Every single House Democrat just voted against No tax on tips and No tax on overtime. Shocking.
OT and Tips
- Thread starter MTTiger19
- Start date
Serious question, why would some income be treated differently? (Kamala I believe copied this promise on the campaign too so this isn’t an attack on just Trump). Just feels like straight buying votes to me. I certainly work long hours too but will still pay full taxes because I’m salary. Will pay out the a$$ on my bonus too.
Democrats are more fiscally responsible than these Republicans. What will replace this lost revenue?
Kamala was literally hyping that very issue as a reason to vote for her less than a few months ago. Now the entire party is against it?
We can certainly bond over hating taxes. But bonuses aren’t taxed differently than ordinary income. Withholding may be different, but the net taxes are the same regardless.
Will return to bitch about the taxes on my bonus next month lol.
I would have voted no also. And few people on here hate taxes as much as I do.
The PARTY OF THE WORKING MAN AND WOMAN JUST PISSED ON THE WORKING MAN AND WOMAN
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS
I didn't approve of that either but she felt like she had to do it in order to compete in Nevada, in particular. I don't like that type of pandering no matter which side does it.
I was in Vegas a couple of weeks before the election. There were Trump campaign billboards all over touting no tax on tips. Vote buying right out of the dem playbook.
Are you saying Dems are known for erecting billboards all over Vegas that promote free give-aways?
Unrelated. For years, dems have loved handing out other people’s money in exchange for votes.
By making them dependent on government handouts? No. That’s not it. If you truly care about someone, you don’t enable. I care about people and am all about investing in job training programs, basic personal finance education, nutrition (food deserts, education, etc), trade programs, etc etc. Things that when executed properly, should lift people out of poverty.
I think it is immoral to support programs that encourage government dependence and keep people from achieving independence.
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
So you’re argument is one party is full of altruistic people that are just looking out for Americans.
Now this actually makes sense. But it probably needs to be paired with delays in eligibility age to ensure solvency. Or a modification of the schedule that balances earliest start vs. max amount if you delay start. Or both.
I would have also voted no on this issue. It's straight pandering and how are we planning to pay for the lost revenue?
Also, since I've seen it mentioned a few times. I managed Restaurants and it used to be a common practice not to report cash tips. This has largely gone away due to two things, 1. Most people pay with credit Card now so those are automatically recorded. 2. Many,many tip employees learned the hard way during Covid when they went on unemployment that their payout was very low due to low hourly pay and underreported tips.
Also, since I've seen it mentioned a few times. I managed Restaurants and it used to be a common practice not to report cash tips. This has largely gone away due to two things, 1. Most people pay with credit Card now so those are automatically recorded. 2. Many,many tip employees learned the hard way during Covid when they went on unemployment that their payout was very low due to low hourly pay and underreported tips.
My understanding the new plan will actually add more money back to SS program.
As of now once a persond earnings reach 168k they no longer pay SS taxes. The new plan for the next 5 years earnings between 168k and 250k still will not pay SS taxes but once you hit 250k SS taxes kick back in. After 5 years the no tax doughnut hole 168k - 250k goes away.
I am vehemently opposed to that provision. Social Security is a safety net. Once you’ve reached the current maximum, you have completed your obligation to fund that safety net.
You’re going to have to explain to me in detail why I should pay tens of thousands of dollars more in Social Security annually, while my anticipated Social Security income in retirement will likely not increase.
Yeah, in general I am for helping lower tax brackets, and at minimum closing loopholes elsewhere to pay for it. I think there is room for discussion, 100%.
My main pushback is the disingenuous talks around this like this was the only thing voted on, rather than it being part of a much larger resolution that included cuts to medicaid, etc.
Just so I understand? You mean 85% of the SS is taxable income, or you are paying 85% taxes?
I'm fairly ignorant about SS, but that doesn't seem crazy to me?
Once your earnings reach approximately 34k they tax up to 85% of SS earnings.
50% of SS is taxed if you earn between 25k - 34k...
The only semi-logical tax on SS is on any amount received above the inflation adjusted amount you contributed. Otherwise you have literally handed the government money and they are taxing you when they hand it back to you. That’s absurd.
In that same vein, the cap on the SS tax rate should be the long term capital gains rate. Because that’s what the spread is, gains on your contributions.
Anything more than this is simply stealing money.
At your marginal tax rate though. It’s not a 85% tax rate.
Ok, that makes sense. Wasn't sure what he was discussing.
My initial thought is that seems pretty bad. I need to do some readings by about SS. It's still off in my future,but those days are creeping closer and seem to be coming faster lol.
I would wonder if the thinking is that it's sort of like Capital Gains taxes since mayny people are drawing more than they paid into the system?
I agree they tax 85% of SS at the total earnings tax rate SS + pension + annuity + IRA . Why should I be taxed twice on my SS.
Last edited:
Why not scrap SS. It’s going bankrupt. It wont be there for people like me paying thousands of dollars a year.
I don't think ole George here knows how the legislative system works, and clearly you don't either by claiming that SS tax has been eliminated.
1. This bill is a proposal that is to allow the senate to start the debate on those topics and begin to carve up what's in the proposal.
2. Assuming it makes it way through the Senate, it still has to be sent back to the House to be voted on again.
This is just the first, and easiest, stage in proposing a new bill. As it's written, I don't see how it's going to pass the Senate without serious carving.
Similar threads
