You have to pay for the tax cuts. How do you think he will pay for them then? Or is that also off-topic?
We don't have pay for tax cuts. We don't pay for citizens to earn money that was never the government's money in the first place. I do suppose we could trim some of the fat off Build Back Lesser to pay for it though.
How about a candidate who doesn't want to repeal taxes and put us in a hole, and someone who doesn't want to increase taxes to spend more and put us in a hole? you know.... someone in the CENTER.
As an employer I am just thinking about my HR software calculating taxes minus tips minus overtime. I am getting a headache. Here is Trump 7 years ago talking about simplicity. Why not just lower the rates for the bottom and raise the top instead of all the craziness? Also, if you are replacing income tax with tariffs why would you need an income tax break for anyone? Trump Reiterates He Wants to Simplify the Tax Code (youtube.com)
This is a fascinating misunderstanding of how tariffs work. I assume from the YouTube school of economics. All that internet time and you fail basic macroeconomics. Shame.
Actually, the Trump imposed tariffs helped offset the 2017 tax cut. Biden kept them in place for the revenue since he obviously couldn't get any tax increases passed. We just have too many economic illiterates in this country to know they're being taxed. Other critics have been less sanguine about the long-term effect of the Trump tariffs (and Biden’s embrace of them). They have stressed, in particular, the cost to American consumers, who pay for the tariffs at the cash register. “The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades,” wrote Erica York for the Tax Foundation. Tariffs, she continued, “lead to a net loss in production and jobs and lower levels of income.” They are also notably regressive, burdening poor consumers more than rich ones. Trump and his allies reject the idea that tariffs burden consumers. “The notion that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers is a lie pushed by outsourcers and the Chinese Communist Party,” declared a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. Debunking that claim is hardly worth the effort. “Apparently, nearly every economist in America is a communist now,” observed columnist Catherine Rampell in The Washington Post. Tax History: Take Trump Seriously When He Says Tariffs Will Pay for Tax Reform | Tax Notes
Well, your girl is spending like there's no tomorrow. You notice how it never comes up anymore with either candidate. Interest payments on the national debt top $1 trillion as deficit swells.
.........but Biden kept them, because you know, he had no choice. LMAO. So.... tariffs DO force China to hand over billions of dollars to the U.S.? Keep replying, please......
I know this is futile, but importers pay the tax and pass the cost onto consumers. China doesn't pay anything.
Biden kept them because they are leftist policy and a tool to pander to specific unions (particularly steel and autos). That doesn’t make them economically sound, generally tariffs are lose-lose policy. The broader the tariff, the more pain is noticed throughout the economy. Personally I’ve always felt tariffs are good policy only when specifically targeted at unfair trade. Such as illegal dumping or goods subsidized by govts. The default case should be free trade (0% tax. 0 quotas) and a case should have to be made on each individual proposed tariff. That has always been conventional wisdom. Docspor i believe has previously made the case we shouldn’t even worry about “unfair” trade, as it’s to our economic benefit to receive “dumped” goods. A puritan conservative economic take like that I’d guess is more controversial even among conservatives economists, it was an interesting point and may even be true from a purely technical “economic efficiency” sense. But it probably ignores some of the intent behind the activity (driving competitors out of business, or that nation states may even be trying to dominate industrial capacity, which in a handful of industries could have national security implications).
Interesting. Would people possibly consume less to avoid taxes and would that diminish GDP and economic growth? Instead of an less noticeable withholding tax it would be one you pay very visibly out of your wallet at the cash register.
It actually left the barn in 1981 when the Republican Party replaced fiscal responsibility with Voodoo economics.
No. Tariffs caused U.S. purchasers (whether middle buyers or end user) to hand over billions of dollars in tariffs - and those who don’t pay tariffs, pay the higher price of the domestic product. China doesn’t pay shit. The purpose of a tariff isn’t to “get China to pay”, as with any tariff it’s to protect domestic producers from foreign competition by making the foreign competition more expensive. The old saying, if you want less of something; tax it. If you are doing targeted tariffs. That means that “less of something” is importing less goods. If you do “across the board tariff” or apply tariffs to ALL trade you might as well say you want less economic activity because that is 100% what you get.
It’s a good question, ursid. Employing the maxim that increases in price drive down consumption of a good, yes. But at the same time, the price of working would be reduced, so this same reasoning would suggest that people would work more. I am not sure what we should expect to be the net effect of these two opposite forces on total GDP.
