Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptTaxes

As Ways and Means Chairman, Smith committed to enacting a federal tax exemption for overtime pay ('No Tax on Overtime') through his committee's tax package.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 90%

Independently verified. (1) The 'No Tax on Overtime' provision was ENACTED INTO LAW as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Public Law 119-21), signed July 4, 2025 — confirmed by the IRS (PRIMARY), which describes a deduction for qualified overtime compensation for tax years 2025-2028. (2) Terms confirmed by Tax Foundation and Wikipedia: up to $12,500 ($25,000 joint) of the overtime premium, phasing out above $150,000/$300,000 AGI. (3) Jason Smith's role verified: Wikipedia confirms he has chaired the House Committee on Ways and Means since January 3, 2023; Ways and Means is the House tax-writing committee that authored the OBBBA tax title. The branded 'No Tax on Overtime' policy the promise names was delivered and became law through his committee's tax package, which he leads. The only caveat — a capped, temporary, income-phased DEDUCTION rather than a permanent unlimited EXEMPTION — is why confidence is 0.9 rather than 1.0, but the branded promise was fulfilled and enacted, so FULL is the correct outcome (CHAMPIONED would understate an actually-enacted result). Applied nonpartisan standard: an opposing-party sponsor with an identically-enacted branded policy would earn the same FULL rating. Prior FULL/0.9 rating stands.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →