This is worth a read if you’re unfamiliar with how Trump’s “no taxes on tips” proposal has been used by organized crime, corporations and the wealthy in the past to skirt massive amounts of taxes.
Harris has said that she wants legislation implementing the tax cut to only apply to the people we traditionally think of when we think of tips: waiters, maids, caddies, and other service-industry customer-contact workers.
Trump, on the other hand, has refused to limit his no-tax-on-tips proposal to such workers, opening up the possibility that big banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and other companies that traditionally have paid year-end bonuses — sometimes in the millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars — could simply reclassify their bonuses as tax-free tips.
**Adding to the confusion should Trump’s plan go into place, the Supreme Court earlier this year expanded the definition of tips when they ruled that if politicians or judges are paid bribes, but the payments are made *****after ***the politician or judge does the requested favor, they’re no longer bribes but, instead, merely tips.
Jesus H. f#$k Christ, let’s not normalizing bribes.
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
That opener make me want to shit on Reagan’s grave. I’m starting to think if he was alive today he’d endorse the Orange One.
I would tell my employer that I will work for free, as long as I get $x as a tip each month.
Tax fee income.
holy hell!
he wants to allow corporations and individuals to ‘tip’ anyone any amount , tax free
this is a tax avoidance scheme of the grossest kind
It’s even worse than that. These tips have to be given after the fact, and they can’t be promised in writing, and the high budget ones are given between people who are trying to get as rich as possible at everyone else’s expense. So, why would I give you a ton of money for some past action when I don’t have to, when I’m greedy and there’s no agreement on paper? Clearly it’s only because I expect to work with you in the future, and I want you to hook me up then. In other words, these high-value tips are actually bribes for future favors.
I think the author’s concern about social security is a load of hogwash. It’s classic fear-mongering, the script people always raise when they want to get rid of social security. If we want to stabilize the social security, all we need to do is raise the contribution cap.
How do you mean? He’s just stating a fact about Social Security benefits and how they work. The benefits you get are based on what you pay in, so if, say, half of that is no longer recorded, then your social security benefits will be reduced as compared to how it (sort of) works now.
In the US, I think it’s known that most people who get cash tips don’t record a fair amount of those to the IRS, but it’s not worth going after those folks. All he’s saying is that if ALL tipped income is no longer accounted for, then the line item for your future benefits from this system would obviously be reduced. That’s not fear mongering, just noting something that might not normally be considered when people get excited about the idea of non-taxed income.
It sounds like you’re arguing that the formula needs to be recalculated, which may or may not be true, but that’s not what I understood when I read the article.
What I understood is there was an overall amount of money problem, and this latter problem can easily be solved by changing the payment threshold. But if I totally misinterpreted the article, then I appreciate your correction. :-)
…nope. Not misunderstanding the article at all. It’s written quite plainly and is easy to read:
One possible concern with either plan is the impact on Social Security retirement income if workers who earn most or even much of their income from tips no longer pay payroll taxes. Those both fund Social Security and determine, over the top earning years of a person’s lifetime, how much they get every month after they turn 67 years old (Reagan raised the retirement age from 65 to 67), so cutting the tax could also cut retirement benefits.
So either your not from the US and don’t understand what this means, or you’re just a less informed troll. Which is it?
