Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 142K
  • Politics 
Bobfripp said:
The world economy will go to shit with stagflation, etc., for a decade but at least we'll reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion. :confused:
Click to expand...
What's going to happen when taxes are raised on all of us to address the debt? Will it be that much different?
 
ZenMode said:
What's going to happen when taxes are raised on all of us to address the debt?
Click to expand...
It's the 'raised on all of us' part that's the issue. The deficit could be eliminated by increasing taxes, not just on income, but capital gains, inherited wealth, etc. on the wealthiest Americans. But the Pubs won't do it. The filthy rich are their base.

And tariffs are a tax on us ordinary folks, and the poor. The rich won't feel any pain, which is why they like tariffs.
 
Bobfripp said:
It's the 'raised on all of us' part that's the issue. The deficit could be eliminated by increasing taxes, not just on income, but capital gains, inherited wealth, etc. on the wealthiest Americans. But the Pubs won't do it. The filthy rich are their base.
Click to expand...
I don't believe we can pay off the debt on the backs of only the wealthy. Bill Clinton raised capital gains taxes to address the deficit and even he admitted that he raised them too much.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't believe we can pay off the debt on the backs of only the wealthy. Bill Clinton raised capital gains taxes to address the deficit and even he admitted that he raised them too much.
Click to expand...
You see this chart? ....

1756240246000.png

1% of Americans own 27% of the net worth in this country. 50% of Americans own about 2-3% of the net worth. Tax the rich, eliminate the deficit.
 
nycfan said:
Story already noted in this thread but notable for who is amplifying it …

Click to expand...

Mike Pence might want to keep in mind the John Bolten example. But being that he's from Indiana, this is concerning to him I'm sure. Perhaps John Deere's stock price is starting to show the affect of tariffs.
 
nycfan said:
I just read a story about a new study yesterday suggesting that the top 400 richest people are much more impacted by corporate taxation than income taxes due to how they make their money, so to the extent companies eat some or all of the tariffs, I guess there is an argument it is the equivalent of raising taxes on the wealthiest 400 people, but count me dubious on that. And the rest is a regressive tax on small businesses and consumers.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing that study. For years, I have argued against the argument about double taxation of Corporate income. Doesn't hold because if its a good investment (think Warren Buffet) then they never sell. Meanwhile, the wealthy are getting the compound affect of much lower tax rates their corporate ownership brings. If its a bad investment and they sell, then why does anyone care that they made a bad investment. Plus, if bad investment then not much to tax anyway.

When you factor in the lower tax rates on Capital Gains, then the rich operate under a separate system. The only folks who pay higher tax rates that are meant for the wealthy are lottery winners.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't believe we can pay off the debt on the backs of only the wealthy. Bill Clinton raised capital gains taxes to address the deficit and even he admitted that he raised them too much.
Click to expand...
You got a link to Bill Clinton saying that? I can't find it. And actually, I believe it was Reagan who first raised long term Capital Gains rate to 28% in 1987. And the way he did it was to eliminate the rate. Therefore, you paid the same rate on Long term Capital Gains as ordinary income. The rate for practical purposes was at 28% for ten years.

Odd, that ten years was an incredible time for the economy and the budget shortfall.
 
BlueSmoke said:
You got a link to Bill Clinton saying that? I can't find it. And actually, I believe it was Reagan who first raised long term Capital Gains rate to 28% in 1987. And the way he did it was to eliminate the rate. Therefore, you paid the same rate on Long term Capital Gains as ordinary income. The rate for practical purposes was at 28% for ten years.

Odd, that ten years was an incredible time for the economy and the budget shortfall.
Click to expand...
You may be right. Maybe it was Reagan that raised it and Clinton lowered it.
 
Anyone who thynks these ttifs are going to last for 10 years, even 5 or 6 is living in the illusory Trump matrix. The middle and working classes konw this is a scam to avoid taxes on wealthy and large cors. Tbe M&W will get rid of the tafiffs and replace with higher taxes on wealthy individuals and large corps. There is an inequality revolt brewing: recent Gallip Poll shows two more popular Americans are the Pope and Bernie SAnders. The rich and large corps have only themselves to blame for what will come. Should have stuck with econonomic sanity of Dems like Clinton, Obaba, Biden and their staff like Roger Altman.
 
BlueSmoke said:
I wouldn't mind seeing that study. For years, I have argued against the argument about double taxation of Corporate income. Doesn't hold because if its a good investment (think Warren Buffet) then they never sell. Meanwhile, the wealthy are getting the compound affect of much lower tax rates their corporate ownership brings. If its a bad investment and they sell, then why does anyone care that they made a bad investment. Plus, if bad investment then not much to tax anyway.

When you factor in the lower tax rates on Capital Gains, then the rich operate under a separate system. The only folks who pay higher tax rates that are meant for the wealthy are lottery winners.
Click to expand...

IMG_9185.jpeg
 
BlueSmoke said:
You got a link to Bill Clinton saying that? I can't find it. And actually, I believe it was Reagan who first raised long term Capital Gains rate to 28% in 1987. And the way he did it was to eliminate the rate. Therefore, you paid the same rate on Long term Capital Gains as ordinary income. The rate for practical purposes was at 28% for ten years.

Odd, that ten years was an incredible time for the economy and the budget shortfall.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I can't find it @ZenMode.
 
There is a reason most of the world gave uo using high tariffs 90 years ago: The Great Depression.
Take a looks at the countries with the highest tariff rates in say 2023 or 24. Generally IIRC, small island countries and very poor landlocked African amd cemtral Asian countries who have no choice.

The world still blames the US for the 2007-08 world economic downturn and will righly blame the US again when the economic fetticome hits the fan in late 2026 and 2027. The US will be (at least temporarily) shunned for the chaos these tafiffs will create worldwide.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't believe we can pay off the debt on the backs of only the wealthy. Bill Clinton raised capital gains taxes to address the deficit and even he admitted that he raised them too much.
Click to expand...
Yes, those fucking poor people need to pay their fair share. They have been mooching at the public teat for far too long.
 
Trump has gotten himself into a mess re China, who has a much stronger trade war hand than the US. China can play thre-four cards: agrioculture, airplanes, Treasuries and most importanly rare earth elements. US really pnly has semicondctors and China can now hold out for top-of-the-line aI chips from NVDA, given they are now using the rare earth weapon, thanks to Trump and his advisors being way too overconfident and ignorant of the US-China strengths and weaknesses early in this trade war,
 
We will see hpw this plays out, but potentially the biggest mistake long-term of all this Trump tariff stuff will be in the damage to US-India relations. R and D administrations have spent 30 years cultivatng India as a key partner in Asia. At the moment, that is in shambles and Indis has started exploring better ties with China,.

RE tariffs, those people who say Trimp is an economic populist have it wrong. Trump is a PINO (populiist in name only) Add a "t" at the end for Trump and you have PINOT. No matter the rhetoric, his econ policies are geared to helping the rich/large corps and solidifying the emerging plutpcracy or modern-day version of an isolationist fiefdom
 
UNCatTech said:
Yes, those fucking poor people need to pay their fair share. They have been mooching at the public teat for far too long.
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of paying a fair share. At its current size, I don't believe we can address the debt just by taxing the rich. There will have to be tax increases on a majority of Americans.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not just a matter of paying a fair share. At its current size, I don't believe we can address the debt just by taxing the rich. There will have to be tax increases on a majority of Americans.
Click to expand...
I was responding to how you stated it. "On the backs of the rich" is far different than what you are saying here.

You have to remember that debt and this country, contributed to creating an environment where the rich people can get as rich as they are. They didn't do it in a vacuum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top