President Trump says he is no longer looking at a payroll tax cut

[TheCount]

President Trump on Wednesday said he was no longer looking at reducing payroll taxes, pivoting away from comments made a day earlier in which he said it was under consideration amid growing concerns about an economic downturn.


Hours after tweeting about a need for interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve, Trump told reporters at the White House that there was no need to cut payroll taxes given the strength of the economy.


“I’m not looking at a tax cut now,” Trump said. “We don’t need it. We have a strong economy.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/08/21/president-trump-reversal-says-he-is-no-longer-looking-payroll-tax-cut/

[Zippyjuan]

The flip-flopper in Chief has been back and forth all week. He says he was in favor of one. White House says it isn't on the table. Trump says he would still like one- or maybe a corporate tax cut. Looking for any kind of economic stimulus he can get to help our strong economy which is so good it apparently needs a lot of help. Either way, Congress would have to authorize any tax cuts. Don't expect the House to agree.

[r3volution 3.0]

https://i.imgur.com/lcxyE0D.gif

[rpfocus]

https://i.imgur.com/ERzAg1X.gif

[Swordsmyth]

So all the people who accused him of "admitting that the economy was weak by proposing it" can pat themselves on the back fo depriving us of a tax cut.

WAY TO GO GUYS!


Fortunately he has said many times that he wants lots of different tax cuts and when we take back the House we will get them.

[TheTexan]

So all the people who accused him of "admitting that the economy was weak by proposing it" can pat themselves on the back fo depriving us of a tax cut.

WAY TO GO GUYS!


Fortunately he has said many times that he wants lots of different tax cuts and when we take back the House we will get them.

We'll have the biggest tax cuts, the best tax cuts, as as soon as Republicans have the House again :up:

[Zippyjuan]

We'll have the biggest tax cuts, the best tax cuts, as as soon as Republicans have the House again :up:

What if they only get the garage and not the House?

[brushfire]

#tiredOfWinning

[enhanced_deficit]

That was 3D earlier to confuse national debt/deficit spending purists.

First tiny step towards shrinking national debt and big gummit spending.

[oyarde]

Oyarde supports ending all payroll tax .

[phill4paul]

Oyarde supports ending all payroll tax .

Trump should trump up support for taxing state governments. Not individuals. Base it on state revenues and take 1%. That's were taxes always start out anyway. $174 billion for New York. So $1.74 billion to the Fed. California w/ $240+ billion in revenue would bring in $2 billion 640 million. Hoosier state would pay $180 mil. Hamshirites 58 million. Or at leas that is what quick drunken math works out to.

Just a start. Within 10 yrs. we could amp that shit up to 10%. Paying taxes on shit already taxed is already a government thing.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump should trump up support for taxing state governments. Not individuals. Base it on state revenues and take 1%. That's were taxes always start out anyway. $17.4 billion for New York. So $1.74 billion to the Fed. California w/ $240+ billion in revenue would bring in $2 billion 640 million. Hoosier state would pay $180 mil. Hamshireites
58 million. Or at leas that is what wuick drunken math works out to.

Just a start. Within 10 yrs. we could amp that $#@! up to 10%. Paying taxes on $#@! already taxed is already a government thing.
All internal federal taxes should be shifted to that.

+Rep

[phill4paul]

All internal federal taxes should be shifted to that.

+Rep

Well, if liberal states want a more liberal government than take it directly to the states that require more from the Fed. Let their voters decide if they want to pay more than Hoosiers for the more in Fed. Revenue they receive.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, if liberal states want a more liberal government than take it directly to the states that require more from the Fed. Let their voters decide if they want to pay more than Hoosiers for the more in Fed. Revenue they receive.
It lets each state decide how much to tax their citizens and how to tax them.
And it rewards low tax/low spending states and discourages high tax/high spending.

[enhanced_deficit]

Oyarde supports ending all payroll tax .

To be devil's advocate, where would the money to pay interest on $6 Trillion Iraq-Afghan freedom wars, for recurring domesrtic and foreign welfare programs come from then?
No one likes taxation but this is no time to abandon our domestic and global responsibilities.


US has spent $5.9 trillion on Middle East, Asia wars since 2001
cnbc
Nov 14, 2018

October 3, 2018
US Officially Sends Largest Ever $38 Billion Military Aid Package to Israel (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527183-US-Officially-Sends-Largest-Ever-38-Billion-Military-Aid-Package-to-Israel&)

[phill4paul]

It lets each state decide how much to tax their citizens and how to tax them.
And it rewards low tax/low spending states and discourages high tax/high spending.

That's kinda what I was thinking. Tax the state, not the individual. The state will have to raise the tax on the individual to compensate. Thus, driving those out of high tax states elsewhere or, ultimately, reforming their states revenue to adopt a more conservative principle.
I dunno, all taxation is theft, but...why not?

[phill4paul]

To be devil's advocate, where would the money to pay interest on $6 Trillion Iraq-Afghan freedom wars, for recurring domesrtic and foreign welfare programs come from then?
No one likes taxation but this is no time to abandon our domestic and global responsibilities.


US has spent $5.9 trillion on Middle East, Asia wars since 2001
cnbc
Nov 14, 2018

October 3, 2018
US Officially Sends Largest Ever $38 Billion Military Aid Package to Israel (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527183-US-Officially-Sends-Largest-Ever-38-Billion-Military-Aid-Package-to-Israel&)

Pretty sure the Hoosier is not a fan of Afghan intervention.

[oyarde]

To be devil's advocate, where would the money to pay interest on $6 Trillion Iraq-Afghan freedom wars, for recurring domesrtic and foreign welfare programs come from then?
No one likes taxation but this is no time to abandon our domestic and global responsibilities.


US has spent $5.9 trillion on Middle East, Asia wars since 2001
cnbc
Nov 14, 2018

October 3, 2018
US Officially Sends Largest Ever $38 Billion Military Aid Package to Israel (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527183-US-Officially-Sends-Largest-Ever-38-Billion-Military-Aid-Package-to-Israel&)

I will be OK also with abandonment of global responsibilities

[Swordsmyth]

That's kinda what I was thinking. Tax the state, not the individual. The state will have to raise the tax on the individual to compensate. Thus, driving those out of high tax states elsewhere or reforming their states revenue.
I dunno, all taxation is theft, but...why not?
Let the state governments deal with the compliance costs.
That alone will save taxpayers and companies untold amounts of money.

The states are also in a much better position to go on a tax strike than the citizens.

I don't know why the founders allowed any other kind of internal tax for the feds, they knew about this kind of taxation, it's how feudalism operated.

[enhanced_deficit]

Pretty sure the Hoosier is not a fan of Afghan intervention.


Foreign interventions and wars spending doesn't happen in in a vacuum, strong leadership makes it happen. Is he not a fan of strong leadership either? :)
We've to pay for strong leadership too.


Trump is sending more than 3,000 troops to Afghanistan - Vox
Sep 19, 2017

[phill4paul]

Foreign interventions and wars spending doesn't happen in in a vacuum, strong leadership makes it happen. Is he not a fan of strong leadership either? :)
We've to pay for strong leadership too.

I'll let him speak for himself. oyarde.

[Sonny Tufts]

Trump should trump up support for taxing state governments. Not individuals.

Taxing State governments would likely be unconstitutional. See discussion at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/scope-of-state-immunity-from-federal-taxation

[Origanalist]

Taxing State governments would likely be unconstitutional. See discussion at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/scope-of-state-immunity-from-federal-taxation

Well, we all know the government would never do anything unconstitutional.

[Swordsmyth]

Taxing State governments would likely be unconstitutional. See discussion at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/scope-of-state-immunity-from-federal-taxation
Well the Constitution doesn't say anything about it.
And we would want an amendment to kill all other internal taxation by the feds anyway.

[Sonny Tufts]

Well the Constitution doesn't say anything about it.
And we would want an amendment to kill all other internal taxation by the feds anyway.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about separation of powers, the presumption of innocence, and a lot of other legal doctrines that are taken for granted. Intergovernmental tax immunity derives from the federalist nature of the governmental system created by the Constitution, in which Congress and the States each have their spheres of sovereignty, with ultimate sovereignty in the people.

Maybe you wish to go back to the Articles of Confederation, but it was a failure in 1787 and it'd be an even bigger failure now. The solution isn't to get rid of federal taxation; it's to get rid of a lot of the things Congress spends money on, thereby resulting in lower federal taxes. But good luck finding representatives with enough fiscal responsibility and courage to get that done.

[Superfluous Man]

Maybe you wish to go back to the Articles of Confederation, but it was a failure in 1787 and it'd be an even bigger failure now.

If the goal is to have a bigger, more powerful, more expensive, more centralized federal government, which is the measure by which it was deemed a failure by those who advocated replacing it, then yes, judged by that measure, the AOC failed, at least in contrast to the Constitution.

Not all of us consider bigger, more powerful, more expensive, more centralized federal government a good thing.

[Sonny Tufts]

If the goal is to have a bigger, more powerful, more expensive, more centralized federal government, which is the measure by which it was deemed a failure by those who advocated replacing it, then yes, judged by that measure, the AOC failed, at least in contrast to the Constitution.

Not all of us consider bigger, more powerful, more expensive, more centralized federal government a good thing.

It was deemed a failure because many of the States didn't contribute their shares of requisitions, which were needed primarily not for a bigger government but for paying off a huge debt that the central government had incurred during the revolution. Once you concede that the federal government has some responsibilities, however minimal, you can't rely on requisitions to pay for them; you've got to give Congress the power to tax, and tariffs aren't going to be nearly enough (e.g., annual interest on the national debt is around $479 billion, but excises and tariffs are only $157 billion).

[Occam's Banana]

It was deemed a failure because many of the States didn't contribute their shares of requisitions, which were needed primarily not for a bigger government but for paying off a huge debt that the central government had incurred during the revolution.

And yet, bigger government - much bigger - is exactly what they ended up getting.

There was no reason the Philadelphia convention of 1787 could not have arrived at proposals for amending the Articles[1] pursuant to specifically addressing and rectifying those particular problems mentioned by you and arising from the "inconveniences and embarrassments naturally resulting from defective supplies of the public treasury." There was no need to create an entirely new government with open-ended and indefinite powers of taxation, rather than limited ad hoc powers of same. If the former could be ratified by the several states, there is no reason to think that the latter could not have been just as well.



[1] In fact, the delegations of the several states to the convention were instructed that the consideration and proposal of amendments to the Articles was to be their sole purpose. What they did instead was to secretly concoct an in toto replacement of the Articles that went far beyond that purview. (Indeed, this is why Patrick Henry, suspecting that some such overweening endeavor was afoot, is famously reported to have "smelt a rat.")


Once you concede that the federal government has some responsibilities, however minimal, you can't rely on requisitions to pay for them; you've got to give Congress the power to tax, and tariffs aren't going to be nearly enough (e.g., annual interest on the national debt is around $479 billion, but excises and tariffs are only $157 billion).

Whatever the merits of the contemporary excuses invoked for replacing the Articles with the Constitution, the particulars of the "inconveniences and embarrassments" that pertain well over 200 years afterwards are not among them. If anything, such modern "embarrassments" only emphasize and further illustrate the grotesque irresponsibilities that were ultimately enabled and empowered by that change. Whatever their faults, had the Articles remained in force, it does not seem nearly as likely that we would today find ourselves in such straits.

[Sonny Tufts]

There was no need to create an entirely new government with open-ended and indefinite powers of taxation, rather than limited ad hoc powers of same.

I don't know what an "ad hoc" taxation power would look like. Realize that you're talking about a confederation that had existed for only 11 years (6 if you start counting with the Articles of Confederation), and no one could foresee what its needs would be in the near future.


In fact, the delegations of the several states to the convention were instructed that the consideration and proposal of amendments to the Articles was to be their sole purpose. What they did instead was to secretly concoct an in toto replacement of the Articles that went far beyond that purview. (Indeed, this is why Patrick Henry, suspecting that some such overweening endeavor was afoot, is famously reported to have "smelt a rat.")

And yet the States ratified the Constitution.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't know what an "ad hoc" taxation power would look like.

I don't see what's difficult about the concept - It could be something such as a one-time authorization, agreed to by the several states, to collect revenues sufficient to discharge the war debt in particular, but nothing further. As I noted, they were able to ratify and enforce the much broader taxation permitted by the Constitution. There is no reason to think that they could not have done something (on a limited, ad hoc and "close-ended" basis) without replacing the entire confederal government in one fell swoop. But of course, the Federalists had far greater ambitions than merely indulging fastidiousness over war debt ...


Realize that you're talking about a confederation that had existed for only 11 years (6 if you start counting with the Articles of Confederation), and no one could foresee what its needs would be in the near future.

You didn't cite vague and unspecified "future needs" as a justification for the usurpation of the Articles, so I didn't address them. But if the particular quotas and requisitions that were already in place for the purpose were insufficient to the routine business of the confederal government, then that is just what the convention of 1787 was ostensibly supposed to address (in which case I refer you to the penultimate sentence of my first paragraph).


And yet the States ratified the Constitution.

Yes, they did (in part due to cajoleries which were not borne out, such as the assurance that states would be permitted to withdraw from the union if they so chose) - and thereby saddled themselves with a federal government that was much more centralized and powerful than was needed in order merely and adequately to address the problem of revolution-era liabilities.

And now that very same government, allegedly so necessary to the relief of the previously mentioned "inconveniences and embarrassments" has, as a direct result of the powers it was granted, managed to engineer "inconveniences and embarrassments" such as would stagger the imaginations of even the most ardent of the pro-Constitution Federalists ...

[Ender]

I don't see what's difficult about the concept - It could be something such as a one-time authorization, agreed to by the several states, to collect revenues sufficient to discharge the war debt in particular, but nothing further. As I noted, they were able to ratify and enforce the taxation permitted by the Constitution. There is no reason to think that they could not have done something (on a limited, ad hoc and "close-ended" basis) without replacing the entire confederal government in one fell swoop. But of course, the Federalists had far greater ambitions than merely indulging fastidiousness over war debt ...



You didn't cite vague and unspecified "future needs" as a justification for the usurpation of the Articles, so I didn't address them. But if the particular quotas and requisitions that were already in place for the purpose were insufficient to the routine business of the confederal government, then that is just what the convention of 1787 was ostensibly supposed to address (in which case I refer you to the penultimate sentence of my first paragraph).



Yes, they did (in part due to cajoleries which were not borne out, such as the assurance that states would be permitted to withdraw from the union if they so chose) - and thereby saddled themselves with a federal government that was much more centralized and powerful than was needed in order merely and adequately to address the problem of revolution-era liabilities.

And now that very same government government, allegedly so necessary to the relief of the previously mentioned "inconveniences and embarrassments" has, as a direct result of the powers it was granted, managed to engineer "inconveniences and embarrassments" such as would stagger the imaginations of even the most ardent of the pro-Constitution Federalists ...

Yep- the CONstitution was a Hamiltonian coup that was designed to put in a big central government- it worked beautifully.

[Sonny Tufts]

I don't see what's difficult about the concept - It could be something such as a one-time authorization, agreed to by the several states, to collect revenues sufficient to discharge the war debt in particular, but nothing further.

But even under the Articles the central government had certain responsibilities that were denied to the States, the fulfilling of which required money. And if the States didn't honor a requisition, the central government couldn't do its job.


Yes, they did (in part due to cajoleries which were not borne out, such as the assurance that states would be permitted to withdraw from the union if they so chose)

If a State really wanted to be able to withdraw it could have insisted, as a condition to ratification, that the Constitution contain language to that effect.

[Sonny Tufts]

Yep- the CONstitution was a Hamiltonian coup that was designed to put in a big central government- it worked beautifully.

Coups aren't generally subject to the approval of the coupee.

[Occam's Banana]

But even under the Articles the central government had certain responsibilities that were denied to the States, the fulfilling of which required money. And if the States didn't honor a requisition, the central government couldn't do its job.

Certain responsibilities were not denied to the States. The States delegated certain responsibilities to the confederal government. That is not the same thing.

And in any case, I have already pointed out (now for the third time) that the wholesale replacement of the confederal government was not necessary in order to deal with the repayment of war debts - let alone with the relatively more tractable issue of funding the confederal government's routine responsibilities as delegated to it by the several states. (And in this latter regard, if it ultimately turned out that they were not willing to do so ... well, then, so much the worse for the central government ... the states would simply have to resume those responsibilities for themselves ...)


If a State really wanted to be able to withdraw it could have insisted, as a condition to ratification, that the Constitution contain language to that effect, such as the second sentence of Article XIII of the AOC.

A State cannot insist on anything, only the individuals composing it can - and the individuals who composed the ratification conventions of the several states (many of whom were selected or assigned as delegates precisely because they already supported the Constitution) were assured that "of course" no such language was needed, because it was "obviously" implicit in the spirit of the document (not to mention explicit in the letter of the Declaration of Independence, which heavily informed all discussion on such matters at the time), and thus did not need repeating. (Similar logic was applied to soothe fears that nomenclature such as "the general welfare" might be abused, because any significant abuses as might be attempted were "obviously" not intended.)

And none of that even begins to account for the fact that many of the individuals involved in deciding on ratification had strongly vested personal interests in the Constitution being ratified "as was" regardless of such concerns - not the least of whom was Robert Morris, one of the wealthiest men in America at the time, and a hugely influential supporter of the Constitution (which should surprise no one, given that he was known as the "Financier of the Revolution" and stood to enjoy an enormous windfall with its passage).

As a result, not so much as a period or comma was changed in the Constitution before it was ratified, and all the much-vaunted "debate" preceding it might as well not have happened at all, for all the difference it made. Despite all the numerous (and, as it turned out, accurate) warnings of the Anti-Federalists, the only thing "we the people" (as distinct from the Robert Morrises) got was the sop of an increasingly diluted and disparaged "Bill of Rights," now considered more as a list of permissions magnanimously granted by the federal government than a list of restrictions to be unsparingly imposed upon it ...

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about separation of powers, the presumption of innocence, and a lot of other legal doctrines that are taken for granted. Intergovernmental tax immunity derives from the federalist nature of the governmental system created by the Constitution, in which Congress and the States each have their spheres of sovereignty, with ultimate sovereignty in the people.

Maybe you wish to go back to the Articles of Confederation, but it was a failure in 1787 and it'd be an even bigger failure now. The solution isn't to get rid of federal taxation; it's to get rid of a lot of the things Congress spends money on, thereby resulting in lower federal taxes. But good luck finding representatives with enough fiscal responsibility and courage to get that done.
We need to cut spending and adopt the tax system we are discussing.
And we might as well use a Constitutional amendment because we will want one to outlaw all other forms of internal federal taxation.
You could still work on people's state taxes so don't worry too much about being put out of work.