• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Now look at this in the context of increasing domestic production, so we’d be importing less even before increasing tariffs. Revenue will hit rock bottom in record time.

    • Bahalex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, poor people already pay for the rich. The rich can afford an accountant to find as many loopholes and deductions as possible. The really rich don’t have an “income” and live of capital gains which is already under taxed.

      This is just a hope people remember the “no income tax” part and forget about the “raise import tariffs” part when they’re at the ballot.

  • buzz86us@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I am sick of free trade being stifled… Whoever makes the best product should get the money having the products I buy dictated to me is unamerican

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Someone explain to me how this would benefit the rich. The rich don’t pay income tax.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      If the rich didn’t pay taxes than tax cuts for the rich would not be their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd top priorities.

      • Bye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Tax cuts for the rich are capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax cuts.

        Income tax cuts don’t impact them, broadly.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Income tax cuts don’t impact them, broadly.

          Then they should not be objecting at all if we raise the top income tax rate back to 91% like it was in the 1950’s when we had a great economy.

          • Bye@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            The truly rich would be fine. They don’t pay income tax, they live off of capital gains.

            That’s just punishing people at the top of the working class. Doctors, lawyers, etc.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s not how anything works. The country exporting to the USA don’t field the tariffs expense. The importers do.

    He would just be removing taxes for people himself to a massive deficit and decreased trade.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I hate Trump, and maybe that’s what he’s thinking.

      But I’m not sure replacing taxes with tariffs won’t help; replacing sales taxes with teriffs will mean that domestic products are effectively being subsidized by people buying imported products. This increases demand for domestic products, hopefully stimulation domestic production.

      I think the tell isn’t that he is using teriffs, it’s that he wants to cut income taxes at the expense of people buying foreign products.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The USA mainly sells Financial Services and Machinery. Making our own rubber ducks and flatpack furniture would be analogous to a lawyer painting his house when he could have made enough money to pay somebody else to paint it 5x over.

        Unfortunately, much of our raw materials are imports so by disincentivizing other countries to trade with us we are killing our own manufacturing capabilities. That is exactly what happened when Trump era steel tariffs killed a large sector of American manufacturing. And he explicitly excluded Russian Steel where his good friend Aaron Abromovich was offering to supply steel for his stupid wall, until congress twisted his arm into signing the additional tariffs against Russia, just another example of how his actions are purely selfish.

        At the end of the day, trade is both good and conditional. Other nations might see these actions as hostile and reduce the number of goods they’re willing to sell, as they can’t be the ones left holding the bag if trade suddenly stops one day and they’ve overproduced specialty goods with no use so reducing production is the clear choice, and there is less incentive to offer other less profitable goods as per trade agreements and less incentive to even make new trade agreements in the first place.

        You cannot force American CEOs to want to produce goods in the states anymore than you can convince Chinese people to live in the districts where excess homes were built: governments do not have enough control to dictate the markets via anything but positive reinforcement.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          It feels like this (common) argument it’s trying to have is cake and eat it too, so maybe you can help me understand.

          As you, and everyone, say: the financial burden of the teriffs are paid by the importer and passed to the consumer, rather than being paid by the exporting country or exporter - so what is the disincentive for those countries to continue trade with us? They’ll see a decrease in demand, but is that really a disincentive? I don’t understand how both of these things can be true and have the same cause, at the same time.

          The problem is outsourcing, and teriffs are an attempt to make outsourcing less appealing. I understand your analogy, but that’s the problem: we’re encountering Goodhart’s Law. We’re optimizing for GDP, and you’re right that’s teriffs will result in lower optimization, but in chasing GDP numbers we’ve failed to consider where the money is getting allocated. The lawyer could save money by hiring foreigners, but hiring locals helps people in their community. (Not saying foreign workers are bad, just trying to reuse your analogy). I don’t think we should get too preoccupied with economic efficiency, as long as we can ensure the waste stays domestic.

          I’m not confident teriffs are actually a good idea, and even if they were I don’t trust Trump to implement them. What I’m trying to do is push back and get clarification about why people are acting like teriffs are inherently bad.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not trying to have the cake and eat it, I’m trying to convince people like you not to shit on the cake just because you think you might be able to eat around it.

            • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              What?

              Why am I getting down votes?
              How am I shitting on anything? What am I even shitting on? \

              All I’m doing is asking “why do we shit on teriffs and treat them as inherently bad?”
              Im trying to have a discussion in good faith, and rather than having any of my questions explained or answered I’m just down voted and vaguely demeaned.

              I’m being very clear I do not support whatever shit trump is doing, I’m trying to understand why people just hate tariffs.
              I don’t understand how, if the importer bares all tariff costs, what would disincentivize a foreign nation from exporting to us since they bear no increased costs. Why would this not just appear as a decrease in demand, from their perspective?

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                I literally explained it to you in simple terms and you still argued against the facts.

                Tariffs

                Shit on

                USA Commerce and Industry

                They cannot ever be a replacement for taxation. Their uses are purely as a defence from foreign fuckery in the markets.

                • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  You didn’t provide facts, you provided arguments and assertions.
                  Then I refuted one of your arguments showing how it is seemingly contradicted one of your assertions and asked for elaboration.

                  I don’t understand where your hostility is coming from. I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I’m pointing out arguments that don’t appear (to me) to lead to your conclusion.

                  I absolutely don’t refute that Trump’s idea is a bad one. My question is more general than that.

  • Melkath@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    And he will do it.

    He has to figure out this thing with a boat, a shark, and a battery…

    But once he works that one out, China will be paying our taxes.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Jesus Christ. Why is it that republicans think destroying the country will be better than what we currently have? It’s so fucking insane.

  • Epicmulch@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    See this is the kind of thing that makes zero actual sense but his supporters pretend to believe he can accomplish it worse they actually believe him.

  • DMBFFF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    They’d have to be enforced to be effective.

    Who made his gold-painted shoes?

    The price of computers and TVs would skyrocket—making the tariffs regressive taxes—though it might also spur repair and re-use.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This basically eliminates almost all taxes on the rich, burdens middle and lower class with higher prices, and blows up budget deficit.

    So much for FiScAL ReSPonSibiLiTY

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah, are you being fiscally responsible, chump? How much are you making? Jeff over here needs another yacht!

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The real rich don’t pay any income tax tho? Not sure what you mean. Sure the high-income developers and engineers and lawyers etc. would become a richer, but they are not the rich, are they? The owners of the businesses they work at are. And they don’t pay income taxes.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        In the USA in 2021, the top 1% of earners payed 26.3% of federal income from taxes, $3,872,395,000,000 Total. The top 50% of earners payed 89.6% of income taxes.

        You could argue that the “true” rich people weren’t earners because they took out loans against their stocks and properties, but they’re either going to sell or die sometime and that has been true for centuries. However, Elon Musk for example won’t make your list if that’s how you measure it because he did sell and he paid billions in taxes.

        SOURCE