Trump calls for 10% tariff on all imports

Taxes and tariffs do one thing in common. They change buying behavior. I would rather have more money to find an alternative product and change my buying habits than have 10% in taxes taken from the top.

 

You are mixing words and concepts. They mean almost the opposite depending on the context.

classical liberalism means various freedoms, including individual and economic liberty, which closely align with capitalism. American political liberalism is more progressivism, something between classical liberalism with aspects of socialism. Conservatism had other aspects of classical liberalism but intermixed with a dabbling of social authoritarianism and nationalism.

Generally in the US tariffs were favored by labor and unions which tended to be liberal democrats. However in the last few years everything has been turned on it’s head.

 

I think wit all the loopholes, tax shelters, trusts, single asset shields and other games that are played to shift taxable income, there is really no question that the tax laws favor the rich.

I think the tax entire system as it exists is just inefficient and inequitable.

I think a use tax, in lieu of income tax, would be more efficient, including drawing more revenue with less enforcement. And there can be regressive-adjustment components, such as increased tax on luxury items. There can be tax-exempt cards for those whose income does not meet a certain threshold.

Regardless, the system needs an overhaul and creative minds would be fantastic to reach a new system.

 

Really dumb protectionist economic policy. Not surprising from a guy who never learns anything.

Guess he’d pretty much shred his “New Nafta” as well?

I’m actually not opposed to targeted tariffs (to combat illegal dumping, playing hardball with China and such), the “across the board” even with good trading partners is what is idiotic and economically suicidal.

 

I think unions are probably still in favor of industrial tariffs, it’s a left wing protectionist policy, which typically comes back to union special interests. Although we must remember our cars and washing machines and such are exported too, and would face retaliatory tariffs. So even unions at this point probably recognize it as somewhat of a mixed bag.

Outside of a union man thinking they are looking out for their own (perhaps economically inefficient) employment interests, a regular Joe six pack would have to be an abject moron to support tariffs - which would only make goods more expensive and less available to him (let alone considering the negative hit to GDP which would result in job losses).

 

I understand what you're saying there. An example I was thinking of is that I recall reading during Covid that a substantial percentage of our prescription drugs is manufactured in China. If that's true and assuming China placed retaliatory tariffs put on those medications, American consumers wouldn't have domestic alternatives from which to choose. They'd have to either pay the increased price or stop taking the medications altogether.

 

I agree with your premise, but drug manufacturing is a whole other discussion. We need to bring back all drug making back to this side of the Pacific Ocean.

 

Didn't Trump's economics professor at Penn say that he was the dumbest student he ever had?

 

An “across the board” tariff changes behavior, in the sense it makes everyone slightly poorer and reduces trade (thereby reducing options available to consumers). It also causes defacto inflation. If a foreign company was winning on price, selling widgets for $1.00 instead of $1.05. The 10% tariff means the domestic supplier can go ahead and charge up to $1.10… and they will. So even the poorest person would see yet another inflation hit on everything they buy that would be subject to tariffs. It’s only a “choice” in the sense you are giving them the option to do without, which actually means “reduced economic activity”, I.e. a hit to GDP output. Between dumb immigration policy and tariffs, Trumpers must love them some inflation.

Hypothetically in a graduated tax system, increasing the highest bracket 10% only directly impacts that bracket. It may have a knock on effect in industries connected to high end goods, so a slight tick in unemployment in those certain industries, but it isn’t changing the price of goods across the board for everyone as tariffs on everything, by definition, would. But it’s all besides the point, as I don’t see any serious effort to raise that top rate by 10%. I’ve long maintained we probably don’t need to raise the top statutory rate at all to balance the budget. A substantial amount is lost due to the vast disparity between the statutory rate and the effective rate.

 

I said as much. I said spare me going to a percentage of income. The poster said the poor pay a higher percentage of sales taxes. They do not. They do pay a higher percentage compared to their income. At the same time. They pay no income taxes. Separate issue.

 

100% the system needs an overhaul. Could not agree more. When you have almost half the country not paying income taxes. That is a problem. We need to remove most deductions and credits. But that won’t go well with either side.

We have a real problem. There is almost half the country you cannot cut taxes for. Well you could give them more credits I suppose. We need a simple system. One standard deduction or none and charitable contributions (yes I know this could be abused) and healthcare expenditures as the only deductions. Two or three rates from there. No more ISO executive pay being taxed at cap gains. But that won’t fly from either side sadly…

 

India as well.

I was surprised to learn years ago that Puerto Rico was a huge supplier of drugs domestically. Hurricane Maria really disrupted that, and may have shifted some to seek production in India and China? China is still <10% of drugs, but that 10% figure is up multiples in just a few years. I admittedly wouldn’t want to see it go much higher.

I just have issues trusting something like that sourced from China (just as I might balk at buying food from China… unless it’s green tea lol). It’s not like buying a pair of socks.

 

The only problem with Americans is that half of them want Biden and the other half wants Trump.

 

Trump thinks the Gov gets the 10% to help balance his tax cuts

 

Looks like spyware

 

It’s actually closer to 40% and the fact that 40% of Americans *don’t make enough money* to pay income taxes isn’t really a particularly strong assertion for your argument.

Meanwhile, the effective income tax rate for the top 400 families is lower than the effective income tax rate for all taxpayers. And the higher you go from the top 1% the lower their effective income tax rate, with it eventually becoming less than 4%. That hardly supports the progressive intent of the tax.

 

Now I understand the point you were trying to make. But it still does not jive with the overall tax issue.

The poor pay no income taxes. In fact many likely get credits and get money. The rich pay the vast majority of taxes. Progressive and regressive.

 

That is just not going to true in the grand scheme. Now the few times a top 400 wealth individual recognizes an iso option it should be taxed at normal income rates and not the cap gains. But if they recognize the income they are going to be paying minimum 23.8%.

The narrative pushed is they pay so little because they are paid differently and do not recognize it until later. Where you and I would agree is that income should be taxed at income tax rates and then cap gains if they invest that money after recognizing it…