The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: libertybele on November 21, 2016, 08:34:10 pm
-
The GOP has opportunities that haven't knocked on their door in a long time. I hope they don't blow it!
Can Trump seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the tax code?
...The bottom line is that President-elect Donald J. Trump has a once in a lifetime opportunity to radically reform the tax code, like President Ronald Reagan did in the ‘80s...
...Americans have not experienced a compensative rewrite of tax laws since the Reagan Administration. When Reagan worked with Congress to pass his tax rate reductions, he lowered the top rate from a staggering 70% to 28%. These tax reductions lead to massive growth in the economy and a Trump tax cut would also lead to significant growth.
It is important to note that the most self-destructive provision in federal tax law, the corporate tax rate, is the highest in the free world at 35% (39.1% if you include state corporate taxes). That rate needs to be slashed to stop the outsourcing of jobs to nations with lower corporate tax rates. Trump wants to slash the rate to 15% — a rate that would greatly help in stemming the flight of corporations to countries that have lower corporate tax rates.
President Donald J. Trump should write his own bill that cuts the tax rates for both businesses and individuals, cleans up crony provisions, and makes the code much simpler...
...Trump should not negotiate against himself, and he should push all of these ideas in his tax bill to provide radical, pro-growth tax reform that will end up being the cornerstone of his legacy...
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/can-trump-seize-this-opportunity-to-fix-the-tax-code#sthash.KqRTDpcj.dpuf
-
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Won't happen... he has too many scumbag tax lawyer and accounting friends.
-
Won't happen... he has too many scumbag tax lawyer and accounting friends.
Proposing import tariffs is not a sign of a man who will "fix" the tax code.
-
Won't happen... he has too many scumbag tax lawyer and accounting friends.
??? You are forgetting that slashing corporate taxes will benefit him as well. I see it as a potential win-win situation; encouraging businesses and corporation to stay in the U.S and incentivize foreign companies to do business here is not a bad thing.
-
Proposing import tariffs is not a sign of a man who will "fix" the tax code.
I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005
-
??? You are forgetting that slashing corporate taxes will benefit him as well. I see it as a potential win-win situation; encouraging businesses and corporation to stay in the U.S and incentivize foreign companies to do business here is not a bad thing.
There clearly are people who are so invested in Trump being absolutely horrible that they will not even contemplate the possibility that he might do some good things. If he makes good nominations to the Court, it'll only be because he expects the nominations to be rejected. If they get confirmed, it'll only be because he's made some shady deal on the side that'll be net worse for us.
I don't trust the guy at all when it comes to government spending. But I do think you're right in that there's a strong chance of positive reforms to the business tax code. It simply makes too much sense, and the only reason the Democrats wouldn't do it is because they didn't want to be accused of selling out.
I'm hoping for positive reforms for business taxes, some positive regulatory reforms, appointing some good people to run the military and State, and a couple of good justices.
And then, I hope Ryan et al. dig in their heels to stop Bannon's crazy ideas on spending....
-
I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005
No need for Trumpsplaining. He has made it very clear on many occasions that he wants to impose tariffs and has even admitted that prices will naturally be "a little higher".
-
I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005
Yes, that's worked so well every time its tried... More government is the answer you say... Have government further intervene in our buying and selling to save ourselves from ourselves... Very populist these days... Kind of like socialism, tried over and over expecting a different result...
-
I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005
Fair trade amounts to some kind of government involvement...we don't need that...what we need is truly FREE trade.
And no there is no misunderstanding...Trump wants to impost tariffs as high as 45% in some cases with countries like China.
It didn't work out well for Herbert Hoover and it wouldn't be any better this time.
-
And no there is no misunderstanding...Trump wants to impost tariffs as high as 45% in some cases with countries like China.
I know he has said that. That could just be an opening negotiating gambit to get some concessions on other issues. At least, I hope that's the case. Actual imposition of across the board tariffs would require congressional approval, and I don't see Congress agreeing to something that extreme.
But Bannon scares me.
-
I know he has said that. That could just be an opening negotiating gambit to get some concessions on other issues. At least, I hope that's the case. Actual imposition of across the board tariffs would require congressional approval, and I don't see Congress agreeing to something that extreme.
But Bannon scares me.
If they are smart and know their history they won't agree to any of it. It would finish off what's left of our economy.
-
Yes, that's worked so well every time its tried... More government is the answer you say... Have government further intervene in our buying and selling to save ourselves from ourselves... Very populist these days... Kind of like socialism, tried over and over expecting a different result...
NAFTA is a disaster. NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.
-
NAFTA is a disaster. NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.
So you say. What's the actual evidence of that? You are throwing everything in the pot and blaming NAFTA. Perhaps it could be some other factors, like Obamacare, nearly the highest corporate taxes in the world, endless environmental regulation, endless employee regulation, importing millions of illegal immigrants with nearly zero skills, etc. American business has been trashed by a million cuts yet you single out NAFTA as the big boogieman. I don't. A free people should be able trade their own production and wealth as they please without government interference.
And last but not least, America is not an island. You can't hide from the world nor can you artificially ignore competition. The world will move on with or without us whether you put up barriers or not. You either lead, keep up or fall behind.
-
So you say. What's the actual evidence of that? You are throwing everything in the pot and blaming NAFTA. Perhaps it could be some other factors, like Obamacare, nearly the highest corporate taxes in the world, endless environmental regulation, endless employee regulation, importing millions of illegal immigrants with nearly zero skills, etc. American business has been trashed by a million cuts yet you single out NAFTA as the big boogieman. I don't. A free people should be able trade their own production and wealth as they please without government interference.
And last but not least, America is not an island. You can't hide from the world nor can you artificially ignore competition. The world will move on with or without us whether you put up barriers or not. You either lead, keep up or fall behind.
I disagree wholeheartedly and IMHO you are deluding yourself. NAFTA IS a disaster and yes, it is the big boogieman.
...According to recent studies, NAFTA has caused a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs. Once we consider also our growing income inequality, it is easy to see that NAFTA has been a terrible deal for us.
It is easy to see how this has affected wages in the U.S. The average household income in the U.S. in 1999 was $56,080, in 2012 it was $51,017, and today it is $44,900. The affects of NAFTA have taken their toll on the American worker. With these lost wages and jobs real unemployment has risen to 23%....
http://economyincrisis.org/content/history-shows-that-nafta-is-a-disaster
NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
youtube.com/watch?v=VNPkiJrk_Bw
-
Proposing import tariffs is not a sign of a man who will "fix" the tax code.
? The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI. No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.
So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary. You like income taxes instead?
-
? The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI. No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.
So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary. You like income taxes instead?
And the tariffs ended up not providing sufficient revenues and were too economically distorting. If tariffs were really as good a source of revenue as you imply, they would not have been dumped. They were dumped because they were insufficient and distortionary.
And if that's not enough, the Smoot-Hawley affair proved the utter idiocy of trying to raise anything more than marginal revenue from tariffs.
-
And the tariffs ended up not providing sufficient revenues and were too economically distorting. If tariffs were really as good a source of revenue as you imply, they would not have been dumped. They were dumped because they were insufficient and distortionary.
And if that's not enough, the Smoot-Hawley affair proved the utter idiocy of trying to raise anything more than marginal revenue from tariffs.
Tariffs were dumped? When did that happen?
Income taxes initially passed during the War between the States overcame them as a greater source of revenue in an ever-expanding federal govt which needed more revenue.
That's what happened.
-
? The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI. No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.
So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary. You like income taxes instead?
Great Depression ring a bell? How about the 1929 stock market crash?
-
Tariffs were dumped? When did that happen?
Income taxes initially passed during the War between the States overcame them as a greater source of revenue in an ever-expanding federal govt which needed more revenue.
That's what happened.
I guess I'm going to have to take you through this school-boy style:
Tariffs are not the primary source of revenue today, true or false?
-
And the tariffs ended up not providing sufficient revenues and were too economically distorting. If tariffs were really as good a source of revenue as you imply, they would not have been dumped. They were dumped because they were insufficient and distortionary.
And if that's not enough, the Smoot-Hawley affair proved the utter idiocy of trying to raise anything more than marginal revenue from tariffs.
If you read Franklin's testimony against the stamp act, he warns the British government that if they try to impose the tax stamps on the colonists, the colonists will refuse to buy those goods or make their own illegally if need be.
He basically warned that the colonists would collapse their own economy rather than pay the extra tax.
-
Great Depression ring a bell? How about the 1929 stock market crash?
Tariffs did not cause the '29 crash.
Please direct me to a source that backs up that claim.
Try again.
-
I guess I'm going to have to take you through this school-boy style:
Tariffs are not the primary source of revenue today, true or false?
I need an answer to my question first.
Let's start with your claim that tariffs were dumped.
Floating around does not help me understand how you came up with that claim.
-
Tariffs did not cause the '29 crash.
Please direct me to a source that backs up that claim.
Try again.
Tariffs certainly played a part in it:
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595
The world is very close to a tipping point with all the printing/borrowing of money and only needs a few pushes in the wrong direction to trigger a chain reaction.
-
I need an answer to my question first.
Let's start with your claim that tariffs were dumped.
Floating around does not help me understand how you came up with that claim.
Good luck getting a straight answer...she'll need a ladder to get off her high horse first. :laugh:
-
:th_10444:d
Good luck getting a straight answer...she'll need a ladder to get off her high horse first. :laugh:
Yep, throwing out dubious claims then refusing to back them up and instead obfuscating with frivolous comments when caught.
Some characters can be readily identified.
-
Tariffs certainly played a part in it:
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595
The world is very close to a tipping point with all the printing/borrowing of money and only needs a few pushes in the wrong direction to trigger a chain reaction.
You better reread that material.
The 29 crash occurred in 1929.
Smoot Hawley was not passed until 1930.
I repeat: tariffs did not cause the 29 crash.
Try one more time.
-
You better reread that material.
The 29 crash occurred in 1929.
Smoot Hawley was not passed until 1930.
I repeat: tariffs did not cause the 29 crash.
Try one more time.
You better read what I wrote. I said "it certainly played a part in it". Nothing more, nothing less. And the article clearly stated that the majority of economist were against it because of what would happen, and it did happen.
And a clarification, I wasn't talking about the stock market, I was talking about the depression which is what mattered.
-
You better read what I wrote. I said "it certainly played a part in it". Nothing more, nothing less. And the article clearly stated that the majority of economist were against it because of what would happen, and it did happen.
And a clarification, I wasn't talking about the stock market, I was talking about the depression which is what mattered.
Ok, so what tariffs 'played a part' in the 29 market crash? Certainly your source does not indicate that.
It instead talks about how the THREAT of tariffs exacerbated it.
See the difference?
And about the Great Depression, I never once mentioned that, as I was always talking about the crash. Go back and reread my comments and your responses.
-
Ok, so what tariffs 'played a part' in the 29 market crash? Certainly your source does not indicate that.
It instead talks about how the THREAT of tariffs exacerbated it.
See the difference?
And about the Great Depression, I never once mentioned that, as I was always talking about the crash. Go back and reread my comments and your responses.
You're the one being argumentative. I simply posted an analysis of what the tariffs did, their consequences and how they came about. And my point was tariffs did play a significant part in the great depression, which is what matters. That's what affected millions of lives. I could give a blank with the stock market did for the most part.
And the point of all of this is tariffs have negative consequences and if we try it again we could well have the same results in a very unstable world.
-
Can Trump seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the tax code?
He can't seize it. He has unusually small hands.
-
This is the same Donald Trump who trashed the Reagan tax cuts and argued that raising taxes promotes economic growth.
-
I simply posted an analysis of what the tariffs did, their consequences and how they came about. And my point was tariffs did play a significant part in the great depression, which is what matters. That's what affected millions of lives. I could give a blank with the stock market did for the most part.
And the point of all of this is tariffs have negative consequences and if we try it again we could well have the same results in a very unstable world.
It would be a mistake to draw simplistic conclusions about the effect of tariffs generally from one specific use of them.
Don't fall into that trap.
-
It would be a mistake to draw simplistic conclusions about the effect of tariffs generally from one specific use of them.
Don't fall into that trap.
i agree.
I also object to people who claim something that never happened.
No tariffs caused the '29 crash, as the law authorizing them was not even passed into law when it happened.
-
??? You are forgetting that slashing corporate taxes will benefit him as well. I see it as a potential win-win situation; encouraging businesses and corporation to stay in the U.S and incentivize foreign companies to do business here is not a bad thing.
Good point... but does Trump pay taxes and does he even make a profit when you figure in bankruptcies and lawsuits. That's why it would have been good to see his tax returns.
I hope Trump will see something in the tax code that he can change to benefit himself and his friends ... because that's the only way it will interest him.
But if he does do something, I promise to come back her and blow kisses at him.
-
Ok, so what tariffs 'played a part' in the 29 market crash? Certainly your source does not indicate that.
You can start with the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act.
It instead talks about how the THREAT of tariffs exacerbated it.
See the difference?
And about the Great Depression, I never once mentioned that, as I was always talking about the crash. Go back and reread my comments and your responses.
The aforementioned Fordney tariff act and the follow on Smoot tariff act lit off a trade and tariff war with other countries. Up until these tariff acts began to be implemented we were running a trade surplus with the world. We opened the door to retaliatory tariffs on things we imported to this country from places like Switzerland, France and other places in Europe, South America and Asia.
It forced plants to close, people to be laid off and increased sometimes up to 90% the cost if imported merchandise that people wanted to buy in this country.
-
This is the same Donald Trump who trashed the Reagan tax cuts and argued that raising taxes promotes economic growth.
Excellent point.
-
You can start with the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act.
The aforementioned Fordney tariff act and the follow on Smoot tariff act lit off a trade and tariff war with other countries. Up until these tariff acts began to be implemented we were running a trade surplus with the world. We opened the door to retaliatory tariffs on things we imported to this country from places like Switzerland, France and other places in Europe, South America and Asia.
It forced plants to close, people to be laid off and increased sometimes up to 90% the cost if imported merchandise that people wanted to buy in this country.
Thanks, you beat me to it. Most agree that Smoot prolonged the depression, but Fordney–McCumber is one of several 'perfect storm' problems that hit the economy at the same time. In its case, severely limiting trade and crashing the dollar that was already having problems due to federal banking problems.
-
No need for Trumpsplaining. He has made it very clear on many occasions that he wants to impose tariffs and has even admitted that prices will naturally be "a little higher".
he also mentioned different tax rates on different corporations, which would be based on whether he likes them or not
-
I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005
If promoting fairness over freedom doesn't smell like liberal BS I don't know what does...
-
If promoting fairness over freedom doesn't smell like liberal BS I don't know what does...
exactly
-
You can start with the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act.
The aforementioned Fordney tariff act and the follow on Smoot tariff act lit off a trade and tariff war with other countries. Up until these tariff acts began to be implemented we were running a trade surplus with the world. We opened the door to retaliatory tariffs on things we imported to this country from places like Switzerland, France and other places in Europe, South America and Asia.
It forced plants to close, people to be laid off and increased sometimes up to 90% the cost if imported merchandise that people wanted to buy in this country.
Thanks for bringing up the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act.
It seems that when it came about in 1922, Congress was acting in the nation's best interests in protecting American jobs for those coming back from the war. Initially, it seems it was successful in its goals and produced economic prosperity during the 'roaring twenties'.
Perhaps it indeed achieved its goals sufficiently to have been scaled back in the latter part of the 20s.
In any event, that tariff act may have lasted too long and caused some problems with our trading partners that escalated a situation when the Smoot Hawley act was under consideration.
This country has a history of use of tariffs and, if its usage remains solid to its goals, deserves to be a continued mechanism for preservation of American jobs.
That history and its worth were not brought up in a favorable light in prior discussions, and I do wish them to not always be seen to be some type of evil economic and political weapon.
-
This country has a history of use of tariffs and, if its usage remains solid to its goals, deserves to be a continued mechanism for preservation of American jobs.
That history and its worth were not brought up in a favorable light in prior discussions, and I do wish them to not always be seen to be some type of evil economic and political weapon.
We are the second largest exporter on the planet. I'm sure we can live without those exports, lol.
-
This country has a history of use of tariffs and, if its usage remains solid to its goals, deserves to be a continued mechanism for preservation of American jobs.
What good is preserving American job is no one is buying our products overseas because we've added a 45% tax on top of whatever it already costs to buy it?
What's to stop other countries from doing the same thing for the same reasons?
This starts the global economy down a dangerous path that is not good for anyone involved.
That history and its worth were not brought up in a favorable light in prior discussions, and I do wish them to not always be seen to be some type of evil economic and political weapon.
In the 20th Century though...tariffs have been used as a political weapon...with not so good results.
Trump wants to use them as a political weapon...and it will have the same not so good outcome.
-
Good luck getting a straight answer...she'll need a ladder to get off her high horse first. :laugh:
Now, see, @Longmire, I was really enjoying the back and forth and thinking how cute TBRers are when they're passionately but factually arguing over a point. And, then here you come like the proverbial wet blanket and have to go straight for the jugular - in a personal way. Why is that? Why couldn't you act like a gentleman and go forth and argue? Not be a d***.
-
Now, see, @Longmire, I was really enjoying the back and forth and thinking how cute TBRers are when they're passionately but factually arguing over a point. And, then here you come like the proverbial wet blanket and have to go straight for the jugular - in a personal way. Why is that? Why couldn't you act like a gentleman and go forth and argue? Not be a d***.
Wow @Sanguine. I believe that is the harshest comment I have ever seen you lay down. Bully for you.
If you need a list of foul language for further posts, PM me.
-
Wow @Sanguine. I believe that is the harshest comment I have ever seen you lay down. Bully for you.
If you need a list of foul language for further posts, PM me.
Thanks, @Frank Cannon. I appreciate the offer.
-
I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.
I am afraid that 'Fair trade' label is not the same label as constructed last by Duncan Hunter, but rather, a cheap knock-off label made in China.
Watch and see.
-
Yep, throwing out dubious claims then refusing to back them up and instead obfuscating with frivolous comments when caught.
Some characters can be readily identified.
Yep...and I notice we're still waiting for a straight answer.
Meanwhile the thought police have arrived... :police:
-
Yep...and I notice we're still waiting for a straight answer.
Meanwhile the thought police have arrived... :police:
"Thought police"? I don't care what you are thinking as long as you keep it to yourself.
-
What good is preserving American job is no one is buying our products overseas because we've added a 45% tax on top of whatever it already costs to buy it?
NO one? Completely ridiculous comment. One must make sense in order to be taken seriously.
What's to stop other countries from doing the same thing for the same reasons?
absoutely nothing. They are sovereign nations, as are we.
A nation's primary interests are for its own citizens, and tariffs employed over centuries are utilized for that purpose.
This starts the global economy down a dangerous path that is not good for anyone involved.
There is nothing dangerous on protecting tariffs properly applied for citizens of the country.
In the 20th Century though...tariffs have been used as a political weapon...with not so good results.
Trump wants to use them as a political weapon...and it will have the same not so good outcome.
You did not even read what I wrote previously.
The example of the 1922 tariff was specifically designed not as a political weapon, but to assist the soldiers returning from a war to have a job from working at American industries.
Did achieve its purpose? Some say yes.
Did it last too long? Probably.
Would the US do it again? Yes.
Would it do it the same way? No.
You are making blanket statements on tariffs and appear to indicate that tariffs are never right.
That is just plain wrong.
-
We are the second largest exporter on the planet. I'm sure we can live without those exports.
Missing from this thoughtful analysis is a detailed reason why that would happen in the first place.
-
NO one? Completely ridiculous comment. One must make sense in order to be taken seriously.place
Ridiculous why? Because you think the only way to handle trade issues is by imposing tariffs on another country?
So you don't think that if we imposed say a 45% tariff on items made in China (the mainland not Taiwan) that they would not retaliate in kind and place incredible high tariffs...which in reality are taxes passed on to the people...on things which we bought from them?
Or that any of their Asian trading partners would not do the same? Or impose the same kind of tariffs on places like Japan because they are our allies...or South Korea for the same reason?
absoutely nothing. They are sovereign nations, as are we.
A nation's primary interests are for its own citizens, and tariffs employed over centuries are utilized for that purpose.There is nothing dangerous on protecting tariffs properly applied for citizens of the country.
So you see nothing wrong at all with a global trade war that ruins economies across the globe?
You did not even read what I wrote previously.
The example of the 1922 tariff was specifically designed not as a political weapon, but to assist the soldiers returning from a war to have a job from working at American industries.
Except that it had long term negative ramifications that you seem content to ignore.
Did achieve its purpose? Some say yes.
Manufacturers and the people who suffered through the ensuing 1929 market crash and the great depression would beg to differ.
Did it last too long? Probably.
Because people thought like you...and they were as wrong about the positive effects of such high tariffs as you are. They too failed to see the long term implications of their short term myopic fix.
Would the US do it again? Yes.
And it would have the same disastrous results.
Would it do it the same way? No.
Not from what Donny has said. He wants to bring back the economic policies of the Hoover administration.
You are making blanket statements on tariffs and appear to indicate that tariffs are never right.
That is just plain wrong.
Tariffs were wonderful before the turn of the century when we were still a rural nation and there wasn't such thing as the income tax. 19th Century thinking on this issue has no place in the 21st century.
-
So you see nothing wrong at all with a global trade war that ruins economies across the globe?
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
-
? The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI. No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.
So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary. You like income taxes instead?
Tariffs suppress an economy and increase costs to the consumer, while propping up fledgling or uncompetitive businesses and artificially boosting corporate profits and wages (if wildly and improbably successful).
It's no wonder the US didn't really take off until after the yoke was lifted.
-
NAFTA is a disaster. NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.
Those factories were going somewhere. The EPA regulated them elsewhere, and Mexico was closer.
-
Tariffs suppress an economy and increase costs to the consumer, while propping up fledgling or uncompetitive businesses and artificially boosting corporate profits and wages (if wildly and improbably successful).
It's no wonder the US didn't really take off until after the yoke was lifted.
Eh, they also provided jobs for returning GIs after a war and are responsible for minimizing job losses when our country is dumped on by a foreign entity like China.
Oh yeah, they provide some tax income for the country in lieu of income taxes.
They have a place if used properly. If not properly used, they are destructive, like any tax is(name one that is not).
-
Tariffs suppress an economy and increase costs to the consumer, while propping up fledgling or uncompetitive businesses and artificially boosting corporate profits and wages (if wildly and improbably successful).
It's no wonder the US didn't really take off until after the yoke was lifted.
@Suppressed You can say that of all taxes - they are all passed on to the consumer and divert funds from the economy. I think I'm missing your point.
-
Ridiculous why? Because you think the only way to handle trade issues is by imposing tariffs on another country?
YOur statement saying no one would buy is really, really ridiculous. Just cause you may not does not mean everybody.
And where in the world did you grab out of the air that tariffs were the only way to handle trade issues?
You are grasping at straws.
Like any tax, it can be destructive. All taxes must be used properly, whether it is a income tax or tariff, they have a place and need control.
-
Except that it had long term negative ramifications that you seem content to ignore.
Manufacturers and the people who suffered through the ensuing 1929 market crash and the great depression would beg to differ.
You seem to completely ignore what I said about it being used too long obviously. You are just headed into some agenda when you rant like that. Tariffs are justifiable when used properly.
-
Tariffs were wonderful before the turn of the century when we were still a rural nation and there wasn't such thing as the income tax. 19th Century thinking on this issue has no place in the 21st century.
Seems you love the IRS and income taxes. I do not particularly care for either.
-
Political tariffs would be a disaster, inviting retaliation and devastating U.S. employers who rely on exports.
Apolitical tariffs might just work. Sort of a VAT on the value of foreign labor added to a product, without regard to the country of origin.
-
The Trump administration needs do but one thing in this arena in order to fulfill his many promises and cement the republican in power for the next century and it is already right the languishing before both houses of the legislature! I refer to HR25/S122, the Fairtax bill. Make it law and the economy takes off like a rocket instantly!
http://fairtax.org
-
NAFTA is a disaster. NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.
The biggest flaw in your argument here is your decision to inject 'envy' into it. There is no 'coming out on the short end' here. There is but one question to be asked: "Does it help the US?"
I really don't give a damn how much Mexico or Canada has benefited from it. That is not my concern. If anything, I would want their economies to grow so that they would demand more US goods. But the bottom line is that it shouldn't matter if Mexico benefits more as long as the US benefits. The pie grows.
NAFTA is not a disaster. Our exports to Mexico have increased fivefold since NAFTA was enacted. That benefits the US.
-
The biggest flaw in your argument here is your decision to inject 'envy' into it. There is no 'coming out on the short end' here. There is but one question to be asked: "Does it help the US?"
I really don't give a damn how much Mexico or Canada has benefited from it. That is not my concern. If anything, I would want their economies to grow so that they would demand more US goods. But the bottom line is that it shouldn't matter if Mexico benefits more as long as the US benefits. The pie grows.
NAFTA is not a disaster. Our exports to Mexico have increased fivefold since NAFTA was enacted. That benefits the US.
Quoted for truth. Getting rid of NAFTA would be huge mistake - especially if a goal is to stem migration from Mexico. A healthy Mexican economy keeps Mexicans working - in Mexico.
-
Yep...and I notice we're still waiting for a straight answer.
Meanwhile the thought police have arrived... :police:
So you think no one should call you on your BS?
There is another special snowflake safe space on the web that might be a happier place for you. Maybe you've heard of it:
http://www.freerepublic.com
-
@Suppressed You can say that of all taxes - they are all passed on to the consumer and divert funds from the economy. I think I'm missing your point.
Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.
Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received. The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example.
Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding. It's all an illusion. Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American. The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.
Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers. It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence. I don't like socialism.
I hope that explains. I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces. ^-^
-
Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.
Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received. The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example.
Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding. It's all an illusion. Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American. The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.
Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers. It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence. I don't like socialism.
I hope that explains. I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces. ^-^
Ah, I think I see what you mean: tariffs are targeted taxes for those who can't compete in a global economy.
But, all of us - the competitive and the not, still pay the increased expenses that result from tariffs, whether directly in consumption or indirectly by having useable funds diverted to the government.
-
Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.
Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received. The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example.
Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding. It's all an illusion. Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American. The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.
Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers. It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence. I don't like socialism.
I hope that explains. I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces. ^-^
BRAVO!!! Well said! :beer:
-
Ah, I think I see what you mean: tariffs are targeted taxes for those who can't compete in a global economy.
Of course, that presupposes that American workers should be expected to compete with foreign workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar, as compared with the kind of wages American workers need to provide decent lives for their families.
The anger that has led to Trump's election is based on the reality that globalism has changed the game for many Americans, shattering lives and leading to the sinking feeling that our kids won't have it as good as we do.
Free trade? I'm all for it - but within a fair playing field and fair rules. Should we trade freely with those nations that have similar wage rates and labor and environmental protections to our own, or trade freely with those nations that abuse their workers and pay them peanuts? For generations now, both political parties have catered to American consumers by encouraging cheap foreign goods, while ignoring the plight of American workers priced out of the middle class they thought would be their patrimony.
-
Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.
Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received. The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example.
Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding. It's all an illusion. Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American. The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.
Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers. It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence. I don't like socialism.
I hope that explains. I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces. ^-^
Well said, what I was trying to say but doing it poorly... And the next question is where does it end? Every domestic producer will lobby to tax his competitor over the border and the government then picks winners and losers while the consumer simply loses. In the 70's we had really crappy cars because the auto workers unions and the car companies had little competition outside their bubble.
-
Of course, that presupposes that American workers should be expected to compete with foreign workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar, as compared with the kind of wages American workers need to provide decent lives for their families.
The anger that has led to Trump's election is based on the reality that globalism has changed the game for many Americans, shattering lives and leading to the sinking feeling that our kids won't have it as good as we do.
Free trade? I'm all for it - but within a fair playing field and fair rules. Should we trade freely with those nations that have similar wage rates and labor and environmental protections to our own, or trade freely with those nations that abuse their workers and pay them peanuts? For generations now, both political parties have catered to American consumers by encouraging cheap foreign goods, while ignoring the plight of American workers priced out of the middle class they thought would be their patrimony.
You can't bend economic forces without them catching up to you. We are not an island. We can lead or fall behind. The world will go on with or without us. We compete by innovation, by working smarter, by producing more for less. Extortion often works for awhile but the consequences always catch up to you. Just see what happens with entrenched unions over time.
As the Chinese gain wealth, fewer and fewer of them are willing to work for "pennies on the dollar" and more and more are demand better working conditions including environmental. They don't want to be poisoned anymore than other people. Japan was much the same in the 60's moving into the 70's. Those days are long gone now and that day is coming for China too.
You also put way to much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.
-
You can't bend economic forces without them catching up to you. We are not an island. We can lead or fall behind. The world will go on with or without us. We compete by innovation, by working smarter, by producing more for less.
And having a tax code that rewards effort and savings instead of punishing those things would be of GREAT benefit!
Extortion often works for awhile but the consequences always catch up to you. Just see what happens with entrenched unions over time.
Nothing to add to that except a hearty :amen:
As the Chinese gain wealth, fewer and fewer of them are willing to work for "pennies on the dollar" and more and more are demand better working conditions including environmental. They don't want to be poisoned anymore than other people. Japan was much the same in the 60's moving into the 70's. Those days are long gone now and that day is coming for China too.
You also put way too much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.
:amen: Again! The laws of economics are just as immutable as those of physics!
-
Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers. It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence. I don't like socialism.
No, tariffs are one means for raising tax revenue to cover the cost of government. They are no better or worse than any other form of taxation, in that each has "winners" and "losers". I'd say tariffs have their role to play within a system of taxation, and, like any other kind of tax (income tax, sales tax, VAT, user fees, etc.) can be designed efficiently or designed poorly.
I think there's a rather knee-jerk reaction against the idea of tariffs, even though the Founders themselves favored their use. I support the use of APOLITICAL tariffs as part of an integrated system of taxation. And I'm happy to support free trade, within a fair system of rules that doesn't punish American workers. Free trade with countries whose wage rates and labor/environmental protections don't match our own is intrinsically biased in favor of consumers and against workers. if you're going to support unbridled free trade, then at least be honest about who you're favoring and who you're consigning to a lifetime of misery.
-
You also put way to much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.
But trade policy toward the outside world has always been a legitimate function of government - that is, unless you are against the notion of borders between nations.
-
The laws of economics are just as immutable as those of physics!
Perhaps, and you don't need to convince me of the benefits of free trade - heck, our nation was founded on the principle of free trade among the several states.
But it is up to the governments of nations to establish the playing field and rules by which free trade will operate. And the composition of the playing field matters - a lot. Free trade within the U.S. is one thing, or free trade with the European union. Such free trade on a level playing field doesn't intrinsically displace American workers and drive down wages. But if you favor free trade with the likes of China, then you favor American consumers at the expense of American workers. And enough of those workers have seen their life prospects dissolve that they elected Donald Trump as President.
-
No, tariffs are one means for raising tax revenue to cover the cost of government. They are no better or worse than any other form of taxation, in that each has "winners" and "losers". I'd say tariffs have their role to play within a system of taxation, and, like any other kind of tax (income tax, sales tax, VAT, user fees, etc.) can be designed efficiently or designed poorly.
I think there's a rather knee-jerk reaction against the idea of tariffs, even though the Founders themselves favored their use. I support the use of APOLITICAL tariffs as part of an integrated system of taxation. And I'm happy to support free trade, within a fair system of rules that doesn't punish American workers. Free trade with countries whose wage rates and labor/environmental protections don't match our own is intrinsically biased in favor of consumers and against workers. if you're going to support unbridled free trade, then at least be honest about who you're favoring and who you're consigning to a lifetime of misery.
You do realize that we export a massive amount of stuff around the world. That every barrier put up to our products, simply because they will do what we do to retaliate, means we sell less of those products and that costs jobs and wealth here, right.
And, actually most of those taxes are deadly long term and we're paying the price for many of them now. The more you feed government the more government you get. We are not withering due to a lack of government. Just the opposite, we are being crushed by its burden. Government is now in practically every facet of our lives. Our children need a license to setup a lemonade stand in front of their house these days... And we accept that without much more than a whimper... And we sing songs of "the land of the free and home of the brave"... What a sick joke. Now we need our safe spaces, both in college and in competition it seems...
-
But trade policy toward the outside world has always been a legitimate function of government - that is, unless you are against the notion of borders between nations.
And that policy has been to open trade. To reduce barriers. To live by example.
The answer is to make us more competitive in the world be reducing the burdens on our economic engine, people - business, by not taxing and regulating the hell out of them. You've got things backwards. First laws are passed that make us less competitive and then you demand that we put up barriers to our competitors to fix the consequences of those laws. It is a vicious circle swirling around and around ever sinking further chasing the bleeding and not the cause. It always ends badly. Freedom is the only choice that works long term.
-
Perhaps, and you don't need to convince me of the benefits of free trade - heck, our nation was founded on the principle of free trade among the several states.
But it is up to the governments of nations to establish the playing field and rules by which free trade will operate. And the composition of the playing field matters - a lot. Free trade within the U.S. is one thing, or free trade with the European union. Such free trade on a level playing field doesn't intrinsically displace American workers and drive down wages. But if you favor free trade with the likes of China, then you favor American consumers at the expense of American workers. And enough of those workers have seen their life prospects dissolve that they elected Donald Trump as President.
IF we get our own house in order we have nothing at all to fear from free markets! It won't make any difference what they do because NONE of them will be able to keep up with us and we will very likely be importing labor to fill the jobs we simply can't fill from within.
-
You do realize that we export a massive amount of stuff around the world. That every barrier put up to our products, simply because they will do what we do to retaliate, means we sell less of those products and that costs jobs and wealth here, right.
Of course. I'm in favor of free trade, on a more-or-less level playing field. And retaliation is the natural reaction to politically-based tariffs. What I favor is a system of apolitical tariffs based on objective measurement of the value added by non-U.S. labor, without regard to whether a nation is or is not our ally. The idea is to minimize the threat of retaliation and retain the viability of our exports.
And, actually most of those taxes are deadly long term and we're paying the price for many of them now. The more you feed government the more government you get. We are not withering due to a lack of government. Just the opposite, we are being crushed by its burden. Government is now in practically every facet of our lives. Our children need a license to setup a lemonade stand in front of their house these days... And we accept that without much more than a whimper... And we sing songs of "the land of the free and home of the brave"... What a sick joke. Now we need our safe spaces, both in college and in competition it seems...
Reduce the size and scope of government? Sign me up - we're on the same page. But again - it is a perfectly legitimate function of the federal government - or any national government - to determine the rules of engagement for trade among nations. Otherwise, let's subscribe to the globalists' wet dream of eliminating all borders and national sovereignty.
-
IF we get our own house in order we have nothing at all to fear from free markets! It won't make any difference what they do because NONE of them will be able to keep up with us and we will very likely be importing labor to fill the jobs we simply can't fill from within.
The question isn't the efficacy of free markets, it's the question of the proper size of those markets. We are under no obligation to trade freely with the entire world. Borders exist for a reason. We treasure our national sovereignty for a reason. We are under no obligation to promote globalism for its own sake; we should do so only if it is consistent with our national interest.
-
The question isn't the efficacy of free markets, it's the question of the proper size of those markets. We are under no obligation to trade freely with the entire world. Borders exist for a reason. We treasure our national sovereignty for a reason. We are under no obligation to promote globalism for its own sake; we should do so only if it is consistent with our national interest.
I have not said a word about promoting globalism! NOT ONE!
What I did say is that IF we got our own house in order we would not need to fear free trade with anyone anywhere. And there would be NO need what so ever for devices like tariffs!
-
Of course, that presupposes that American workers should be expected to compete with foreign workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar, as compared with the kind of wages American workers need to provide decent lives for their families.
The anger that has led to Trump's election is based on the reality that globalism has changed the game for many Americans, shattering lives and leading to the sinking feeling that our kids won't have it as good as we do.
Free trade? I'm all for it - but within a fair playing field and fair rules. Should we trade freely with those nations that have similar wage rates and labor and environmental protections to our own, or trade freely with those nations that abuse their workers and pay them peanuts? For generations now, both political parties have catered to American consumers by encouraging cheap foreign goods, while ignoring the plight of American workers priced out of the middle class they thought would be their patrimony.
I agree with your point, but one leg has been removed from our economic horse before the starting bell. The cost of compliance with moving target environmental regulations is a business killer. It is the weapon wielded in the "War on Coal" causing serious damage to that industry by shutting down the power plants that used the product. As soon as one concern is addressed, another is imposed by new, revamped, or more stringent regulation. Not only does the equipment to comply and the modification of existing equipment add to the cost of products, but the shut down time to perform modifications removes revenue as well. If that same task can be performed in areas which have no such regulation issues, it can be done more cheaply and efficiently, all other things being equal, which they commonly are not. To a great extent, our government has imposed the very things which have already caused the out-migration of American jobs.
There is little point in building a manufacturing facility which will be in compliance this year and a Superfund site in ten (due to changing regulations), when the same product can be made elsewhere and transported here for significantly less than it would cost to make it here.
-
Well said, what I was trying to say but doing it poorly... And the next question is where does it end? Every domestic producer will lobby to tax his competitor over the border and the government then picks winners and losers while the consumer simply loses. In the 70's we had really crappy cars because the auto workers unions and the care companies had little competition outside their bubble.
True, but an entry level new car in the '70s was 2K or less, and you could work on it with a few fairly inexpensive tools.
-
You can't bend economic forces without them catching up to you. We are not an island. We can lead or fall behind. The world will go on with or without us. We compete by innovation, by working smarter, by producing more for less. Extortion often works for awhile but the consequences always catch up to you. Just see what happens with entrenched unions over time.
As the Chinese gain wealth, fewer and fewer of them are willing to work for "pennies on the dollar" and more and more are demand better working conditions including environmental. They don't want to be poisoned anymore than other people. Japan was much the same in the 60's moving into the 70's. Those days are long gone now and that day is coming for China too.
True, but there is always another 'China' over the hill, bee it Vietnam, India, Pakistan, wherever, where people will do more for less.
You also put way to much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.
Also true. If government uses the word "fair" anywhere in the document, you can just about bet it isn't.
-
I agree with your point, but one leg has been removed from our economic horse before the starting bell. The cost of compliance with moving target environmental regulations is a business killer. It is the weapon wielded in the "War on Coal" causing serious damage to that industry by shutting down the power plants that used the product. As soon as one concern is addressed, another is imposed by new, revamped, or more stringent regulation. Not only does the equipment to comply and the modification of existing equipment add to the cost of products, but the shut down time to perform modifications removes revenue as well. If that same task can be performed in areas which have no such regulation issues, it can be done more cheaply and efficiently, all other things being equal, which they commonly are not. To a great extent, our government has imposed the very things which have already caused the out-migration of American jobs.
There is little point in building a manufacturing facility which will be in compliance this year and a Superfund site in ten (due to changing regulations), when the same product can be made elsewhere and transported here for significantly less than it would cost to make it here.
Thank God! There IS someone else who actually understands what is really going on!
Big business and BIG government have long been partners in crime!
-
Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.
Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received. The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example.
I'd venture to say that our income tax system also picks winners and losers. Right now, if you are rich, you can abscomb with not only the federal tax-support for a Tesla car, but also the tax credit on your own 1140. Does that actually seem like picking a winner and loser?
Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding. It's all an illusion. Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American. The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.
you are only portraying one side of this equation. What about the increased competitiveness for the American product, the US-based sales taxes paid on it, the payroll increase, the tariff revenue which comes about? If tariffs are properly utilized, not just some indiscriminate whim, but targeted for specific purposes and time, they are as good a tax as say an income tax.
-
I'd venture to say that our income tax system also picks winners and losers.
Agreed. Saying tariffs would be a bad idea doesn't mean our current system is right!
But no matter how upset you are at your face, it's stupid to lop off your nose.
you are only portraying one side of this equation. What about the increased competitiveness for the American product, the US-based sales taxes paid on it, the payroll increase, the tariff revenue which comes about? If tariffs are properly utilized, not just some indiscriminate whim, but targeted for specific purposes and time, they are as good a tax as say an income tax.
Increased competitiveness? Huh?
American products get LESS competitive when there are tariffs. Sure, prices can be artificially raised to soak American consumers, but that doesn't mean you can force someone in Germany, France, Japan, China, Canada, etc., to buy. In fact, it cuts the incentive to make a competitive product.
I think we need a marquee reminder....
TANSTAAFL!
Sure you can target a tariff for a short period of time, but you have to pay for it somehow.
-
American products get LESS competitive when there are tariffs.
a tariff on another country's product makes our less competitive?
That is so weird a comment I cannot even respond.
-
True, but an entry level new car in the '70s was 2K or less, and you could work on it with a few fairly inexpensive tools.
If it weren't for the all the federal regulation you could get pretty close to that today. But when the government is involved in car design right down to thinking they have the right in demand ever car have a back up camera, you can kiss cheap new cars goodbye.
-
I'd venture to say that our income tax system also picks winners and losers. Right now, if you are rich, you can abscomb with not only the federal tax-support for a Tesla car, but also the tax credit on your own 1140. Does that actually seem like picking a winner and loser? you are only portraying one side of this equation. What about the increased competitiveness for the American product, the US-based sales taxes paid on it, the payroll increase, the tariff revenue which comes about? If tariffs are properly utilized, not just some indiscriminate whim, but targeted for specific purposes and time, they are as good a tax as say an income tax.
It is the fact that tariffs are target for specific purposes and times which makes them dangerous. Suppose, in his quest to have gasoline as expensive here as in Europe, Obama had been able to impose a tariff on every barrel of imported crude? (That's about half the daily supply, in the US). While the domestic oil industry would have benefited from the price support (the effective price of domestic crude would have gone up), the consumer would have paid more at the pump despite there being more oil than ever on the world markets.
Now, turn that over, and when the tariff came off, the collapse in the energy sector would have been devastating, with prices not covering extraction costs and the industry imploding.
That is the ability to impose a boom/bust economy, and in so doing, pick entire sectors which will benefit or collapse as a result. The potential for equity market manipulation is staggering.
The ability to impoverish or enrich investors, depending on who is invested in what, unfathomable.
We gripe about picking winners and losers during the Obama administration (they did it with regulations and other policy changes), and that remains intact. Now, impose another layer of government picking winners and losers with tariffs, and everyone loses. Create that sort of fundamental uncertainty in the marketplace, where your living could be gone tomorrow, and the whole economy will hunker down in caution, while consumers will pay more at the point of sale.
-
NO government should have a tool such as our current income tax system and most especially not OUR government!
-
NO government should have a tool such as our current income tax system and most especially not OUR government!
Between that, wide open credit, and the ability to seize what it wants and you get to sue later, we are in trouble.
-
It is the fact that tariffs are target for specific purposes and times which makes them dangerous. Suppose, in his quest to have gasoline as expensive here as in Europe, Obama had been able to impose a tariff on every barrel of imported crude? (That's about half the daily supply, in the US). While the domestic oil industry would have benefited from the price support (the effective price of domestic crude would have gone up), the consumer would have paid more at the pump despite there being more oil than ever on the world markets.
Now, turn that over, and when the tariff came off, the collapse in the energy sector would have been devastating, with prices not covering extraction costs and the industry imploding.
That is the ability to impose a boom/bust economy, and in so doing, pick entire sectors which will benefit or collapse as a result. The potential for equity market manipulation is staggering.
The ability to impoverish or enrich investors, depending on who is invested in what, unfathomable.
We gripe about picking winners and losers during the Obama administration (they did it with regulations and other policy changes), and that remains intact. Now, impose another layer of government picking winners and losers with tariffs, and everyone loses. Create that sort of fundamental uncertainty in the marketplace, where your living could be gone tomorrow, and the whole economy will hunker down in caution, while consumers will pay more at the point of sale.
dangerous if used unwisely.
The millions of returning GIs demanded some jobs be there, and in the 1922 tariff, the purposes were clearly stated when implemented. Not dangerous unless those purposes were not followed subsequently.
That tariff worked well as we enjoyed a period of prosperity in the 20s.
Overall, taxes are abhorrent; however, government cannot run without them.
There are several ways to produce that income for government. Is tariffs the best? For specific purposes, they could be for a portion of that take.
What I object to is people making blanket accusations that they are all bad. Just not so.
-
dangerous if used unwisely.
The millions of returning GIs demanded some jobs be there, and in the 1922 tariff, the purposes were clearly stated when implemented. Not dangerous unless those purposes were not followed subsequently.
That tariff worked well as we enjoyed a period of prosperity in the 20s.
Overall, taxes are abhorrent; however, government cannot run without them.
There are several ways to produce that income for government. Is tariffs the best? For specific purposes, they could be for a portion of that take.
What I object to is people making blanket accusations that they are all bad. Just not so.
Whatever their intent tarriffs always end up as a hidden tax on consumers. I do not believe it wise to allow government that ability.
-
Whatever their intent tarriffs always end up as a hidden tax on consumers. I do not believe it wise to allow government that ability.
@IsailedawayfromFR Tariffs are a legitimate means of raising revenue, and are Constitutionally authorized. There was a time the government was funded using tariffs and no income tax (an income tax took a Constitutional Amendment, and the meaning of "income" has changed, too).
A tariff tax system can be done, but the country was young then, and needed a lot less money because it was still within its Constitutional constraints. That isn't what will happen, though, instead both would be used. Envision being taxed on the money you get in exchange for your skills or labor. Now, pay the extra tax on any imported goods, reflected in the increased price. Now pay the sales taxes on that increased price. Pay the taxes on taxes with your taxed money.One for you, nineteen for me...'cause I'm the Taxman....(Beatles)
Now, however the Federal Government has metastasized into an ever growing, more intrusive, and often malignant entity which will not confine itself to its authorized powers, nor does very well at performing its assigned tasks, but instead pervasively regulates every facet of daily life, directly or indirectly, at great expense. Feeding that leviathan is only asking for more. It has the power to consume what it will, and to do so in advance, borrowing against the future of every citizen. If there is to be a restructuring of taxes, it must be met by restructuring the very creature they feed. Otherwise, it will only have found yet another vein to tap in its parasitic ventures.
-
Milton Friedman wrote a book called, "Free to Choose" which I recommend to anyone who is interested in trade/tariffs. In it, he makes a policy proposal that is absolutely stunning. It pretty much flies in the face of every discussion on tariffs I've ever read, from either side of the issue. And he backs it up well. Even if you don't agree with his staunchly free trade stance, I think you'll appreciate the experience of reviewing his arguments if you like to think about this stuff.
You know, I just realized I haven't been called a Free Traitor once since I came here. It's almost like we can look at the issues, discuss our views, come to different conclusions, and yet still not be forced to resort to calling each other names.
-
Milton Friedman wrote a book called, "Free to Choose" which I recommend to anyone who is interested in trade/tariffs. In it, he makes a policy proposal that is absolutely stunning. It pretty much flies in the face of every discussion on tariffs I've ever read, from either side of the issue. And he backs it up well. Even if you don't agree with his staunchly free trade stance, I think you'll appreciate the experience of reviewing his arguments if you like to think about this stuff.
You know, I just realized I haven't been called a Free Traitor once since I came here. It's almost like we can look at the issues, discuss our views, come to different conclusions, and yet still not be forced to resort to calling each other names.
Funny how that works, isn't it? It's nice to sit at the adult table and not be called a "poopy head" every time you turn around.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR Tariffs are a legitimate means of raising revenue, and are Constitutionally authorized. There was a time the government was funded using tariffs and no income tax (an income tax took a Constitutional Amendment, and the meaning of "income" has changed, too).
A tariff tax system can be done, but the country was young then, and needed a lot less money because it was still within its Constitutional constraints. That isn't what will happen, though, instead both would be used. Envision being taxed on the money you get in exchange for your skills or labor. Now, pay the extra tax on any imported goods, reflected in the increased price. Now pay the sales taxes on that increased price. Pay the taxes on taxes with your taxed money.One for you, nineteen for me...'cause I'm the Taxman....(Beatles)
Now, however the Federal Government has metastasized into an ever growing, more intrusive, and often malignant entity which will not confine itself to its authorized powers, nor does very well at performing its assigned tasks, but instead pervasively regulates every facet of daily life, directly or indirectly, at great expense. Feeding that leviathan is only asking for more. It has the power to consume what it will, and to do so in advance, borrowing against the future of every citizen. If there is to be a restructuring of taxes, it must be met by restructuring the very creature they feed. Otherwise, it will only have found yet another vein to tap in its parasitic ventures.
yes, in spite of my reservations about Trump, he is in the best position to redo what this govt is doing. I trust God helps him. Trump needs it badly
-
Whatever their intent tarriffs always end up as a hidden tax on consumers. I do not believe it wise to allow government that ability.
What? I thought you were all about consumption taxes as the antidote to the dreaded income tax.
I think it's probably fairer, especially when revenues for general expenditures are required, to tax income rather than consumption.
-
Milton Friedman wrote a book called, "Free to Choose" which I recommend to anyone who is interested in trade/tariffs. In it, he makes a policy proposal that is absolutely stunning. It pretty much flies in the face of every discussion on tariffs I've ever read, from either side of the issue. And he backs it up well. Even if you don't agree with his staunchly free trade stance, I think you'll appreciate the experience of reviewing his arguments if you like to think about this stuff.
You know, I just realized I haven't been called a Free Traitor once since I came here. It's almost like we can look at the issues, discuss our views, come to different conclusions, and yet still not be forced to resort to calling each other names.
Yes indeed.
-
What? I thought you were all about consumption taxes as the antidote to the dreaded income tax.
I think it's probably fairer, especially when revenues for general expenditures are required, to tax income rather than consumption.
I am! Tariffs are HIDDEN from consumers in prices. The tax proposal I support is anything but!
Then you support continuing the cottage industry in Washington which is: Reward your friends and punish your enemies via the tax code! Not to mention all the social engineering that can be done with the income tax and cannot with a point of retail sale only sales tax.
-
Milton Friedman wrote a book called, "Free to Choose" which I recommend to anyone who is interested in trade/tariffs. In it, he makes a policy proposal that is absolutely stunning. It pretty much flies in the face of every discussion on tariffs I've ever read, from either side of the issue. And he backs it up well. Even if you don't agree with his staunchly free trade stance, I think you'll appreciate the experience of reviewing his arguments if you like to think about this stuff.
You know, I just realized I haven't been called a Free Traitor once since I came here. It's almost like we can look at the issues, discuss our views, come to different conclusions, and yet still not be forced to resort to calling each other names.
Milton and Rose Freeman have long been my heroes and will always remain so! BTW: IIRC "Free to Choose" was a joint effort between those two..
-
What? I thought you were all about consumption taxes as the antidote to the dreaded income tax.
I think it's probably fairer, especially when revenues for general expenditures are required, to tax income rather than consumption.
Define income.
Is it income if I trade you a dozen eggs for a loaf of bread?
Is it income if I offer to fix your car if you clean my gutters?
Is it income if I give you some round pieces of metal to help me shovel my driveway?
Is it income if I give you some pieces of paper instead, in exchange for your help?
Every one of those transactions is an exchange of goods for goods, labor for goods, skills for labor, or labor for money. According to the tax people those are all income taxable transactions. But they aren't a gain per se, they are an exchange, even up.
If I put money in a bank account and get interest, that is income.
If I buy something for x dollars and sell that same thing for y dollars, and the difference between y and x is a positive number, that is income. (like a share of stock).
If I loan money and get paid back with interest, that is income.
If I rent you my snow shovel, that rent is income (provided I get the shovel back).
So I guess it depends on how you define "income"
I know the nearly $450,000 I paid in taxes for the privilege of working 14 hour days and being away from home for most of 5 years wasn't a welcome intrusion into my economic situation, especially because in a year afterward when I made less than I paid in taxes the previous year, not a dime of that comes back.
As it stands, we pay income tax, SS FICA, sales tax, excise taxes, corporate taxes (written into the prices of the things we buy) and taxes on those taxes when we buy whatever, fuel taxes, all the little taxes and 'fees' on your cell phone bill or landline bill, access charges (as if it cost the FCC anything to put in the electromagnetic spectrum), and others.
I'm Taxed Enough Already.
While I console myself with the Fedgov picking up the cost of this person's medications or that person's medications, I also recognize that part of the reasons those meds are so expensive are Federal Regulations.
Otherwise, I can't say how I'd react to the thought that the 2/5 of my income gone in taxes in those good years went to pay for a study of the sex lives of pre-pubescent butterflies somewhere, or something I regard as equally arcane and useless. Money which would sustain me and my family for, literally, years, if I still had it.
The only way to reduce the tax burden, though, is to hammer the Federal Government back into its Constitutionally delineated boundaries, and to handle the resultant issues at the State level, as the feds are forced to abandon the usurped power over things which rightfully should be the province of the States and Local Government. There is no economy of scale when everything is one size fits all, and most situations deviate by some degree from average.
There are many different schemes out there to tax people. They range from a consumption tax to a modified consumption tax, with or without subsidies, to a flat tax on revenue, to the gradational tax system we have today, with its myriad loopholes, shelters, and other devices to avoid it. No matter which one is used, it is pouring money into an increasingly leaky bucket.
It is time to fix the leaks, to cut government and costs, just as those of us who have been subject to economic downturns have had to do the same.
And it just might be time to define income so it reflects a gain, and not just an exchange.
-
I am! Tariffs are HIDDEN from consumers in prices. The tax proposal I support is anything but!
There are a lot of taxes hidden from consumers.
How about the gasoline tax at the pump? This used to be almost non-existent and now is 18.4 cents per gal.
How about the income taxes paid by business? Do consumers see this when they purchase virtually anything?
Utilities?
Most taxes are hidden from consumers. Otherwise, people would rebel.
The point is that a tariff is not anymore hidden than a slew of other taxes.
-
Define income.
Is it income if I trade you a dozen eggs for a loaf of bread?
Is it income if I offer to fix your car if you clean my gutters?
Is it income if I give you some round pieces of metal to help me shovel my driveway?
Is it income if I give you some pieces of paper instead, in exchange for your help?
Every one of those transactions is an exchange of goods for goods, labor for goods, skills for labor, or labor for money. According to the tax people those are all income taxable transactions. But they aren't a gain per se, they are an exchange, even up.
If I put money in a bank account and get interest, that is income.
If I buy something for x dollars and sell that same thing for y dollars, and the difference between y and x is a positive number, that is income. (like a share of stock).
If I loan money and get paid back with interest, that is income.
If I rent you my snow shovel, that rent is income (provided I get the shovel back).
So I guess it depends on how you define "income"
I know the nearly $450,000 I paid in taxes for the privilege of working 14 hour days and being away from home for most of 5 years wasn't a welcome intrusion into my economic situation, especially because in a year afterward when I made less than I paid in taxes the previous year, not a dime of that comes back.
As it stands, we pay income tax, SS FICA, sales tax, excise taxes, corporate taxes (written into the prices of the things we buy) and taxes on those taxes when we buy whatever, fuel taxes, all the little taxes and 'fees' on your cell phone bill or landline bill, access charges (as if it cost the FCC anything to put in the electromagnetic spectrum), and others.
I'm Taxed Enough Already.
While I console myself with the Fedgov picking up the cost of this person's medications or that person's medications, I also recognize that part of the reasons those meds are so expensive are Federal Regulations.
Otherwise, I can't say how I'd react to the thought that the 2/5 of my income gone in taxes in those good years went to pay for a study of the sex lives of pre-pubescent butterflies somewhere, or something I regard as equally arcane and useless. Money which would sustain me and my family for, literally, years, if I still had it.
The only way to reduce the tax burden, though, is to hammer the Federal Government back into its Constitutionally delineated boundaries, and to handle the resultant issues at the State level, as the feds are forced to abandon the usurped power over things which rightfully should be the province of the States and Local Government. There is no economy of scale when everything is one size fits all, and most situations deviate by some degree from average.
There are many different schemes out there to tax people. They range from a consumption tax to a modified consumption tax, with or without subsidies, to a flat tax on revenue, to the gradational tax system we have today, with its myriad loopholes, shelters, and other devices to avoid it. No matter which one is used, it is pouring money into an increasingly leaky bucket.
It is time to fix the leaks, to cut government and costs, just as those of us who have been subject to economic downturns have had to do the same.
And it just might be time to define income so it reflects a gain, and not just an exchange.
Awesome post!
-
There are a lot of taxes hidden from consumers.
How about the gasoline tax at the pump? This used to be almost non-existent and now is 18.4 cents per gal.
How about the income taxes paid by business? Do consumers see this when they purchase virtually anything?
Utilities?
Most taxes are hidden from consumers. Otherwise, people would rebel.
The point is that a tariff is not anymore hidden than a slew of other taxes.
Exactly! And they should not be! In fact, we will NEVER get a handle on government overspending until the average Joe realizes what he is REALLY paying for all that government.
-
There are a lot of taxes hidden from consumers.
How about the gasoline tax at the pump? This used to be almost non-existent and now is 18.4 cents per gal.
How about the income taxes paid by business? Do consumers see this when they purchase virtually anything?
Utilities?
Most taxes are hidden from consumers. Otherwise, people would rebel.
The point is that a tariff is not anymore hidden than a slew of other taxes.
State and federal fuels taxes are posted on the pump with a notice that the price includes them, at least around here. Those taxes a business doesn't accept as an expense, ti will pass on to consumers, even if they are listed. Look at a phone bill some time.