Trade Wars and Tariffs

[n_huffhines]

Yes, we have been absolutely stupid for decades by financing our biggest adversary with our dollars. The goal is to drive manufacturing out of China and into more friendly nations and of course some back to CONUS and to stop financing China's military.

OK, so then we're not trying to negotiate a deal with China, then? Got it. I'm sure somebody in Trump's camp will say something that contradicts this shortly, but this is the plan for now.

 

[hog88]

So how does Trump cut/eliminate the income tax if manufacturing moves to countries that aren't tariffed as much as china?

Trump says income tax cuts, and perhaps elimination, coming due to tariffs

President Donald Trump indicated that income taxes will be reduced or even eliminated for many people due to tariffs, with a focus on people earning under $200,000 per year.

www.foxnews.com

Are we then going to increase the tariffs on those countries where we've driven Chinese manufacturing to compensate?

He doesn't but what does that have to do with my post?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

That's incredibly vague to the point that it is meaningless. What are the details of the plan?

We buy more from them because we are a wealthy service economy, and they are the world's biggest manufacturer. I can't believe how fkn stupid we are.

You gonna take an assembly line job, bro? Somebody's gotta do it (now).

$600 billion versus $150 billion isn’t vague in the least.

The high tech automated manufacturing facilities need to be invested in here. Not in China. They can keep knitting our Fruit of the Loom underwear if that makes you happy. But even with those types of products, they do it cheaper by paying peasant’s wages (or worse) and by having no accountability on how they impact the environment.

The only detail of the plan that needs to be currently addressed is that capital needs to be deployed here. At least until we have the facilities in place to prevent being held hostage for meds, toilet paper, and raw materials like steel and aluminum. And it is insane to be dependent on them for any components or materials required to maintain our military.

 

[hog88]

OK, so then we're not trying to negotiate a deal with China, then? Got it. I'm sure somebody in Trump's camp will say something that contradicts this shortly, but this is the plan for now.

Did I say that? No, I'm sure they are trying to negotiate a deal, we will always have some trade with China.

 

[BeardedVol]

He doesn't but what does that have to do with my post?

Because you've stated that the supposed desired effect of increasing tariffs on China is to drive manufacturing to other countries, and Trump has stated that he wants tariffs to replace or at least decrease income taxes.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Did I say that? No, I'm sure they are trying to negotiate a deal, we will always have some trade with China.

Nothing says that trade deals demand a lack of tariffs. And nothing says that we have to have a single, one-size-fits-all trade deal with the world, as opposed to individual trade deals for each country, region or coalition. As a matter of fact, trump's mantra has literally been: "Those nations that come negotiate with us in good faith... The ones that do it sooner will get better deals than those that hold out and try to trade war with us."

i.e. We will have progressive deals with different nations.

It's actually conceivable that we can have free trade deals with some, and tariffs on others that are applied as national income that lowers taxes. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

$600 billion versus $150 billion isn’t vague in the least.

The high tech automated manufacturing facilities need to be invested in here. Not in China. They can keep knitting our Fruit of the Loom underwear if that makes you happy. But even with those types of products, they do it cheaper by paying peasant’s wages (or worse) and by having no accountability on how they impact the environment.

The only detail of the plan that needs to be currently addressed is that capital needs to be deployed here. At least until we have the facilities in place to prevent being held hostage for meds, toilet paper, and raw materials like steel and aluminum. And it is insane to be dependent on them for any components or materials required to maintain our military.

You think the left (and huff) care about the environment? Cheap cheap cheap.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Because you've stated that the supposed desired effect of increasing tariffs on China is to drive manufacturing to other countries, and Trump has stated that he wants tariffs to replace or at least decrease income taxes.

Growing our economy can reduce the tax burden on individuals. As long as the better financial standing isn’t squandered on all the “free” **** that US taxpayers fund. Federal revenues clearly need to be better managed and accountable. These NGOs don’t need to be greased with my tax dollars. ROI needs to be a higher priority.

And stop worrying about everything Trump utters. Showing his hand isn’t necessary.

 

[hog88]

Because you've stated that the supposed desired effect of increasing tariffs on China is to drive manufacturing to other countries, and Trump has stated that he wants tariffs to replace or at least decrease income taxes.

Yeah, but I never mentioned the 2 together. He's not eliminating the income tax so why respond to my post with that?

 

[BeardedVol]

Yeah, but I never mentioned the 2 together. He's not eliminating the income tax so why respond to my post with that?

Because what you have stated as being the purpose for the tariffs, is not what Trump has stated.

 

[hog88]

Because what you have stated as being the purpose for the tariffs, is not what Trump has stated.

Trump has stated several things as the purpose of the tariffs.

 

[Velo Vol]

I'd be all for that if he could pull it off

Narrator: He (or more properly Congress) will not.

Which circles back to the conundrum: you either have high tariffs on imports (generating revenue) or you have new trade deals, with low tariffs and low revenue.

 

[BeardedVol]

Trump has stated several things as the purpose of the tariffs.

Has he stated that the goal is to move manufacturing out of China to other countries?

 

[Velo Vol]

So dumb. Most of our "subsidy" consists of importing Canadian oil, refining it, and then selling it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Narrator: He (or more properly Congress) will not.

Which circles back to the conundrum: you either have high tariffs on imports (generating revenue) or you have new trade deals, with low tariffs and low revenue.

View attachment 738739

Or you have some trade deals with low/no tariffs/revenue, AND some trade deals with high tariffs/revenue. Or you may even have trade deals with low tariffs/income on some items, and high tariffs/income on other items.

The problem with your argument is that you haven't proven that the almost infinite middle that you've excluded should be excluded as possibilities, and we're not privy to the negotiations/deals. So, you really can't say.

 

[mrorange211]

So dumb. Most of our "subsidy" consists of importing Canadian oil, refining it, and then selling it.

It's really insane because had he kept his mouth shut the conservatives were going to win. No doubt about it. The election has been completely flipped. I can't decide if he knew this outcomes and did it on purpose or not with his 51st state rhetoric.

 

[Wireless1]

$600 billion versus $150 billion isn’t vague in the least.

The high tech automated manufacturing facilities need to be invested in here. Not in China. They can keep knitting our Fruit of the Loom underwear if that makes you happy. But even with those types of products, they do it cheaper by paying peasant’s wages (or worse) and by having no accountability on how they impact the environment.

The only detail of the plan that needs to be currently addressed is that capital needs to be deployed here. At least until we have the facilities in place to prevent being held hostage for meds, toilet paper, and raw materials like steel and aluminum. And it is insane to be dependent on them for any components or materials required to maintain our military.

And cheap wages don't stay cheap unless they maintain some form of "slavery"
Look at Japan and South Korea. 50 years ago they were cheap labor markets.

 

[BeardedVol]

Lol

 

[Orangeburst]

I don't understand why everything has to be binary. I can disagree with some approaches of this administration and not favor the CCP. I could also disagree with some of the approaches of the Biden admin and not be 100% MAGA. Reality is actually nuanced and not colored the way the internet depicts it.

I have no idea why you responded to me with such a comment, as I never claimed such. I have several buddies on here that are not Trump supporters, and not once in 10 years have I made such a claim.

Still doesnt negate my comment that many would rather see Trump fail, no matter the consequence, as long as it hurts him politically.

 

[Orange_Crush]

 

[MontyPython]

I am not trying to be mean but pointing out a bankruptcy from 2008 of so obscure restaurant with the same name is a massive reach.


Even though I stand to benefit from Trump's tariff replacement of income taxes, I prefer that we take any excess from tariffs and put it against our National Debt to pay principle on the debt instead. We need to balance our budget, something that hasn't happened since the 1990s.

Just having a bonanza of fun junking Orangeblob's stupidity. That's all.

RE: Tariffs replacing income taxes... brother... FFS. Please, please PLEASE don't believe a ****ing word that moron Trump says. There's no way on God's green Earth that tariff revenues will EVER replace much less even come close to offsetting income taxes.

Death and taxes, my friend. You can count on those. Trump? Not so much.

From CNN:

"...No one likes paying income taxes. But any plan to replace them with tariffs as a source of government revenue would be riddled with problems.

To start, tariffs would need to be exceedingly high — significantly higher than the already historic levels at which the Trump administration has set them today.

The federal government raises about $3 trillion a year from income taxes. The United States also happens to import around $3 trillion worth of goods annually. So that means tariffs would have to be at least 100% on all imported goods for the levies to replace income taxes, said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, in a note to investors.

The United States’ effective tariff rate now stands at 22.8%, according to Fitch Ratings. So to take the place of income taxes, tariffs would need to be more than four times higher than they are now — and America’s new tariff rate is already by far the highest of any developed country and has threatened to plunge the US and global economies into a recession.

But replacing all that tax revenue is not even as simple as doubling the price of everything that comes into America, Slok notes: As prices rise, demand trails off. That’s why America’s largest companies this earnings season have said that Trump’s trade policies are raising costs and leading consumers to spend less on practically everything — from airline tickets to burritos.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/economy/trump-time-interview-tariffs

“The math just doesn’t add up,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. “Not even close.”

The tariffs already imposed and scheduled to take effect will bring in just $170 billion in annual revenue, the Tax Foundation estimates — taking into account reduced demand for goods that higher prices would create. That’s well short of the amount of federal income taxes America brings in each year.

 

[n_huffhines]

Lol
View attachment 738745

Hey, they gladly elected him after he did this same move (more or less, it was farm subsidies) 7-8 years ago. Why on earth would he not repeat it? The right is full of phonies.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just having a bonanza of fun junking Orangeblob's stupidity. That's all.

RE: Tariffs replacing income taxes... brother... FFS. Please, please PLEASE don't believe a ****ing word that moron Trump says. There's no way on God's green Earth that tariff revenues will EVER replace much less even come close to offsetting income taxes.

Death and taxes, my friend. You can count on those. Trump? Not so much.

From CNN:

"...No one likes paying income taxes. But any plan to replace them with tariffs as a source of government revenue would be riddled with problems.

To start, tariffs would need to be exceedingly high — significantly higher than the already historic levels at which the Trump administration has set them today.

The federal government raises about $3 trillion a year from income taxes. The United States also happens to import around $3 trillion worth of goods annually. So that means tariffs would have to be at least 100% on all imported goods for the levies to replace income taxes, said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, in a note to investors.

The United States’ effective tariff rate now stands at 22.8%, according to Fitch Ratings. So to take the place of income taxes, tariffs would need to be more than four times higher than they are now — and America’s new tariff rate is already by far the highest of any developed country and has threatened to plunge the US and global economies into a recession.

But replacing all that tax revenue is not even as simple as doubling the price of everything that comes into America, Slok notes: As prices rise, demand trails off. That’s why America’s largest companies this earnings season have said that Trump’s trade policies are raising costs and leading consumers to spend less on practically everything — from airline tickets to burritos.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/economy/trump-time-interview-tariffs

“The math just doesn’t add up,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. “Not even close.”

The tariffs already imposed and scheduled to take effect will bring in just $170 billion in annual revenue, the Tax Foundation estimates — taking into account reduced demand for goods that higher prices would create. That’s well short of the amount of federal income taxes America brings in each year.

Real question, as I'd like to know. Has Trump said that tariffs would end all income tax for all income ranges?

“When Tariffs cut in, many people’s Income Taxes will be substantially reduced, maybe even completely eliminated,” Trump wrote in a post Sunday on his Truth Social platform.


“Focus will be on people making less than $200,000 a year,” he continued.

https://thehill.com/business/domestic-taxes/5270339-trump-floats-income-tax-cut-to-ease-tariff-impact/

This plan seems to only need tariffs to cover a percentage of existing income taxes.

 

[Vol737]

I drank my in flight coffee with my pinky out.

 

[Orangeburst]

It’s a big window.

we are all rather surprised you can throw anything with only 4 digits.