Team Trump eyes payroll tax cut to spur economy: report

[donnay]

Team Trump eyes payroll tax cut to spur economy: report

By Bob Fredericks August 19, 2019 | 6:09pm | Updated


Team Trump is considering a temporary payroll tax cut to stimulate the economy and avoid a slowdown — or even a recession, a new report said Monday.

The plans reveal the administration’s top economic aides’ growing concerns about a possible slowdown as the 2020 election nears — despite President Trump’s glowing reviews of the US economy, The Washington Post reported.

A White House spokesperson denied a payroll tax cut is under consideration “at this time.”

The Washington Post reported that talks were still in their early stages, and officials have not decided whether to ask Congress to approve the cut.

Most working Americans pay a “payroll tax” on their earnings, a 6.2% levy pays for Social Security programs.

The payroll tax was cut during the Obama administration to 4.2% to encourage consumer spending during the Great Recession but went back up to 6.2% in 2013.

Americans only pay the tax on income up to $132,900, so a payroll tax cut would give many middle-class families relief they didn’t see under Trump’s tax cuts.

Payroll tax cuts also add to the deficit and can take billions from Social Security.

The administration’s discussions about a new payroll tax cut have only begun in the past few days, the paper reported. Specific details about the design have not been reached yet, it said.

The talks follow a weekend blitz in which the president and his top economic advisers touted the economy — and blamed Democrats for talking it down.

“Our Economy is very strong, despite the horrendous lack of vision by Jay Powell and the Fed, but the Democrats are trying to ‘will’ the Economy to be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election. Very Selfish!” Trump tweeted Monday.

But a number of business economists appear sufficiently concerned about the risks of some of Trump’s economic policies that they expect a recession in the by the end of 2021.

Thirty-four percent of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics, in a report being released Monday, said they believe a slowing economy will tip into recession in 2021.

That’s up from 25% in a survey taken in February.

Only 2% of those polled expect a recession to begin this year, while 38% predict that it will occur in 2020.

Trump, however, has dismissed concerns about a recession, offering an optimistic outlook for the economy after last week’s steep drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

A strong economy is key to the Republican president’s 2020 reelection prospects.

The economists have previously expressed concern that Trump’s tariffs and higher budget deficits could eventually dampen the economy.

The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on goods from many key US trading partners, from China and Europe to Mexico and Canada.

Officials maintain that the tariffs, which are taxes on imports, will help the administration gain more favorable terms of trade.

But US trading partners have simply retaliated with tariffs of their own.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/19/team-t...conomy-report/

[phill4paul]

Payroll tax cuts also add to the deficit and can take billions from Social Security.

Are they cutting the S.S. contribution? Or the "pay roll tax?" i.e. Federal income tax. It can only take billions from S.S. if those billions were already spent. Paying Peter to pay Paul.

[nikcers]

end tip taxes. tip taxing is $#@!ing bull$#@!.

[donnay]

Are they cutting the S.S. contribution? Or the "pay roll tax?" i.e. Federal income tax. It can only take billions from S.S. if those billions were already spent. Paying Peter to pay Paul.

Here's another article:

Millions of Americans pay a "payroll tax" on their earnings, a 6.2% levy that is used to finance Social Security programs. The payroll tax was last cut during the Obama administration to 4.2%, as a way to encourage more consumer spending during the recent economic downturn. But the cut was allowed to reset back up to 6.2% in 2013.

Americans pay payroll taxes on income up to $132,900, so cutting the payroll tax has remained a popular idea for many lawmakers seeking to deliver savings for middle-income earners and not the wealthiest Americans. But payroll tax cuts can also add dramatically to the deficit and - depending on how they are designed - pull billions of dollars away from Social Security.

The payroll tax cuts during the Obama administration reduced taxes by more than $100 billion each year, but the Obama administration directed the lost revenue to Social Security programs, so those initiatives didn't lose money. The cuts added to the deficit, however.

The size of the cut could equate to a bigger tax cut for many families than the 2017 tax law.

https://www.thehour.com/news/article...n-14360954.php

[r3volution 3.0]

Translation: Trump plans to finance more of the giant federal budget through borrowing and printing, rather than (overt) taxation.

Yippee...

[phill4paul]

Here's another article:


https://www.thehour.com/news/article...n-14360954.php

Again, there is a payroll "tax" and a payroll "contribution" into a retirement plan. Or supposedly that is the public perception. But, we both know the truth. The nation is in arrears and fooked.

[nikcers]

Translation: Trump plans to finance more of the giant federal budget through borrowing and printing, rather than (overt) taxation.

Yippee...

So what if they don't fix the budget they haven't funded the government in decades.Do you think they are going to do it ever? Taxation is theft. we should always be for tax cuts unless you don't think people are entitled to what they earn.

[phill4paul]

Translation: Trump plans to finance more of the giant federal budget through borrowing and printing, rather than (overt) taxation.

Yippee...

Do you, honestly, believe at this point there is a possibly of turning this ship 180 degrees and actually being successful at it? Lol. So Trump wants to throw me some ducats. I'll take it. Why the hell wouldn't I? Why the hell wouldn't you, knowing as much as I?
Hell, you should be a Trump supporter at this point. Ducats were put in my coin purse last go around. I'd be happy to get more again.

[r3volution 3.0]

So what if they don't fix the budget they haven't funded the government in decades.Do you think they are going to do it ever? Taxation is theft. we should always be for tax cuts unless you don't think people are entitled to what they earn.

Governmment spending has increased every year under the Trump administration.

That money is coming out of the private sector one way or another, whether by taxing, borrowing, or printing.

Trump's reduced the taxing and consequently increased the borrowing (while screaming for more printing); that's all.

The total burden has increased.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you, honestly, believe at this point there is a possibly of turning this ship 180 degrees and actually being successful at it?

There is clearly zero (0) chance of turning this ship around.

So Trump wants to through me some ducats. I'll take it. Why the hell wouldn't I? Why the hell wouldn't you, knowing as much as I?

I'm not criticizing people for taking a tax cut, I'm criticizing people for thinking that a tax cut solves anything.

Hell, you should be a Trump supporter at this point. Ducats were put in my coin purse last go around. I'd be happy to get more again.

I'm doing just fine.

If I were only in it to get mine, I wouldn't bother with politics at all.

[nikcers]

Governmment spending has increased every year under the Trump administration.

That money is coming out of the private sector one way or another, whether by taxing, borrowing, or printing.

Trump's reduced the taxing and consequently increased the borrowing (while screaming for more printing); that's all.

The total burden has increased.

Does that mean the people aren't entitled to the money they earn?

[phill4paul]

Governmment spending has increased every year under the Trump administration.

That money is coming out of the private sector one way or another, whether by taxing, borrowing, or printing.

Trump's reduced the taxing and consequently increased the borrowing (while screaming for more printing); that's all.

The total burden has increased.

Lol. When was the last year government spending decreased. What branch of government holds the purse strings?

Again, given the current situation, are you telling me you would be opposed to a few less ducats being stolen from you?

[phill4paul]

There is clearly zero (0) chance of turning this ship around.



I'm not criticizing people for taking a tax cut, I'm criticizing people for thinking that a tax cut solves anything.



I'm doing just fine.

If I were only in it to get mine, I wouldn't bother with politics at all.

Then, given the situation, I'd say you probably shouldn't be concerned at all. And have better things to do than in our little, tiny, corner of the web. Lol.

[specsaregood]

Lol. When was the last year government spending decreased. What branch of government holds the purse strings?

Again, given the current situation, are you telling me you would be opposed to a few less ducats being stolen from you?

When was that spending decrease?
And I'll take the ducats, thanks.

Me, I'm still waiting with my popcorn for the day Trump tweets that he is thinking of repudiating the debt. That'll be havoc worth watching.

[donnay]

Trump dismisses worries of recession, says economy is strong


By KEVIN FREKING



BERKELEY HEIGHTS, N.J. (AP) — President Donald Trump dismissed concerns of recession on Sunday and offered an optimistic outlook for the economy after last week’s steep drop in the financial markets.

“I don’t think we’re having a recession,” Trump told reporters as he returned to Washington from his New Jersey golf club. “We’re doing tremendously well. Our consumers are rich. I gave a tremendous tax cut and they’re loaded up with money.”

A strong economy is key to Trump’s re-election prospects. Consumer confidence has dropped 6.4% since July. The president has spent most of the week at his golf club in New Jersey with much of his tweeting focused on talking up the economy.

Aides sought to reinforce that message during a series of appearances on the Sunday talk shows.

Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economic adviser, dismissed fears of a looming recession and predicted the economy will perform well in the second half of 2019. He said that consumers are seeing higher wages and are able to spend and save more.

“We’re doing pretty darn well in my judgment. Let’s not be afraid of optimism,” Kudlow said.

Kudlow acknowledged a slowing energy sector, but said low interest rates will help housing, construction and auto sales.

Kudlow also defended the president’s use of tariffs on goods coming from China. Before he joined the administration, Kudlow was known for opposing tariffs and promoting free trade during his career as an economic analyst. Kudlow said Trump has taught him and others that the “China story has to be changed and reformed.”

“We cannot let China pursue these unfair and unreciprocal trading practices,” Kudlow said.

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said the U.S. needed to work with allies to hold China accountable on trade. He said he fears Trump is driving the global economy into a recession.

“This current trade war that the president has entered our country into is not working,” O’Rourke said. “It is hammering the hell out of farmers across this country.”

Last month, the Federal Reserve reduced its benchmark rate — which affects many loans for households and businesses — by a quarter-point to a range of 2% to 2.25%. It’s the first rate cut since December 2008 during the depths of the Great Recession. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stressed that the Fed was worried about the consequences of Trump’s trade war and sluggish economies overseas.

“Weak global growth and trade tensions are having an effect on the U.S. economy,” he said.

Breaking with historical norms, Trump has been highly critical of Powell as he places blame for any economic weakness on the nation’s central bank for raising interest rates too much over the past two years.

“I think I could be helped out by the Fed, but the Fed doesn’t like helping me too much,” Trump complained Sunday.

Peter Navarro, who advises Trump on trade policy, shared that sentiment.

“The Federal Reserve chairman should look in the mirror and say, ‘I raised rates too far, too fast, and I cost this economy a full percentage point of growth,’” Navarro said.

Trump acknowledged at least a potential impact on consumers when he paused a planned 10% tariff hike for many items coming from China, such as cellphones, laptops, video game consoles, some toys, computer monitors, shoes and clothing.

“We’re doing (it) just for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs could have an impact,” the president told reporters in New Jersey.

Navarro would not go even that far, saying Sunday “there’s no evidence whatsoever that Americans consumers are bearing any of this.”

Kudlow was interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday.” O’Rourke spoke on NBC, and Navarro appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” and CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Trump’s trade war with China has been a target of criticism by Democrats vying to challenge him in 2020.

“There is clearly no strategy for dealing with the trade war in a way that will actually lead to results for American farmers or American consumers,” said Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, a Democratic presidential candidate. He said on CNN that it was “a fool’s errand” to think tariff increases will compel China to change its economic approach.

Trump maintained that China’s economy is struggling because of the tariffs and would like to make a trade deal with the U.S. He said he could make a “bad deal” and the stock markets would go up, “but it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.”

“I’m just not ready to make a deal yet,” Trump said. “China would like to make a deal. I’m not ready.”

https://apnews.com/1ffff50df5ad479e89156f31ab9d6044

[phill4paul]

Again, much about about nothing...

A White House spokesperson denied a payroll tax cut is under consideration “at this time.”

The Washington Post (LMAO) reported that talks were still in their early stages, and officials have not decided whether to ask Congress to approve the cut.

Such total trite.

Here, let me give a hand at "journalism."

A White House spokesman denied that America was going to launch a pre-emptory nuclear attack on China at this time.

The Babylon Bee reported that talks were still in the early stages, and official have not decided to ask Congress to approve a declaration of war.

[r3volution 3.0]

Does that mean the people aren't entitled to the money they earn?

No, it means the people are losing their money either way: higher taxes, higher interest rates, higher prices for knickers.

There's no free lunch.

If the government is consuming more resources (labor, capital, land), less is available for other purposes.

Not even Orange Man can overcome the fact of scarcity.

Lol. When was the last year government spending decreased.

Shortly after WWII, IIRC, but that was only because it had been insanely high during the war.

What branch of government holds the purse strings?

The two elected branches.

Trump has not vetoed a single spending bill.

He threatened to veto one a while back because it didn't spend enough.

Again, given the current situation, are you telling me you would be opposed to a few less ducats being stolen from you?

I'd be happy to take a tax cut, of course.

My point, again, is that this isn't going to solve a thing.

[nikcers]

No, it means the people are losing their money either way: higher taxes, higher interest rates, higher prices for knickers.

There's no free lunch.

If the government is consuming more resources (labor, capital, land), less is available for other purposes.

Not even Orange Man can overcome the fact of scarcity.



Shortly after WWII, IIRC, but that was only because it had been insanely high during the war.



The two elected branches.

Trump has not vetoed a single spending bill.

He threatened to veto one a while back because it didn't spend enough.



I'd be happy to take a tax cut, of course.

My point, again, is that this isn't going to solve a thing.

People aren't entitled to the product of their labor okay got it. The government can just spend it all.

[phill4paul]

No, it means the people are losing their money either way: higher taxes, higher interest rates, higher prices for knickers.

There's no free lunch.

If the government is consuming more resources (labor, capital, land), less is available for other purposes.

Not even Orange Man can overcome the fact of scarcity.



Shortly after WWII, IIRC, but that was only because it has been insanely high during the war.



The two elected branches.

Trump has not vetoed a single spending bill.

He threatened to veto one a while back because it didn't spend enough.



I'd be happy to take a tax cut, of course.

My point, again, is that this isn't going to solve a thing.

No, it won't. At 22 trillion in debt there is...no resolve. But, at least, in my area, people are becoming employed, wages rising. A small part in the scheme of things, but, if used wisely, a hedge. Better than a welfare community. Didn't even have that under the last administration. In manufacturing in my area wages have increased by $2 an hour, while taxes went down on earned income.
I'm not blind to the totality. But, I do see the local household affect of a positive attitude to American manufacturing. If you don't see that...well, can't help you.
Probably because you feel fine and good and superlative.
And can only bitch and moan about the inevitable. Congrats.

[jkr]

for self-employed, asking for a friend?

[r3volution 3.0]

People aren't entitled to the product of their labor okay got it. The government can just spend it all.

What the hell are you talking about?

Let's say the government spends $4 trillion, and let's say it taxes $3 trillion.

Do you think that $1 trillion difference springs magically from the orange buttocks of the President?

The people are bearing that cost, just as they're bearing the cost of the $3 trillion that's collected in overt taxes.

If the government prints money and raises the price of bread, for instance, that price increase IS A TAX.

Or if the government borrows money and increases interest rates, that higher rate on your credit card IS A TAX.

The people pay for all spending, however it is financed, which is why shifting from one to another financing method is meaningless.

No, it won't. At 22 trillion in debt there is...no resolve. But, at least, in my area, people are becoming employed, wages rising. A small part in the scheme of things, but, if used wisely, a hedge. Better than a welfare community. Didn't even have that under the last administration. In manufacturing in my area wages have increased by $2 an hour, while taxes went down on earned income.

Things will vary by region, but nationally there's no meaningful difference between the Obama and Trump economy.

Obama rode the first ~7 years of the bubble, Trump rode the next 3, and he might ride another 1 or 2.

I'm not blind to the totality. But, I do see the local household affect of a positive attitude to American manufacturing. If you don't see that...well, can't help you.
Probably because you feel fine and good and superlative.
And can only bitch and moan about the inevitable. Congrats.

Sure, but why would I care?

Someone's always winning.

Someone was winning in Weimar.

Someone's winning right now in Venezuela.

I mean, good for them, but that someone's doing well isn't any basis for evaluating the situation.

[nikcers]

What the hell are you talking about?

Let's say the government spends $4 trillion, and let's say it taxes $3 trillion.

Do you think that $1 trillion difference springs magically from the orange buttocks of the President?

The people are bearing that cost, just as they're bearing the cost of the $3 trillion that's collected in overt taxes.

If the government prints money and raises the price of bread, for instance, that price increase IS A TAX.

Or if the government borrows money and increases interest rates, that higher rate on your credit card IS A TAX.



Things will vary by region, but nationally there's no meaningful difference between the Obama and Trump economy.

Obama rode the first ~7 years of the bubble, Trump rode the next 3, and he might ride another 1 or 2.



Sure, but why would I care?

Someone's always winning.

Someone was winning in Weimar.

Someone's winning right now in Venezuela.

...?

Where does that money come from they spend that they are entitled to? They are supposed to work for us not the other way around.

[r3volution 3.0]

Where does that money come from they spend that they are entitled to? They are supposed to work for us not the other way around.

I don't understand the question.

Rethink and rephrase that.

...don't make me accuse you of being a French Canadian.

[eleganz]

Yea but how are they going to do that? Dem house will never give Trump a payroll tax cut.

They'd have to get something huge to give that up.

[Grandmastersexsay]

There is nothing wrong with a tax cut. Federal spending and taxes are not related. Often times tax cuts can increase federal revenue and tax hikes can decrease it. Trump doesn't deserve any criticism for lowering taxes. Most of the spending is paid for with inflation.

He does deserve criticism on federal spending. Which is an entirely different matter.

[Zippyjuan]

https://apnews.com/1ffff50df5ad479e89156f31ab9d6044

The economy is strong so why does he want QE and zero interest rates and stimulus tax cuts and spending? Those are usually saved for recessions.

Because he IS worried about the economy and how it may impact his re-election chances.

[juleswin]

There is nothing wrong with a tax cut. Federal spending and taxes are not related. Often times tax cuts can increase federal revenue and tax hikes can decrease it. Trump doesn't deserve any criticism for lowering taxes. Most of the spending is paid for with inflation.

He does deserve criticism on federal spending. Which is an entirely different matter.

Do you know what else that can increase federal revenue all the time and not just sometimes? Increase in federal spending. I will argue that tax cuts alone has never in the history of time increased federal revenue. Until I see an example of this, I say it's a myth that this has ever happened without the aid of increased spending.

[Zippyjuan]

There is nothing wrong with a tax cut. Federal spending and taxes are not related. Often times tax cuts can increase federal revenue and tax hikes can decrease it. Trump doesn't deserve any criticism for lowering taxes. Most of the spending is paid for with inflation.

He does deserve criticism on federal spending. Which is an entirely different matter.

If that is always true, we can get rid of all taxes- cut them to zero- and the government will have tens of $trillions to spend on whatever they want to and still balance our budget. Cutting taxes leads to higher revenues, right?

[Swordsmyth]

This is good.
Taxes are still high enough that cutting them will increase revenue so nobody can say this is a bad thing.

He can make up for it by raising tariffs on China again too.

[juleswin]

This is good.
Taxes are still high enough that cutting them will increase revenue so nobody can say this is a bad thing.

He can make up for it by raising tariffs on China again too.

If this was really true then democrats would have tried it. I can't imagine dems not wanting to get their hands on more tax payers money. People tend to confuse growing the general economy with growing govt coffers.