151–160 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill [disputed]
What's your alternative? I'm serious. (Mine is multi-member ranked voting (NOT IRV)).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's quite the opposite. Tariffs are flat taxes on corporations AND can't be avoided with the tax shenanigans all big corporations use and many small ones can't. Implementation and motivation details aside I'm in favor of small tariffs for all but the most equal trade partners. Corporate taxes have the problem of small business paying much more proportionally than large ones and a flat tax on businesses that…
>Tariffs are flat taxes on corporations The OP said tariffs are not progressive taxes. You are agreeing with them while believing you are disagreeing. Further tariffs are not specific to corporations. Individuals pay them. Small business pay them. Large businesses pay them.
This needs to be repeated. Tariffs are a tax on ordinary citizens. Unlike regular taxes, tariffs are not progressive and therefore benefit the wealthy. These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
I don’t think anyone here has yet come to the realization that ending rampant consumerism is the whole damn point of the tariffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that cigarette taxes should be repealed then?
If I were to pick a place to tax, the addictive, harmful substances seem like a good option. But that’s easy for me to say because I don’t smoke. I do like sugar though. Imagine the impact on our health if there were a sugar tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tariffs like this is a market regulation that the people pays for. It doesn't "benefit the wealthy" because it's not progressive, it benefits the wealthy that have investments in the tariffed industry by distorting the market to their advantage instead of having to be competitive on a level playing field. The rest of the wealthy are equally annoyed by the tariffs as everyone else, possibly more so as they see their i…
There is no "level playing field" when you are competing with literal sweatshops though. Frankly tariffs get a bad rep because of from who and how they are implemented but can absolutely serve a purpose.
What’s missing from these discussions is the idea of competitive advantage. It is inherently more efficient to grow crops in climates where they thrive, tacking a tariff to protect domestic production means intentionally lowering the standard of living of everyone both domestically and abroad to favor some tiny group doing something wasteful.
They planned to support the new regulations before, but pulled the plug last Friday.
We should have something like the federal reserve, but for trade policy. A board of governors nominated and confirmed by the senate in 8 year rotations. Politicians cannot be trusted to craft economic policy. I am dubious that they should be crafting fiscal policy either since theyve shown they cant be trusted with that either
This is power explicitly reserved for Congress, which is being extra-constitutionally seized by the President (on the pretext of "national security") with no public support. The problem here is electing a lawless president and putting the Congress in charge of a GOP which is full of unprincipled cowards from top to bottom, not the institutional framework.
This needs to be repeated. Tariffs are a tax on ordinary citizens. Unlike regular taxes, tariffs are not progressive and therefore benefit the wealthy. These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
I'm sure Japan, and other countries doing similar things, don't like the tariffs either. Hopefully actions like this will change voter behavior, either at the polls or to embolden voters to do whatever it is they can to tell their elected officials to revert these changes. Maybe this is a drop in the bucket, but on the other hand, maybe Japan doesn't want to/can't make a bigger a splash. In any case, it is rare that…
It won't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist.
> So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist. Same argument. If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US. It's the same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistic…
No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight. Maybe measured in the order of years... in which case the policies can be adjusted. They clearly think this works for taxing Americans given how huge the tax code is.
> same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center
Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.