Cabal
Pissed off Patriot
OK, but how does defering the taxes until the end of the year help out the rank and file when they are still due at the end of the year? You still gotta save that money up.
ECON I will disobey Trump's Payroll Tax EO to defund social security
- Thread starter Bicycle Junkie
- Start date
OK, but how does defering the taxes until the end of the year help out the rank and file when they are still due at the end of the year? You still gotta save that money up.
West
Senior
It's a vary good thing. That the tax paying citizes realize the blood monies taken from them. It seems to me when the government takes just a little every payday the low informed and math challenged some how don't feel the theft. However in a lump sum it's OMG!
Cacheman
Ultra MAGA!
That brings us to another question I notice Dems are beginning to ask and it centers around Roberts. If Roberts stays consistent with his rulings on DACA than Trumps EO's stand also--- but if he rules against Trumps EO's than DACA is screwed.
That could be a tough one for the Party of Marx to swallow.
TammyinWI
Talk is cheap
I don't follow this totally, you mean these signed today hinge on Robert's decision? No...? Sorry, what am i missing here?
Because Trump works 7 days a week.
Cacheman
Ultra MAGA!
Great stuff for the Sunday morning news shows and Congress left DC last night after going nothing.
Cacheman
Ultra MAGA!
Just repeating what I've read quite a few times but it will likely get to SCOTUS.
lonestar09
Veteran Member
Government likes to do things starting late Friday afternoon so that bu the time Mknday morning rolls around it is off the news cycle or did not make it on
SmithJ
Veteran Member
But what does it help? Nothing....
SmithJ
Veteran Member
It doesn’t help anything. It’s just feel good for the people that can’t think ahead.
Ragnarok
On and On, South of Heaven
Ragnarok
On and On, South of Heaven
The Cub
Behold, I am coming soon.
Trump did not want to do this.
I think that he knows that it is unconstitutional, but he is calling the Communists bluff.
If they sue him.....their black hats will be on display for all to see. If they let it slide, Trump is a hero.
These are strange times. We are in the midst of a continued Communist coup d etat. I never thought that I would applaud an unconstitutional act......but I am.
Soros (via Schumer & Pelosi) is a poor adversary.
I think that he knows that it is unconstitutional, but he is calling the Communists bluff.
If they sue him.....their black hats will be on display for all to see. If they let it slide, Trump is a hero.
These are strange times. We are in the midst of a continued Communist coup d etat. I never thought that I would applaud an unconstitutional act......but I am.
Soros (via Schumer & Pelosi) is a poor adversary.
Bicycle Junkie
Resident dissident and troll
Romans 13 teaches obedience to authorities. Jesus said render taxes to Caesar. The 16th Amendment says it's legal. I'm a patriotic American who wants to pay his fair share of taxes on time, to keep the country running.
what about bums?pan handlers?
they appear to be the most free people in America,no income tax.
i am not a slave,i do not work just to have my income to be taxed,that is criminal.if you can not see why,you must be a tard.
Big Sarge
Old School
At least Trump is trying to do SOMETHING. He probably knows that legally he couldn't suspend or stop altogether the tax. So he's trying to do what is within his authority to try to do something that may help businesses and the worker. Good or bad. It's more than what congress is getting done at this point.
The Cub
Behold, I am coming soon.
Yes, and if they condemn Trump for his unilateral actions......the condemn DACA.
Look, both parties in Congress went on vacation. The unemployment supplement and eviction hold have already expired.
Trump adding back $400 bucks a week, putting a hold on evictions, and a hold on student loan interest may or may not be legal, but whoever tries to take it to the courts will pay come election time.
Congress abandoned their responsibility and we would have had 11 million people out on the street and with no money to even buy food.
Right now Trump should be pounding the point home to these people that they were abandoned by Congress and legal or not he saved them from being homeless.
That can't hurt with the upcoming elections.
The only thing I agree on is that postponing the Payroll tax is pointless.
Everything else will garner him votes in 3 months.
Trump adding back $400 bucks a week, putting a hold on evictions, and a hold on student loan interest may or may not be legal, but whoever tries to take it to the courts will pay come election time.
Congress abandoned their responsibility and we would have had 11 million people out on the street and with no money to even buy food.
Right now Trump should be pounding the point home to these people that they were abandoned by Congress and legal or not he saved them from being homeless.
That can't hurt with the upcoming elections.
The only thing I agree on is that postponing the Payroll tax is pointless.
Everything else will garner him votes in 3 months.
undead
Veteran Member
apparently you are the only Democrat that does
Wrong. You are perpetuating a myth. For the TL;DR folks:
Myth #4 - Congress does not pay in to SS. Busted! Since 1984, all members of Congress are required to contribute to Social Security just like anyone else.
These 7 Social Security myths just aren’t true, no matter how often you hear them
Published: Nov. 22, 2019 at 4:26 p.m. ET
By
Devin Carroll
521
Believing these myths can be dangerous to your financial well being — and even your ability to afford your retirement
Don’t worry — you’ll get your money.
With a system as complex as Social Security, it’s inevitable that misinformation (or simply a misunderstanding of the facts) will spread. It’s hard to understand what’s true and what’s not, and often, our brains prefer the version of events that feel intuitively more simple to understand.
And of course, Social Security is anything but simple to understand.
People tend to repeat some of these not-quite-true tidbits and downright falsehoods so often that they’ve reached mythical status and are often accepted without question.
In fact, that’s exactly how these myths seem so plausible and continue to live on. It’s called the illusory truth effect: people are more likely to believe something is true after hearing it said over and over again.
Separating fact from fiction is critical. Believing these myths can prove dangerous to your financial well being — and even your ability to afford your retirement — because they can screw up the way you plan and prepare for the future.
But it’s time that we cleared these muddy waters. Today, I want to break down seven Social Security myths that you might hear and believe but that just aren’t true… no matter how many times you’ve heard them repeated before.
NOW PLAYING: Covid Chasers: The Nurses Fighting Coronavirus From Hot Spot to Hot Spot
Visit our Video Center
Myth No. 1: Illegal immigrants collect Social Security
My YouTube channel is absolutely inundated with these kinds of comments. The belief that illegal immigrants can come to the United States and immediately receive Social Security benefits is simply not true.
What is true is that citizenship is not required. However, immigrants must be lawfully present and must pay into the system for at least 10 years.
In short, they have to follow the same eligibility rules as everyone else.
The Congressional Research Service makes the rules around Social Security benefits for non-citizens very clear when they say “If an individual never obtains work authorization, none of his or her Social Security covered earnings count toward qualifying for benefits.”
We can’t get much more clear than that, which makes this myth an easy one to bust. Illegal immigrants are not collecting nor can they collect Social Security benefits.
Myth No. 2: The government raided the trust fund
Some people believe the Social Security system wouldn’t be facing insolvency today if the government kept their gosh-darned theivin’ hands out of it.
Here’s the truth: There has never been any change in the way Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security trust fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.” It is a separate account, and always has been.
We can find the origins of this myth in the change that happened back in 1969. At that time, the government began listing the trust fund’s transactions in a single budget along with all the other functions of the federal government.
The transactions were shown alongside other functions, but the trust fund remained a separate account. In 1990, the government began listing the activities of the trust fund separately.
None of these movements had anything to do with the actual operations of the trust fund; it was purely a change of accounting practices.
The government did not raid Social Security’s trust fund. But you might still believe the myth that it did if you don’t understand where the money went — because it is true that the system faces insolvency today.
Why isn’t there a trust fund sitting around with trillions of dollars from all the money we working taxpayers put into the system? Because the Treasury uses those dollars.
Before you say, “aha! This proves the point; the government did steal the money!” …not so fast. The government always uses incoming revenue to meet its current obligations before it borrows money. This includes funds coming in and earmarked for the Social Security trust fund.
For every dollar that comes in from Social Security taxes, a special-issue Treasury bond takes its place. These bonds earn interest — which is a good thing.
In fact, since these bonds were first introduced to the trust fund, they generated $1.9 trillion in interest. For reference, the total trust fund balance is only $2.9 trillion.
Had all those dollars been left in cash, the trust fund would be worth about two-thirds less and would have run dry much earlier than currently projected.
The bottom line is that there’s no difference between the way the federal government runs the trust fund and the way your bank handles your cash accounts.
When your paycheck is deposited, that bank uses that money and makes an accounting entry. When you need your money, the bank pulls it from the institution’s account and notes a debit to your account. But no one gets hooked on conspiracy theories about banks misusing funds.
No one should get too worked up about the federal government using a nearly identical process, either.
Myth No. 3: Social Security is going bankrupt
Many politicians leverage this myth to manipulate people into voting a certain way. In every campaign, someone always talks about how bad Social Security is — and how they’re the only candidate who can and will fix it and make everything okay again.
To compound that, the news channels figured out this is a headline that will get people to click, so they use it often. The result is you hear this myth perhaps more than any other… but it’s not quite true.
Here’s what’s really going on.
Social Security benefits are considered a “pay as you go” system. This means that the money that comes in from taxes today goes out to pay retirees today. For example, the taxes that I pay in right now also go out right now — and they pay for my dad’s benefits.
For many years, more people paid in taxes than the system needed to pay out at the same time. More money came in than went out, and the excess started to accumulate in the trust fund that we hear so much about.
But now, the worker to retiree ratio has started to shift. By 2020, we’ll reach a point where there is not enough money coming into the system to pay out to people claiming benefits. To make up this shortfall, the Social Security Administration will begin pulling money from the trust fund.
The issue here is that the current trust fund balance will only last until 2035. Once it’s dry, benefits can only be paid from Social Security taxes. The projections show that will only generate 76% of what’s needed to pay all benefits.
While not great news, this is not bankruptcy.
If your boss told you today that you were only to get paid 76% of your normal salary, would you be bankrupt? No. You’d be mad, to say the least, but you would not start receiving $0 and file for bankruptcy. Pay cuts happen, and when they do, we must adjust to our new level of earnings.
Social Security will have to do the same. The most likely adjustments will come in the form of a reduction in benefits or an increase in taxes. But Social Security will not just collapse and disappear.
Myth No. 4: Members of Congress don’t pay into the Social Security system
Many people believe that members of Congress, being the ones who wrote (and get to revise) the rules, carved out a special retirement plan just for themselves. They get to live above Social Security, and don’t have to rely on its benefits — and therefore, don’t care what happens to it.
This is not true. Members of Congress may not end up relying exclusively on Social Security benefits in their old age… but many other Americans can say the same. Either way, both you and the men and women in Congress pay into the system.
This is another easy-to-bust myth: Since 1984, all members of Congress are required to contribute to Social Security just like anyone else.
Myth No. 5: You’ll never get back what you put in
This is one that I’ve heard for years, but it wasn’t until recently that I decided to dive in and figure this out once and for all.
To do this, I looked at the dollars I would put into Social Security over my working career, versus the dollars that I would take out.
I also looked at only the part of Social Security taxes that I personally put into Social Security. Remember that the total FICA tax is 15.3%, but as an employee, you only pay half of that (or 7.65%). Your employer pays the rest.
Of the money you owe, 1.45% goes Medicare and 6.2% goes to Social security. It’s that 6.2% that I counted.
I then looked at an individual who started working in 1972 and retired in 2019. That’s a long time to work, but I wanted to illustrate what a maximum working lifetime may look like and thus give an opportunity for more taxes to be paid in.
Then I looked at four different income levels during that time period. To get a baseline I used the National Average Wage Index published by the Social Security Administration.
The first income level was for an individual at 50% of the national average. Then I looked at 100%, and then 150%, and for a maximum amount of Social Security taxes paid in I also looked at an individual who would’ve earned the maximum taxable wages for every year he or she was working.
With these earnings numbers, I used the calculator on the Social Security Administration website to calculate the benefits for each of these income levels at full retirement age. Finally, I increased that amount by 2% per year to keep up with the Social Security cost of living adjustment.
When you look across all of this data, it’s clear that each individual at their various income level got back the dollars they’d personally paid in — and they got that money within just a few years of filing for benefits.
In fact, the amount of taxes paid in pales in comparison to the average amount of lifetime benefits paid out! That makes this myth wildly untrue.
Not only do you get what you pay in to Social Security… you get that, and then some.
Myth No. 6: Social Security benefits are an earned right
This would be really nice. If it were true. Unfortunately, Social Security payments are not guaranteed, and laws can be changed at any time that impact what you’ll receive in benefits.
Some of the other myths on this list seem… well, a little ridiculous. But I don’t blame people for buying into this one. It seems logical, for one — but what’s more deceiving is the fact that the government has essentially encouraged the belief that Social Security benefits are guaranteed.
A 1936 pamphlet from the Social Security Administration specifically states the following:
“The United States government will set up an account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.”
That sounds pretty rock solid, clear, and obvious to me. But it didn’t take long for the Supreme Court to step in and “clarify” this language for us.
In Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court’s language set the tone for the future. Here’s what they stated in the written opinion on the case:
“The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
That eliminated the idea of the separate, personal account that the Social Security pamphlet originally implied. And then, in Flemming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court doubled down to make it very clear what the government thought about our “right” to Social Security benefits:
“There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law.”
If there was any doubt left about an individual’s “right” to a Social Security benefit, this court case should’ve banished it completely.
But just in case people forget that benefits can be changed or stopped altogether at any time, the Social Security Administration puts this reminder on every statement they create:
“Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.”
The takeaway here is that the criteria for eligibility could change with the whims of politics. (Just take a look at the means-testing conversations that we’re starting to hear about if you need further proof of this.)
I’m not trying to be the prophet of doom here, but I think we’ll see changes to the system — and to benefits paid out — coming down the line soon. I also believe these changes will hit those who have significant assets and income.
Remember, just because you get a statement showing a benefit amount doesn’t mean that you’ll eventually get that benefit. The government can change the rules.
Myth No. 7: Everyone should delay filing for Social Security benefits until age 70
This is a myth that finance folks like to spread based purely on the fact that for every month you delay filing, you get a higher benefit amount — and more must be better, right?
Not necessarily, and certainly not in every single case. You can’t apply this blanket rule to all situations, because there are multiple scenarios where filing early makes more sense than filing later.
Frankly, if you need the income, you need to file as soon as you’re eligible to receive it. Sometimes there is no strategy; if you are no longer working and you need the income, go file for benefits. Simple as that.
You might also want to file early if you’re single and have health issues. You really only have your own income needs and life expectancy to consider in this situation, and it’s one of the few cases where using a break-even analysis makes sense.
A break-even analysis will tell you the age you need to live to in order to receive the same amount in benefits as you would if you waited and filed later.
Another situation in which filing early could be the best route is in the case of a few different spousal issues. The first is if your spouse is the higher earner and has health concerns which will shorten their life expectancy.
Since their earnings were higher, their Social Security benefits will likely be higher. If they pass away early, your lower benefit will drop off and you’ll begin to receive their higher benefit. Delaying filing for several years to increase your own benefit won’t be worth it if you will eventually get your spouse’s higher benefit.
Another issue to consider: if your spouse’s earnings were lower and they’re older than you. If your spouse’s earnings were so low that the spousal benefit from your record will be the highest benefit they will receive, they cannot receive that benefit until you file for your own benefit.
This means that by filing early, you will receive a reduced benefit, but your spouse will become entitled to a benefit as well.
The reason we include this is that once your spouse reaches his or her full retirement age, their spousal benefit will not increase. So if they are older than you, they could be missing months or years worth of benefits while waiting on you to file.
If you receive a survivor’s benefit, filing early could make sense for you, too. The survivors’ benefit still allows you to switch back and forth between benefit options. You could file for your survivors’ benefit at 62 (or even 60) and switch back to your own benefit at 70 at which point it would be at least 24% higher than your full retirement age benefit.
Finally, if you have minor or disabled children at home, you might want to consider filing early because they may qualify for a benefit when you file. By delaying your filing, you miss out on your own reduced benefit plus the benefit payable to your child.
Just keep in mind that if you file before your full retirement age, the earnings limit will apply. Once you pass your full retirement age, the earnings limit will no longer apply.
Devin Carroll runs his own firm, Carroll Investment Management, and blogs on Social Security Intelligence, where this first appeared. He also has written the book “Social Security Basics: 9 Essentials That Everyone Should Know”.
Opinion: These 7 Social Security myths just aren’t true, no matter how often you hear them
Believing these myths can be dangerous to your financial well being — and even your ability to afford your retirement.
www.marketwatch.com
Last edited:
Sandcastle76
Senior Member
Question....how many small businesses used PPE funds to pay their people, in order to stay open? Could this payroll tax deferment be of assistance to the small business owners. Or, is the PPE money non taxable...Either way it would enable some small businesses to meet payroll and stay open. Just wondering and thinking out loud....
Romans CH 13.....BJ really.....I had a short conversation with a pastor who used that verse in a sermon trying to show how disobedient we rebellious people are!
I told him that he was wrong on at least two counts.
One... It says obey the "just"rulers.
Two.... We of all nation's was created unique in all the world in the fact that WE the people are the Rulers and the elected "officials" are supposed to be there to serve us. They are the ones who are in rebellion.
I told him that he was wrong on at least two counts.
One... It says obey the "just"rulers.
Two.... We of all nation's was created unique in all the world in the fact that WE the people are the Rulers and the elected "officials" are supposed to be there to serve us. They are the ones who are in rebellion.
33dInd
Veteran Member
CaryC
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Ya see this is what I like people quoting scripture.
So if your going to use those verses then you are AGAINST the Revolutionary War, that brought is our freedom, since it was rebellion against the Authority of King George III. AND they did not want to pay taxes, most notably on Tea. Or have their guns taken.
You are also in support of slavery then. Because in another place it says if you become a Christian while a slave seek not to be released from it. In other words run away, and is the purpose of the book Phileman.
And if you really, I MEAN REALLY want to follow Romans 13 the one who has authority over you just released you from paying taxes for a season.
So what's your beef? If it is an illegal act, he will be held accountable for it, not you.
mistaken1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
You sure that Trump's federal gestapo won't pry a few agents loose from their duties stifling free speech in portland to come arrest you for paying taxes in violation of his EO? You are a brave man to disobey Trump like that and brag about it on the internet.
Bicycle Junkie
Resident dissident and troll
I am so glad members have corrected the thread drift and we are now focused on Romans 13. I'm not going to get into the Bible/slavery issue. Let's just look at Romans 13:4 which says in part: "For he is God's servant to do you good . . ." That is what I refer to as the "King George exception." We are to obey authorities so long as they are doing us "good."
When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Nero was persecuting and executing Christians; he blamed them for the fire which destroyed a large portion of the city. His predecessor Claudius had likewise persecuted Christians. The Holy Spirit guided Paul to write this letter because if Christians had actually rebelled (with violence etc.) against Rome, they would have been obliterated and Christianity would have struggled to endure. For the survival of the church, Paul encouraged obedience to the Roman rule. Nero wasn't doing "good" but open rebellion meant destruction. The early Christians did rebel in their own non-violent way, by meeting and worshipping in secret. There are examples in the Bible of disobedience to authority, e.g. Joshua 2:1-7 (Rahab & Joshua’s spies vs. the king of Jericho), Daniel 3:1-18 (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego vs. Nebuchadnezar), Daniel 6:6-14 (Daniel vs. Darius), 1 Kings 21:20-25 (Elijah vs. Ahab & Jezebel), Luke 3:19 (John the Baptist vs. Herod) .
On my I-pod, I have a collection of songs from the American revolution. One song's refrain says "We have no king but God." For Christians, God's law is supreme. For Americans, the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. According to Romans 13 we are subject to the US Constitution as our ultimate earthly authority. All Americans, including President Trump, are subject to the Constitution. Article One Section eight says in pertinent part: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes . . ."
President Trump is subverting Congress's authority by suspending taxes. He is acting contrary to the supreme law of the land. The government needs payroll taxes for the essential Social Security and Medicare programs. Trump has made no secret that he would like to permanently do away with Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes if he is re-elected. Of course that would eliminate those programs. Trump is acting contrary to the the supreme law of the land. Trump has become King George III.
When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Nero was persecuting and executing Christians; he blamed them for the fire which destroyed a large portion of the city. His predecessor Claudius had likewise persecuted Christians. The Holy Spirit guided Paul to write this letter because if Christians had actually rebelled (with violence etc.) against Rome, they would have been obliterated and Christianity would have struggled to endure. For the survival of the church, Paul encouraged obedience to the Roman rule. Nero wasn't doing "good" but open rebellion meant destruction. The early Christians did rebel in their own non-violent way, by meeting and worshipping in secret. There are examples in the Bible of disobedience to authority, e.g. Joshua 2:1-7 (Rahab & Joshua’s spies vs. the king of Jericho), Daniel 3:1-18 (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego vs. Nebuchadnezar), Daniel 6:6-14 (Daniel vs. Darius), 1 Kings 21:20-25 (Elijah vs. Ahab & Jezebel), Luke 3:19 (John the Baptist vs. Herod) .
On my I-pod, I have a collection of songs from the American revolution. One song's refrain says "We have no king but God." For Christians, God's law is supreme. For Americans, the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. According to Romans 13 we are subject to the US Constitution as our ultimate earthly authority. All Americans, including President Trump, are subject to the Constitution. Article One Section eight says in pertinent part: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes . . ."
President Trump is subverting Congress's authority by suspending taxes. He is acting contrary to the supreme law of the land. The government needs payroll taxes for the essential Social Security and Medicare programs. Trump has made no secret that he would like to permanently do away with Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes if he is re-elected. Of course that would eliminate those programs. Trump is acting contrary to the the supreme law of the land. Trump has become King George III.
Bicycle Junkie
Resident dissident and troll
Then I will be the first person in history to be prosecuted for paying taxes. It'll be a strange form of civil disobedience. I think I would use the "necessity defense."
Hfcomms
EN66iq
West
Senior
So it's a good law (FICA taxes) where many people die every day who have paid 15% into the system with their blood labours who get not one penny back to their estates?
Would God approve that?
Read the book of James, he says no. And gives awarning to the rich.
Or does a big wrong makes the good things right?
Would God approve that?
Read the book of James, he says no. And gives awarning to the rich.
Or does a big wrong makes the good things right?
Last edited:
CaryC
Has No Life - Lives on TB
While we can do a heavy duty Bible Study on the matter taxes/slavery et. al. There is no need, You contradict yourself.
Out of your own mouth, from you own post:
Trump is doing us good in reliving the tax burden. It's Congress that is doing bad by upping it and you support it. Maybe you should read some of the history portions of the OT, after Solomon died.
It should also be noted that God relived the tithe, to the Temple every 7th year, and to payments on loans. Which the children of Israel did not follow for 490 years, and is the reason for the 70 year (they owed the land it's accumulated Sabbaths) Babylonian Captivity.
Not saying Trump is God, or any such nonsense. Just saying in an economic disaster where people have been unemployed for months and are trying to get caught up, on rent, mortgages, utilities, etc.... Trump is doing good to the people. By giving them more in their pocket to do it with.
Never fear, if Biben wins you'll be paying plenty, and then some. Because someone will be paying for free stuff. O wait you're getting free stuff now and won't take it.
CaryC
Has No Life - Lives on TB
For BC's benefit:
Donald Trump Signs Executive Order: Payroll Tax Holiday, Enhanced Unemployment Checks
Olivier Douliery/AP Photo/Pool via CNP /MediaPunch/IPX
President Donald Trump signed an executive order for a payroll tax holiday at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Saturday.
“The very important thing is that people want it, and the people need it, actually,” Trump said, noting that Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not reach a deal.
The president said that the payroll tax holiday would apply to Americans earning less than $100,000 a year.
“If I am victorious on November 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax,” he said.
Trump added that he might even “terminate” the tax or make permanent changes. A group of supporters joined the president at his press conference announcing the news and cheered as the president signed the orders.
“Biden probably won’t be doing that. You’ll have to ask him. I don’t think he knows what he’s doing,” he said, as his supporters chuckled.
The president also said he would provide a federal unemployment enhancement of $400 per week but that states would pay for 25 percent of the cost. He also signed an extension of the moratorium on evictions and deferred student loan payments.
Trump said he had to act on his own after negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ground to a halt.
“The Democrats have obstructed people from getting desperately needed help,” Trump said.
The president said he would find ways to use existing funds already passed by Congress for coronavirus relief to help Americans fight the virus and the economic struggles from the lockdowns.
“We have the money to do a lot of things, money that was unspent, and we would do a lot of things with the money that was unspent,” he said.
www.breitbart.com
Trump is breaking THE LAW kick those people out of their homes (I know people here on the board would agree if they have rentals, it's how they make their money - sorry).
Force them students to pay those loans or go to jail.
Scum bag low life giving that extra money to the unemployed - law breaker.
Because BC you should at least realize that if you poo poo Trump on one, you got to poo poo him on all of them. Not just the ones you don't like.
He can't do that - impeach him, Russia made him do it. [/sarc
Donald Trump Signs Executive Order: Payroll Tax Holiday, Enhanced Unemployment Checks
President Donald Trump signed an executive order for a payroll tax holiday at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Saturday.
“The very important thing is that people want it, and the people need it, actually,” Trump said, noting that Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not reach a deal.
The president said that the payroll tax holiday would apply to Americans earning less than $100,000 a year.
“If I am victorious on November 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax,” he said.
Trump added that he might even “terminate” the tax or make permanent changes. A group of supporters joined the president at his press conference announcing the news and cheered as the president signed the orders.
“Biden probably won’t be doing that. You’ll have to ask him. I don’t think he knows what he’s doing,” he said, as his supporters chuckled.
The president also said he would provide a federal unemployment enhancement of $400 per week but that states would pay for 25 percent of the cost. He also signed an extension of the moratorium on evictions and deferred student loan payments.
Trump said he had to act on his own after negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ground to a halt.
“The Democrats have obstructed people from getting desperately needed help,” Trump said.
The president said he would find ways to use existing funds already passed by Congress for coronavirus relief to help Americans fight the virus and the economic struggles from the lockdowns.
“We have the money to do a lot of things, money that was unspent, and we would do a lot of things with the money that was unspent,” he said.
Trump Signs Executive Order: Payroll Tax Holiday, Extends Unemployment
President Donald Trump signed an executive order for a payroll tax holiday at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Saturday.
www.breitbart.com
Trump is breaking THE LAW kick those people out of their homes (I know people here on the board would agree if they have rentals, it's how they make their money - sorry).
Force them students to pay those loans or go to jail.
Scum bag low life giving that extra money to the unemployed - law breaker.
Because BC you should at least realize that if you poo poo Trump on one, you got to poo poo him on all of them. Not just the ones you don't like.
He can't do that - impeach him, Russia made him do it. [/sarc
PPP funds. PPP is (IIRC) “payroll protection program.” PPE is “personal protective equipment.”
The PPP loans REQUIRE that the companies pay their employees.
Hfcomms
EN66iq
Actually, the problem with that is that George III was the King of England. Who made him the King of the colonies on the other side of the ocean? Did the colonists owe him literal servitude or did they flee to the new world to get out from under his authority? And once they were no longer under his authority were they then free to form new government? God could judge if they were in rebellion to the King of England or not and I wouldn't want to take that wager.