President Trump

TonyM said:
Is the theory that with the increased revenue there will be tax cuts so that people can then afford to pay the higher prices?

If so .... maybe if could work? I'd be shocked though.

And meanwhile the rich get ridiculously rich and the poor get shat on.
Click to expand...

there will be no increased revenue - if an importer finds something attracts a tariff of say 50% so a $10 item costs them $15 if they were selling that item at $15 and they pay the tariff and try selling at $20 demand will fall as will imports as will tariff revenue. It all only works if the consumer can afford and is willing to pay a higher price - and thats inflationary - it just doesn't work unless people are paid more and thats then wage inflation which in turn will never happen because Musk, Zukertwatt and Bezos will not increase wages. Its a downward spiral.
 
TonyM said:
Is the theory that with the increased revenue there will be tax cuts so that people can then afford to pay the higher prices?

If so .... maybe if could work? I'd be shocked though.

And meanwhile the rich get ridiculously rich and the poor get shat on.
Click to expand...
There's roughly 167 million tax payer in America. If they rake in double that on a tariff on, say, cars, that's an extra 2 dollars per person if they pass on the extra cash in the form of a tax cut. That wouldn't cover the extra 5 grand on a 20 grand car.
 
Elbow beards said:
There's roughly 167 million tax payer in America. If they rake in double that on a tariff on, say, cars, that's an extra 2 dollars per person if they pass on the extra cash in the form of a tax cut. That wouldn't cover the extra 5 grand on a 20 grand car.
Click to expand...
Is that including the undocumented migrants the Trump was adamant he was going to turf out?
 
Elbow beards said:
There's roughly 167 million tax payer in America. If they rake in double that on a tariff on, say, cars, that's an extra 2 dollars per person if they pass on the extra cash in the form of a tax cut. That wouldn't cover the extra 5 grand on a 20 grand car.
Click to expand...
No, so they'd have to buy a car produced locally instead, which is kind of the point, I guess. It's common knowledge amongst neoliberal economists that protectionism is ultimately a bad thing, but then you look at countries like Japan and Korea, and they manage to build up and maintain pretty impressive industries by using a more protectionist economic model than we do in the West. Japan in particular has had 3 decades of stagnation, where you'd think the vultures would have circled, and yet most of its biggest companies are still owned domestically (presumably because they don't just allow the sell-off of Japanese companies to the highest bidder like we do in the UK). The issue America have, of course, is that they'll want to impose tariffs on overseas products, but will no doubt throw a hissy fit if other countries reciprocate. I for one would be happy to see a Starbucks/Uber tax on huge American conglomerates that come to the UK and put local companies out of business by paying fuck all tax and making "no profit."
 
discopop said:
He’s coming across as a right fucking ****.
Click to expand...
Too right. Sadly the only fucking cunts that don’t realize it are the ones that voted him in.

Can’t wait to see how his proposed 25% levy on item’s coming into America from Canada is going to work seeing as the vast majority of oil and gas comes from Alberta.

Going to be a huge hike in prices.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
No, so they'd have to buy a car produced locally instead, which is kind of the point, I guess. It's common knowledge amongst neoliberal economists that protectionism is ultimately a bad thing, but then you look at countries like Japan and Korea, and they manage to build up and maintain pretty impressive industries by using a more protectionist economic model than we do in the West. Japan in particular has had 3 decades of stagnation, where you'd think the vultures would have circled, and yet most of its biggest companies are still owned domestically (presumably because they don't just allow the sell-off of Japanese companies to the highest bidder like we do in the UK). The issue America have, of course, is that they'll want to impose tariffs on overseas products, but will no doubt throw a hissy fit if other countries reciprocate. I for one would be happy to see a Starbucks/Uber tax on huge American conglomerates that come to the UK and put local companies out of business by paying fuck all tax and making "no profit."
Click to expand...
This logic is incorrect because it will just punish people for their choices.

It doesn't mean that Starbucks pay more tax, it means that consumers pay more for their coffee which is how Starbucks would pay that tax.

Tariffs would be incredibly bad for everybody.
 
inbetween said:
This logic is incorrect because it will just punish people for their choices.

It doesn't mean that Starbucks pay more tax, it means that consumers pay more for their coffee which is how Starbucks would pay that tax.

Tariffs would be incredibly bad for everybody.
Click to expand...
Agree.

America had a choice decades back of maintaining a lower value dollar and with its keep the manufacturing of goods viable. Or they could allow the dollar to become the global default currency and put their financial system to the front giving them a huge advantage in global buying power and provision of financial services.

Having done the latter it's madness trying to go back and do the former. The only way American manufacturing comes back is if the dollar drops massively in value and consumer prices would skyrocket before any new factories opened the doors.

Trump is determined to learn this lesson the hard way.
 
TinFoilHat said:
I see Maddow is coming back to MSNBC full time to report on Trumps "first 100 days".

I can save Comcast money by saying 85 days will be spent on his golf course whilst President Musk makes the executive orders.
Click to expand...
Musk will find any significant savings identified by DOGE very hard to action. There are four big ticket items in the US budget: Health, Social security, Defence, and debt interest.
They are all non negotiable politically. Question: does that mean he will interfere with other areas?
 
KS55 said:
Musk will find any significant savings identified by DOGE very hard to action. There are four big ticket items in the US budget: Health, Social security, Defence, and debt interest.
They are all non negotiable politically. Question: does that mean he will interfere with other areas?
Click to expand...
He'll want to embezzle more cash to Space X - Probably claim it's official defence spending and direct some of their funds to him.
 
inbetween said:
This logic is incorrect because it will just punish people for their choices.

It doesn't mean that Starbucks pay more tax, it means that consumers pay more for their coffee which is how Starbucks would pay that tax.

Tariffs would be incredibly bad for everybody.
Click to expand...
That's an argument for removing corporate tax, not for allowing a handful of businesses to avoid corporate taxes while everyone else has to pay them. Trump constantly bangs on about Chinese companies undercutting US companies with illegal state aid, while US companies go around the world using countries' infrastructure while contributing nothing towards it. And because they contribute nothing to taxes, they are able to provide it for cheaper, and outcompete local businesses that don't have the luxury of being able to dodge taxes by putting their head office in Switzerland or Luxembourg. In those circumstances, I have absolutely no issue with laws that force Starbucks, Amazon, etc, to raise their prices, because those prices reflect the actual cost of doing business in the UK when you actually pay your way.

Which is, incidentally, exactly what the US is doing with companies like Shein. They've found a loophole in US import laws allowing them to ship individual, low-value items without import taxes, and it's taking business away from companies that do pay import taxes, because they do things properly. The US is currently looking to close that loophole and make Shein and others subject to the same import costs as every other business. Do you think that's an unreasonable thing to do? After all, it will increase the price of Shein clothes for the consumer.

I'm generally not in favour of tariffs, and recognise free trade is generally a positive for all sides. But that doesn't mean that it has no negatives or that tariffs don't have a place. Obviously I don't for a second think that Trump is in any way nuanced enough to make effective use of them. Nor is he at any point going to do anything to make any of the stuff I mentioned fairer, or make big corporations pay their fair share of tax.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
That's an argument for removing corporate tax, not for allowing a handful of businesses to avoid corporate taxes while everyone else has to pay them. Trump constantly bangs on about Chinese companies undercutting US companies with illegal state aid, while US companies go around the world using countries' infrastructure while contributing nothing towards it. And because they contribute nothing to taxes, they are able to provide it for cheaper, and outcompete local businesses that don't have the luxury of being able to dodge taxes by putting their head office in Switzerland or Luxembourg. In those circumstances, I have absolutely no issue with laws that force Starbucks, Amazon, etc, to raise their prices, because those prices reflect the actual cost of doing business in the UK when you actually pay your way.

Which is, incidentally, exactly what the US is doing with companies like Shein. They've found a loophole in US import laws allowing them to ship individual, low-value items without import taxes, and it's taking business away from companies that do pay import taxes, because they do things properly. The US is currently looking to close that loophole and make Shein and others subject to the same import costs as every other business. Do you think that's an unreasonable thing to do? After all, it will increase the price of Shein clothes for the consumer.

I'm generally not in favour of tariffs, and recognise free trade is generally a positive for all sides. But that doesn't mean that it has no negatives or that tariffs don't have a place. Obviously I don't for a second think that Trump is in any way nuanced enough to make effective use of them. Nor is he at any point going to do anything to make any of the stuff I mentioned fairer, or make big corporations pay their fair share of tax.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what the answer is because you've said it yourself. If Amazon locates its transactions in Luxembourg then what can we in the UK do about it given those transactions sit outside the UK? Such a thing would require a more pan-continental tax rules system but that's never going to work. It will be literally impossible with Trump in power in the US, he'll probably slap 100% tariffs on anybody who imposes such a thing upon US companies.

There is a reason why Amazon are located in Luxembourg. It's because Luxembourg itself agreed to some form of preferable jurisdiction that Amazon can operate within. Resolving this problem would require Luxembourg to undo this and I can't see why they'd do that because why do it in the first place?

The real question is can world governments really beat the likes of KPMG and the big consultancies who are paid specifically by companies to find ways around taxes? I don't think they can because it's too complicated and there are too many countries and jurisdictions with their own ideas involved. If governments did eventually act then companies will just move on or adapt so they don't stand a chance.

Project Goldcrest, Amazon’s Elaborate Tax Arrangement - Minnesota Journal of International Law

By Charlie Ryu, Staff Member In 2017, Amazon had a great year; it announced the opening of a second headquarters, inviting numerous biddings from many city governments and officials[1], bought Whole Foods for approximately $14 billion[2], and its stock price grew by 56%[3].[4] However, despite...
minnjil.org minnjil.org
 
inbetween said:
I don't really know what the answer is because you've said it yourself. If Amazon locates its transactions in Luxembourg then what can we in the UK do about it given those transactions sit outside the UK? Such a thing would require a more pan-continental tax rules system but that's never going to work. It will be literally impossible with Trump in power in the US, he'll probably slap 100% tariffs on anybody who imposes such a thing upon US companies.

There is a reason why Amazon are located in Luxembourg. It's because Luxembourg itself agreed to some form of preferable jurisdiction that Amazon can operate within. Resolving this problem would require Luxembourg to undo this and I can't see why they'd do that because why do it in the first place?

The real question is can world governments really beat the likes of KPMG and the big consultancies who are paid specifically by companies to find ways around taxes? I don't think they can because it's too complicated and there are too many countries and jurisdictions with their own ideas involved. If governments did eventually act then companies will just move on or adapt so they don't stand a chance.

Project Goldcrest, Amazon’s Elaborate Tax Arrangement - Minnesota Journal of International Law

By Charlie Ryu, Staff Member In 2017, Amazon had a great year; it announced the opening of a second headquarters, inviting numerous biddings from many city governments and officials[1], bought Whole Foods for approximately $14 billion[2], and its stock price grew by 56%[3].[4] However, despite...
minnjil.org minnjil.org
Click to expand...
Luxembourg needs to be reigned in by the EU, as do Ireland and the Netherlands with the dodgy tax schemes. The ridiculous situation here is this idea that countries of 70 million people are powerless against some country of 600k or even less. It's just absolutely ridiculous that these tiny countries can essentially steal tax revenue from the biggest countries in the world and get away with it because of some bullshit 'free trade' rules. Luxembourg's 'preferable jurisdiction' is all well and good, but why the fuck should anyone else have to recognise that? The idea that a company can just set up in some tax haven and everyone else has to say "Oh right, fair enough" rather than "Ok, we're going to impose a 70% tax on all revenues going from our country to that jurisdiction" is bullshit. It's clearly done in bad faith, so tariffs should be introduced in similarly bad faith. Obviously I know it's not as simple as that, but it's also a lot simpler that we're led to believe. It's not complicated to do, the complicated bit is convincing a bunch of politicians who have been bought and paid for by corporations, many of whom benefit from the same tax schemes themselves, to actually take the problem seriously. And obviously Donald Trump is the last person who'll do anything about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top