Zero Income Tax? SENATOR Booker Drops Plan

Sen. Cory Booker is selling “tax relief” to working families, but his plan would shift the burden onto corporations and expand refundable credits—raising familiar questions about whether Washington is swapping one form of dependence for another.

Story Snapshot

Sen. Cory Booker introduced the Keep Your Pay Act to eliminate federal income tax on the first $75,000 of household income for most families.
The bill would raise the standard deduction to $75,000 for married couples filing jointly, a major jump from current-law levels for 2026.
Booker’s proposal also expands refundable credits, including larger Child Tax Credit amounts and a “baby bonus” in a child’s birth year.
The bill claims to be fully offset by higher corporate taxes, stock buyback taxes, tighter executive-pay deductions, and stepped-up enforcement.

Booker’s proposal: bigger standard deduction, fewer income-tax payers

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) rolled out the Keep Your Pay Act during his 2026 re-election campaign, pitching it as relief for households squeezed by high costs. The core mechanism is simple: a dramatically larger standard deduction. For married couples filing jointly, Booker proposes a $75,000 standard deduction, with proportional increases for other filing statuses, which would effectively erase federal income tax on the first $75,000 for many families.

Booker’s team argues the change would reduce the median family’s federal income tax bill by an estimated 85%. That’s a striking promise, especially to taxpayers still angry over years of inflation and Washington’s habit of treating families like ATM machines. At the same time, the proposal is a reminder that “tax cuts” can be designed in very different ways—some simplify and limit government, while others expand federal management through new credits and eligibility rules.

How this compares with current 2026 law under the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill”

Under current law for tax year 2026, the standard deduction is far lower than Booker’s proposed level: $32,200 for married couples filing jointly and $16,100 for single filers, according to IRS inflation adjustments tied to amendments from the One, Big, Beautiful Bill. The IRS also lists a top marginal rate of 37% above high-income thresholds. That context matters because Booker’s bill isn’t a minor tweak; it would reshape how many households interact with the federal income tax system.

The One, Big, Beautiful Bill—signed July 4, 2025—already changed the playing field by adding targeted deductions such as tips (up to $25,000) and overtime income (up to $12,500), along with bracket and deduction adjustments. For many working Americans, those changes were framed as straightforward relief tied to work and earnings. Booker’s approach is broader in headline scope, but it relies heavily on expansions of refundable credits—an area where complexity and fraud risk often become central concerns.

Credit expansions: child payments, a “baby bonus,” and a larger EITC

Beyond the standard-deduction jump, the Keep Your Pay Act expands the Child Tax Credit to $3,600 per child ages 6–17 and $4,320 for children under 6, plus a $2,400 “baby bonus” in a child’s birth year. The bill would make the credit fully refundable. Booker also proposes tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit and expanding eligibility to workers ages 19–24 and 65+ who do not have children at home.

Supporters point to prior research cited by Booker suggesting that expanded Child Tax Credit and EITC provisions in 2021 “significantly reduced child poverty.” The research packet provided does not include independent, bill-specific scoring or outside economist critiques of Booker’s proposal. That limitation makes it harder to evaluate tradeoffs, including how much of the “relief” comes from reducing tax liability versus sending refundable payments through the IRS—two very different concepts for taxpayers who prefer limited government and fewer federal dependency pipelines.

“Paid for” by higher corporate taxes—and the politics of 2026

Booker says the plan is fully paid for through raising the corporate tax rate, increasing taxes on stock buybacks, tightening executive compensation deductions, and strengthening corporate tax enforcement. That choice sets up a familiar Washington fight: whether shifting more taxes onto corporations ultimately hits workers through lower wages, reduced hiring, or higher consumer prices. The sources provided do not offer neutral estimates of those secondary impacts, only the proposed offsets themselves.

Politics also shapes the bill’s odds. Republicans hold a narrow Senate majority, and the materials indicate Booker’s seat is rated safe, suggesting the rollout may be as much about defining a message for 2026—and possibly beyond—as it is about passing a bill soon. The research also notes Democrats are targeting several battleground Senate races. In that environment, big “no tax on the first $75,000” slogans can be powerful, even if legislative math and fiscal modeling remain unresolved.

One other reality: proposals to eliminate income taxes often trigger bigger debates about what replaces the revenue and how government behaves once it controls distribution through credits. Separate analysis cited in the research—focused on state income tax elimination—found associations with higher GDP levels, more startups, and higher wages in those states, though those are different systems with different replacement mechanisms. With limited bill-specific analysis available here, the strongest conclusion is procedural: Booker’s plan is a major rewrite, and voters should demand clear scoring, tight definitions, and safeguards before trading one tax structure for another.