More subsidies to that callous killer Boeing, from a government of the megacorps, by the people, for the megacorps.
[deleted]
U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
51–60 of 98 posts
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lies. Europe obviously cares more about the rest of the world than they do about themselves. /s
One of these political entities has accepted significantly more refugees from a war caused by the US - and it certainly ain't America.
that seems pretty stupid of them doesn't it?
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#53In 2016 the US imported $416B and exported $270B to the EU. Although $11B is a large number, it's a 2.6% tax on the total. More interestingly, is what they are taxing. Personally, I'd rather have tariffs than income tax. At least then I can choose what to buy.
Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.
Good. Given a fair tax system would be proportional / flat, perhaps a little imbalance in the other direction evens it all out towards flat / proportional tax (everyone at the same percentage)
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end…
Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company that is producing substandard products that have gotten people killed - I don't see how you could mentally position yourself to be alright with this. The general idea of protectionism is less controversial - I think it is generally bad[1] due to the economic effects of it. But if you're in favor of protectionism you can check any claim you have to free-market ec…
>> Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#55Wanted to read the article, but instead got this: "You're in private mode. Log in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private mode." So headed for page source and stumbled onto this wtf:
Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:30 PM
Subject: Rollout
To: Bennet, James
James,
Here’s a line up for the launch tomorrow, all of these will be online before Sunday:
• A.G.’s publisher’s note about The Times
• Manjoo on household items that track us
• Wu on the history of privacy
• Jeong on A.I. and insurance
• Metzel on genetically engineered babies
• Warzel on tech CEOs in their own words
• Fr. Martin on privacy and faith
• Emily Chang on privacy as a feminist issue
• Douthat on our post-privacy order
• Swisher on privacy regulation
• Irby on what’s funny about all this.
Plus, of course, your piece if you can actually get it done in time.
Next week, we’ll drop the piece about how we turned a public camera in Manhattan into a facial recognition equipped surveillance machine and who we caught with it.
The vanity URL is locked in as nytimes.com/privacy-project and the social team has spun up the @PrivacyProject account.
Katie
-->Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end…
[flagged]
>> It seems to me that China just gave him some window-dressing
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story. The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph. If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head . It's somewhat bold to fault ot…
It's all in my head? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete. When many (most?) people are a…
[flagged]
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#58Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
What ridiculous laws do you mean? GDPR? Or monopoly abuse fines? Do you think US businesses should be able to run under US law in the EU, meaning they can do whatever they want to consumers, monopolizing markets by violating local laws, taking in huge profits, and then hardly paying corporate taxes (neither in EU nor US)? None of that has anything to do with these tariffs, btw.
Do you think the EU should be able to enforce a law on a global scale and completely ignore country jurisdiction like they attempt to do with GDPR?
You mean like the US does to Huawei?
Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.
Good. Given a fair tax system would be proportional / flat, perhaps a little imbalance in the other direction evens it all out towards flat / proportional tax (everyone at the same percentage)
So, the people with the most money pay the same tax as those with a low income?
That...doesn't sound fair at all. It's equality but not equity.