If tariffs resulted in resulted in the 'average' American family paying $1700 a year more in increased cost of living, but income taxes were reduced to the average American family by $1700 (using the money collected in tariffs to fund the tax break), who is paying the tariff then?
It's complex, and would vary. But it's important to remember that it's nowhere near a 1:1 relationship between tariffs collected and the cost of living increase. For instance, a big part of the increased costs from tariffs is that domestic producers have less foreign competition, so they can raise their prices.
If an American-made good costs $100 and a Chinese good normally costs $80, but now the Chinese one costs $128 due to tariffs, the American company can raise their prices. So if they raised their price to $120, that's increasing the cost for consumers by 20% on the American good, yet the government wouldn't collect any tariff revenue from those.
And or course, we're talking about Republicans here. They will cut taxes along with introducing tariffs, but they will cut them primarily on high earners. The study that came up with that $1,700 figure estimated the impact of tariffs along with proposed tax cuts on after-tax income by quintile:
Lowest quintile: -3.67%
Second quintile: -2.46%
Middle quintile: -1.40%
Fourth quintile: -0.81%
Top quintile: +0.21%
Top 1%: +1.36%
So the bottom 80% lose money while the top 1% see basically all the gains. And that doesn't even get into potential economic issues created due to tariffs such as potentially reduced productivity, less trade, and retaliation by other countries.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I keep reading everywhere that "wages are up" but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Up a "real" 2% vs inflation in the past 5 years. While that may be technically true, we all know what kind of BS they use to get their inflation numbers. Wages seem to be way down to me vs cost of living.
It's complex, and would vary. But it's important to remember that it's nowhere near a 1:1 relationship between tariffs collected and the cost of living increase. For instance, a big part of the increased costs from tariffs is that domestic producers have less foreign competition, so they can raise their prices.
If an American-made good costs $100 and a Chinese good normally costs $80, but now the Chinese one costs $128 due to tariffs, the American company can raise their prices. So if they raised their price to $120, that's increasing the cost for consumers by 20% on the American good, yet the government wouldn't collect any tariff revenue from those.
And or course, we're talking about Republicans here. They will cut taxes along with introducing tariffs, but they will cut them primarily on high earners. The study that came up with that $1,700 figure estimated the impact of tariffs along with proposed tax cuts on after-tax income by quintile:
Lowest quintile: -3.67%
Second quintile: -2.46%
Middle quintile: -1.40%
Fourth quintile: -0.81%
Top quintile: +0.21%
Top 1%: +1.36%
So the bottom 80% lose money while the top 1% see basically all the gains. And that doesn't even get into potential economic issues created due to tariffs such as potentially reduced productivity, less trade, and retaliation by other countries.
Thank you for the detailed response.
I'm just imagining a scenario where significant tariffs might result in something other than a net loss for the 'average' person. I do understand the principle of deadweight loss. Just wondering if you returned the excess revenue from tarrifs to the lowest income taxpayers if it might not be a reasonable policy to encourage buying 'American' and let the high tax bracket people pay the toll.
So a rebate that ended at taxable income of x, payed for by tarrifs collected on imported goods.
Thank you for the detailed response.
I'm just imagining a scenario where significant tariffs might result in something other than a net loss for the 'average' person. I do understand the principle of deadweight loss. Just wondering if you returned the excess revenue from tarrifs to the lowest income taxpayers if it might not be a reasonable policy to encourage buying 'American' and let the high tax bracket people pay the toll.
So a rebate that ended at taxable income of x, payed for by tarrifs collected on imported goods.
I have a better chance of becoming King, the tariffs will be used to give the rich tax breaks wil the VA and medicare will be sold off to some HMO
Prices especially in late-stage capitalism are dictated primarily by supply and demand, not costs. The price of something like an iPhone is essentially completely detached from the costs of making them.
This is why it's simply wrong to say that "additional costs like tariffs are paid by the customer". They might be, or they might not be.
There are however an endless amount of public facing lobbyists that will try to make the public forget about supply and demand and focus on costs, because every industry hates extra costs (like higher wages or regulation), because additional costs pretty much always eat into company profits. They are usually not fully paid by the customer.
If there is a lot of competition in the marketplace, they might not be even partially paid by the customer. This becomes more obvious when you remember that lowering manufacturing costs by moving production overseas does not typically mean the customer prices going down, so similarly, bringing those costs up also doesn't mean the prices go up. Quite often costs going up or down only affects the company profit margin, not the customer price.
This can in some cases even be true if the customer is a company buying products from abroad like China to sell in the US, although these days there isn't a lot of international competition for Chinese built goods unfortunately.
The devil is very much in the details with something like tariffs especially, you can have them do almost anything to marketplace incentives, especially if you start compensating for them by removing taxes from other places, which Trump will also likely do.
It is absolutely just not true that tariffs on Chinese imports are automatically paid for by US regular people.
We'll see.
If companies could just move all costs into customer prices, it wouldn't make sense for them to burm large piles of money fighting regulations and taxes, and busting unions to keep the costs down.
Last edited by Itse; 11-11-2024 at 03:53 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The reason to think Trumps tariffs will be bad for the common people isn't because tariffs are automatically bad for the common people.
It's because Trump is a fabulously corrupt billionaire looking out for himself, and an idiot in bed with the far right, so prettu much whatever he does it's likely to be bad for everyone except himself, his billionaire backers and his far right cronies.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I find it hilarious how certain posters were absent from this thread for so long but suddenly returned to gloat like they actually did something. lol
Keep it up, guys.
I also find it hilarious that the people who were present in this thread and brought up the issues with the Dem’s platform were dismissed as Trumpers and piled on, when it was clear to anyone who didn’t have complete blinders on that there were serious issues with the campaign being run.
Prices especially in late-stage capitalism are dictated primarily by supply and demand, not costs...
In theory what you stated was great. In application it kind of fails against how the American system works. What you've described is more classic capitalism than late-stage capitalism IMO. What you've left out are your definition and discussion are the actual manipulations of the market put in place by the monopolies, the robber barons, and their paid for servants in Washington (and state houses around the nation). You're referencing a free- market mindset where supply and demand establish prices, which is clearly not the case in the United States. The government creates these trade barriers, where the costs are passed onto the consumer, then monopolies use those price increases to raise their prices and generate greater profits. Worse, the government then piles on "incentives" or subsidies to certain participants in the market which are derived directly from taxes, so the people take in the ass coming and going. That's late-stage capitalism, what we've seen in the economy, not what you've described (which was a great description of how the market should work - freely).
Quote:
It is absolutely just not true that tariffs on Chinese imports are automatically paid for by US regular people.
Can you point to any examples of these tariffs NOT being passed onto the consumer in the Trump era? Because every indication is those tariffs have been treated like a cost and then just passed onto the consumer to spike greater inflation.
Quote:
If companies could just move all costs into customer prices, it wouldn't make sense for them to burm large piles of money fighting regulations and taxes, and busting unions to keep the costs down.
That's some serious Utopian thinking. You still need to make your product affordable to consumers. If costs are at a certain level you can combat those forces by controlling others like regulations and labor. If spending one dollar controlling regulations and labor mean I make two dollars in additional profit and don't impact the cost of product to consumers, hence not impacting my market, then that's a great use of funds and still makes me more money. If I just accepted those forces and passed those costs of business onto the consumer I would quickly see me outprice my product and lose my market all together.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I find it mind blowing that Trump can say things like "The people in the department of education hate our children" and then his supporters eat it up, take it as truth, and say, look, he tells it like it is, he is one of us. While all of this just leads to making his supporters dumber and misinformed. In its own way its almost brilliant. ####ing hell.
The educational standard in the United States is its greatest advantage over other nations, yet the orange ####gibbon is going to dissolve the one department that guarantees all Americans work towards the same educational standard. The guy is an idiot, as is anyone who cast a vote for him. The US is circling the bowl and people are cheering it on.
I find it mind blowing that Trump can say things like "The people in the department of education hate our children" and then his supporters eat it up, take it as truth, and say, look, he tells it like it is, he is one of us. While all of this just leads to making his supporters dumber and misinformed. In its own way its almost brilliant. ####ing hell.
Drain the swamp. In the last 10 years, Trump has strategically given the impression that he's exposing corruption, he's telling us what we sort of already know happens behind closed doors. He's for the commoner. It's a juxtaposition of the Democrats who say they are for the poor and common people but continue to take in millions from lobbyists. Trump rants that everyone's in on it, politicians, lobbyists, media, even him. But he's admitting it. It's not like the Republicans don't but Trump is 'telling it like it is' things that other politicians are too afraid to say. The Dems have no strategy for this because Trump can pivot to anything.
Like I said, Democrats make of point of women voters, Trump pivots to families.. Democrats make a point of immigration, Trump pivots to blacks who the majority are not immigrants.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
AOC asked her followers on IG why they voted for Trump and voted for her. Obviously, it's just a small slice of people, but it does reveal some common themes.
Trump hasn't. He's made it worse. Every position in his cabinet is for sale. Literally for sale. Just look at his last cabinet.
State - Rex Tillerson, an Exxon Mobile guy who worked to kill off Dodd-Frank to hide corruption in the energy sector.
Treasury - Steve Mnuchin, a Goldman Sacks guy who used his time in office to help him establish Liberty Strategic Capital after he left his position. His new hedge was funded by the Saudis, Emiritis, and Qataris.
Interior - Ryan Zinke, another O&G guy who was charged with protecting our lands, but at the same time was a climate change denier and on board with selling those federally protected lands to the highest bidder.
Labor - Alexander Acosta, the guy who let Jeffrey Epstein off in 2008 and then allowed unfair hiring practices to go on in his department.
Education - Betsy DeVos, the multi-level marketing queen who championed vouchers (privatized education) was put in charge of public education.
It goes on and on. Agriculture (Sonny Purdue), Commerce (Wilbur Ross), Health (Tom Price), Housing (Ben Carson), Energy (Rick Perry), Transportation (Elaine Chao - Mitch McConnell's wife), EPA (Scott Pruitt), Small Business (Linda McMahon), OMB (Mick Mulvaney) and so on.
Just a collection of ghouls and corporate shills meant to dismantle government and enrich themsleves.
And nothing is changing. For more proof of Trump making things swampier, he just appointed an ass kissing, great replacement theory endorsing dip####, as the Ambassador to the United Nations. Yeah, Elise Stefanik is going to do a great job representing the United States and finding compromise between nations. Nothing swampy there.
Quote:
In the last 10 years, Trump has strategically given the impression that he's exposing corruption, he's telling us what we sort of already know happens behind closed doors. He's for the commoner.
He's not exposing corruption, he's just making it more profitable! It's always been bull####. Ask anyone in New York or New Jersey who put up with his antics before he ran for president and they will tell you he did the same self-serving, lie his ass off BS, all the time. He's not some genius who understands politics. He's a conman who understands how to bull#### people. PERIOD.
Quote:
It's a juxtaposition of the Democrats who say they are for the poor and common people but continue to take in millions from lobbyists. Trump rants that everyone's in on it, politicians, lobbyists, media, even him. But he's admitting it. It's not like the Republicans don't but Trump is 'telling it like it is' things that other politicians are too afraid to say. The Dems have no strategy for this because Trump can pivot to anything.
He doesn't pivot. He just says more outrageous #### the media chases and then they forget the egregious thing they should have held Trump's feet to the fire. It is classic Roy Cohen and how he handled the whole Red Scare when he worked with Joseph McCarthy. Don't let them focus on particulars or facts, just keep the sands beneath the narrative shifting enough so they have to chase that.
Quote:
Like I said, Democrats make of point of women voters, Trump pivots to families.. Democrats make a point of immigration, Trump pivots to blacks who the majority are not immigrants.
It's all in the weave! He's just lucky that stupid people couldn't see through the weave for what it was.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 11-11-2024 at 09:33 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Trump hasn't. He's made it worse. Every position in his cabinet is for sale. Literally for sale. Just look at his last cabinet.
State - Rex Tillerson, an Exxon Mobile guy who worked to kill off Dodd-Frank to hide corruption in the energy sector.
Treasury - Steve Mnuchin, a Goldman Sacks guy who used his time in office to help him establish Liberty Strategic Capital after he left his position. His new hedge was funded by the Saudis, Emiritis, and Qataris.
Interior - Ryan Zinke, another O&G guy who was charged with protecting our lands, but at the same time was a climate change denier and on board with selling those federally protected lands to the highest bidder.
Labor - Alexander Acosta, the guy who let Jeffrey Epstein off in 2008 and then allowed unfair hiring practices to go on in his department.
Education - Betsy DeVos, the multi-level marketing queen who championed vouchers (privatized education) was put in charge of public education.
It goes on and on. Agriculture (Sonny Purdue), Commerce (Wilbur Ross), Health (Tom Price), Housing (Ben Carson), Energy (Rick Perry), Transportation (Elaine Chao - Mitch McConnell's wife), EPA (Scott Pruitt), Small Business (Linda McMahon), OMB (Mick Mulvaney) and so on.
Just a collection of ghouls and corporate shills meant to dismantle government and enrich themsleves.
And nothing is changing. For more proof of Trump making things swampier, he just appointed an ass kissing, great replacement theory endorsing dip####, as the Ambassador to the United Nations. Yeah, Elise Stefanik is going to do a great job representing the United States and finding compromise between nations. Nothing swampy there.
He's not exposing corruption, he's just making it more profitable! It's always been bull####. Ask anyone in New York or New Jersey who put up with his antics before he ran for president and they will tell you he did the same self-serving, lie his ass off BS, all the time. He's not some genius who understands politics. He's a conman who understands how to bull#### people. PERIOD.
He doesn't pivot. He just says more outrageous #### the media chases and then they forget the egregious thing they should have held Trump's feet to the fire. It is classic Roy Cohen and how he handled the whole Red Scare when he worked with Joseph McCarthy. Don't let them focus on particulars or facts, just keep the sands beneath the narrative shifting enough so they have to chase that.
It's all in the weave! He's just lucky that stupid people couldn't see through the weave for what it was.
That's the point. It's the perception. Nobody is breaking this down like you are.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
I have starlink. If a tree gets in its way, it's unreliable. And it's ####ing expensive.
It's a big meh from me.
In the US there are a bunch of anti competition laws preventing municipalities from building fiber and copper based internet systems leaving dependant on single providers who don’t upgrade services. Starling provides much needed competition in the failed regulatory environment of US broadband.
So if your aren’t going to regulate through the fcc then things like star link willl at least ensure there is some kind of minimum access for everyone.
Again, a big meh. Competition is one way to describe that. The only satellite internet provider, offering very high monthly prices, and really not much better than any normal broadband service.
Internerlt access only matters if it's actually affordable. Maybe Elon Musk and his coziness with the White House will provide discounted or free internet access to everybody. Although all internet traffic will be routed to twitters servers. Probably.
