With the start of a new month, some workers may get a boost in their take-home pay. The Trump administration has given employers the option to stop collecting payroll taxes for most workers through the end of this year.

President Trump announced the move three weeks ago, after failing to reach a deal with Congress on a more comprehensive pandemic relief package.

“This will mean bigger paychecks for working families as we race to produce a vaccine,” Trump said.

The move applies to workers whose biweekly pay is $4,000 or less.

But as new guidance from the IRS makes clear, the windfall is merely a temporary loan. Unless Congress decides to forgive the taxes, employees will have to repay the money early next year.

“I don’t want to be the one handing out the paychecks in 2021 when people find that not only do they have to pay Social Security again, but they have to pay it twice, for all the things they didn’t pay in the last part of 2020,” said Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va.

Trump wants Congress to simply waive the payroll tax. And he’s said that if he’s reelected, he’ll propose permanent cuts.

“If I’m victorious on Nov. 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax,” Trump said. “I’m going to make them all permanent.”

Only Congress can do that. Lawmakers did waive part of the payroll tax temporarily during the Obama administration. But critics warn that Trump’s proposal would leave a big hole in Social Security, which the 6.2% tax helps pay for.

“We need to shore up Social Security, and the last thing we want to do is undercut it,” said Beyer, who is vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress.

Businesses also worry about what happens if an employee pockets the extra money this fall, then quits or gets fired before the tax is repaid. The worker’s employer could find itself on the hook for the taxes.

Many employers may be reluctant to put themselves or their workers in that position, says Pete Isberg, vice president of the payroll processing firm ADP.

“Given what it is, you’re going to have a lot of employees who respond and say, ‘Wait a minute. I kind of don’t like this idea. Would you please not do it for me,’ ” Isberg said.

The last-minute timing of the IRS guidance didn’t help employers trying to meet the Sept. 1 effective date of the president’s action.

“After 5 p.m. on Friday the 28th gave us exactly one business day to respond to it,” Isberg said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens of trade groups have called the president’s plan “unfair” and “unworkable,” and say many of their members will simply keep collecting payroll taxes as they always have.

The federal government, however, will stop withholding the tax from the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

Those workers might want to be careful about what they do with the extra money.

The National Rifle Association is suing the city and county of San Francisco and its Board of Supervisors over a unanimous vote to designate the NRA a domestic terrorist organization. The pro-gun group says lawmakers are trying to discriminate against people “based on the viewpoint of their political speech.”

In its Sept. 3 resolution, the board said San Francisco should “take every reasonable step” to limit any vendors and contractors with which it does business from also doing business with the NRA. It also said it is “urging other cities, states, and the federal government to do the same.”

The NRA calls the terrorist designation a “frivolous insult” — but it adds that the lawmakers’ actions also “pose a nonfrivolous constitutional threat.” The group says San Francisco is violating U.S. laws that protect free speech and association.

The terrorist-designation resolution is not yet official, as Mayor London Breed has not signed it. If she doesn’t endorse the bill within 10 days of passage, it will take effect without any other action. But she could also veto the resolution.

The NRA suit also warns against “reasonably expected chilling effects.”

Accusing the San Francisco board of using “McCarthyist elements” in an attempt to silence it and carry out a political vendetta, the NRA says the resolution “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak against gun control, or from associating… with the NRA.”

The resolution accuses the NRA of using its money and influence “to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence,” adding that the group “spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.”

San Francisco’s resolution, which lacks explicit enforcement tools, describes the U.S. as being “plagued by an epidemic of gun violence, including over 36,000 deaths, and 100,000 injuries each year.” It also notes the mass shooting in July at the Gilroy Garlic Festival south of San Francisco, in which a gunman killed three people, including two children.

The measure’s sponsor, Supervisor Catherine Stefani, is a former prosecutor and a current gun violence prevention activist; she is a leader in the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. When her resolution was approved last week, Stefani was quoted by member station KQED as saying the NRA uses intimidation and threats to promote its agenda.

“When they use phrases like, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands’ on bumper stickers, they are saying reasoned debate about public safety should be met with violence,” Stefani said.

San Francisco’s move against the NRA follows recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York state, where officials have sought to pressure businesses to cut ties with the group. In its lawsuit, the NRA notes, “Courts have sustained First Amendment claims in both Los Angeles and New York.”

As his group responds to the San Francisco resolution, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre says, “This lawsuit comes with a message to those who attack the NRA: We will never stop fighting for our law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms.”

In their resolution, the San Francisco lawmakers state, “All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association’s influence.”