• CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Someone did the math and realized we would need a 130% tariff on all goods to replace current income tax revenue.

    People’s number one concern is inflation. If that tariff is created we will see 100% inflation over night!

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      Someone did the math and realized we would need a 130% tariff on all goods to replace current income tax revenue.

      And probably didn’t take into account that actually the tariff would need to be even higher since imports would drop drastically from the current amount.

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Jesus Christ, we learned that fixing the economy via tariffs was bad in 1930. Like holy shit, tariffs are nearly universally agree by every field of economics to be shitty for citizens, businesses, and then the country. It makes no one inside want to buy anything but the simple basics, even with the basics now costing much much more.

    I am not a “free trade” person, but this is not how you “Make America Great Again”. Even Ronald Reagan and Dubya didn’t do tariffs as a replacement for other things.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Yes, but Trump has a “relationship with MIT” and a “very good brain” so what would those economists know?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          Do you know the real reason why he said he had a relationship with MIT? Because his uncle, John Trump, was a professor there.

          I have a cousin who was prominent physicist at a prestigious university. Meanwhile, I dropped out of college. I wouldn’t even dream of suggesting I had any sort of understanding of physics because of my cousin. In fact, he has something named after him and he once tried to explain it to me and I couldn’t understand what the hell he was talking about.

  • FirstCircle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    I swear he comes across as even more senile each and every day. But …

    The rich would support this - they can only consume so much after all, and most of that would be discretionary. No more income taxes on vast incomes, stop buying imported shit, huge win for them. The chowderheads supporting Drumpf would probably be enthusiastic about such an idea too - imagining their small paychecks without that hated tax deduction box and imagining no more paying every year for that scary tax return software. And then, they lose their jobs because countries that we export to retaliate with their own tariffs. Prices on pretty much everything goes through the roof (because even domestic products have foreign supply chains), and most of the cheap shit they used to be able to afford (like electronics from China, bulk foods from overseas and (fast-)foods made with it) they can’t afford now.

    Meanwhile, with the economy crashing, federal receipts (both tax and tariffs) dry up and it’s Government Shutdown time. All working according to the Plan. Grandma and Grandpa lose their incomes and health care and have to move in with unemployed, impoverished JimBob and the wife, which is darn near intolerable what with all the hillbilly kids being home all the time now that the schools have been shut down. Kids that are wailing about being hungry all the time just like the oldsters.

    It would be fun to see what carve-outs to the tax/tariff policy they’d have, to try to keep the MIC funded. Borrowing is of course the preferred way to fund it, but nobody’s going to be touching the bonds issued by an actively collapsing national government.

  • Kalkaline @leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    This is the same economic genius that said if the US wanted to default on the national debt, we could and then we could just renegotiate what we owed like some chump who bankrupted their own casino.

  • Melkath@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    And he will do it.

    He has to figure out this thing with a boat, a shark, and a battery…

    But once he works that one out, China will be paying our taxes.

  • buzz86us@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    How about we eliminate income taxes and replace it with corporate carbon emissions tax, AND cut fuel subsidies.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Now look at this in the context of increasing domestic production, so we’d be importing less even before increasing tariffs. Revenue will hit rock bottom in record time.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    The US tax rate is very similar to other nations, the only difference is what we spend our tax money on. Most rational nations spend their tax money on their citizens. The US spends it on other poor countries citizens, but not in the way you are thinking. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bury Palestinians under rubble. Hundreds of billions to cover Yemen people alive while they sleep. Meanwhile, school teachers in America have classes over 30 students and have to buy their own school supplies.

    • bigschnitz@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      This is such a gloriously uninformed opinion. The benefits to the US from being a global superpower are staggering, investing a million dollars in shutting down the Houthi attacks on merchant ships or whatever returns hundreds of millions of investment back to the US by way of trade (also, they are “spending” that money on the wages of nationals, it’s not leaving the country). The Israeli Hamas is a proxy war with Iran, it’s unethical and utterly immoral, but to argue that it’s costing the US money is flawed.

      There are real areas us spending is bad, the fact that the US spends over 17% of gdp on healthcare when other countries like Australia spend less than 11% does mean that Americans are spending too much money on healthcare (and literally getting shit for it), but it still doesn’t mean that they are destroying 6% of GDP.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        We spend more on the military than the next ten countries combined. TWO of which are actively engaged in open conflict with each other.

        • bigschnitz@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          I’m not sure that you understand my point. Spending money on military is an economic gain for the USA, for every cent spent they gain dollars in returns. It’s a “good” investment (from an amoral financial perspective, as said above, the ethics are appalling). Another country who spends less but also has a return to their economy less than they spend (like North Korea) is a bad use of taxpayer money. The amount of spend/return isn’t relevant, the ratio is what matters.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Jesus Christ. Why is it that republicans think destroying the country will be better than what we currently have? It’s so fucking insane.

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Is there an infographic about this I can give to my maga relatives when they inevitably bring this up, so I don’t actually have to talk about it with them?

  • Epicmulch@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    See this is the kind of thing that makes zero actual sense but his supporters pretend to believe he can accomplish it worse they actually believe him.