MadMax Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 31 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: @El Guapo anything to say about the above article from the pro-capitalist often conservative Forbes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 1 hour ago, begooode said: Biden has been tough on china. If you’re truly America first, then this has to be great news. But that’s not the hostile anti-Dem narrative repubs want to hear. It’s clear who the real enemy has always been. Doesn’t fit the party line they have been force fed by the propaganda machine… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 8 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said: @El Guapo anything to say about the above article from the pro-capitalist often conservative Forbes? Good article. Good for Joe. Good for Trump. IsntLifeFunny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 I’m fine with sanctions…but IMO, the tariffs were and still are a mistake. As far as I can see, the only thing they accomplished was a significant increase in the cost of many goods by levying what amounts to a 20-30% tax on Chinese imports….revenue that went straight into the US government’s pocket and that was ultimately paid for by American consumers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, nine said: I’m fine with sanctions…but IMO, the tariffs were and still are a mistake. As far as I can see, the only thing they accomplished was a significant increase in the cost of many goods by levying what amounts to a 20-30% tax on Chinese imports….revenue that went straight into the US government’s pocket and that was ultimately paid for by American consumers. I would guess, and I'm no economist, that the point would be to increase the cost of Chinese imports to start making it more attractive for US buyers to move towards other suppliers and reduce their reliance on those imports thus decreasing US imports from China. This means as any sanctions on China in the future would have a smaller impact on US markets and China exports decrease and their economy suffers. Edited March 9, 2023 by reo nine 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 2 hours ago, El Guapo said: Good article. Good for Joe. Good for Trump. Good for America. Stop trying to turn everything into a fan rooting for a player or rooting against a team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 Jesus. I thought my comments were simple and non controversial. Get a life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 Did not the article say that Joe was following the same policies on tariffs started by Trump? You need a shrink to get over the TDS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 10 minutes ago, reo said: I would guess, and I'm no economist, that the point would be to increase the cost of Chinese imports to start making it more attractive for US buyers to move towards other suppliers and reduce their reliance on those imports thus decreasing US imports from China. This means as any sanctions on China in the future would have a smaller impact on US markets and China exports decrease and their economy suffers. Right. That’s the idea, anyway. The problem was the heavy-handed manner in which the tariffs were implemented. Obviously everyone supports the whole “Buy American” initiative…but it’s not as simple as issuing an edict or mandate. In many cases, American manufacturers had neither the facilities nor the resources to quickly expand or ramp up domestic production; they had no choice but to continue importing their materials and goods from China, eat the tariffs, and pass that expense down to the American consumers by way of price increases. IMO, a phased approach would have been wiser….maybe starting with a 5% tariff that would increase annually to 20-30% by year 5. This would have allowed manufacturers time to adjust and helped to mitigate some of the price increases…or at the very least spread them out over 4-5 years instead of a matter of days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 Tariffs are not really effective at what we are trying to accomplish. It wasn’t really effective under Trump and it’s still not under Biden. And it would have helped if he could have negotiated them away to “fight inflation“. Biden hitting their access to microchips and other things are more effective. nine 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 19 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Tariffs are not really effective at what we are trying to accomplish. It wasn’t really effective under Trump and it’s still not under Biden. And it would have helped if he could have negotiated them away to “fight inflation“. Biden hitting their access to microchips and other things are more effective. I agree for the most part but i think if this successfully pushes American buyers away from buying Chinese products b/c others are cheaper then that opens up a wider range of options for sanctions down the road that wouldn't thing hurt our economy and thus whatever administration is in office. Right now Putin's only bet left is that economic hardship in the west from the sanctions on Russia will cause the administrations in power to get voted out. And it's not really a bad bet. He's saying (as is China) that dictatorships aren't as susceptible to those things as easily as democracies so they can more easily wait out the current administrations. He is betting that those types of things can help Trump get re-elected and he can more easily control Trump b/c he doesn't give a shit about democracies. So getting American companies out of those markets is imperative. If we apply sanctions on China or Russia and it hurts our economy, it could very easily get Trump or someone like him elected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/09/biden-budget-would-cut-deficit-by-3-trillion-over-next-decade-with-25percent-minimum-tax-on-richest-americans.html President Joe Biden released his budget on Thursday, vowing to cut $3 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade, in part, by levying a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest Americans. Biden also raises more revenue by increasing taxes on oil and gas companies, hiking the corporate tax rate to 28%, up from 21% imposed under former President Donald Trump but below the 35% tax pre-2017, and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 No idea what the effective income tax rate is for 'the wealthiest Americans', but on first glance 25% sounds high and might encourage talent drain ; wealth drain. Countries like Switzerland would be glad to welcome them, and the spending from those high-wealth people is disproportionally significant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 35 minutes ago, begooode said: No idea what the effective income tax rate is for 'the wealthiest Americans', but on first glance 25% sounds high and might encourage talent drain ; wealth drain. Countries like Switzerland would be glad to welcome them, and the spending from those high-wealth people is disproportionally significant. Most of the countries they might want to move to also have high tax rates. Higher than 25% even. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted March 9, 2023 Report Share Posted March 9, 2023 27 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Most of the countries they might want to move to also have high tax rates. Higher than 25% even. yes, but some like Switzerland allow their tax rates to be determined by local authorities -- "write us an annual check for x amount". I just looked and perhaps they've changed the tax law there. But there will be other first tier countries glad to make a deal, I'm guessing. Formula One racers , high earning international athletes are good proxies for finding out where global tax havens are: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2012-10-19-chi-swiss-to-vote-on-taking-away-some-tax-breaks-for-wealthy-foreigners-20121019-story.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.