Trump makes campaign pledge to eliminate fed income tax on tips earned.

[acptulsa]

Do better.

What the fuck do you want from me? Appeasement? Do you want to see if I can diplomatically concede areas of commonality with a big government worshipper who self-identifies as "conservative"? Is that the name of the thing that's stuck in your craw?

Fine. I'll see what I can do.

Though it's distressingly much more temporary, I suppose there is a certain copacetic commonality between giving some people permanent relief from this onerous burden through eliminating this tax on broad classifications of income types, and just readjusting the income threshold below which one does not have to file. The latter does also give relief to a certain number of people for the moment. Perhaps we should kick the can down the road a year for these people. Ron Paul might even approve, though I won't believe he ever addressed such directly until I find out different. It would not be uncharacteristic or unprincipled for him to do so.

I still don't see raising the minimum earnings on which income tax must be paid (putting it only on fewer people arbitrarily defined as "the rich") as a cure for the problem. It's just a palliative. It isn't a fix. It's highly unlikely to keep up with inflation. It's putting sawdust in the gears until you can replace the transmission without a plan to replace the transmission. Why don't you do better, now, and admit that?

The stupid part of all this is, I've never even heard Trump talk about exempting people earning less income from income tax. I think you're arguing a point that Swordy pulled out of his ass like there's a snowball's chance in hell of Trump ever doing it. Trump promised to eliminate income tax in toto on a classification of income and I never once said I disapprove of that. Why are you harping on this fade it out by fading it up -- making income tax "upwardly mobile" -- pipe dream? It was just Swordy again demanding that we believe Trump will actually do what Swordy wishes Trump would do. Do better.

I'm going to the bike rally over in Laconia, I'll leave you two lovebirds to keep stroking each other's dicks.:hearteyes:

That's what you were doing to Swordy, so don't pretend you disapprove.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What the fuck do you want from me? Appeasement? Do you want to see if I can diplomatically concede areas of commonality with a big government worshipper who self-identifies as "conservative"? Is that the name of the thing that's stuck in your craw?

Fine. I'll see what I can do.

Though it's distressingly much more temporary, I suppose there is a certain copacetic commonality between giving some people permanent relief from this onerous burden through eliminating this tax on broad classifications of income types, and just readjusting the income threshold below which one does not have to file. The latter does also give relief to a certain number of people for the moment. Perhaps we should kick the can down the road a year for these people. Ron Paul might even approve, though I won't believe he ever addressed such directly until I find out different. It would not be uncharacteristic or unprincipled for him to do so.

I still don't see raising the minimum earnings on which income tax must be paid (putting it only on fewer people arbitrarily defined as "the rich") as a cure for the problem. It's just a palliative. It isn't a fix. It's highly unlikely to keep up with inflation. It's putting sawdust in the gears until you can replace the transmission without a plan to replace the transmission. Why don't you do better, now, and admit that?

The stupid part of all this is, I've never even heard Trump talk about exempting people earning less income from income tax. I think you're arguing a point that Swordy pulled out of his ass like there's a snowball's chance in hell of Trump ever doing it. Trump promised to eliminate income tax in toto on a classification of income and I never once said I disapprove of that. Why are you harping on this fade it out by fading it up -- making income tax "upwardly mobile" -- pipe dream? It was just Swordy again demanding that we believe Trump will actually do what Swordy wishes Trump would do. Do better.

That's what you were doing to Swordy, so don't pretend you disapprove.

Of course it is small, palliative move.

Nobody seems willing to pick up a rifle and solve this problem quickly, so we are left to do it the slow way.

How does one eat an elephant?

One small bite at a time.

That what's this proposal is, I support it and think it is a good idea, regardless of whether it is Trump or Ron advocating it.

And I have provided proof that Ron came up with the plan 12 years ago.

 

[acptulsa]

No, it's more than that.

Income tax started for just the very rich and then extended downward.
Reversing that is the only way you will get rid of it.

That's a palliative, and doomed to fail at the current rate of devaluation.

It's good to see Trump using another of Ron's ideas.

Yes it is. Better than that other idea.

How does one eat an elephant?

One small bite at a time.

Yes, trying to eliminate this and that source of income is a better piecemeal approach than trying to exempt everyone but the "very rich". It's not only more principled, it's more inflation-proof. Now if Trump could not only be trusted to keep that promise, but could then be persuaded to press on and eliminate wages, too, leaving income tax only on things like inheritance and dividends, I could get enthused. I might even have reason to hope that he'd keep going down that track. What do you figure the odds are?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, trying to eliminate this and that source of income is a better piecemeal approach than trying to exempt everyone but the "very rich". It's not only more principled, it's more inflation-proof. Now if Trump could not only be trusted to keep that promise, but could then be persuaded to press on and eliminate wages, too, leaving income tax only on things like inheritance and dividends, I could get enthused. I might even have reason to hope that he'd keep going down that track. What do you figure the odds are?

Slim to none.

All I was looking for is acknowledgement of these basic points:

That Ron came up with the idea first, that he had campaigned on a piecemeal policy proposition regarding income taxes in 2012.

That the idea, while a small bone, is a good idea.

That Trump just added the exact same idea to his campaigning and policy propositions.

And that it is still a good idea.

The chances that Trump or Ron would have been or be able to put that policy in place, are, as I noted, slim to none.

 

[PAF]

Slim to none.

All I was looking for is acknowledgement of these basic points:

That Ron came up with the idea first, that he had campaigned on a piecemeal policy proposition regarding income taxes in 2012.

That the idea, while a small bone, is a good idea.

That Trump just added the exact same idea to his campaigning and policy propositions.

And that it is still a good idea.

The chances that Trump or Ron would have been or be able to put that policy in place, are, as I noted, slim to none.

Trump (D) is an Opportunist. He attended that Libertarian Convention and probably caught wind of it and figured he could sway more votes his way.

Ron would have done that for the right reason and continued on the path toward liberty. Trump, on the other hand, would provide that bone only to implement more of the Globalist Agenda.

That is why I place no positive credibility in anything that NY-Fascist-Lib says or does.

 

[PAF]

It is similar to what Javier Milei is doing in Argentina. While some of what he is doing are good things, the danger is that when he leaves office the people in that country will be indebted to the IMF. Considering that the WEF is full of globalist corporations, it is one thing to promote true Free Market Capitalism, and another to promote the building blocks toward a 3rd Positionist society.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No Taxes On Tips | Part of The Problem 1131
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5T60igN2EY
{Dave Smith | 11 June 2024}

On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie take a look at Trumps latest claim that he will remove income tax from tip earning jobs, and then we hear about the settlement against Alex Jones, and we hear from the former head of the CDC about their reactions to Covid.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, Ron said and did the right thing for the right reason. What you don't get is:





That is Trump's motivation in this. Remember the Stormy trial?

And it helps him with his globalist agenda because people will vote for him.

Bunk, pure unadulterated lies spun from your fantasies.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Following up on Trump's narcissistic belief that as President he can do anything he wants, today's Wall Street Journal has a column written by William A. Galston that outlines some of Trump's proposed expansions of executive power in the even he's reelected. Among other things, he wants to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. While this may be a laudable goal, it is at odds with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and with Supreme Court precedent.

Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court has ruled definitively on this matter. The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” In Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a case regarding the public schooling of children who were brought to the country illegally—the court stated that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” James C. Ho, whom President Trump nominated and Congress confirmed to serve on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in 2006 about the Plyler decision, saying that all nine justices “reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.”

The column concludes:

One thing is clear: Mr. Trump seeks to weaken or remove many important fetters on presidential power. The framers understood this impulse and worked to protect the people against it. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” We’ve been warned.

https://ereader.wsj.net?selDate=20240612&goTo=A015&artid=1&editionStart=The Wall Street Journal

 

[oyarde]

Following up on Trump's narcissistic belief that as President he can do anything he wants, today's Wall Street Journal has a column written by William A. Galston that outlines some of Trump's proposed expansions of executive power in the even he's reelected. Among other things, he wants to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. While this may be a laudable goal, it is at odds with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and with Supreme Court precedent.



The column concludes:



https://ereader.wsj.net?selDate=20240612&goTo=A015&artid=1&editionStart=The Wall Street Journal

If one parent is not a citizen the children cannot be . Be happy with it myself.

 

[unknown]

Under Trump, property tax deductions were capped at $10k.

Suck a dick.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Under Trump, property tax deductions were capped at $10k.

Suck a dick.

High tax states shouldn't be able to shift the tax burden to low tax states, state and local tax deductions are wrong and enable big government.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Following up on Trump's narcissistic belief that as President he can do anything he wants, today's Wall Street Journal has a column written by William A. Galston that outlines some of Trump's proposed expansions of executive power in the even he's reelected. Among other things, he wants to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. While this may be a laudable goal, it is at odds with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and with Supreme Court precedent.



The column concludes:



https://ereader.wsj.net?selDate=20240612&goTo=A015&artid=1&editionStart=The Wall Street Journal

First of all, Trump said he would push Congress to change the law about tips, so you are just making a fool of yourself.
Second of all, the 14thA doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of invaders.
It never did and no law was passed to change it, it was an executive order that chose to interpret it that way.

 

[Invisible Man]

it was an executive order that chose to interpret it that way.

Sunny's post cites the specific SCOTUS decision.

Agree or not, it wasn't just an executive order.

 

[TheCount]

If one parent is not a cutizen the children cannot be . Be happy with it myself.

Would you be a citizen if that rule were retroactive?

 

[oyarde]

Would you be a citizen if that rule were retroactive?

No idea how you would mean that . Yes we were here predating Constitution by many thousands of years , originally in what would now be mostly considered upstate ny in present times and then migrating to The Land of Indians after revolutionary war ,technically there is no particular reason I would or would not be a citizen but they didnt give me a box to check off one way or the other. My credentials could be unusual as Coolidge law of 1924 may not even apply as I am not federally recognized . They still always took my taxes though. Although it could apply if they want to give me Southern Indiana and honor the Greenville Treaty then I may accept being under treaty . I dont have to now because the treaty was never honored by said fed govt. People may find it interesting to know that Jacksons Indian Removal Act ( to move west of Mississippi river) was in 1830 ( we didnt leave , bought property and stayed ) and Coolidges signed Indian citizenship deal in 1924. Some Indians ( most ) were accepted as citizens prior to 1924 but some had not and some didnt want to. About an hour Northeast of me there is also a town ( Boggstown) that seceded during Civil War and never rescinded it.

 

[acptulsa]

Would you be a citizen if that rule were retroactive?

Um, you do realize you're asking a full blooded North American Indian, right..?

 

[Invisible Man]

The thing about cherry picking an individual tax cut like this is not that it's a bad thing on it's own. It's the question of what's the catch. On it's own it's fine. If it's part of larger overhaul of the tax code that results in a net reduction of federal revenue, then it's positively good. If this is combined with a reduction in federal spending, then it's even better.

But if this is just shuffling around the government's taxes in a way that doesn't reduce its revenue, it's like looking for a way to get the goose to squawk less while you still take just as many feathers off of it. And if spending doesn't go down, or worse, keeps going up, then in reality taxation in one form or another also goes up. Waitresses may like being able to take home 3% more dollars each year because their tips aren't taxed. But if each of those dollars is worth 5% less because of an increased money supply and they face other tax increases in the form of higher tariffs, then they're better off with the status quo.

This is exactly what happened in Trump's first term. A lot of people think we had big tax cuts under his leadership. But federal revenue as a percent of GDP hardly moved at all in his tenure in the WH. And the money supply increased more dramatically than under any other president since the 1940's. Trump set an inflation time bomb that was guaranteed to explode after he left office, and the American people have been suffering for it ever since.

 

[TheCount]

Um, you do realize you're asking a full blooded North American Indian, right..?

Yes, that's exactly why I asked.

 

[oyarde]

The thing about cherry picking an individual tax cut like this is not that it's a bad thing on it's own. It's the question of what's the catch. On it's own it's fine. If it's part of larger overhaul of the tax code that results in a net reduction of federal revenue, then it's positively good. If this is combined with a reduction in federal spending, then it's even better.

But if this is just shuffling around the government's taxes in a way that doesn't reduce its revenue, it's like looking for a way to get the goose to squawk less while you still take just as many feathers off of it. And if spending doesn't go down, or worse, keeps going up, then in reality taxation in one form or another also goes up. Waitresses may like being able to take home 3% more dollars each year because their tips aren't taxed. But if each of those dollars is worth 5% less because of an increased money supply and they face other tax increases in the form of higher tariffs, then they're better off with the status quo.

This is exactly what happened in Trump's first term. A lot of people think we had big tax cuts under his leadership. But federal revenue as a percent of GDP hardly moved at all in his tenure in the WH. And the money supply increased more dramatically than under any other president since the 40's. Trump set an inflation time bomb that was guaranteed to explode after he left office, and the American people have been suffering for it ever since.

Consideing current spending , budgets, who is running senate etc I see no viable path for value of FRN not to keep declining ea yr by several percent so may as well let them have it, It is entirely too late too expect we are ever getting any single spending cut from Schumer.