The person or company who imports the goods pays the tariffs. The tariffs go to the US Treasury where they are mixed with other revenue like income tax. The government then spends that money on all of the usual stuff.
Just to add, the company importing those goods then increases prices to make up for the expense, passing the costs to consumers (Americans). I think that is an important note.
It is important to note because trump is pretending it isn’t a tax, it’s not logic meant to abolish all taxes. The comment seemed pretty tame for you to pull that out of it.
The real problem is that people can’t afford an extra 40% tax on top of what we have now. We don’t need to abolish taxes, we need to bring them up for specific groups, mostly the ultra rich.
Ehhh I would say in a general sense that sales tax absolutely should be done away with. Really any regressive tax, including payroll taxes (there is a cap, so higher income earners don’t pay their relative share), the current structure of property taxes, tolls, so on.
Even then I wouldn’t call it good, just better, but that’d be a whole separate discussion.
Sales tax is functionally a tax on the lower income anyway, since it has a more substantial impact on a lower income vs a higher income. Its regressive.
Unless we are specifically talking some sort of luxuries tax based on a value that changes with an index (like a luxury housing tax, median values against area median income + percentage overhead before additional tax, etc, or speculation/vacancy taxes, taxes on private jets or yachts, so on).
Corporate tax is a tax on profit though (talking in generalities here obviously, there are many types of taxes), which doesn’t apply the same way here in terms of a direct consumer cost, so I’m not sure what you are driving at in that aspect.
It is, and unfortunately its also what’s most often abused.
Corporate tax (and what’s more equivalent, individual income tax) should see the same progressive taxation, where higher profits yield higher tax rates above each of those thresholds.
Unfortunately, corporations play a lot of games with accounting to effectively reduce those profits and not pay their share (or not at all, even with some extremely large corporations), effectively shifting the tax burden onto individuals instead. Then, of course, those individuals benefitting most from the corporations not paying their fair share are also playing accounting games to reduce their own tax burden, further shifting the burden onto lower income individuals.
So when you combine that with increased costs for everyday consumer goods, you see an increasingly higher burden on lower and middle income, even higher income individuals until you get to the extremely wealthy outliers. The impact is greater the lower you go in income level though.
Maybe in a properly functioning capitalistic system that ensures truly fair competition, prevents monopolies (or near/effective monopolies), and properly manages limited resources (and I’m sure other things that didn’t immediately come to mind). Not so much what exists currently.
Sales tax is imposed by the states (and sometimes smaller localities) to help fund their operations, not the feds (although the tariffs have effectively amounted to that without actually saying it) - people can move to places like Delaware if they have a problem with that. These tariffs are universal, and since the manufacturing of the bulk of products has been offshored LONG ago, there’s no alternative.
Gotta love people like you who deliberately ignore the detailed nuances because it destroys your so-called argument.
I’ll agree with the last sentence, but where’s the ad-hominem? I addressed your “argument” - such as it was, since we are most definitely NOT saying the same things - and said you were ignoring details. YOU, on the other hand, did not rebut what I just said, but jumped to playing the victim. GMAFB.
“Gotta love people like you who deliberately etc…”
There wasn’t a need to rebut anything. Your comment confirmed what I asked from the start. Just in a very unpleasant, toxic, angry, way. They’re the same thing under a different name.
The buyer pays the tariff. There’s always an incentive for buyers to keep costs low, tariff or not.
For sellers there might be an incentive to reduce prices under some circumstances:
If the seller can’t compete with American products once tariff is added - rarely applicable and you may as well see American products increase their prices to increase profits
If your customers are very price sensitive and might go without your product or find an alternative (so not medication, but some foods perhaps) but you would expect those products to already have low margins so you can’t really reduce your prices
The person or company who imports the goods pays the tariffs. The tariffs go to the US Treasury where they are mixed with other revenue like income tax. The government then spends that money on all of the usual stuff.
Just to add, the company importing those goods then increases prices to make up for the expense, passing the costs to consumers (Americans). I think that is an important note.
One can use that same logic to argue for the abolition of sales (and corporate) tax in general?
It is important to note because trump is pretending it isn’t a tax, it’s not logic meant to abolish all taxes. The comment seemed pretty tame for you to pull that out of it.
The real problem is that people can’t afford an extra 40% tax on top of what we have now. We don’t need to abolish taxes, we need to bring them up for specific groups, mostly the ultra rich.
Ehhh I would say in a general sense that sales tax absolutely should be done away with. Really any regressive tax, including payroll taxes (there is a cap, so higher income earners don’t pay their relative share), the current structure of property taxes, tolls, so on.
Even then I wouldn’t call it good, just better, but that’d be a whole separate discussion.
Sales tax, yes, corporate tax… No.
Sales tax is functionally a tax on the lower income anyway, since it has a more substantial impact on a lower income vs a higher income. Its regressive.
Unless we are specifically talking some sort of luxuries tax based on a value that changes with an index (like a luxury housing tax, median values against area median income + percentage overhead before additional tax, etc, or speculation/vacancy taxes, taxes on private jets or yachts, so on).
Corporate tax is a tax on profit though (talking in generalities here obviously, there are many types of taxes), which doesn’t apply the same way here in terms of a direct consumer cost, so I’m not sure what you are driving at in that aspect.
Thank for that remark, important distinction indeed.
It is, and unfortunately its also what’s most often abused.
Corporate tax (and what’s more equivalent, individual income tax) should see the same progressive taxation, where higher profits yield higher tax rates above each of those thresholds.
Unfortunately, corporations play a lot of games with accounting to effectively reduce those profits and not pay their share (or not at all, even with some extremely large corporations), effectively shifting the tax burden onto individuals instead. Then, of course, those individuals benefitting most from the corporations not paying their fair share are also playing accounting games to reduce their own tax burden, further shifting the burden onto lower income individuals.
So when you combine that with increased costs for everyday consumer goods, you see an increasingly higher burden on lower and middle income, even higher income individuals until you get to the extremely wealthy outliers. The impact is greater the lower you go in income level though.
Maybe in a properly functioning capitalistic system that ensures truly fair competition, prevents monopolies (or near/effective monopolies), and properly manages limited resources (and I’m sure other things that didn’t immediately come to mind). Not so much what exists currently.
Let me rephrase: in the system that exists, today, the argument “it’s consumers that end up paying” works the same for the tarrifs as for sales tax?
Sales tax is imposed by the states (and sometimes smaller localities) to help fund their operations, not the feds (although the tariffs have effectively amounted to that without actually saying it) - people can move to places like Delaware if they have a problem with that. These tariffs are universal, and since the manufacturing of the bulk of products has been offshored LONG ago, there’s no alternative.
Gotta love people like you who deliberately ignore the detailed nuances because it destroys your so-called argument.
Fucking hell what a toxic, ad-hominem, reply!
Especially considering we’re saying the same thing.
Politics really destroys the logical thinking part in many people’s brains.
I’ll agree with the last sentence, but where’s the ad-hominem? I addressed your “argument” - such as it was, since we are most definitely NOT saying the same things - and said you were ignoring details. YOU, on the other hand, did not rebut what I just said, but jumped to playing the victim. GMAFB.
“Gotta love people like you who deliberately etc…”
There wasn’t a need to rebut anything. Your comment confirmed what I asked from the start. Just in a very unpleasant, toxic, angry, way. They’re the same thing under a different name.
so, military and harassing citizens?
Unmarked vans, black sites, and plain clothes SS don’t just grow on trees
(We also will not be spending any of that money on trees)
So, is there an incentive for the tariff payer to keep cost lower and not pass it on to consumer?
The buyer pays the tariff. There’s always an incentive for buyers to keep costs low, tariff or not.
For sellers there might be an incentive to reduce prices under some circumstances: