Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#61

Post by arcticbull »

kenneth wrote: post #53
arcticbull wrote: post #38

Earlier 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)

Right so those least able to pay, the ones who spend all they get — which is what keeps the economy moving btw, pay the same amount as people who are most able to pay and least likely to spend, slowing down the economy. How can I lose?!

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#62

Post by throwawaysea »

jorblumesea wrote: post #60
kenneth wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parent comment talked about a flat percentage tax. So the people with more money would not be paying the "same tax". They would still be paying a lot more. A truly fair tax would have everyone paying the same flat fee for the same public services rendered.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#63

Post by arcticbull »

throwawaysea wrote: post #62
jorblumesea wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parent comment talked about a flat percentage tax. So the people with more money would not be paying the "same tax". They would still be paying a lot more. A truly fair tax would have everyone paying the same flat fee for the same public services rendered.

It isn’t, though, because of the marginal utility of money. Someone making $10k/yr sees much more value from an extra $10k than someone making $10M. For one it’s a lifeline and for one a rounding error. While a flat tax is fair in numbers it’s not fair in marginal value or utility. IMO that’s a much bigger deal. There are other macroeconomic advantages to giving the little guy the extra, though I don’t want to repeat myself so I’ll keep that in my sister reply.

FWIW we’ve already got regressive taxes in the form of payroll tax, which kick in from $0 and cap out once you earn enough. So unless you’re unemployed, you’ve paid taxes even if your marginal income tax rate is 0%.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#64

Post by belltaco »

marcrosoft wrote: post #33
Maarten88 wrote: post #24

Earlier 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?

Huh, haven't you heard of offshore sports betting site owners getting arrested? Also, remember kimdotcom?

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#65

Post by village-idiot »

dmix wrote: post #22
olliej wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other countries are going to start ignoring FAA safety rulings now, so meaning that in exchange for a short term monetary gain a bunch of politicians and executives will probably cause significant long term costs - although the people who made those decisions and took those bribes won't have to pay for those consequences, they've already got there's :-/

This is some weak logic. So a super-high capital business like an Airline is going to flaunt aircraft safety rules, potentially risking hundreds of lives of their customers and employees... to what exactly? Buy some cheaper uncertified Chinese(?) aircrafts or fly other certified aircrafts unsafely...to make a little extra money? And then run away when the lawsuits and families of the dead come chasing you?

There’s already evidence that the FAA had internal pressure to devolve regulation authority to Boeing in order to speed up certification and release to compete with the A320neo. That’s part of the reason why the MCAS system was allowed to listen to a single AoA sensor instead of two, and possibly why Boeing was able to get away with not training pilots on the new MCAS system.

Cutting regulatory corners is a lot more complicated than “buying cheaper uncertified Chinese aircrafts”, and it’s completely invisible to the general public until an incident occurs.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#66

Post by village-idiot »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #11
munk-a wrote: post #2

That's some particularly hilarious timing giving boeing's recent "unsafe to fly our plans" headline news. As someone in Canada it's been disappointing to watch the massive internal subsidies given to Boeing (from the US government) help sink Bombardier - though the company also did under-perform.

Doesn't every country do the same thing— albeit perhaps not at the same scale? When Embraer complained about Bombardier's subsidies from the Canadian government, the WTO decided that they were illegal. Then Bombardier complained about Embraer's subsidies from the Brazilian government and the WTO decided that those are illegal too.

Subsidy of “national champion” companies is pretty common but not universal. Sweden allowing Saab to fail without opening up the national purse comes to mind.

Defense related industries are typically pretty pretty high on the subsidy list though, for all the obvious reasons.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#67

Post by village-idiot »

citilife wrote: post #23

In 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.

Trade balances are a silly thing to measure in the 21st century when a lot of value moves around in the form of intangible services.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#68

Post by masonic »

fastball wrote: post #43
sonnyblarney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"America First" ... "US has been self-centered for quite some time" Anyone who suggests that France is not 'France first' or that Switzerland is not 'Switzerland first' etc. etc. has not been paying attention.

Lies. Europe obviously cares more about the rest of the world than they do about themselves. /s

Just ask their former African colonies.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#69

Post by gumby »

PHGamer wrote: post #48
gumby wrote: post #12

More subsidies to that callous killer Boeing, from a government of the megacorps, by the people, for the megacorps.

you cant kill boeing. if shit hits the fan theyre pretty much our only airline manufacturer. i mean what happens if the eu tells the us to fuck off. we don't get any more airbuses and if boeing is dead no way to make our own planes.

They are hardly the only aircraft manufacturer, though decades of neglect of antitrust has allowed them to become he only remaining US manufacturer of civilian aircraft. But if they are allowed to let them die we can still get large passenger aircraft from Airbus, smaller ones from Brazil or China. Not to mention from new entrants that will start up when the big gorilla goes away?

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#70

Post by olliej »

dmix wrote: post #22
olliej wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other countries are going to start ignoring FAA safety rulings now, so meaning that in exchange for a short term monetary gain a bunch of politicians and executives will probably cause significant long term costs - although the people who made those decisions and took those bribes won't have to pay for those consequences, they've already got there's :-/

This is some weak logic. So a super-high capital business like an Airline is going to flaunt aircraft safety rules, potentially risking hundreds of lives of their customers and employees... to what exactly? Buy some cheaper uncertified Chinese(?) aircrafts or fly other certified aircrafts unsafely...to make a little extra money? And then run away when the lawsuits and families of the dead come chasing you?

No, it was explicitly because Boeing wanted to be able to short circuit the normal safety analysis in order to get a poorly designed product to market to compete with the airbus a320neo.

The level of trust in the US aeronautic safety agencies can be summed up in other countries explicitly requiring non-US investigators.

That is the long term impact I'm talking about - it seems entirely plausible that this will become the norm rather than the exception it is now.

Post reply on HN