Trump's executive order

So I'm sure most of you heard about Trump's executive order today. Now, economics isn't my strong suit, but if they stop taking federal payroll taxes out of our checks, won't we end up owing more at tax time? Or am I missing something?

I didn't catch the run down on that , but maybe he is referring to the employer portion of the payroll tax only . The part where if you employ someone you get to pay a fine ( tax ) instead of receiving a tax credit for creating a job or jobs . It would seem you may be correct if it is also for the employee portion. Idk

He's going to charge it to the national debt.

I'll wait for those who have argued such executive orders are unconstitutional to show up.

Jim

I don't know all the details but seems much better than giving people who won't work wheelbarrows full of money to stay home and do nothing

The President said that he would direct the Treasury Department to allow employers to “defer” the payment of payroll taxes and then direct the Secretary of the Treasury to “explore avenues, including legislation, to eliminate the obligation to pay the taxes deferred pursuant to the implementation of this memorandum.”

He would later state that if he was re-elected, he’d “terminate” those taxes.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimwan...ed-and-eviction-moratorium/#2e6d32bfe785

Angela, as the order is written, you are correct. We'll have to pay it back at tax time. It appears that he said if he's reelected he'll forgive those taxes.

The order would cover payroll taxes for the employee, so no FICA. It wouldn't change your income tax liability which is not a payroll tax. But I'm just a guy who does his own taxes, not an expert at all

Don't you think the wheelbarrows aren't coming. I think this is a ploy to get the Democrats back to the table. I also expect this won't be the last stimulus.

A risky proposition . I'd rather pay it and then recieve a credit , hopefully

What are we supposed to do? Millions have been affected. Lost their jobs and some lost their business. All from a man made virus.

I think Trump wants to do something for the working class for change , instead of giving the treasure chest to the 100,000,000 or so bottom feeders

See, so is it the employers that don't have to pay their portion, or the employees? Because the first paragraph there says employers....

This....

I saw this live and that is exactly what he said. He wanted to get the process into action and then make sure his directions are followed. Proof to anyone that he wants the interest of the people out of work , not looters of taxpayer's funds for illegal aliens , criminals, and middle eastern types in paid health care, voting, mail in ballots , etc., to our demise. Love how he was able to circumnavigate those who hate this country.

Since taxes are set by Congress, how can Trump terminate them?

This is an election ploy.

Jim

It is. I agree with you, and I don't agree with ANY of this. But I still won't be voting for Biden or whoever that other chick is.

And a good one -- are you sorry that the dems can't do this?

Not really. The courts are likely to strike that one down.

Jim

So was being able to keep my doctor. Hopefully this turns out better in the end.



Owl

Don't underestimate Orange Man Bad, he may just terminate Congress.

Sometimes I think we'd be better off without them.

Not really. Trump said he's tired of the democrats not working with him. He's had enough and is executive ordering it. Can't blame him. P and S need to be fired. They are evil.

Sometimes???

Trump has said from day one he wanted to eliminate the payroll tax, that was in his campaign speeches last time around.
The Supremes gave him the E.O. option when they said Obama's Excutive Orders, which even Obama said were unconstitutional, could stand.
I don't agree with excessive E.O.s being passed by anyone but you can't just blame Trump when people like Whitmer here in Michigan are nearing 180 E.O.s since March.

This is blatantly political but, one party is in favor of political violence and one party is in favor of workers/employers keeping more of what they have earned. This is really only the tip of the iceberg in terms of philosophical/political differences between the right and the left. If you are having a hard time choosing then there isn't a lot left to discuss.

This will be settled in the courts. I think he just did it to get both sides back to the table.

For the last 40 years, we’ve been told that the Social Security system was going broke. Seems fiscally irresponsible to suspend paying into an already troubled program.

But when the Federal government starts handing out trillions of dollars like candy at Halloween, what’s a few more hundred billion?

The Deficit Hawk is an endangered bird....in both parties.

That DemoRats are blowing way out of proportion. The country should be back to work, the kids should be going back to school and life should be back to normal. The only difference is that the elderly should be taking special precautions except in New York where DemoRat Cuomo has already murdered them all.

He did it so he could be on the receiving end of the political football. He will make a few jukes, maybe get a first down or two. The courtroom punt will not occur until after the election. He is the only one who seems to care about the working folks. The rest of the crew, on either side, are more worried about public image and lining pockets than anything else.

I'm your huckleberry. They are indeed unconstitutional by strict interpretation however in light of a long train of past practice I'll say that what's good for the goose is good for the gender.
IMO, as executive President Trump may order the IRS to not collect or otherwise perform their duties but to create tax code out of whole cloth is the purview of the House of Representives alone.

Socialist Democrat with an R in front of his name.

By deferring the employee portion of payroll taxes, 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare, workers making less than $100,000 a year will have 7.65% more of the money they earned to spend until tax time, when it will be have to paid back, if President Trump isn't reelected. It seems like a good idea to me, because it helps Americans who actually deserve to be helped.

Keith

Why do people making $99,999 per year need help?

It's the people who've lost their jobs that need help.

Jim

Obama came into office with a debt of 8 trillion and now we're at 27 trillion. All Democrats want to do is give, give, give, to keep people from working so it destroys the economy. Fight fire with fire and see who can give the most. Trump is smarter than all Democrats combined. Pulse or no pulse.

Im here and I dont want to increase the debt either. i understand the real goal is to shore up the dollar but how long can they keep juggling?

Again....if it is the EMPLOYEE portion of the taxes that are being deferred, why do all the articles on it say EMPLOYER?

Before I retired, I usually maxed out the SS withholdings about this time of year. I think the limit is now $137,700 in earnings....after that, you’re done paying into SS for that calendar year.

Higher wage earners won’t see a benefit from a payroll tax holiday.

I'm with Danny on this one.

Hmmm....I'd rather taxes keep being taken from my check if I'm gonna owe it all back if Trump dont get relelected.

That'll sting come April 2021.

That wont be me....that higher wage earner you speak of.

Someone always gotta throw a wrench in the works.........

Oh, but Biden has a 13 point lead! And there's ocean beaches in Nebraska.

The best thing Democrats can do for Trump is to just let Biden loose and let him talk. He is Trumps greatest asset.

What if Obama would've done this????

I havnt seen the self employed mentioned anywhere yet . I wish they would give everybody a withholdings holiday including the employers share of Ss so everybody could feel the difference income tax and Ss takes

He's trying to erase Obama's history now.

Well.......they've tried everything else........Kings have historically had a jester around for entertainment.

As I read this he would not be terminating them at this time , He would be directing the allowed deferment without penalty.

you can differ income over 3 years say you move your 401K to a Roth IRA you can divide it by 3 and spread the taxes out over 3 years.

this would be similar to that but for the employer portion.

it might allow an employer to bring 4 people back when they would have only been able to bring back 3 otherwise.

Trumps got the Dems boxed in, if they fight this he can show they don't care about you, if they don't he wins and if they do he wins. That being said if a person got laid off and with the extra 600 a week how can people not pay their rent. Doesn't make sense.

My job has been banned. I still don't need help. But cutting my forced Social Security Contribution that figures in my Social Security Payout when I retire really does nothing for me. Banning my job pretty much means I will not be paying that tax anyway.

Pretty much one of the stupidest tax cuts I have ever seen( that he really does not have the power to do). IMHO.

it a god thing that we have trump in there lets pray he wins , if not your 401k will be going down down and down , open boarders and higher taxes , now who in there right mind wants this ?

Short answer: He can't by EO.

However he could order an air strike on the IRS and the Federal Reserve and I'd be just fine with that. And before you rebuke me by saying he can't use military power against American citizens... We're talking about the IRS... Kind of like communists, not really sure they even qualify as human.

Mike

when do these royal decrees stop? maybe the next one will make him supreme leader for life and eliminate the senate, congress and supremes

Every president in recent times keeps pushing the line on these royal decrees farther and farther.

Jim

It's the only way they can do anything. Sure won't be through the house or senate.

Very well could be an election ploy but nothing in history will ever compare to the Obama phone ploy!

“We’re driving the bus now, sit down and shut up.” lol

It is a very bad thing when your government just assumes more authority than is constitutionally allowed. Three equal branch's is a good thing. Only the stuff that is really important can get done. Liberty is protected.

Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation may have been the right thing to do but it wasn't legal. It is why a constitutional amendment actually freed the slaves three years later.

I can't find anything that gives the President or a state Governor, the authority to simply declare a law or change a law.

This executive order thing is scary and when used to modify or make a new law is absolutely unconstitutional.

In Draw Poker, the wild card would be the lowest card in a player's hand. When such a card is designated, it means that every card of that rank in that player's hand is wild, but the fact that a certain card is wild in one player's hand does not make that same rank of card wild in other players' hands.
I guess things change or stays the same when the shuffle comes.

I am a Trump supporter, but I am with Danny on this, Executive Orders are dangerous. A president should not have that much power. The next president could sign away some of our freedoms given to us in the constitution, and then we would have to rely on our irresponsible courts to get them back. The legislative branch of the government would become irrelevant.

So it sounds like you're reading this like I am then? This executive action allows employers to defer their payroll taxes, but employees are still required to pay them???

Fellow Michigan family suffering under the Nasty Governors thumb of E/O's. I and family signed the petition yesterday to snap her lease.

They been getting $600 extra a week...That's not help? Nose bleeds huh?

The problem was the additional $600 was higher than many made while working so who would want to go back to work and take a pay cut.

The best/ only breakfast restaurant in town just closed for good simply because they can't get help. They were doing a great business.
Steak house can't get help. Motels can't hire help. It's pathetic.

Executive Order = By by Social Security

The best economic relief would be to quit all the chinese flu rules and repeal 80% of the licensing and other onerous business regulations. If the government would get out of the way the people in the United States would do what they do best. Create wealth.

The definition of license is: permission to do something that is illegal. How can running a private business be illegal in the first place??????

Ending minimum wage laws and GOVERNMENT unemployment insurance would be a real good start.

It looks to me like politicians are trying desperately to save fiat currency. IF that is accurate you better hang on. Going to be a carnival ride like nobody has ever seen before.

Dont pay taxes let the government ask us the people what we want done we in turn will decide with oversight how we want our donations to projects spent.

No. The employee portion will not be deducted from the employee's wages. Additionally, the employer will be allowed to defer payment to the government, BOTH the employee and employer portion of the tax. Those deferred taxes MAY be payable at some point in the future.

Trump said that if he is elected he will work to negate those particular taxes from payment.

He isn't terminating them.He is deferring them at this point.

His statement goes on to say that he will instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to work towards LEGISLATION to eliminate those particular taxes permanently. That means he expects Congress to do it........not his EO

So how much will they have to print to payout the SSI benefits? That tax generated the revenue for that program plus some extra the government could borrow. Maybe he can defer those payments too?

That is the exact point. Go get a job and you will receive the benefits of your labor instead of those who do not work enjoying the benefits of your labor. You know, anti socialist/ pro worker. LLL

Don't worry Jim, every day Trump does some socialist or fiscally stupid stuff, real Conservatives recognize it for what it is.

LMAO

IMO, people shouldn't do this. IF they have to pay it at a later date, I doubt very very few will be ab!e to.

Even if it'll make us owe money come tax season I'd always rather owe than be owed. Why give the government an interest free loan of your own hard earned money when you could invest it and make something off it instead for the year?

Whatever else it may be, it's clearly a political move and a very smart one at that. It sets up a stark contrast between a bickering and failing Congress whose sole interests are mired in power politics and President Trump who cuts through the partisan nonsense and gets it done for the American people with the stroke of a pen.

You may disagree with the move, see it as cynical, politically self serving, unconstitutional, or whatever.... None of that matters. The point is that the contrast has nevertheless been made and is unambiguous.

Once again, the Democrats gave Trump everything he needed. That contrast will grow and solidify when the Democrats challenge it in the courts, and Trump will be given a ready-made platform to do what he does best.

As some of his critics on the Left have said over and over since this all started, Trump is out-lefting the Left. While that may be distasteful for conservatives in the short term, it's shrewd political gamesmanship in the long term.

It's a beautiful thing.

Note: I kinda wish RoyTOOdum was still around to call me a closeted liberal or worse a Democrat, but I have no doubt someone here will carry his torch.

who wins the prize for the greatest deficit increase. trump or obama?

here is a hint

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...its-are-racing-past-obamas/#21bb08084819

I don't know why y'all worry about Trump's executive orders. The judicial branch of the political left, SCOTUS, will find this EO unconstitutional. Trump knows it's unconstitutional as well as most should. It's simply a political move. When EO's are made by the left, CA and NV governor's EO's for example, then that is the time to worry because their judicial branch(SCOTUS) will uphold their EO's.

Can someone explain how it is unconstitutional ?

You can do that if you wish. There's no law I know of that requires you to have your employer withhold it for you, although it's highly recommended for obvious reasons.

It would be a disaster overall to expect the public as a whole to do it tho which is why I don't think this is a good idea if it MIGHT have to be played later.

I pay once a year, but could do quarterly like most others that are also self employed.

Without opening your link it won't even be close if Trump gets reelected.

Obama, of course, since he has taken credit for everything that has happened since Trump took possession of the office.

Yet less on our national debt. (Until we see where this year ends)

I just watched Mnuchin on tv and here's what he said, which backs what your thinking.

This is a deferment only. Minchin said that if Trump is re-elected, he will "try" to push through legislation that will forgive the tax owed.
Trump doesn't have the power to forgive it from what he was saying.

If your given the money, he best to save it in case you have to pay it at tax time..

I am with you on this. I would much rather cut the government a check for $15000+ than get a few bucks back. But the problem is that most people can not save money and would not have it come 4-15. Most people want to live outside of their means. Nobody wants to save for anything, they want to borrow for it. They will do that until they are living paycheck to paycheck. I doubt there are very many people that have six months worth of living expenses in their savings. I know I could go well over a year. I know only a couple people that could make six months, most wouldn't have anything after a couple weeks.

So now my question is will it automatically cease to be removed from our paychecks, or is it something you would have to request? Either way, it seems the best thing to do would be to take the deferment (if it's optional) and deposit it into it's own separate account to keep till tax time to see what happens.

I don't know that it is unconstitutional. Congress makes law but I'm not sure if an executive order is considered law. You seem well educated with this subject. Care to opine on whether unconstitutional or not?

Was it unconstitutional when Obama did DACA

It's not likely to go into effect until September anyway, and the court injunction that will result from the Democrats will put a hold on any action for the short term. In other words, it's not something to worry about for now. My guess is that this forces the hand of the Democrats to come up with something reasonable enough for Trump to sign. That in-and-of-itself is worrisome. Any sort of compromise with the Democrats will surely mean bad news for conservatives going into the election and beyond.

I like Trump better when he's backed into a corner than when he's playing footsie with Pelosi, Schumer and RINOs.

Short answer: you'll have plenty of time to figure this out before any of this goes into effect if at all.

That's different because DACA was passed by Congress, before Obama signed the bill into law.

Jim

REASON LINK

I wouldnt want a congress full of Rand or Ron Paul's but wouldnt mind a couple more of them to rein things in



Rand Paul on Republican Plans for Another Coronavirus Stimulus Bill: 'They Simply Don't Care About the Debt'

Wrong again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#:~:text=Unlike%20the%20proposed%20DREAM%20Act,program%20on%20August%2015%2C%202012.

The Obama administration chose to deploy DACA by Executive Branch memorandum—despite the fact that Congress affirmatively rejected such a program in the normal legislative process on multiple occasions. The constitutionality of this action has been widely questioned since its inception.

DACA’s criteria were overly broad, and not intended to apply only to children. Under the categorical criteria established in the June 15, 2012 memorandum, individuals could apply for deferred action if they had come to the U.S. before their 16th birthday; were under age 31; had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; and were in school, graduated or had obtained a certificate of completion from high school, obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or were an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Significantly, individuals were ineligible if they had been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor, but were considered eligible even if they had been convicted of up to two other misdemeanors.

The Attorney General sent a letter to the Department on September 4, 2017, articulating his legal determination that DACA “was effectuated by the previous administration through executive action, without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date, after Congress' repeated rejection of proposed legislation that would have accomplished a similar result. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” The letter further stated that because DACA “has the same legal and constitutional defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA, it is likely that potentially imminent litigation would yield similar results with respect to DACA.”

Based on this analysis, the President was faced with a stark choice: do nothing and allow for the probability that the entire DACA program could be immediately enjoined by a court in a disruptive manner, or instead phase out the program in an orderly fashion. On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Duke issued a memorandum (1) rescinding the June 2012 memo that established DACA, and (2) setting forward a plan for phasing out DACA. The result of this phased approach is that the Department of Homeland Security will provide a limited window in which it will adjudicate certain requests for DACA and associated applications for Employment Authorization Documents meeting parameters specified below.

On June 22, 2018, Secretary Nielsen issued a memorandum clarifying the Department's position.

The payroll tax is not like the income tax or most other taxes. Your SSI payout is based on the amount you pay in. If you live long enough this tax is returned to you plus extra. This is actually a tax that you may want to pay. It probably benefits you to pay this tax when you are near retirement age. However, probably better not to pay it and spend it on beer or more trapping junk you don't need.

Corky: you are correct. I was thinking of the ACA, Affordable Care Act.

Sorry for the mistake.

Jim

P.S. - I think DACA was unconstitutional.

But one president doing an unconstitutional act doesn't excuse another president's unconstitutional act.

Jim

I heard that trump executive order well cause a zero chance of another $1200 stimlous. So idk less about executive orders now

The more people comment on here the more confused I get. So the money that will not be taken out, is NOT the money that is normally taken out and given back as a refund in April if they tax you more than what you are supposed to pay in?

I would like to see a journalist ask Biden this question. If you were to be elected President will you require The uncollected federal taxes be paid back that president Trump left in the pockets of working Americans?

His executive orders don't benifit me, idk less

Biden's response: "C'mon man! I like cheese."

To be fair. Bummer was and is anti American. Trump isn't. Trump did more for us in one term than bummer ever did. Both are facts.. My opinion. Bummer beat out Jimmy Carter for worst president ever.

x2

X3

Chris

Neither.
The correct response to this Jeopardy answer is, "Who is Xi Jinping of China."
Current Events for $800, Alex

I think some parts may be unconstitutional, the $400 unemployment specifically, but that doesn't mean a court will rule that way.

Daca is clearly unconstitutional and even the guy who signed it said so.......three times. But we are living with it nevertheless.


It seems to me that the way to look at this is that Trump is the head of the executive branch. The Secretary of the Treasury is subordinate to Trump.

Trump has instructed Mnuchin to use HIS ( Mnuchin's ) authority to issue guidelines that defer collection and payment of FICA taxes at this time.

But it is pretty obvious that Trump is acting because Congress refused. He even alludes to that in his statement.

But again..........Obama did exactly the same as Trump when he signed both Daca and DAPA.

Here is Obama's statement'

"And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill. I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary."

Obama also said...."Where Congress won't act, I will" May 17,2014

Clearly, IMO, Trump would have been smart and cagey had he quoted Obama in this new executive order. Which, by the way there is only one executive order.....the one about evictions. The other three items are Presidential memoranda.

So, IMO some may be unconstitutional but may be allowed to stand. SCOTUS has sent a pretty clear message from Roberts to the lower courts that Trump's agenda is to be blocked at every turn. I suspect we will see the judicial double standard on display again.
I like what Trump did from a tactical standpoint. But In general I think executive orders are a dangerous road.

Payroll Tax.

"Every payday, 7.65% of your wages are subtracted from your paycheck to fund Social Security and Medicare (6.2% for Social Security; 1.45% for Medicare). Your employer pays an equivalent amount of tax. For 2020, the Social Security tax is only levied on the first $137,700 of earnings; however, an additional 0.9% Medicare tax is collected on wages over $200,000 for the year.

There's also concerned about the impact on Social Security and Medicare, which are already dealing with financial issues. Since payroll taxes fund the two programs, many people are worried about the long-term effects of diverting money away from these two social safety nets.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, however, says that Social Security and Medicare funding won't drop. Money will be transferred from the federal government's general fund to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to cover any payroll tax amounts not collected, according to Mnuchin."

FYI 36% of the Federal Government's revenue comes from the Payroll Tax.

I hear not much chance of another $1200 stimlous because trump executive order, stimlous is supposed be dead deal

Coonman,I doubt that it's dead.Both President Trump and the Dems were for it. The presidents actions will likely spur more action from the dems on getting some kind of compromise.
Tom

Trump and the Dems were for it? Painting a picture.

Remember coonman to vote for the team that gave you the most candy come Nov.

It was not an election ploy. He did what he could, or at least hoped he could, and will try to exclude that income from taxes. Save up a few $$ in case his effort is blocked.

Lol. Now that's funny.

From what I read news, the executive order from trump well cause any more action on Dems or republic over stimlous to stop an not happen

Dave,relax. The dems want to reopen negotiations. The presidents executive orders has caused Pelosi and Co.to take a back seat right now.They want negotians reopened in the worst way.
Tom

"If you don't buy it, the IRS will fine you." Noooooo, nothing unconstitutional about that.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ”

The government is coming to help you any day now. I'm sure when they do, you will be broke again looking for more.