Cruz files bill...
-
Also, h/t @wtg :
Illinois politicians are rejoicing.
‘The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken. Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that state and local governments already regulate gifts to officials, and so the federal law “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities.” ‘
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/
“Gratuities” is just another word for “tips” … no tax for “gratuities” for politicians too, right?
-
Let's be honest here for a moment, if Biden had proposed it, all the people who think it's a terrible idea would support it, and all the people who think it's a stroke of genius would be condemning it as pandering.
I was only joking
-
Let's be honest here for a moment, if Biden had proposed it, all the people who think it's a terrible idea would support it, and all the people who think it's a stroke of genius would be condemning it as pandering.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Cruz files bill...:
Let's be honest here for a moment, if Biden had proposed it, all the people who think it's a terrible idea would support it, and all the people who think it's a stroke of genius would be condemning it as pandering.
Tax cuts are in line with your typical conservative platform. I'm fairly confident my "I can't get too worked up over this" point would have stood either way.
"Buying votes" is a very nebulous concept. Any tax cut can easily be categorized as such, for those motivated to do so for rhetorical purposes. Even as tax cuts might be economically advantageous for society overall.
-
Let's be honest here for a moment, if Biden had proposed it, all the people who think it's a terrible idea would support it, and all the people who think it's a stroke of genius would be condemning it as pandering.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Cruz files bill...:
Let's be honest here for a moment
If we are being honest, even if this passes... I bet a substantial portion of cash tips a person receives is never mentioned on their tax return. Further, for many tip-based jobs, the person is likely in one of the lowest tax brackets already.
-
It still makes some sense. The requirements for tip employees - like that they keep a daily log of tips received from customers or other employees. If they don't the government may just assess them for a percentage of sales. It's pretty ridiculous if you read it.
-
It still makes some sense. The requirements for tip employees - like that they keep a daily log of tips received from customers or other employees. If they don't the government may just assess them for a percentage of sales. It's pretty ridiculous if you read it.
@Mik said in Cruz files bill...:
It still makes some sense. The requirements for tip employees - like that they keep a daily log of tips received from customers or other employees. If they don't the government may just assess them for a percentage of sales. It's pretty ridiculous if you read it.
Which is why many only report the tips that have some type of audit trail. Cash in hand disappears in the pocket.
-
The justification for taxing tips makes more sense the higher proportion of the wages are made from tips. If you're only taking $5 here and there, then there's really no reason to tax it. If you're taking home a base salary of $10K a year, but pulling in $60K in tips, then that needs to get taxed.
I think it goes without saying that not taxing tips is creating a loophole which will inevitably be exploited by people who it was not intended to help, as is always the case with such loopholes.
-
"Optional payment from a customer, unnecessary to receive the goods or services" would be a powerful definition of "tip" which should stimy most abuse.
@Horace said in Cruz files bill...:
"Optional payment from a customer, unnecessary to receive the goods or services" would be a powerful definition of "tip" which should stimy most abuse.
Like all those sweepstakes that say 'no purchase necessary'.
-
@Horace said in Cruz files bill...:
"Optional payment from a customer, unnecessary to receive the goods or services" would be a powerful definition of "tip" which should stimy most abuse.
Like all those sweepstakes that say 'no purchase necessary'.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Cruz files bill...:
@Horace said in Cruz files bill...:
"Optional payment from a customer, unnecessary to receive the goods or services" would be a powerful definition of "tip" which should stimy most abuse.
Like all those sweepstakes that say 'no purchase necessary'.
A loophole in an unimportant law that solves a non-problem with small stakes gambling being part of a product purchase?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Cruz files bill...:
@Horace said in Cruz files bill...:
"Optional payment from a customer, unnecessary to receive the goods or services" would be a powerful definition of "tip" which should stimy most abuse.
Like all those sweepstakes that say 'no purchase necessary'.
A loophole in an unimportant law that solves a non-problem with small stakes gambling being part of a product purchase?
@Horace said in Cruz files bill...:
A loophole in an unimportant law that solves a non-problem with small stakes gambling being part of a product purchase?
Yes, in all honesty this whole thing probably isn't that important, which was kind of behind my point about how our positions would all be reversed if it was the other guy making the suggestion. It's not really a genius move either, of course, it's just political opportunism.
I do also have to admit I find Ted Cruz to be one of the most unbearable individuals I can think of, which probably sways how I feel about pretty much anything he says. I know, I know, in this highly rational, scientific environment that shouldn't matter, but that's complete bollocks as we all know.
