I would not be surprised to see it happen below a certain threshold.
That threshold already exists in the regular income tax structure tho, right? Itās the standard deduction which reaches about 30K for joint filers this year.
I canāt understand why we would treat tip wages differently than regular paid wages. The tip is an understood part of the pay package.
This may all be true, but the fact Harris jumped on it after Trump announced his support of it tells me itās pretty popular.
Oh agreed - itās a popularly idea for sure.
I appreciate your story and opinions and yet, the fact remains Trump can end federal tax on tips by EO asserting the tax is direct and requires apportionment
That my friends, is the bottom line. Tips are in fact wages.
1 Like
He cannot. Tips are wages, so he would have to end tax on both and that would require something much greater than an EO.
" No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken",
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERSā LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER
I know a lot of tips are now paid by credit card. Buck years ago it was always cash. No one I knew ever claimed their tips as income.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has assured us Trump is still committed to āno tax on tipsā.
.
One way to accomplish āno tax on tipsā would be to support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.
Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
āSECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitutionās original tax plan as our Foundersā intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned āincomesā which now oppresses Americaās economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal yearās deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our waterās edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to extinguish the previous yearās deficit caused by Congressās borrowing.
"SECTION 3. [B]When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each Stateās apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their Stateās Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected.
(See: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 179[/B] when the direct apportioned tax was first used) and lists each States fair share.
NOTE: Our founderās fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit is:
[B]Statesā population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATEāS FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
Total U.S. Population[/B]
The above formula, as intended by our Founding Fathers, is to ensure that each Stateās share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!
Note also that each Stateās number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:
[B]State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.[/B]
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such Stateās proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the Statesā cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state to lay and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation on time.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.
Whatever gets done, it must be through Congress. We have to get away from government-by-EO.
4 Likes
Direct taxes are explicitly allowed under the aforementioned amendment. Sorry if you canāt (refuse to) grasp that.
Yes. Direct taxes are explicitly allowed under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, of our existing constitution, but only if they are apportioned.
Why did you miss the apportionment part? Do you not agree with our Constitutionās command requiring representation with a proportional financial obligation whenever a direct tax is laid?
Do you have a problem with the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?
One of the reasons why Presidents love EO is that it gives the appearance of doing something.
It would be interesting to look at the history of EO and determine which ones created a permanent change,
so exactly where was that in the package that was passed by the house yesterday.
MIA. tax cuts for billionaires. but still taxes on tips.
trump lied and you fell for it.
Allan
From what I understand this now goes to congress to hammer out the details of exactly what passes, what does not, what is cut etc.
I fully expect billionaires and the very wealthy to benefit most. I doubt no taxes on tips will be in the final bill.
there is literally no wiggle room in the budget for more tax cuts if they want to renew the previous Trump tax cuts which are due to expire, thus why its in neither proposed budget frameworks of House or Senate.
And with that expectation (prejudgement) you will find any outcome that supports it. (And ignore any that undermine it.)
Not at all, i hope i am wrong. I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.
Of course there is. Spending has wiggle.
