. This instead.

[RainCaster]

30. THIS!☝️👆🖕

This would be ideal for the whole country. That would keep SS solvent for another 50 years.

[Johnny2X2X]

4. Yes!

Make it a flat tax after $75 for individuals and $150K for families. People who cannot afford the basics should not be paying taxes.

[moose65]

8. No. No flat taxes

The tax rates on the ultra-wealthy should be progressive and increase as taxable income increases.

[NoRethugFriends]

10. No. Flat taxes are regressive

[Johnny2X2X]

12. It could be the trade off

No taxes for the poor or lower middle class at all, flat tax for everyone above that.

[NoRethugFriends]

15. Why should somebody at 100,000 pay same rate as 1,000,000,000

and while we're at it, a wealth tax!

[Johnny2X2X]

16. They wouldn't

The individual making $100K would only pay taxes on $25K of their income. The person making $1M would be paying taxes on $925K of their income.

[Dave says]

25. It's essentially a flat tax

Let’s say the flat tax rate is 20% (I read some time back that at least 17% would be needed to match revenues, but it was without a $75k deductible).

So, the tax on a single taxpayer earning $100k would be $5000, or 5% of earnings. A taxpayer making $100,000,000 would pay $4,996,250, or 4.996% of earnings. Essentially we’re looking at a flat tax, not progressive in any meaningful sense. Quite a lot less than rich earned income is taxed now (it would be a bonanza of a tax break).

However, I might come on board if capital gains are treated like earned income, and if all the loopholes available to the very rich were closed. Plus eliminate the upper limit for social security tax. It might be better than what we have now.

[Johnny2X2X]

26. Where the heck you getting your calculator?

Someone making $100,000,000 would pay almost $20M in taxes.

[Dave says]

28. Oops!

I used 5% instead of the 20% tax rate. Wishful thinking!

The lucky rich person would pay $19,985,000 in taxes, or 19.99% in effective taxation.

Not a flat tax, there is progressivity. That, along with my other wishful items — I definitely could get behind that! Although, before the rich person hands the matter over to his or her accountants and attorneys, it’s still a tax break for those at the very top.

[Johnny2X2X]

29. It's not perfect.

But I think it’s what we could offer the Reps for a deal. Call it a flat tax, but your basic needs are met before you pay a dime.

[Pisces]

7. I think they are trying to put things in place to counter AI. Basic income will be next. They will need billionaires

and the new trillionaires to be taxed for the new fund.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. "the proposal, which is guaranteed to be expensive, doesn't yet have a cost estimate"

The New Jersey senator’s plan would set the standard deduction at $75,000 for married couples, or $37,500 for individuals. That’s more than double what it is today: $32,200 for couples filing jointly and half that for single filers.
...
Booker’s bill, which he plans to formally introduce in the Senate on Tuesday, would have far-reaching ramifications on the tax system, encouraging more Americans to use the standard deduction rather than itemize. For a “head of household,” his bill would set the standard deduction at $56,250.
...
And the proposal, which is guaranteed to be expensive, doesn’t yet have a cost estimate. Booker said his goal is to ensure his bill is “fully paid for” by raising taxes on upper earners and large corporations, while closing loopholes and cracking down on “tax avoidance schemes.” The bill doesn't specify those provisions.

The legislation would also boost the child tax credit to $4,320 per child under 6 years old, and $3,600 per child between 6 and 17, while adding a $2,400 “baby bonus” for the year a child is born.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-cory-booker-2028-potential-unveil-bill-making-75000-income-tax-fre-rcna262093

Does "head of household" here mean "single parent of non-earning child"? A singe adult living alone is a head of a household of 1. Are you a "head of household" if you have a child over 18 earning, and still living with you?

Anyway, not yet costed, nor saying what taxes would go up, so making it a bill seems premature. No-one could actually let it pass without those.

[haele]

22. Head of household generally means a single person with dependant household members resident at least 6 months if adult.

Head of household is the person (human) who pays more than half the cost of living in a single residents for all dependents.
Dependent household members are generally identified as:
- Children - up to age 25 in situations they don't have significant income.
- Dependent adults who have a familial type (including "significant other" ) relationship within the household residence and identify themselves as dependents as they contribute to the "less than half of the household costs" for at least 6 months.
The only exemption for that is a parent, adult sibling, or adult child that becomes dependent due to a permanent disability during the month of December.
- All taxable income or gains all valid dependents who live in the household receive for that tax year are included in the head of household filing.
- Rent or gratuities paid to either the head of the household or another dependent resident by anyone else living in the residence also need to be included under the income for the head of household.
- Anyone else who lives in the residence needs to file their own taxes.

I filed head of household for the three years when stepdaughter and stepdaughter 's baby daddy lived off us. Got to claim the sloth as an extra mouth to feed.

[PeaceWave]

14. Our party is so late to the game on this, it's sad...

Trump has already doubled the standard deduction, made $15,000 of tips tax deductible, provided for a $6,000 senior tax credit and made some portion of your Social Security (depending on your taxable income) tax deductible. NOW we're waking up and paying attention to tax issues? And, that's on top of the fact that we can't get any tax bills passed until we reclaim the White House.

[indusurb]

17. Stupid idea, rather than lower taxes we cut spending, specifically on the military.

We spend around a total of one trillion dollars annually on our military, we could cut that in half and still have sufficient military muscle. While we're at it, raise the marginal income rate back up to 90%, cut out billionaire and corporate loopholes, install a wealth tax, and make the corporate and one percent pay their fair share.

Making middle and lower class pay less simply means less revenue and less money for what's left of our social safety net.

[Nanjeanne]

19. I'd rather actual tax policy that eliminates the cap on SS, raises taxes on wealthy and makes

corporations pay actual taxes. A policy that brings revenue into the system that then gets used to increase SS, move to a Medicare For All system, institutes paid sick days and family leave, makes public college tuition free, addresses childcare and elder care …..

Policies that dramatically will affect poor and middle class families to make their lives better. This tax proposal seems like a sound ite policy that doesn’t reflect a real change in how we what we want to see change in our country.

[EarthFirst]

23. Louder for the folks in the back... nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

24. But what about the poor billionaires?

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

27. It'll go nowhere. Just look at the liberals here.

Imagine the liberals in the House and Senate reacting to this. I suspect, however, that this is a quest for attention from Booker as he positions himself to run for POTUS.