Per Diem for Company Drivers!

While it’s true that the elimination of the *non-reimbursed employee business expense* under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) affected multiple professions, the impact on long-haul truck drivers, specifically company drivers, cannot be minimized. The standard deduction may have been doubled, but this "win" isn't as universal as it seems, especially for those in professions like trucking, where out-of-pocket work-related expenses are not only significant but essential to doing the job.

Let’s break down the core issues:

1. **The "Doubling" of the Standard Deduction Is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Fix:**
While proponents of the TCJA tout the doubling of the standard deduction as a win, this increase does not directly address the unique and considerable expenses faced by long-haul truck drivers. The cost of meals and incidentals while being on the road for weeks at a time, away from home, can be a significant portion of a trucker’s income. Before the change, these drivers could deduct these legitimate work-related expenses from their taxable income. The "one-size-fits-all" approach of doubling the standard deduction fails to account for these types of specialized needs. **The extra standard deduction doesn't come close to covering those losses for many drivers.**

2. **Reimbursement Is Not Universally Available:**
You mentioned that the only OTR (over-the-road) carrier you worked for as a company driver provided reimbursement for per diem expenses, and that’s great—for you. But the reality is that **many carriers do not provide such reimbursement**. Trucking is a vast industry with hundreds of carriers, and many small to mid-sized companies don't offer reimbursements for meals or incidental expenses, leaving drivers to cover these costs themselves. For those drivers, the elimination of the per diem deduction translates directly into more out-of-pocket expenses, with no relief in sight.

3. **Company Drivers Bear the Brunt:**
Owner-operators continue to benefit from the per diem deduction, as you pointed out. But **company drivers**, who have much less control over their financial situation and how they can structure their income, were disproportionately affected by the elimination of the deduction. The fact that owner-operators can still claim the deduction while company drivers cannot creates an unfair disparity between two groups of professionals doing the same job.

4. **Small but Significant Impact:**
The argument that this change affects "fewer people than let on" ignores the fact that even if a smaller portion of the workforce is impacted, **those who are affected are hit hard**. Truck drivers often have limited opportunities to claim other types of deductions. Their work is grueling, their time on the road is long, and their costs are real. These workers are essential to the economy, and their ability to reduce their tax burden through legitimate deductions shouldn't be diminished just because it's a minority of the population affected.

5. **Not Every Profession Is the Same:**
The argument that other professions like construction workers also lost the ability to deduct job-related expenses overlooks the unique nature of trucking. Construction workers, for instance, go home at the end of the day and can avoid the costs of extended travel. Truck drivers, however, often live on the road, eating meals at truck stops, staying in sleeper cabs, and incurring expenses that go well beyond typical workday costs. **Comparing the two situations isn't apples to apples—truck drivers are disproportionately burdened by losing this deduction.**

In short, the elimination of the per diem deduction for company drivers under the guise of "simplifying" the tax code didn't result in a win for everyone. For many hardworking truckers, it made their jobs more costly and less rewarding. **The standard deduction is a blanket solution that doesn't adequately compensate for the specific, necessary expenses incurred by those who spend weeks or even months away from home.**

---

 

---
The claim that Democrats plan to let income taxes "go back up" while simultaneously taxing unrealized gains requires closer scrutiny, as it misrepresents both the realities of current tax policies and the potential impact on everyday Americans—especially truck drivers and working-class individuals.

1. **The Standard Deduction vs. M&IE Deduction:**
Yes, the provision that doubled the standard deduction under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) is set to expire in 2025, not this year or early next year. However, **this doesn’t mean that income taxes will automatically "go back up."** Any changes to tax rates or deductions will require legislative action, which is subject to the input of lawmakers from both parties.

While the return of the M&IE deduction would indeed be welcomed by truck drivers who were hit hard by its elimination, it's important to understand that a decision to reinstate it doesn't automatically mean a tax hike for working Americans. **Democrats have signaled an interest in tax relief for middle and lower-income families,** aiming to ensure that the burden doesn’t fall on the working class.

2. **The Misleading Fear of Taxing Unrealized Gains:**
The notion that Democrats will start taxing unrealized gains, like home value increases or stocks, is a **misrepresentation of proposals** aimed at taxing the ultra-wealthy, not average homeowners or those with 401k investments. Taxing unrealized gains has been floated **only in the context of billionaires and high-net-worth individuals** who can avoid taxes indefinitely by never realizing their gains and borrowing against their assets. **This would not affect the average American’s home or retirement accounts.** Homeowners and retirees aren’t going to be taxed simply because their home or 401k increased in value—this is a scare tactic to create unfounded fear about policies targeting the super-rich.

3. **Truck Drivers and Unrealized Gains:**
The idea that truck drivers or ordinary citizens will pay taxes on unrealized gains, such as a home’s increasing value, is baseless. **There is no proposal to tax everyday people on the appreciation of their homes or retirement savings until those assets are actually sold or otherwise "realized."** The focus of these proposals has been on ultra-wealthy individuals who use complex strategies to accumulate massive, untaxed wealth. Truck drivers and the working class are not the targets of such policies.

4. **The M&IE Deduction Matters More to Drivers Than Unrealized Gains:**
For long-haul truck drivers, **getting the M&IE deduction back is critical.** It directly affects their ability to cover daily living costs on the road, which the standard deduction alone does not adequately account for. Whether taxes on unrealized gains for billionaires are introduced or not, what should matter more to truck drivers is restoring this key deduction. Losing it has taken real dollars out of drivers' pockets, and it’s important to prioritize policies that relieve this burden, rather than getting distracted by unrealistic fears of tax hikes on everyday assets like homes or retirement funds.

5. **Voters Have a Say—But Let’s Base It on Facts:**
You’re right that voters can and should make their voices heard in elections. But let’s base those decisions on factual information. **The majority of Americans, especially truck drivers, will benefit more from policies that restore necessary deductions like M&IE** than from fear-driven rhetoric about policies that don’t even apply to them. Misleading claims about taxing unrealized gains only serve to distract from real issues, like ensuring that truck drivers and middle-class workers can keep more of their hard-earned income through fair and targeted tax policies.

---

 

Nope, just research and the facts!