Payroll tax holiday begins today. What it means. (limitations, paychecks, analysis)

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There is no such thing as a civil pardon.

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

What's a civil pardon?

While I never used the term "civil pardon" (I simply mentioned that pardons apply to both civil and criminal acts), the historical record of English common law, early American founding days law, and practices of US presidents suggest that pardons for civil offenses are, in fact, a thing; though I don't think this is necessary for my argument in this case as any civil recovery action over taxes would seemingly be to collect criminal monetary sanctions that would have been erased via pardon.

The below cites to an excellent law review article that discusses the concept of pardons for civil offenses.

Abstract:

The presidential pardon power is widely assumed to apply only to federal crimes — but not to civil offenses. No scholar, however, has ever carefully reviewed whether presidential clemency extends to civil offenses or explored the potential implications of this power. This Article provides the first-ever close study of whether presidential clemency is available for civil offenses. It concludes that presidents may pardon civil offenses — thus unearthing a new executive power, albeit one that has existed since 1787.

. . .

The Article relies on the fact that “civil” offenses, as we now understand them, either were criminal offenses at the Founding or involved activities that went unpunished. In other words, there were no “civil” offenses (as we now know them) at the Founding; they arose only in the 1840s, as Felix Frankfurter memorialized in his 1925 article about the blurring lines between criminal and civil offenses. This Article shows, however, that the most analogous offenses prior to the advent of civil offenses could have been pardoned and were, in fact, pardoned by both presidents and English monarchs (whose acts of clemency the Supreme Court consults to assess the scope of the pardon power). In short, the various tools by which the Supreme Court assesses the breadth of the pardon power uniformly support the conclusion that civil offenses may be pardoned. The Article ends by launching a preliminary discussion of the uses and implications of this power.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2754845

The Supreme Court has stated, in dicta and without any analysis and in cases that had nothing to do with pardons for civil offenses, that the pardon power applies only to criminal offenses. But, as mentioned in the article, such language--which is not binding on anybody as it was dicta in cases that had nothing to do with cases concerning pardons for civil offenses--is not supported by the actual historical record and text of the pardons clause.

[albert648]

Absolutely nothing. My disposable income won't change unless it's waived or forgiven.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by skeddy

Obama signed a payroll tax holiday in 2012....yawn

That was after Congress passed a bill authorizing the tax holiday. Obama didn't do it on his own.

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

What points am I wrong on?

I never claimed that Republicans or Democrats in Congress wanted another payroll tax holiday.

Moving on, pardons apply to civil and criminal acts and could be applied to cover both employees and employers. As I have mentioned before, the only way that tax law works is via the threat of criminal or civil action being taken by those who are in violation of the law. With a mass general pardon, that such a threat is nonexistent. The White House has already stated that it will take "any steps possible to forgive this deferral."

As for Congress being in the "mood," the beauty of the situation is that they will get in line regardless I wager as the political optics will be that they had the opportunity to forgive the taxes (assuming President Trump doesn't pardon) but didn't. And no politician wants to be in that situation.

And the payroll holiday is doing keeping hundreds of dollars more in my pocket each month. That's not "jack sh**" for millions of middle class workers. I recall when the Obama administration smartly rolled out TV ads of real middle and working class Americans explaining what even an extra $20 a week (and it'll be a lot more than that for many middle class workers) meant for them in the debate over extending part (but not all) of the Bush tax cuts. The fact that the bulk of the tax holiday funds will go to higher wage earners (as they pay more in taxes) doesn't take away from this point.

The issue here is that Trump can do the payroll tax holiday because of the disaster declaration for COVID. If he's reelected, he can extend the disaster declaration, a couple of times, and then the SS trust fund will start running out of money. Since SS can't borrow, Trump can then hold Congress hostage to enact changes to SS like:

Increase FRA to age 70
Means test the benefits
Decrease benefits, either directly or through changes to indexing that don't match actual costs

The Republicans, especially Trump, are obsessed with destroying Social Security, seeing it as some sort of "commie plot".

Keep in mind that the tax holiday does nothing to help people who are unemployed due to the pandemic, as they don't pay any taxes when their income is 0

[Lowexpectations]

SS fra should continue to move up over time and it’s probably going to take more taxes to fund it. This though is a re-election desperation move

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by WRM20

That was after Congress passed a bill authorizing the tax holiday. Obama didn't do it on his own.



The issue here is that Trump can do the payroll tax holiday because of the disaster declaration for COVID. If he's reelected, he can extend the disaster declaration, a couple of times, and then the SS trust fund will start running out of money. Since SS can't borrow, Trump can then hold Congress hostage to enact changes to SS like:

Increase FRA to age 70
Means test the benefits
Decrease benefits, either directly or through changes to indexing that don't match actual costs

The Republicans, especially Trump, are obsessed with destroying Social Security, seeing it as some sort of "commie plot".

Keep in mind that the tax holiday does nothing to help people who are unemployed due to the pandemic, as they don't pay any taxes when their income is 0

President Trump can do the payroll tax holiday without the disaster declaration. He could do so based on his vast enforcement discretion.

As to your point about the differences in how Obama enacted his payroll tax holiday vs. how Trump is doing it, I say so what? In both cases, funds weren't being collected for social security from a vast amount of people. So why is it a problem when Obama does it but not Trump? In any case, I repeat that I see no way realistic way that Congress does not come in and bless this move after the fact. If President Trump is reelected, he won't need to extend this protection anymore. The ball will be in the hands of Congress. Unconstrained by another election, he'd be free to really go after Congress on this issue, which would face another election just two short years later.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by WRM20

That was after Congress passed a bill authorizing the tax holiday. Obama didn't do it on his own.



The issue here is that Trump can do the payroll tax holiday because of the disaster declaration for COVID. If he's reelected, he can extend the disaster declaration, a couple of times, and then the SS trust fund will start running out of money. Since SS can't borrow, Trump can then hold Congress hostage to enact changes to SS like:

Increase FRA to age 70
Means test the benefits
Decrease benefits, either directly or through changes to indexing that don't match actual costs

The Republicans, especially Trump, are obsessed with destroying Social Security, seeing it as some sort of "commie plot".

Keep in mind that the tax holiday does nothing to help people who are unemployed due to the pandemic, as they don't pay any taxes when their income is 0

No, that is not how things work.......

First any powers for war, emergency, disaster are given to POTUS via actions of Congress (as in laws passed creating), and that body can change, remove or restrict anytime it chooses. If a POTUS vetoes a bill enacting such actions, Congress can override if they have the votes.

Read up, you might learn something..... https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...-and-their-use

Two, there is payroll "tax holiday"; again a POTUS cannot unitarily suspend laws and order treasury not to collect taxes. All the Orange Eegit did was pull an administrative move as technical head of federal government that delays collection of taxes. All fines, fees, surcharges that would or could apply to unpaid payroll taxes will still accrue and must be paid (along with outstanding sums) as law requires; by 15 April 2021. Absent explicit action by Congress and singed into law, that is all she wrote.

No one is exactly sure if this first end run around Congress is entirely legal. That would be for courts to decide; and if whoever occupies WH in 2021 decided to go for round two, that most certainly would provoke legal action from one or more quarters. This if no one bothers doing so before current action expires.

[chattyneighbor]

I wish employees had the right to opt put. A bigger check today for a smaller check tomorrow is just stupid. Trump is hoping to get reelected to make this permanent in the first step to eliminating medicare and social security. He just can not win in November.

[DKM]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

President Trump can do the payroll tax holiday without the disaster declaration. He could do so based on his vast enforcement discretion.

As to your point about the differences in how Obama enacted his payroll tax holiday vs. how Trump is doing it, I say so what? In both cases, funds weren't being collected for social security from a vast amount of people. So why is it a problem when Obama does it but not Trump? In any case, I repeat that I see no way realistic way that Congress does not come in and bless this move after the fact. If President Trump is reelected, he won't need to extend this protection anymore. The ball will be in the hands of Congress. Unconstrained by another election, he'd be free to really go after Congress on this issue, which would face another election just two short years later.

Congress has a LONG history of not going along with presidents who try to work around them on fiscal issues. Your post is purely speculative and only based on reality if the GOP wins all branches in the election (about as likely as China forgiving all our debts). You really think Pelosi is going to fund a Trump re-election handout?

[Coldjensens]

It appears to be very clever actually. You get a loan that DT says will not have to be paid back as long as he gets re-elected. If Biden wins- well then you are going to owe the government a ton of money.



IF DT is re-elected, he will try to make it permanent and congress will stop him and he can blame congress. Even if that fails, he does not really care too much once he is re-elected to his final term.



If Congress blocks him now, he can tell people he tried to get them some relief, but Congress blocked him. Sorry, no money for you - bad congress.



I do not see anything but a win for him in this. It seems very clever.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by DKM

Congress has a LONG history of not going along with presidents who try to work around them on fiscal issues. Your post is purely speculative and only based on reality if the GOP wins all branches in the election (about as likely as China forgiving all our debts). You really think Pelosi is going to fund a Trump re-election handout?

No, I don't expect Pelosi to do a thing before the election; of course, that's not needed for Congress to forgive the tax holiday/deferral. But, speculative of what Congress may do or not, the point also remains that Trump can act on his own to forgive the tax holiday via the power of the pardon.