Payroll tax holiday begins today. What it means. (union, deduction, cost)

[lenora]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

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.

NO, he cannot. The law review abstract you cited does not support your absolute statement. It might help if you read at least part of the actual law review article.
https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4584&context=buffalolawrev iew
Besides not understanding the basic concept of pardons, you forgot that pesky Separation of Powers. Please, just stop with the nonsense.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by lenora

NO, he cannot. The law review abstract you cited does not support your absolute statement. It might help if you read at least part of the actual law review article.
https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4584&context=buffalolawrev iew
Besides not understanding the basic concept of pardons, you forgot that pesky Separation of Powers. Please, just stop with the nonsense.

YES, he can.

Do explain how issuing a general pardon is a separation of powers issue and how I don't have an understanding of the concept of pardons The only one who has pushed nonsense is you, with your last post showing that you completely lack and understanding of the pardon power and of the points made by me in this thread.

And please cite to the article and provide your analysis as to why it means what you claim it does since you apparently read it while I didn't

For the record, the law review article deals with whether the pardon clause--which only mentions pardons for offenses against the United States and doesn't break it down into criminal or civil pardons--also applies to pardons for civil offenses. But, as I mentioned, I don't even think that such an argument is necessary as any civil action would be to collect for a criminal act of failure to pay taxes, which makes the point moot.

You really threw separation of powers in there, though? There are very few limitations on the power of the pardon under our Constitution, to include the requirement that pardons only cover federal offenses (as opposed to state) and in cases of impeachment. There is no separation of powers issue as the exercise of a pardon where authorized is a power explicitly granted to the president. The issue of whether pardons can cover a civil offense vs only criminal offenses is a somewhat open debate in that the issue hasn't been formally/explicitly addressed, but the historical context of English common law, founding era law, and US presidential actions support that it is allowable.

To close, I never stated that the president's pardon power is absolute (and I touched on some of the limitations of the pardon power above). But the limitations placed on the president for use of the pardon power aren't implicated here.

[lenora]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Do explain how issuing a general pardon violates separation of powers and how I don't have an understanding of the concept of pardons

And please cite to the article and provide your analysis as to why it means what you claim it does.

For the record, the law review article deals with whether the pardon clause--which only mentions pardons for offenses against the United States and doesn't break it down into criminal or civil pardons--also applies to pardons for civil offenses. But, as I mentioned, I don't even think that such an argument is necessary as any civil action would be to collect for a criminal act of not failure to pay taxes, which makes the point moot.

You really threw separation of powers in there, though? There are very few limitations on the power of the pardon under our Constitution, to include for federal offenses (as opposed to state) and in cases of impeachment. There is no separation of powers issue as the exercise of a pardon where authorized is a power explicitly granted to the president.

I linked the Law Review Article in my reply. It is interesting because it addresses an issue that has not been extensively examined. I consider it the equivalent of a graduate level dissertation, worthy of consideration and discussion among academia. Until the U.S.S.C. rules otherwise...

Wait. "[A]ny civil action would be to collect for a criminal act...which makes the point moot"?? What?! No, I am not going to engage in a somewhat complicated legal discussion with someone who seemingly has little legal knowledge. You may look at this as a game, but I can guarantee you employers would not. It is the employer who would end up with a criminal record, for what? Saving their employees from having to pay Social Security taxes? Get real.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by lenora

I linked the Law Review Article in my reply. It is interesting because it addresses an issue that has not been extensively examined. I consider it the equivalent of a graduate level dissertation, worthy of consideration and discussion among academia. Until the U.S.S.C. rules otherwise...

Wait. "[A]ny civil action would be to collect for a criminal act...which makes the point moot"?? What?! No, I am not going to engage in a somewhat complicated legal discussion with someone who seemingly has little legal knowledge. You may look at this as a game, but I can guarantee you employers would not. It is the employer who would end up with a criminal record, for what? Saving their employees from having to pay Social Security taxes? Get real.

Generally, corporations care very little if they have a criminal record, especially if they are pardoned for it.

[Coldjensens]

Our company has declined and as far as we can discover, so has every other major company in our region and business. This will likely to be a non-issue because no one is doing it.

[lchoro]

Idiot is requiring the government agencies to implement the executive order. The government agencies in turn are advising their employees to hold onto the money in anticipation of higher payroll taxes next year. The whole gambit only makes sense if you're trying to get rid of the tax altogether on the fear that it's return will harm the economy. It is only temporary in any event.

"The president does not have the power to forgive employees’ or military members’ deferred taxes. Only Congress has the authority to make changes to the tax code, and there is no guarantee Congress, as the OMB memo suggests, will vote to make the payroll tax deferral permanent."

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/pay-b...ns-unanswered/

[SWFL_Native]

bad idea and bad policy

[ChessieMom]

Originally Posted by blahblahyoutoo

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/31/the-...-your-pay.html

- it is a tax deferral. the 6.2% tax employees pay toward Social Security from Sept. 1 until Dec. 31 must be repaid by apr 30 next year, which means smaller paychecks.



I believe this means for high earners, this won't affect them as they would've already paid all SS taxes at this point (e.g. you've already seen your paycheck increase, as soon as you've passed this threshold).

What it means is that everyone on Capitol Hill is clearly an idiot.

Thankfully, my employer sees it as the absurdity it is. We will not be implementing it.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by lchoro

Idiot is requiring the government agencies to implement the executive order. The government agencies in turn are advising their employees to hold onto the money in anticipation of higher payroll taxes next year. The whole gambit only makes sense if you're trying to get rid of the tax altogether on the fear that it's return will harm the economy. It is only temporary in any event.

"The president does not have the power to forgive employees’ or military members’ deferred taxes. Only Congress has the authority to make changes to the tax code, and there is no guarantee Congress, as the OMB memo suggests, will vote to make the payroll tax deferral permanent."

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/pay-b...ns-unanswered/

He cannot forgive it, but he can instruct the executive branch not to enforce it. Technically you still owe it, but the government is not going to do anything to collect it. At least not as long as Trump is re-elected.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Our company has declined and as far as we can discover, so has every other major company in our region and business. This will likely to be a non-issue because no one is doing it.

i couldnt imagine anyone doing it. it makes no sense.