Tariffs

[Superman]

Everyone shook their heads at our embarrassment of a President and shrugged this off weeks ago, where have you been?

"Everyone" you front running clown? EVERYONE?
can you provide a link to show that literally EVERYONE was embarrassed?

oh - you're inferring Pedo Sniffer.

 

[Superman]

For Democrats, somehow increasing corporate income tax (which will increase prices) is good while tariffs (a tax that will increase prices) are bad.

because the rich can afford it.
child slaves in China cannot. QBR.

 

[Troglodyte]

"Everyone" you front running clown? EVERYONE?
can you provide a link to show that literally EVERYONE was embarrassed?

oh - you're inferring Pedo Sniffer.

Some aren’t embarrassed by Trump, much like dogs aren’t embarrassed about eating ****.

 

[Punxsutawney]

My one and only reason for eliminating ALL corporate taxes is that they are strictly a cost of doing business and ALWAYS get passed on to the consumers as a hidden “additional” tax. The same argument is being made against tariffs. While tariffs have additional benefits, if your willing to truly understand how they can work, I can not see any benefit to Corporate Taxes.

Without corporate taxes, workers and consumers would have even higher direct tax burdens placed on them than they already do.

It's true that part of the costs of corporate taxes are passed on to consumers, but not all or even close to it. That's because they do not affect production costs, and individual companies just don't have that kind of pricing power in modern economies.

We've had decades now of lower corporate tax rates on the premise that the savings would "trickle down" to American workers and consumers.

How has that worked out?

Pretty great for corporate shareholders and emerging economies like China, India and Vietnam.

Not so much for American workers, with a lot more debt than we would otherwise have.

 

[Superman]

Some aren’t embarrassed by Trump, much like dogs aren’t embarrassed about eating ****.

you're self-aware that the same can be said about the entire Democrat party, correct?

of course not. go scratch some more Teslas.

 

[Steeltime]

you're self-aware that the same can be said about the entire Democrat party, correct?

of course not. go scratch some more Teslas.

I presume Dr. Flogstain von Booster-Grifter is queefing about how bad Publicans are.

Says the guy who voted for and is not embarrassed by THIS:

 

[Steelmann]

I presume Dr. Flogstain von Booster-Grifter is queefing about how bad Publicans are.

Says the guy who voted for and is not embarrassed by THIS:

It’s a little early here for this to invade my screen on my Good Friday Morning. My pug just gave my screen the stink eye look. Where’s our resident bikini clad poster to offset this monstrosity?

 

[Superman]

It’s a little early here for this to invade my screen on my Good Friday Morning. My pug just gave my screen the stink eye look. Where’s our resident bikini clad poster to offset this monstrosity?

will this suffice?

 

[IndySteel]

Some aren’t embarrassed by Trump, much like dogs aren’t embarrassed about eating ****.

You’re not embarrassed by being on the side who:

Hates America
Hates women and wants men to take over their sports
Are pedophiles that traffic and **** little kids
Love open borders
Love killers, criminals and drug addicts
Love injecting people with poison, multiple times
Want trannies in our military and the highest levels of government
Hate capitalism
Wants higher taxes
Thinks the weather will end the world
Hates Jews
Loves Islamic terrorists
***** goats
***** sheep
Worships Satan

**** off you dumb commie ************.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

You’re not embarrassed by being on the side who:

Hates America
Hates women and wants men to take over their sports
Are pedophiles that traffic and **** little kids
Love open borders
Love killers, criminals and drug addicts
Love injecting people with poison, multiple times
Want trannies in our military and the highest levels of government
Hate capitalism
Wants higher taxes
Thinks the weather will end the world
Hates Jews
Loves Islamic terrorists
***** goats
***** sheep
Worships Satan

**** off you dumb commie ************.

Oh, come on Indy, Flog don't be hatin' Merica, he/she/they/them just be hatin':

Trump
Musk
DOGE
The Constitution
MAGA, that would be any attempt to keep America great
Anyone that voted for Trump
Deportations
Secure borders
Lower taxes
Enforcement of laws currently on the books
Free trade, fair trade
Personal responsibility
Common sense
The 3 branches of government
Bail and incarcerations
Fossil fuels
Whyte peoples
Safe neighborhoods
Scary .3-30 "assault" rifles
The un-boosted
Open dialog
Actual science
Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet

 

[IndySteel]

Oh, come on Indy, Flog don't be hatin' Merica, he/she/they/them just be hatin':

Trump
Musk
DOGE
The Constitution
MAGA, that would be any attempt to keep America great
Anyone that voted for Trump
Deportations
Secure borders
Lower taxes
Enforcement of laws currently on the books
Free trade, fair trade
Personal responsibility
Common sense
The 3 branches of government
Bail and incarcerations
Fossil fuels
Whyte peoples
Safe neighborhoods
Scary .3-30 "assault" rifles
The un-boosted
Open dialog
Actual science
Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet

And they think that guns are alive and kill people, not the fault of the psychos that actually plan and pull the trigger.

 

[MT~Forged]

Without corporate taxes, workers and consumers would have even higher direct tax burdens placed on them than they already do.

Corporations are not taxpayers, they do not pay taxes, ever. The workers/consumers ALWAYS pay the taxes one way or another.

Yes, any small amount that does not get passed on comes out of the profits of said company. Those reduced profits then are absorbed by investors and/or employees depending on how the business operates. But at no time are the taxes levied ever willingly paid with no attempt to recoup them from somebody.

It's true that part of the costs of corporate taxes are passed on to consumers, but not all or even close to it. That's because they do not affect production costs, and individual companies just don't have that kind of pricing power in modern economies.

This is a strawman argument. Taxes paid by the company in year 2025 are always going to be considered as an increased expense on the next years production costs.

We've had decades now of lower corporate tax rates on the premise that the savings would "trickle down" to American workers and consumers.

The reduced tax rates have benefited American workers, though greed has minimized this as much as possible.

How has that worked out?

Much better for those with more money. That is why the wealthy are willing to spend so much to buy politicians.

Pretty great for corporate shareholders and emerging economies like China, India and Vietnam.

Did you mean to conflate these two different issues intentionally?

Not so much for American workers, with a lot more debt than we would otherwise have.

Not sure what you mean here. Taxes and debt are an apples and oranges comparison. Taxes have nothing to do with debt. Taxes are income, SPENDING is debt.

 

[Punxsutawney]

Corporations are not taxpayers, they do not pay taxes, ever. The workers/consumers ALWAYS pay the taxes one way or another.

Yes, any small amount that does not get passed on comes out of the profits of said company. Those reduced profits then are absorbed by investors and/or employees depending on how the business operates. But at no time are the taxes levied ever willingly paid with no attempt to recoup them from somebody.

I think it's generally understood that corporate taxes take money from shareholders. That's kind of the point.

The problem is that our policies over the past 40 years or so have been aimed at benefiting shareholders over workers and consumers.

Even Bill Clinton cut capital gains taxes.

This is a strawman argument. Taxes paid by the company in year 2025 are always going to be considered as an increased expense on the next years production costs.

A company having its profits taxed more does not increase its cost of labor or capital.

It's only an issue if maintaining earnings per share is the only priority, aka greed.

The reduced tax rates have benefited American workers, though greed has minimized this as much as possible.

They've provided corporations with more cash to buyback stock, pay dividends and ship jobs overseas. I'm sure benefits to American workers are buried under all that somewhere.

Much better for those with more money. That is why the wealthy are willing to spend so much to buy politicians.

Banning the bribing of congress needs to happen, but the problem is that congress itself would have to pass the law.

Did you mean to conflate these two different issues intentionally?

They're interconnected. The inverse correlation between the rise in stock prices and outsourcing and the drop in corporate tax rates isn't a coincidence.

At the very least maintaining the higher rates would have kept more money in the country, and maybe the stock market would have seen a more stable, gradual increase since the 1990s instead of the near parabolic boom/bust **** we've been seeing over the past 30 years.

Not sure what you mean here. Taxes and debt are an apples and oranges comparison. Taxes have nothing to do with debt. Taxes are income, SPENDING is debt.

Taxes are half the equation when it comes to the debt.

When you collect less in taxes than you spend, you have to borrow the difference.

Both times we've cut taxes this century the deficit went up. It's easy to say it's because spending wasn't cut, but maybe we should see to the spending actually being cut before we lower tax rates.

 

[Booted]

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

I do not know who that man is, but what he said is true

Not entirely - the last part where he said you can't protect manufacturing and increase tax revenue because you wouldn't be receiving revenue from tariffs if manufacturing moved onshore is not true. If production is brought onshore you may not raise revenue from tariffs, but there will be increases in revenue from other taxes. More people will be employed in those industries leading to increased personal income tax revenue, and presumably domestic manufacturers will have increased profits leading to more business and corporate income tax revenue. Additionally, significant capital expenditure will be required to build and fitout the factories so more income tax revenue from the people employed in the construction phase.

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

Another random thought without any basis of fact, but I would suspect that this country consumes more "stuff" than any country on the planet.
This means that exporting countries need us more than we need them. Again, what do I know.

So, my solution to all of this is for everyone to look around at all the stuff that you've accumulated and ask yourself why?

Maybe learning to live simpler is the answer.

On a per capita basis I think Australia gives you a run for your money. But your premise that we should live simpler is spot on - in the west today we live a more extravagant and consumptive lifestyle than the majority of people in the world, and the vast majority of people, including the west, throughout history pre-1990's. Given our current lifestyle, I disagree this means the exporting countries need us more than we need them.

The norm when I was growing up was one television per household (now its a television in every room and preferably the latest whiz bang technology), one telephone that was supplied by the telco (now everyone has a $500+ mobile phone that they replace every year or two), one car per household (now it's one daily driver for every adult plus at least one sports car or off road vehicle per household), eating out was once or twice a year, now it's once or twice a week, work lunch would be a sandwich from home, now it's a $AU10-15 bought sandwich, we hardly drank coffee, now it's at least one $AU5-6 coffee a day. A couple of weeks ago I was driving through a new estate and it was full of massive two storey houses that 40 years ago would have been considered mansions - now they're basically the expectation of people just a few years out of university (college).

This lifestyle is the exact reason the western world relies so heavily on China for goods and India for services - we couldn't have all this stuff if it was made in western countries with western wages, western labour laws, western occupational health and safety standards and western environmental laws. The reality is in the western world we consume more than we produce and have been able to do so due to cheap goods from Asia. That was all fine when all the people there were concerned with was putting food on the table. Now the producers want a piece of what we have which is driving up demand and contributing to inflation.

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

Local production is the best case for both countries.

I'm not sure that is the case. Each vehicle model would have different parts and production line setups. I would have thought it would be more efficient for Honda to make a couple of models in USA and export to Canada, and a couple of different models in Canada and export to USA. Of course if there are tariffs, the cost of tariffs would potentially outweigh the cost savings.

 

[MT~Forged]

I think it's generally understood that corporate taxes take money from shareholders. That's kind of the point.

The problem is that our policies over the past 40 years or so have been aimed at benefiting shareholders over workers and consumers.

Even Bill Clinton cut capital gains taxes.

Sure, any taxes charged AND NOT ADDED TO THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS will reduce profitability and potentially reduce benefits to shareholders. This is a small percentage of the taxes collected. By your responses, I have to assume you have never run or owned a for profit business. ALL costs are part of total costs to businesses. You can try and spin it any way you want, by selectively claiming they don’t increase “production” costs. But “production” costs are but one piece of the whole pie.

A company having its profits taxed more does not increase its cost of labor or capital.

It's only an issue if maintaining earnings per share is the only priority, aka greed.

Both things can be true at the same time. I happen to agree that greed is the overall issue.

They've provided corporations with more cash to buyback stock, pay dividends and ship jobs overseas. I'm sure benefits to American workers are buried under all that somewhere.

When companies are more profitable it makes it much more likely that employees see increased compensation. Now as far as American companies that have moved their production out of the US, I am in favor of them being charged tariffs AND a substantial tax on earnings to assist in paying for the devastation they have caused. If those produts become too expensive that they lose sales and hurt investors, well then investors will abandon those companies or force changes in their business model.

Banning the bribing of congress needs to happen, but the problem is that congress itself would have to pass the law.

This is just ONE of a list of changes that need to happen

They're interconnected. The inverse correlation between the rise in stock prices and outsourcing and the drop in corporate tax rates isn't a coincidence.

At the very least maintaining the higher rates would have kept more money in the country, and maybe the stock market would have seen a more stable, gradual increase since the 1990s instead of the near parabolic boom/bust **** we've been seeing over the past 30 years.

There are many differing opinions on this particular point, as attested to by both our posts.

Taxes are half the equation when it comes to the debt.

When you collect less in taxes than you spend, you have to borrow the difference.

Which means you have a SPENDING PROBLEM. Blaming your income for your spending problems is a childish response.

Both times we've cut taxes this century the deficit went up. It's easy to say it's because spending wasn't cut, but maybe we should see to the spending actually being cut before we lower tax rates.

This we actually seem to agree on, with a slight distinction. POTUS has absolutely NO POWER to control CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING. All POTUS can do is cut taxes to spur revenue in the hopes that Congress will cut spending to reduce the budget deficit. The reason you don’t see spending cuts are because those that benefit from the spending bribe politicians to spend to benefit those doing the bribing.

Cutting taxes has brought in more total tax revenue, look it up. Congress though just continues to spend and is NEVER held accountable. They just get the media to shift the blame or outright ignore it.

This is why I fully support DOGE efforts to cut any and all spending in an attempt to fix our debt responsibility. You can also tell when it is working because of all the whining and crying by those profiting from the spending.

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

For America maybe, but without being able to export cars from Canada to the US, it would likely not be financially feasible in Canada. If a car company could make it with just domestic Canadian sales, they would already have Canadian car companies manufacturing cars for the general population. The production they do have are all specialized niche market vehicles. Maybe they could morph a company or two to make up the vacuum created.

Yes, the fixed costs of design (or modification of an existing design) and manufacturing of cars is high, and therefore a small population country can really only manufacture cars if there are significant restrictions on imports or they can export significant numbers. The volumes that are needed to achieve the economies of scale to compete with Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, European and American brands aren't there.

Australia's car manufacturing history is a good example of what happens when you have open markets and low volume. Prior to the mid 1980's nearly all cars sold in Australia were Australian made (although most were based on foreign sister company platforms) due to high tariffs and other barriers to entry, as well as a certain degree of local parochialism. Once tariffs and trade restrictions started coming down companies started importing more models with higher quality, reducing sales of the locally made cars and manufacturing of cars only lasted to the 21st century due to huge government subsidies. Ultimately a free trade agreement with Thailand became the final nail in the coffin. Most new cars sold in Australia now come from Thailand, South Korea, China or South Africa. Australia does still officially have a car manufacturing industry, but I don't think importing LHD American pickups and modifying them to RHD or adding a few bells and whistles to standard dual cab utes and giving them names like "Warrior", "Xtreme" and "X-Terrain" should be called car manufacturing