Right, because the current administration totally shouldn’t be held accountable for the current state of the economy. It’s always the previous administration’s fault, especially when there was a Republican president. /s
You can hold the current administration accountable but you should look at change over time and where it was coming from.
Given how things looked when he took office this is one of the best possible outcomes.
You can do this with Republican Presidents too. When evaluating Trump's economic stuff you should absolutely look at Obama's tenure. [You can see here that, for example, Obama inherited an economy that was trending down and left with one trending up, Trump took over and continued the trending up into the first few years but ending with the economy tanking](https://www.statista.com/chart/22727/seasonally-adjusted-real-gdp-in-the-us/)
You can and should do this regardless of party.
So what about Biden? Can we talk about the economy under his administration? Specifically the record spending, the propaganda regarding the job market, inflation, illegal immigration which foots over $1 billion to the American taxpayer every year, allowing jobs to be outsourced to countries like China and India. Curious as to whether we’re even allowed to speak of such a thing on this platform
Sure can! [Biden spearheaded the best economic turnaround of any Group of 7 countries](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/). During that time we've seen the job market recover well. Inflation has been a problem, that was the trade off for the better economic recovery we saw, but that's also been coming down.
You'll see a lot of people criticize Bidens economy. Some of that's from frustration with inflation and not seeing that every country is struggling with something right now. Some of that's just from misinformation campaigns from the right.
But it's hard to look at the facts and not see how Biden has done wonders for this economy, especially given the bullshit Trump handed him.
“Biden spearheaded the best economic turnaround”
Yet [GDP was largely recovered before Biden entered office](https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/measuring-the-strength-of-the-recovery), and entirely before he signed any spending bills. How can you be **this dishonest**?
u/abruty I wouldn’t waste your time with this person, it’s outstanding how dishonest some people can really be.
It’s not that, it’s people still picking sides, even when they say “it shouldn’t matter the party”
The real answer is “it doesn’t matter the party”. I’m not even sure what matters anymore.
Edit: anyone with half a sense can go here to see it doesn’t matter:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Recent_US_debt_service/interest_statistics
You remember back when Trump was running for office and all the job reports under Obama were “fake news” and then when he suddenly took office, the reports generated by the same department and people were suddenly evidence of Trump’s brilliance? Probably that.
Illegal immigration? You mean that all encompassing deal that Democrats and Republicans came together to write and then Trump told them to vote it down? Go fuck yourself.
lol, how about Biden continuing to build the wall at the border despite promising he wouldn’t build “one more foot”. And the anti-humanitarian cages that still remain an issue under Biden, and have been an issue since at least the Obama administration. Not to mention fentanyl pouring into the country, and increased gang violence. Oh, and just the other day, ICE arrested a few individuals at the border with possibile ties to ISIS. So what about the people who have probably already slipped through the cracks?
Have fun voting for him again, I bet you’re real proud of your decision👏
Because it’s totally a more intelligent and nuanced take to just say the current leadership is the problem if things aren’t going well today.
If the prior administration put in a policy that in 4 years would raise the income tax rate to 90%, when that four years passes who would you be blaming?
You’d blame the previous admin for passing the policy, obviously. Political policies are very complicated since our world is very complicated, and you can’t just simply say the problems of today were caused by the current administration. This makes no sense.
This administration should be held accountable for the current economy. Nearly full employment, inflation has stabled, and the Gdp is still growing. All things economists look for
All you have to do is look at policies. Trump had massive tax cuts, businesses did stock buyback. He increased tariffs which increased supply costs.
Biden spent after the pandemic to counteract the tax cuts and the pandemic. Initially, inflation was bad (as it was all around the world) but has slowly come down with a lot of jobs created. Now we need tax increases on the rich to use to spend again on infrastructure. Hopefully those taxes can at least halt the debt too.
Unfortunately, debt is always gonna go up as long as the US maintains it role as "world police" and the necessary resources that go along w it.
Covid was Trump's fuckup? Economy was great through 2019 and anemic under Obama despite all the QE.
Then Biden continued covid spending without economic justification, which caused all the inflation.
[You can check out the GDP here](https://www.statista.com/chart/22727/seasonally-adjusted-real-gdp-in-the-us/) for one measure.
[You can look here for a bunch more](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/).
You can see Obama inherited a shit economy and turned it around. Trump inherited a great economy and took it to the shitter.
Yes, I can blame Trump for how he handled COVID and got us into this mess. Just like I can give credit to Biden for turning it around. [We did the best out of the Group of 7 nations in turning our economy around quickly](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/) but that also spurred the inflation, which we're now seeing Biden lowering.
I know it doesn't feel this way, but it's hard not to zoom out and see an economic masterclass by Biden.
Conservative here, I fully support universal healthcare and education - even if only from a strictly fiscal position. It’s the cheaper option with similar outcomes. Why buy a gallon of gas for $4 when you can buy it for $2.25 and still get 40 miles of range?
So you’re a conservative and not going straight down the party line? I’ll venture to guess you’re more of an old school republican and do not worship at the alter of Drumpf.
There are other things they believe in that prevents this. Just like you can be a democrat that does not believe in gun control yet you still vote democrat
But your congressional members passed ACA with zero GOP support and gave away the farm to big healthcare insurance. Why didn't they do universal healthcare instead?
Universal healthcare is working in 31 of 32 top countries. Only the USA doesn't have it. The top of those 31 countries spends slightly less than half the per-capita healthcare cost the USA has. So switching to Universal Healthcare will SAVE MONEY, not cost money.
I'm not sure why you would think the US can manage universal health care for over 350 million people when it can't manage S.S. or Medicare. Did you forget that those programs are in a deficit
So you claim that the USA is worse at governing than 31 other biggest countries? We rank 32nd? I'm guessing we just need to get Republicans out of there who exist to block progress and make America a slave owning, women-suppressing shithole like it was in the mid 1800s.
That’s why you have a collective fund that is dispersed amongst the states proportional to their population using a per capita basis. Everyone pays in, the states handle the disbursements following federal guidelines.
You need to define what kind of system you want. It’s not like all 31 countries set up their healthcare system the same way, and “universal healthcare” isn’t a type of healthcare, it just refers to universal insurance coverage
Your point was we can't afford it. If we looked at the features of the 31 countries who not only afforded it, but spend HALF what we spend or less, I'm sure we could find an option that would work. Veterans get free healthcare, and if you give them the option to pay for private insurance instead and forgo the free veteran care, they don't opt out of it. Our government already knows how to provide healthcare, and they should research and debate other countries' systems and decide how to improve and perfect healthcare. Anything beats the crap we have now.
Yeah, and those countries dont pay $1000 for diabetic drugs or any drug for that matter. If it was feasible, the US would have it. Costs need to come down in order for the US to have universal health. Again, how could the US have universal care if it's in the red and can't cover Medicare or S.S.
We would need to elect a lot of people unwilling to be influenced by large insurance companies.
Keep in mind if we just switched to say a EU system. 10s of thousands of people would be laid off, the insurance industry would die as we know it. Hospitals could lay off tons of administrative positions because everything finally is simplified.
Because the only nation on earth that does things differently than we do… is Venezuela. 🙄
You could move somewhere with no regulations, lots of guns, no unions or social programs.
Be sure to say ‘hi’ when you get set up in Somalia.
And the way to do that is by spending less and running higher tax rates on the billion and up individuals and close some of the loop holes on the elite.
Easily said. But are you going to cut the secret service protecting Trump? Are you going to put limits on Congress' trips to Bermuda? Are you going to reduce defense spending to what the top six nations in the world spend on defense COMBINED?
Dumb.
You could cut 100% of every single thing you listed and not fix the deficit.
You're ignoring the giant gaping bullet wound and prattling on about a hang nail.
I'm sorry you're Dumb. But the point is if you cut nothing, the deficit never goes down. You have to start cutting something, and raising taxes. Doing neither because no single thing fixes the problem, is doomed to failure. It is the same failed logic as "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
Republicans have said this for over 100 years.
They had plenty of opportunities to show it works, and it hasn’t yet.
We just had the most conservative president in my lifetime. We also just had a record increase in our debt. The second biggest increase came from the second most conservative president.
“[Home Depot(TM) presents the police!(R)](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department)“ I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
I know everybody has a boner for Javier Milei, but I’m going to need more than five months of data to agree with you.
You’d think that having the *entire history of humanity* as a resource, you’d have plenty of evidence to back up your hypothesis.
The entire history proves less government and more free market is better for economies and growth, that’s how the theory of capitalism was formed was by known history and follow economic patterns of what drove the most growth.
So I fail to see how history disagrees with what Milei has done.
“The entire history proves that less government and more free market is better for economies and growth. That’s how the theory of capitalism was formed. Was by known history and follow economic by follow economic patterns…”
And we have come full circle to my original question:
“*Like in the nation of…*”
Is it possible for you to answer that question without providing a patronizing lecture about socialism?
Because I’m starting to have doubts.
Just because I give you answers that you don’t like don’t mean they aren’t answers especially if a question is rigged to make it where the questioner can’t lose, which I’m not saying you’re trying to do that.
I don’t have to answer a specific nation because again history speaks for itself if you’re truthful. But some examples because you desperately need to feel like you can dispute what you don’t like to hear, the examples:
Virtually all ancient counties in some way before a totalitarian regime. For example Roman Republic to Roman Empire before the Dominate. Even during the Roman Empire the emperors didn’t worry about trade as long as it worked.
Multiple republics like the Republic of Venice.
USA for a good portion of its history.
Go ahead and try and claim that’s not correct or those countries didn’t really get rich from Capitalism/Libertarian ideas.
Wake me up when his plan actually *works*.
Russia tried a similar thing a generation ago. It made 95% of Russia a third-world joke, and made about seven Russians the richest people on earth.
Honest question: What miracle do you think is going to happen in Venezuela?
Well then you should already be awake because it’s working. Argentina has already rebounded, to a small degree, from cutting so much of their government bloat and reduced inflation.
Venezuela is a bad question. You should know better if you want an honest economic discussion so your question might be a mala fides. Venezuela is socialist, the government has national most of their industries and is continuing to suffer the consequences of far too big of a government.
No, that would be terrible. There have been seven times in American history when the federal government has had run substantial budget surpluses. Six of those were followed by depressions, the seventh (early 2000s) was followed by the Great Recession. These events are related.
Right? Like shit, the US is practically a tax haven compared to most other developed countries. And the thing is it's going to be those who benefit the least from this kind of tax cut who will most vocally support it.
The effective corporate tax rate in the US is 21%.
The world wide average is 23.45%. The US isn't far off from the average rate. We are hardly a tax haven.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp
The worldwide average statutory corporate income tax rate, measured across 181 jurisdictions, is 23.45 percent. When weighted by GDP, the average statutory rate is 25.67 percent.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-2023/
The issue isn't the tax rate on paper, it's all the potential deductions you can use in the USA to effectively reduce this rate to nearly zero. That and corporate subsidies let corpos get away with not paying much.
I gave a link that explicitly stated the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate in the US.
Companies in a growth phase like Amazon have faced criticism from both shareholders and high tax enthusiasts. In order to grow they keep spending on infrastructure and r&d. If their profits are zero their income tax will be zero.
I prefer growth to austerity.
You can, it'd just kill the economy defeating the purpose. The same way you can drive off of a cliff to try to make it to Grandma's birthday party.
What we need to do is refocus where the money ends up at the end of value chain. Right now, it ends up in equity shareholders accounts to the tune of "too much" and we need to pay workers in line with inflation. We need to create a tax in the spirit of Georgism on corporate entities owning homes, and individuals who own more than one home.
"Oh, that'll kill my AirBnB business." People are homeless and behind on saving for retirement, you piece of shit. You own 12 houses or Black Rock owning 1/3 of the housing market, and just sitting on homes or renting them out. Fuck that company.
How relatable to the average American Trump is 🥰. We don't need universal healthcare , we don't need a better social plan, we need a tax cut for billionaires and big companies!
You are aware the corporate tax rate applies to ALL corporations right? Including the very small ones, who actually make up a majority of all corporations.
I will refrain from insults here. It’s important to clarify some misconceptions about the relationship between corporate tax rates, tax revenue, and national debt. When the corporate tax rate was lowered to 21% in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), it led to some significant economic effects.
Corporate Tax Rate and Tax Revenue
1. Increased Economic Activity: The reduction in the corporate tax rate was designed to make the U.S. more competitive globally, encouraging businesses to invest more in the economy. This led to higher corporate profits, more business investment, and ultimately, more jobs.
2. Tax Revenue: Despite the lower rate, tax revenue from corporations actually increased in the following years. The logic here is that a lower tax rate can broaden the tax base by reducing incentives for tax avoidance and encouraging more economic activity. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, corporate tax receipts rose in the years immediately following the tax cut.
National Debt and Government Spending
However, the increase in corporate tax revenue did not translate into a reduction of the national debt. Here’s why:
1. Government Spending: The primary driver of the increasing national debt has been government spending. Despite higher revenues, federal spending has continued to outpace revenue growth. Key areas include social security, healthcare, defense, and interest on the national debt itself.
2. Deficits: When the government spends more than it collects in revenue, it runs a deficit. These annual deficits accumulate to form the national debt. The U.S. has been running significant budget deficits for years, contributing to the growing debt.
While lowering the corporate tax rate to 21% in 2017 did lead to an increase in corporate tax revenue, the national debt has continued to grow primarily due to persistent overspending rather than insufficient tax revenue. It’s a complex issue that involves balancing tax policy with fiscal responsibility to manage the debt effectively.
I hope this explanation provides a clearer picture of how tax policy and government spending interact and their impact on the national debt. I would ask you to be more respectful of others opinions in the future.
"While lowering the corporate tax rate to 21% in 2017 did lead to an increase in corporate tax revenue"
LOL corporate tax revenue fell sharply after 2017 and continued to decline until 2020. It didnt increase until 2020 after covid stimulus, inflation, post-covid recovery... it's absurd to attribute that to the tax cuts and not the trillions in economic stimulus and higher prices corporations benefited from. And if you adjust for inflation, corporate tax revenue only recently got back to pre-2017 levels
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX)
so yeah... F\*cking idiot is right
The means by which tax cuts can increase total revenue are delayed whereas rates are retroactive. You should expect revenue decreases in the short term. You yourself have just acknowledged that tax revenues increased after lowering the rates. You can only argue that they aren’t related - you cant argue that they decreased. This shifts the goalpost from the original claim that the rate cuts increased the deficit.
The corporate tax rate was reduced to 21% during Trumps first term but they actually collected more in taxes due to more profit at companies and also the repatriation of companies to the United States. If you keep corporate tax rate too high then companies move their main offices to other countries, like Ireland (at 12.5%), with lower corporate tax rates. That tax revenue then goes to that country. This is also why tariffs are a useful tool to access the US Market. It is important that the US remains competitive with other countries to keep companies located here, and that tax revenue here.
The issue with the debt is due to overspending. From 2020 to 2023 you had a federal budget roughly around 4 trillion, and then in both 2020 (covid), 2021 and 2022 they added 4 trillion on top each year, which is all debt spending on Infrastructure bill, jobs act, inflation act and more. The simple fact is that we have a bloated government, redundant agencies and wasteful spending that have exacerbate the debt in this country. If congress were at all honest are careful about out debt they would pass a balanced budget amendment, where they could only spend what they collect and pay down the debt, but they continue to add to the pile every year, regardless of the party in charge.
Tariffs cause inflation. For average people, more money will be spent on a higher cost of goods than saved through the reduction of taxes - particularly because the tax brackets are progressive.
This is a regressive suggestion. Just like universal student loan forgiveness is a regressive suggestion.
And it's effectively the same as sanctioning all of the countries that we call allies. This protectionist bullshit will only makes things worse for Americans.
I think you need to reread what I wrote. I never claimed it lowers inflation, but a fee collected to access the US market. Foreign goods can be produced significantly cheaper than in the US in countries that have low cost labor like China or India it allows them to undercut local companies. If you apply a tariff you are leveling the playing field and causing fairness with local competitors. They would still need to be competitive on pricing in the US Market in order to be a viable alternative, so the notion that they are increasing their prices to cover a tariff doesn’t work in all cases. You could, as an economic standard use Tariff revenue as a principle pay-down vehicle for national debt as well, which would be deflationary. This doesn’t hurt are “allies” as you put it because they understand there should be a cost to access our marketplace, just as we realize it with other countries. They may not like it, but they certainly would understand the practice. Also, Keep in mind, that US goods are not just tariffed in other countries but blocked completely in some markets.
Would you work for $3 an hour to make an iPhone?
Edit: Maybe that's why we're getting rid of child labor laws. We need those damn spoiled kids to start making our fucking iPhones.
Edit 2: It's okay, all you internet geniuses who never took economics in college, you can learn the hard way. We'll all have to learn the hard way I suppose.
Nobody wants to do *any* job for shit pay.
Would you be a lawyer for minimum wage? Is it because you’re lazy?
We should stop having minimum requirements for lawyers and doctors. It artificially increases their wages. We could easily offshore their more mundane responsibilities.
Let the market decide!
No, I wouldn’t. However, I do have a business degree and run two successful businesses. But I’m thrilled you took economics in college. It has certainly lead to some entitlement issues with very little substance. Shifting the topic to exploitation labor is beside the point I made. There are millions of people in this country now working for less than three dollars an hour, but that exploitation here and abroad should not be tolerated. Leveling the playing field via tariffs and other tools is justifiably by any country, not just the US. It is simply protecting the labor force in your own country. Your position is that we allow foreign companies a competitive advantage in our country.
Also, the notion that people wouldn’t take these jobs is because the international labor has driven pay down for physical production jobs. Tariffs again would combat that by causing balance between overall spend of production overseas vs domestic.
No, I believe in trade. I believe in the specialization of production. I like having the option to buy Scotch whiskey at the grocery store. The grocery store likes that I have the option to buy Scotch whiskey at the grocery store. The Scottish like that I have the option to buy Scotch whiskey at the grocery store. You're the only one that dislikes it because you think I should be drinking Kentucky bourbon (though, I like some Kentucky bourbons too!!).
Some countries have lower standards of living than ours. This is not about exploitation (though, it *can* be used for exploitation) - it is about INVESTMENT. I want to be able to invest in foreign communities - which helps raise the standards of living for those communities and make a small profit for me. A win-win - THAT IS ECONOMICS AND THE SPECIALIZATION OF PRODUCTION.
$3 an hour goes a lot further in Shenzhen than it does in New York.
But I'd like you to expand further upon this idea:
>There are millions of people in this country now working for less than three dollars an hour.
I have this weird feeling that you don't like marketplace competition... YOU are in charge and YOU make the rules, amirite?
Edit: You also seem to be glossing over the tit-for-tat issues that arise from tariffs. You charge tariffs, now that country isn't making as much money from you. So they charge tariffs, and now you are not making as much money from them. This shit is how you make EVERYONE poorer - just like the socialist shit. Less options at the grocery store. More people clamoring for price controls. It's NOT pragmatic - and we can clearly see this through tariffs issued in the past. Biden STILL has not undone Trump's idiotic steel tariffs (that granted four exemptions) and the American steel industry is no better off than it was before. Ironically, it hurt the small and medium sized companies MORE than the large steel companies - it caused MORE job losses in the steel industry.
I do make the decisions and rules because I run my own businesses. That’s okay, right? And you must be drinking a lot of that whiskey. Because Scotch Whisky does not have an “e”.
And Tarrifs don’t prevent you from buying it. Also, tariffs are not used on all goods, just specific goods that are targeted to promote fairness.
Your arguments are very broad and over generalized and represent a basic understanding of macroeconomic. For example, you believe we are broadly hitting all markets geographically with targets and that generally retaliation would occur. It is typically based on industry, materials etc. similar to what has already occurred under Trump that protected farmers. The alternative is that our grain growers cannot compete and they stop producing. Do we then rely on foreign imports of basic food staples?
We clearly have different opinions on this and you are certainly able to have your own. But to simply negate all my points without a true grasp of the subject matter speaks volumes of your ignorance.
True, they do spell it without the "e". But alas, I am American and we spell it with an "e". I apologize to all the Scots out there.
Trump wants to put tariffs on ALL IMPORTS to get rid of income taxes. That's what I thought we were talking about...
But, let's talk about Trump's tariffs - let's look at Wikipedia:
"The tariffs angered trading partners, who implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. In June 2018, India planned to recoup trade penalties of $241 million on $1.2 billion worth of Indian steel and aluminum, but attempted talks delayed these until June 2019 when India imposed retaliatory tariffs on $240 million worth of U.S. goods. Canada imposed matching retaliatory tariffs on July 1, 2018. China implemented retaliatory tariffs equivalent to the $34 billion tariff imposed on it by the U.S. In July 2018, the Trump administration announced it would use a Great Depression-era program, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), to pay farmers up to $12 billion, increasing the aid to $28 billion in May 2019. The USDA estimated that aid payments constituted more one than one-third of total farm income in 2019 and 2020."
So, it was taxpayer aid (through deficit spending and an increase to inflation) that ultimately protected farmers. NOT THE FUCKING TARIFFS.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html)
Sorry, I was out with my family and some of my employees families for a nice Friday night cookout. But, I will provide you with some more explanation:
I have heard this concern that tariffs imposed by the U.S. have led to retaliatory tariffs and strained relationships with trading partners. And read a out it in NYT as well. However, it’s essential to look at the broader picture to understand the actual impacts of these trade policies.
Renegotiation of NAFTA
USMCA: One of the significant achievements following the imposition of tariffs was the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This new agreement includes several provisions that benefit U.S. workers and industries:
Automotive Industry: The USMCA requires a higher percentage of North American-made parts in automobiles to qualify for zero tariffs. This change incentivizes manufacturing within the region, thereby supporting U.S. jobs.
Labor Standards: The agreement includes stronger labor protections, which help ensure fair wages and working conditions in Mexico, making U.S. labor more competitive and stabilizing jobs domestically.
Intellectual Property: USMCA also provides better protection for U.S. intellectual property, which is crucial for industries such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and entertainment. This protection encourages innovation and supports high-paying jobs in these sectors.
Job Stability for U.S. Workers:
Manufacturing Jobs: The tariffs and subsequent trade negotiations have led to a resurgence in certain manufacturing sectors. By imposing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, for instance, the U.S. provided a lifeline to domestic producers, which in turn helped to preserve and create jobs in these industries.
Supply Chain Resilience: The emphasis on bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. or closer to home (nearshoring) has increased job stability. This approach reduces dependency on distant and potentially unreliable supply chains, ensuring that production remains steady and jobs are more secure during global disruptions.
Retaliatory Tariffs and Global Trade Relations
Negotiation Leverage: While some trading partners did respond with retaliatory tariffs, these measures often served as leverage in negotiations, leading to more balanced trade agreements. For instance, the pressure from tariffs facilitated dialogues that resulted in better market access for U.S. agricultural products.
Global Trade Dynamics: It’s also important to note that many trading partners have continued to seek strong economic ties with the U.S. despite initial tensions. The economic interdependence and the significant market size of the U.S. mean that most countries are keen on maintaining robust trade relationships.
While tariffs did lead to some initial retaliatory measures from trading partners, they also played a critical role in renegotiating NAFTA into the more favorable USMCA, which has provided increased job stability and benefits for U.S. workers. The broader effects have been positive for key industries and have contributed to a more resilient and competitive U.S. economy.
Hopefully, this provides you with a clearer understanding of the impacts of U.S. tariffs and trade policies.
Yes. This happens a lot. It was the whole reason for Uwe Boll's video game movies being hot garbage: they flop in theaters and he gets a massive tax return from the German government. Trump starts a company like Trump Airlines, Trump University, Truth Social (pending,) they flop, he liquidates the company, gets his losses back in write-offs, pockets whatever profit he did make. Activision and EA buying up smaller game studios, same deal plus they get the rights to any IP and can pull staff into other projects they have tighter control over. I can go on and on.
The idea is to get realized losses to a point where you either pay no tax at all or get a rebate which supports income from other business or investments. Especially effective if you were to, say, inflate the value of your realized losses. You hide money transfers in "consultant fees," or such miscellaneous transactions where the real value of that is completely meaningless, then claim it as an operating expense. Things like that. Hard to prove, especially after a company has been liquidated.
You're not losing money, you're obscuring your earnings behind stated losses, factual and fictional. That's the whole con. There's only so many ways I can explain this, it's not that complicated. If business expenses weren't tax deductable this scam would be far less profitable
That's not what you said. You said do people make money by cratering a business. The answe is yes, that's what short selling is.
PE funds literally gut a business for all it's worth, and leave the smoking crater to fold
It just happened to Red Lobster
Bro what. I work in private equity. There doesn’t exist a model where cratering a business is profitable. Maybe in the 80s where you could piece out conglomerates.
Trump had the largest deficit increase in 4 year history of any president. He doesn't care about the fiscal responsibility. And his voters don't either.
Because of the sniffle-demic? I really fail to see what mental gymnastics you’re doing here. Wouldn’t a democratic president have printed money all the same? Isn’t that what democrats want?
I mean step back, and actually look at it. Can you blame the deficit increase on trump, or the inflation on Biden? No. Not really. Would’ve happened under any other president. This makes you look uneducated and overtly partisan. In fact, this whole comment sections has overtly stupid and partisan takes.
I don’t blame trump for Covid and I don’t blame Biden for inflation. The president isn’t the economy czar, this isn’t communist Russia.
I certainly blame trump for acting like a dumbass during Covid though, “injecting bleach”. Glad he helped get the vaccine but his supporters don’t like that so now he’s anti-vax.
I can’t keep track of all the insane stuff trump says (or tweets) on a daily basis, but I agree he didn’t say “injecting bleach”.
He implied injecting a disinfectant. I just watched the clip.
and replace it with a tax on everything for everyone that hurts the middle class more
they really do want you to own nothing and be happy
don't forget in their little scheme, they are eliminating all tax refunds, child tax credits, any marriage credits, any government you get at all, while increasing the cost of everything and of course the resulting crime when millions and millions of people already struggling find everything vastly more expensive but the prison lobby likes that
In no world are they going to remove income tax.
But it would be amusing if they did, maybe we would finally get a class revolt in a handful of years once dumbasses realize how much they've been screwed.
I say make them all pay 20% and no deductions.
From Mr Warren Buffet…
“We don't mind paying taxes at Berkshire, and we are paying a 21% federal rate on the gains we're taking in Apple. And that rate was 35% not that long ago, and it's been 52% in the past, when I've been operating. And the federal government owns a part of the earnings of the business we make. They don't own the assets, but they own a percentage of the earnings, and they can change that percentage any year. And the percentage that they've decreed currently is 21%.
And I would say with the present fiscal policies, I think that something has to give, and I think that higher taxes are quite likely, and if the government wants to take a greater share of your income, or mine, or Berkshire's, they can do it. And they may decide that someday they don't want the fiscal deficit to be this large, because that has some important consequences, and they may not want to decrease spending a lot, and they may decide they'll take a larger percentage of what we earn and we'll pay it. We always hope, at Berkshire, to pay substantial federal income taxes.
We think it's appropriate that a company, a country that's been as been as generous to our owners, it's been the place… . I was lucky. Berkshire was lucky, was here. If we send in a check like we did last year, we sent in over $5 billion to the US federal government. And if 800 other companies had done the same thing, no other person in the United States would have had to pay a dime of federal taxes, whether income taxes, no Social Security taxes, no estate taxes, no… . It's open down the line.
Now… That's… I would like to… I hope things develop well enough with Berkshire that we say we're in the 800 club and maybe even move up a few notches. It doesn't bother me in the least to write that check. I would really hope, with all America has done for all of you, it shouldn't bother you that we do it. And if I'm doing it at 21% this year and we're doing it at a higher percentage later on, I don't think you'll actually mind the fact that we sold a little Apple this year.”
You mean after the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII? Are you proposing we bomb france, germany, uk, japan, and unwind all the development in China, India, Southeast Asia, etc.
Like why can’t we think about the future? Why do we care about keeping people rich? They literally serve no purpose compared to a program of universal healthcare or free college?
Of course he did, he will not do it. Dems control congress. He’s a lame duck president. He will cry and cry because congress will not help him. He does not know how to work with others.
He promised me 15% when I met Trump at my local restaurant called McDonald’s. It’s a mom/pop restaurant that sells delicious burgers and fries. Their secret menu is even better. He ordered a Big Mac with extra sauce supersize, just like me 😍
/s
It'd be great if the US could go back to having budget surpluses let alone paying off our debt.
hasn’t happened since 2001
W and Trump fucked the economy so badly that Obama and Biden have just tried to stabilize and fix their fuck ups.
Right, because the current administration totally shouldn’t be held accountable for the current state of the economy. It’s always the previous administration’s fault, especially when there was a Republican president. /s
You can hold the current administration accountable but you should look at change over time and where it was coming from. Given how things looked when he took office this is one of the best possible outcomes. You can do this with Republican Presidents too. When evaluating Trump's economic stuff you should absolutely look at Obama's tenure. [You can see here that, for example, Obama inherited an economy that was trending down and left with one trending up, Trump took over and continued the trending up into the first few years but ending with the economy tanking](https://www.statista.com/chart/22727/seasonally-adjusted-real-gdp-in-the-us/) You can and should do this regardless of party.
So what about Biden? Can we talk about the economy under his administration? Specifically the record spending, the propaganda regarding the job market, inflation, illegal immigration which foots over $1 billion to the American taxpayer every year, allowing jobs to be outsourced to countries like China and India. Curious as to whether we’re even allowed to speak of such a thing on this platform
Trump signed THREE of the four stimulus packages that flooded the economy with money. But cool story
Biden is an altruistic saint. He’s done nothing but selflessly serve America for 45 years. /S
Yes, we’re lucky as a species to have him.
Obviously. /s
Sure can! [Biden spearheaded the best economic turnaround of any Group of 7 countries](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/). During that time we've seen the job market recover well. Inflation has been a problem, that was the trade off for the better economic recovery we saw, but that's also been coming down. You'll see a lot of people criticize Bidens economy. Some of that's from frustration with inflation and not seeing that every country is struggling with something right now. Some of that's just from misinformation campaigns from the right. But it's hard to look at the facts and not see how Biden has done wonders for this economy, especially given the bullshit Trump handed him.
“Biden spearheaded the best economic turnaround” Yet [GDP was largely recovered before Biden entered office](https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/measuring-the-strength-of-the-recovery), and entirely before he signed any spending bills. How can you be **this dishonest**? u/abruty I wouldn’t waste your time with this person, it’s outstanding how dishonest some people can really be.
It’s not that, it’s people still picking sides, even when they say “it shouldn’t matter the party” The real answer is “it doesn’t matter the party”. I’m not even sure what matters anymore. Edit: anyone with half a sense can go here to see it doesn’t matter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Recent_US_debt_service/interest_statistics
You mentioned propaganda regarding the job market. What specifically are you referring to?
You remember back when Trump was running for office and all the job reports under Obama were “fake news” and then when he suddenly took office, the reports generated by the same department and people were suddenly evidence of Trump’s brilliance? Probably that.
Illegal immigration? You mean that all encompassing deal that Democrats and Republicans came together to write and then Trump told them to vote it down? Go fuck yourself.
lol, how about Biden continuing to build the wall at the border despite promising he wouldn’t build “one more foot”. And the anti-humanitarian cages that still remain an issue under Biden, and have been an issue since at least the Obama administration. Not to mention fentanyl pouring into the country, and increased gang violence. Oh, and just the other day, ICE arrested a few individuals at the border with possibile ties to ISIS. So what about the people who have probably already slipped through the cracks? Have fun voting for him again, I bet you’re real proud of your decision👏
I am, I don’t vote for fucking criminals and people that make fun of our veterans.
Because it’s totally a more intelligent and nuanced take to just say the current leadership is the problem if things aren’t going well today. If the prior administration put in a policy that in 4 years would raise the income tax rate to 90%, when that four years passes who would you be blaming? You’d blame the previous admin for passing the policy, obviously. Political policies are very complicated since our world is very complicated, and you can’t just simply say the problems of today were caused by the current administration. This makes no sense.
This administration should be held accountable for the current economy. Nearly full employment, inflation has stabled, and the Gdp is still growing. All things economists look for
All you have to do is look at policies. Trump had massive tax cuts, businesses did stock buyback. He increased tariffs which increased supply costs. Biden spent after the pandemic to counteract the tax cuts and the pandemic. Initially, inflation was bad (as it was all around the world) but has slowly come down with a lot of jobs created. Now we need tax increases on the rich to use to spend again on infrastructure. Hopefully those taxes can at least halt the debt too. Unfortunately, debt is always gonna go up as long as the US maintains it role as "world police" and the necessary resources that go along w it.
🤡
Covid was Trump's fuckup? Economy was great through 2019 and anemic under Obama despite all the QE. Then Biden continued covid spending without economic justification, which caused all the inflation.
[You can check out the GDP here](https://www.statista.com/chart/22727/seasonally-adjusted-real-gdp-in-the-us/) for one measure. [You can look here for a bunch more](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/). You can see Obama inherited a shit economy and turned it around. Trump inherited a great economy and took it to the shitter. Yes, I can blame Trump for how he handled COVID and got us into this mess. Just like I can give credit to Biden for turning it around. [We did the best out of the Group of 7 nations in turning our economy around quickly](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/) but that also spurred the inflation, which we're now seeing Biden lowering. I know it doesn't feel this way, but it's hard not to zoom out and see an economic masterclass by Biden.
Economist here - there is no course correction as equivalent or successful in written history. Wartime or non. Masterclass is understatement
You should explain this to all the Trump culties in this sub because clearly I failed to.
Waste of time. They don’t care.
Obama may have the greatest economy shift of all time, lol
yes, he started in a deep recession. can you math?
We can do that via growth or austerity. I prefer growth.
[удалено]
Conservative here, I fully support universal healthcare and education - even if only from a strictly fiscal position. It’s the cheaper option with similar outcomes. Why buy a gallon of gas for $4 when you can buy it for $2.25 and still get 40 miles of range?
So you’re a conservative and not going straight down the party line? I’ll venture to guess you’re more of an old school republican and do not worship at the alter of Drumpf.
Mid-20’s and I don’t support Trump, though I recognize and will call out the political targeting that he faces at the same time.
Then you should be voting for candidates who support Universal Healthcare, which are not conservatives.
There are other things they believe in that prevents this. Just like you can be a democrat that does not believe in gun control yet you still vote democrat
Like what?
Abortion, taxes….use your imagination. Most people aren’t single issue voters.
Right, republicans hate what other people do to their bodies and love tax cuts for their cronies. My fault, i did know that
You’re preaching to the choir here. I don’t think you achieved quite the zinger you were hoping for lmao.
Not sure how thats a zinger, im just trying to understand why right wingers vote the way they do 🤷♂️
I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties
Thanks!
Not the Dems either. Big health insurance and pharma wrote the ACA and the Dems passed it.
While the Republicans argued nothing should be done and have fought to repeal ACA's slight advancement.
There are more democrats in favor of Universal Healthcare than there are Republicans. This isn't rocket science.
But your congressional members passed ACA with zero GOP support and gave away the farm to big healthcare insurance. Why didn't they do universal healthcare instead?
Republicans have released several proposals that would help achieve universal healthcare, or at least get us a lot closer than we are now
LMAO 🤡 🤣
What?
That is the question lol
Great idea, but we can't even afford S.S., Medicare etc how are we going to afford or pay for Universal Healthcare?
Universal healthcare is working in 31 of 32 top countries. Only the USA doesn't have it. The top of those 31 countries spends slightly less than half the per-capita healthcare cost the USA has. So switching to Universal Healthcare will SAVE MONEY, not cost money.
I'm not sure why you would think the US can manage universal health care for over 350 million people when it can't manage S.S. or Medicare. Did you forget that those programs are in a deficit
So you claim that the USA is worse at governing than 31 other biggest countries? We rank 32nd? I'm guessing we just need to get Republicans out of there who exist to block progress and make America a slave owning, women-suppressing shithole like it was in the mid 1800s.
I'm not going to agree to all that, but there is a shit load of government waste and officials need to be held accountable
Because private health care is so efficient…. Why do we spend more per capita than those other countries?
That’s why you have a collective fund that is dispersed amongst the states proportional to their population using a per capita basis. Everyone pays in, the states handle the disbursements following federal guidelines.
You need to define what kind of system you want. It’s not like all 31 countries set up their healthcare system the same way, and “universal healthcare” isn’t a type of healthcare, it just refers to universal insurance coverage
Your point was we can't afford it. If we looked at the features of the 31 countries who not only afforded it, but spend HALF what we spend or less, I'm sure we could find an option that would work. Veterans get free healthcare, and if you give them the option to pay for private insurance instead and forgo the free veteran care, they don't opt out of it. Our government already knows how to provide healthcare, and they should research and debate other countries' systems and decide how to improve and perfect healthcare. Anything beats the crap we have now.
Hey, I'm all for it, but I bet those 31 countries do not have the population that the US has.
Which means they don’t have the tax base the US has. The stats are per capita.
the United States also spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other advanced country in the world
Yeah, and those countries dont pay $1000 for diabetic drugs or any drug for that matter. If it was feasible, the US would have it. Costs need to come down in order for the US to have universal health. Again, how could the US have universal care if it's in the red and can't cover Medicare or S.S.
We would need to elect a lot of people unwilling to be influenced by large insurance companies. Keep in mind if we just switched to say a EU system. 10s of thousands of people would be laid off, the insurance industry would die as we know it. Hospitals could lay off tons of administrative positions because everything finally is simplified.
You could move to Venezuela.
Because the only nation on earth that does things differently than we do… is Venezuela. 🙄 You could move somewhere with no regulations, lots of guns, no unions or social programs. Be sure to say ‘hi’ when you get set up in Somalia.
And the way to do that is by spending less and running higher tax rates on the billion and up individuals and close some of the loop holes on the elite.
Then we should reduce spending....
Easily said. But are you going to cut the secret service protecting Trump? Are you going to put limits on Congress' trips to Bermuda? Are you going to reduce defense spending to what the top six nations in the world spend on defense COMBINED?
Dumb. You could cut 100% of every single thing you listed and not fix the deficit. You're ignoring the giant gaping bullet wound and prattling on about a hang nail.
I'm sorry you're Dumb. But the point is if you cut nothing, the deficit never goes down. You have to start cutting something, and raising taxes. Doing neither because no single thing fixes the problem, is doomed to failure. It is the same failed logic as "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
No. Cut the spending the actually eliminates the deficit. That's it. We can live on 1992 federal budgets. It'll be OK.
Republicans have said this for over 100 years. They had plenty of opportunities to show it works, and it hasn’t yet. We just had the most conservative president in my lifetime. We also just had a record increase in our debt. The second biggest increase came from the second most conservative president.
That’s what giant tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations gets you.
Just need to cut the out of control spending
Then we just do what Argentina did and remove as much governmental bloat as possible.
“[Home Depot(TM) presents the police!(R)](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department)“ I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
Growth is more appealing than austerity.
Easier to grow when there is far less government.
*Like in the nation of*…
Argentina is a good example of how that can have immediate positive impact.
I know everybody has a boner for Javier Milei, but I’m going to need more than five months of data to agree with you. You’d think that having the *entire history of humanity* as a resource, you’d have plenty of evidence to back up your hypothesis.
The entire history proves less government and more free market is better for economies and growth, that’s how the theory of capitalism was formed was by known history and follow economic patterns of what drove the most growth. So I fail to see how history disagrees with what Milei has done.
“The entire history proves that less government and more free market is better for economies and growth. That’s how the theory of capitalism was formed. Was by known history and follow economic by follow economic patterns…” And we have come full circle to my original question: “*Like in the nation of…*” Is it possible for you to answer that question without providing a patronizing lecture about socialism? Because I’m starting to have doubts.
Just because I give you answers that you don’t like don’t mean they aren’t answers especially if a question is rigged to make it where the questioner can’t lose, which I’m not saying you’re trying to do that. I don’t have to answer a specific nation because again history speaks for itself if you’re truthful. But some examples because you desperately need to feel like you can dispute what you don’t like to hear, the examples: Virtually all ancient counties in some way before a totalitarian regime. For example Roman Republic to Roman Empire before the Dominate. Even during the Roman Empire the emperors didn’t worry about trade as long as it worked. Multiple republics like the Republic of Venice. USA for a good portion of its history. Go ahead and try and claim that’s not correct or those countries didn’t really get rich from Capitalism/Libertarian ideas.
Wake me up when his plan actually *works*. Russia tried a similar thing a generation ago. It made 95% of Russia a third-world joke, and made about seven Russians the richest people on earth. Honest question: What miracle do you think is going to happen in Venezuela?
Well then you should already be awake because it’s working. Argentina has already rebounded, to a small degree, from cutting so much of their government bloat and reduced inflation. Venezuela is a bad question. You should know better if you want an honest economic discussion so your question might be a mala fides. Venezuela is socialist, the government has national most of their industries and is continuing to suffer the consequences of far too big of a government.
I apologize. Perhaps my question was not clear. Please permit me to rephrase it: What are you expecting to happen in Argentina? Please be specific.
No, that would be terrible. There have been seven times in American history when the federal government has had run substantial budget surpluses. Six of those were followed by depressions, the seventh (early 2000s) was followed by the Great Recession. These events are related.
[удалено]
Too bad not enough people can agree where the bad spending is.
How about interest payments. That is now bigger than defense. Surely we can agree that this isn't good.
TBF compared to 100 years ago, we're barely taxing corporations in general.
Right? Like shit, the US is practically a tax haven compared to most other developed countries. And the thing is it's going to be those who benefit the least from this kind of tax cut who will most vocally support it.
Do you have a reference for that one is it just a feeling.?
https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf https://www.epi.org/explorer/international/
The effective corporate tax rate in the US is 21%. The world wide average is 23.45%. The US isn't far off from the average rate. We are hardly a tax haven. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp The worldwide average statutory corporate income tax rate, measured across 181 jurisdictions, is 23.45 percent. When weighted by GDP, the average statutory rate is 25.67 percent. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-2023/
The issue isn't the tax rate on paper, it's all the potential deductions you can use in the USA to effectively reduce this rate to nearly zero. That and corporate subsidies let corpos get away with not paying much.
I gave a link that explicitly stated the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate in the US. Companies in a growth phase like Amazon have faced criticism from both shareholders and high tax enthusiasts. In order to grow they keep spending on infrastructure and r&d. If their profits are zero their income tax will be zero. I prefer growth to austerity.
Now compare it to developed countries only.
Let's kill most of the revenue and blame spending.
Let's kill growth and blame the rich.
You can, it'd just kill the economy defeating the purpose. The same way you can drive off of a cliff to try to make it to Grandma's birthday party. What we need to do is refocus where the money ends up at the end of value chain. Right now, it ends up in equity shareholders accounts to the tune of "too much" and we need to pay workers in line with inflation. We need to create a tax in the spirit of Georgism on corporate entities owning homes, and individuals who own more than one home. "Oh, that'll kill my AirBnB business." People are homeless and behind on saving for retirement, you piece of shit. You own 12 houses or Black Rock owning 1/3 of the housing market, and just sitting on homes or renting them out. Fuck that company.
How relatable to the average American Trump is 🥰. We don't need universal healthcare , we don't need a better social plan, we need a tax cut for billionaires and big companies!
But think of how much this will trickle down to us! Yeah we haven't seen it trickle down to us from 40 years ago, but any day now, I'm sure of it.....
How about we tax the entire income of the corporation? How will your paycheck look after that? lolllll
[удалено]
Lol what? You may be confused
Show me a 90% corporate income tax rate lol you dont know what you’re talking about
who needs universal healthcare when you can have 500 types of peanut butter! #innovation
HAHA, sucker, I have BOTH!
But not a dishwasher or AC.
Yes but you don't live in Ammmeeeerica, the land of the Free (to die sooner than later) 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅
Unironically agreed
You are aware the corporate tax rate applies to ALL corporations right? Including the very small ones, who actually make up a majority of all corporations.
Do you think billionaires pay corporate tax? They don't. Their customers do.
My comment was sarcastic...
I’m sure lowering the corporate tax rate even more will help to reduce the national debt. F*cking idiot.
Completely cool off inflation as well. just like the first time.
I will refrain from insults here. It’s important to clarify some misconceptions about the relationship between corporate tax rates, tax revenue, and national debt. When the corporate tax rate was lowered to 21% in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), it led to some significant economic effects. Corporate Tax Rate and Tax Revenue 1. Increased Economic Activity: The reduction in the corporate tax rate was designed to make the U.S. more competitive globally, encouraging businesses to invest more in the economy. This led to higher corporate profits, more business investment, and ultimately, more jobs. 2. Tax Revenue: Despite the lower rate, tax revenue from corporations actually increased in the following years. The logic here is that a lower tax rate can broaden the tax base by reducing incentives for tax avoidance and encouraging more economic activity. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, corporate tax receipts rose in the years immediately following the tax cut. National Debt and Government Spending However, the increase in corporate tax revenue did not translate into a reduction of the national debt. Here’s why: 1. Government Spending: The primary driver of the increasing national debt has been government spending. Despite higher revenues, federal spending has continued to outpace revenue growth. Key areas include social security, healthcare, defense, and interest on the national debt itself. 2. Deficits: When the government spends more than it collects in revenue, it runs a deficit. These annual deficits accumulate to form the national debt. The U.S. has been running significant budget deficits for years, contributing to the growing debt. While lowering the corporate tax rate to 21% in 2017 did lead to an increase in corporate tax revenue, the national debt has continued to grow primarily due to persistent overspending rather than insufficient tax revenue. It’s a complex issue that involves balancing tax policy with fiscal responsibility to manage the debt effectively. I hope this explanation provides a clearer picture of how tax policy and government spending interact and their impact on the national debt. I would ask you to be more respectful of others opinions in the future.
"While lowering the corporate tax rate to 21% in 2017 did lead to an increase in corporate tax revenue" LOL corporate tax revenue fell sharply after 2017 and continued to decline until 2020. It didnt increase until 2020 after covid stimulus, inflation, post-covid recovery... it's absurd to attribute that to the tax cuts and not the trillions in economic stimulus and higher prices corporations benefited from. And if you adjust for inflation, corporate tax revenue only recently got back to pre-2017 levels [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX) so yeah... F\*cking idiot is right
The means by which tax cuts can increase total revenue are delayed whereas rates are retroactive. You should expect revenue decreases in the short term. You yourself have just acknowledged that tax revenues increased after lowering the rates. You can only argue that they aren’t related - you cant argue that they decreased. This shifts the goalpost from the original claim that the rate cuts increased the deficit.
The corporate tax rate was reduced to 21% during Trumps first term but they actually collected more in taxes due to more profit at companies and also the repatriation of companies to the United States. If you keep corporate tax rate too high then companies move their main offices to other countries, like Ireland (at 12.5%), with lower corporate tax rates. That tax revenue then goes to that country. This is also why tariffs are a useful tool to access the US Market. It is important that the US remains competitive with other countries to keep companies located here, and that tax revenue here. The issue with the debt is due to overspending. From 2020 to 2023 you had a federal budget roughly around 4 trillion, and then in both 2020 (covid), 2021 and 2022 they added 4 trillion on top each year, which is all debt spending on Infrastructure bill, jobs act, inflation act and more. The simple fact is that we have a bloated government, redundant agencies and wasteful spending that have exacerbate the debt in this country. If congress were at all honest are careful about out debt they would pass a balanced budget amendment, where they could only spend what they collect and pay down the debt, but they continue to add to the pile every year, regardless of the party in charge.
Tariffs cause inflation. For average people, more money will be spent on a higher cost of goods than saved through the reduction of taxes - particularly because the tax brackets are progressive. This is a regressive suggestion. Just like universal student loan forgiveness is a regressive suggestion. And it's effectively the same as sanctioning all of the countries that we call allies. This protectionist bullshit will only makes things worse for Americans.
I think you need to reread what I wrote. I never claimed it lowers inflation, but a fee collected to access the US market. Foreign goods can be produced significantly cheaper than in the US in countries that have low cost labor like China or India it allows them to undercut local companies. If you apply a tariff you are leveling the playing field and causing fairness with local competitors. They would still need to be competitive on pricing in the US Market in order to be a viable alternative, so the notion that they are increasing their prices to cover a tariff doesn’t work in all cases. You could, as an economic standard use Tariff revenue as a principle pay-down vehicle for national debt as well, which would be deflationary. This doesn’t hurt are “allies” as you put it because they understand there should be a cost to access our marketplace, just as we realize it with other countries. They may not like it, but they certainly would understand the practice. Also, Keep in mind, that US goods are not just tariffed in other countries but blocked completely in some markets.
Would you work for $3 an hour to make an iPhone? Edit: Maybe that's why we're getting rid of child labor laws. We need those damn spoiled kids to start making our fucking iPhones. Edit 2: It's okay, all you internet geniuses who never took economics in college, you can learn the hard way. We'll all have to learn the hard way I suppose.
They also don't realize what jobs were shipped overseas. Jobs you don't even fucking want.
Nobody wants to do *any* job for shit pay. Would you be a lawyer for minimum wage? Is it because you’re lazy? We should stop having minimum requirements for lawyers and doctors. It artificially increases their wages. We could easily offshore their more mundane responsibilities. Let the market decide!
No, I wouldn’t. However, I do have a business degree and run two successful businesses. But I’m thrilled you took economics in college. It has certainly lead to some entitlement issues with very little substance. Shifting the topic to exploitation labor is beside the point I made. There are millions of people in this country now working for less than three dollars an hour, but that exploitation here and abroad should not be tolerated. Leveling the playing field via tariffs and other tools is justifiably by any country, not just the US. It is simply protecting the labor force in your own country. Your position is that we allow foreign companies a competitive advantage in our country. Also, the notion that people wouldn’t take these jobs is because the international labor has driven pay down for physical production jobs. Tariffs again would combat that by causing balance between overall spend of production overseas vs domestic.
No, I believe in trade. I believe in the specialization of production. I like having the option to buy Scotch whiskey at the grocery store. The grocery store likes that I have the option to buy Scotch whiskey at the grocery store. The Scottish like that I have the option to buy Scotch whiskey at the grocery store. You're the only one that dislikes it because you think I should be drinking Kentucky bourbon (though, I like some Kentucky bourbons too!!). Some countries have lower standards of living than ours. This is not about exploitation (though, it *can* be used for exploitation) - it is about INVESTMENT. I want to be able to invest in foreign communities - which helps raise the standards of living for those communities and make a small profit for me. A win-win - THAT IS ECONOMICS AND THE SPECIALIZATION OF PRODUCTION. $3 an hour goes a lot further in Shenzhen than it does in New York. But I'd like you to expand further upon this idea: >There are millions of people in this country now working for less than three dollars an hour. I have this weird feeling that you don't like marketplace competition... YOU are in charge and YOU make the rules, amirite? Edit: You also seem to be glossing over the tit-for-tat issues that arise from tariffs. You charge tariffs, now that country isn't making as much money from you. So they charge tariffs, and now you are not making as much money from them. This shit is how you make EVERYONE poorer - just like the socialist shit. Less options at the grocery store. More people clamoring for price controls. It's NOT pragmatic - and we can clearly see this through tariffs issued in the past. Biden STILL has not undone Trump's idiotic steel tariffs (that granted four exemptions) and the American steel industry is no better off than it was before. Ironically, it hurt the small and medium sized companies MORE than the large steel companies - it caused MORE job losses in the steel industry.
I do make the decisions and rules because I run my own businesses. That’s okay, right? And you must be drinking a lot of that whiskey. Because Scotch Whisky does not have an “e”. And Tarrifs don’t prevent you from buying it. Also, tariffs are not used on all goods, just specific goods that are targeted to promote fairness. Your arguments are very broad and over generalized and represent a basic understanding of macroeconomic. For example, you believe we are broadly hitting all markets geographically with targets and that generally retaliation would occur. It is typically based on industry, materials etc. similar to what has already occurred under Trump that protected farmers. The alternative is that our grain growers cannot compete and they stop producing. Do we then rely on foreign imports of basic food staples? We clearly have different opinions on this and you are certainly able to have your own. But to simply negate all my points without a true grasp of the subject matter speaks volumes of your ignorance.
True, they do spell it without the "e". But alas, I am American and we spell it with an "e". I apologize to all the Scots out there. Trump wants to put tariffs on ALL IMPORTS to get rid of income taxes. That's what I thought we were talking about... But, let's talk about Trump's tariffs - let's look at Wikipedia: "The tariffs angered trading partners, who implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. In June 2018, India planned to recoup trade penalties of $241 million on $1.2 billion worth of Indian steel and aluminum, but attempted talks delayed these until June 2019 when India imposed retaliatory tariffs on $240 million worth of U.S. goods. Canada imposed matching retaliatory tariffs on July 1, 2018. China implemented retaliatory tariffs equivalent to the $34 billion tariff imposed on it by the U.S. In July 2018, the Trump administration announced it would use a Great Depression-era program, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), to pay farmers up to $12 billion, increasing the aid to $28 billion in May 2019. The USDA estimated that aid payments constituted more one than one-third of total farm income in 2019 and 2020." So, it was taxpayer aid (through deficit spending and an increase to inflation) that ultimately protected farmers. NOT THE FUCKING TARIFFS. [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html)
Sorry, I was out with my family and some of my employees families for a nice Friday night cookout. But, I will provide you with some more explanation: I have heard this concern that tariffs imposed by the U.S. have led to retaliatory tariffs and strained relationships with trading partners. And read a out it in NYT as well. However, it’s essential to look at the broader picture to understand the actual impacts of these trade policies. Renegotiation of NAFTA USMCA: One of the significant achievements following the imposition of tariffs was the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This new agreement includes several provisions that benefit U.S. workers and industries: Automotive Industry: The USMCA requires a higher percentage of North American-made parts in automobiles to qualify for zero tariffs. This change incentivizes manufacturing within the region, thereby supporting U.S. jobs. Labor Standards: The agreement includes stronger labor protections, which help ensure fair wages and working conditions in Mexico, making U.S. labor more competitive and stabilizing jobs domestically. Intellectual Property: USMCA also provides better protection for U.S. intellectual property, which is crucial for industries such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and entertainment. This protection encourages innovation and supports high-paying jobs in these sectors. Job Stability for U.S. Workers: Manufacturing Jobs: The tariffs and subsequent trade negotiations have led to a resurgence in certain manufacturing sectors. By imposing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, for instance, the U.S. provided a lifeline to domestic producers, which in turn helped to preserve and create jobs in these industries. Supply Chain Resilience: The emphasis on bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. or closer to home (nearshoring) has increased job stability. This approach reduces dependency on distant and potentially unreliable supply chains, ensuring that production remains steady and jobs are more secure during global disruptions. Retaliatory Tariffs and Global Trade Relations Negotiation Leverage: While some trading partners did respond with retaliatory tariffs, these measures often served as leverage in negotiations, leading to more balanced trade agreements. For instance, the pressure from tariffs facilitated dialogues that resulted in better market access for U.S. agricultural products. Global Trade Dynamics: It’s also important to note that many trading partners have continued to seek strong economic ties with the U.S. despite initial tensions. The economic interdependence and the significant market size of the U.S. mean that most countries are keen on maintaining robust trade relationships. While tariffs did lead to some initial retaliatory measures from trading partners, they also played a critical role in renegotiating NAFTA into the more favorable USMCA, which has provided increased job stability and benefits for U.S. workers. The broader effects have been positive for key industries and have contributed to a more resilient and competitive U.S. economy. Hopefully, this provides you with a clearer understanding of the impacts of U.S. tariffs and trade policies.
Because Donald Trump is very well-known for increasing revenue and decreasing our national debt. 🙄
Ignore the downvotes man, you wrote a concise and well thought out take. Obviously liberally- biased reddit would never understand.
Says the person getting upset over nothing but a tweet… We are so fucked.
Well yeah he owns quite a few corporations himself. Makes sense he’d lower his own taxes
Not that he was paying them anyway, with those many failed businesses converting into tax write-offs
This has always been a silly argument to me. Do you think people make money by cratering businesses?
Yes. This happens a lot. It was the whole reason for Uwe Boll's video game movies being hot garbage: they flop in theaters and he gets a massive tax return from the German government. Trump starts a company like Trump Airlines, Trump University, Truth Social (pending,) they flop, he liquidates the company, gets his losses back in write-offs, pockets whatever profit he did make. Activision and EA buying up smaller game studios, same deal plus they get the rights to any IP and can pull staff into other projects they have tighter control over. I can go on and on.
I understand tax loss harvesting. But they have to counter gains. Where are these gains coming from?
The idea is to get realized losses to a point where you either pay no tax at all or get a rebate which supports income from other business or investments. Especially effective if you were to, say, inflate the value of your realized losses. You hide money transfers in "consultant fees," or such miscellaneous transactions where the real value of that is completely meaningless, then claim it as an operating expense. Things like that. Hard to prove, especially after a company has been liquidated.
Ok. I understand how you save money on the downside. Explain to me the upside in losing money.
You're not losing money, you're obscuring your earnings behind stated losses, factual and fictional. That's the whole con. There's only so many ways I can explain this, it's not that complicated. If business expenses weren't tax deductable this scam would be far less profitable
Private Equity has entered the chat
Do you think their LPs invest in the funds so they can bankrupt them?
That's not what you said. You said do people make money by cratering a business. The answe is yes, that's what short selling is. PE funds literally gut a business for all it's worth, and leave the smoking crater to fold It just happened to Red Lobster
Bro what. I work in private equity. There doesn’t exist a model where cratering a business is profitable. Maybe in the 80s where you could piece out conglomerates.
Trump had the largest deficit increase in 4 year history of any president. He doesn't care about the fiscal responsibility. And his voters don't either.
Because of the sniffle-demic? I really fail to see what mental gymnastics you’re doing here. Wouldn’t a democratic president have printed money all the same? Isn’t that what democrats want? I mean step back, and actually look at it. Can you blame the deficit increase on trump, or the inflation on Biden? No. Not really. Would’ve happened under any other president. This makes you look uneducated and overtly partisan. In fact, this whole comment sections has overtly stupid and partisan takes.
I don’t blame trump for Covid and I don’t blame Biden for inflation. The president isn’t the economy czar, this isn’t communist Russia. I certainly blame trump for acting like a dumbass during Covid though, “injecting bleach”. Glad he helped get the vaccine but his supporters don’t like that so now he’s anti-vax.
You do know he never actually said “injecting bleach” right?
I can’t keep track of all the insane stuff trump says (or tweets) on a daily basis, but I agree he didn’t say “injecting bleach”. He implied injecting a disinfectant. I just watched the clip.
All these record profits for shareholders hasn't been enough
Trying to bankrupt the govt like his own companies.
Wow what a decrease. From 21% to 20%. What a visionary.
lol damage control cause he wants to rid America of Income tax.
and replace it with a tax on everything for everyone that hurts the middle class more they really do want you to own nothing and be happy don't forget in their little scheme, they are eliminating all tax refunds, child tax credits, any marriage credits, any government you get at all, while increasing the cost of everything and of course the resulting crime when millions and millions of people already struggling find everything vastly more expensive but the prison lobby likes that
It’s gonna happen bub, no bitching gonna stop it
In no world are they going to remove income tax. But it would be amusing if they did, maybe we would finally get a class revolt in a handful of years once dumbasses realize how much they've been screwed.
I believe conditions may be coming that give us the opportunity to right some wrongs.
I say make them all pay 20% and no deductions. From Mr Warren Buffet… “We don't mind paying taxes at Berkshire, and we are paying a 21% federal rate on the gains we're taking in Apple. And that rate was 35% not that long ago, and it's been 52% in the past, when I've been operating. And the federal government owns a part of the earnings of the business we make. They don't own the assets, but they own a percentage of the earnings, and they can change that percentage any year. And the percentage that they've decreed currently is 21%. And I would say with the present fiscal policies, I think that something has to give, and I think that higher taxes are quite likely, and if the government wants to take a greater share of your income, or mine, or Berkshire's, they can do it. And they may decide that someday they don't want the fiscal deficit to be this large, because that has some important consequences, and they may not want to decrease spending a lot, and they may decide they'll take a larger percentage of what we earn and we'll pay it. We always hope, at Berkshire, to pay substantial federal income taxes. We think it's appropriate that a company, a country that's been as been as generous to our owners, it's been the place… . I was lucky. Berkshire was lucky, was here. If we send in a check like we did last year, we sent in over $5 billion to the US federal government. And if 800 other companies had done the same thing, no other person in the United States would have had to pay a dime of federal taxes, whether income taxes, no Social Security taxes, no estate taxes, no… . It's open down the line. Now… That's… I would like to… I hope things develop well enough with Berkshire that we say we're in the 800 club and maybe even move up a few notches. It doesn't bother me in the least to write that check. I would really hope, with all America has done for all of you, it shouldn't bother you that we do it. And if I'm doing it at 21% this year and we're doing it at a higher percentage later on, I don't think you'll actually mind the fact that we sold a little Apple this year.”
America was plenty prosperous 60 years ago, was it not? How much were corporations actually paying then?
You mean after the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII? Are you proposing we bomb france, germany, uk, japan, and unwind all the development in China, India, Southeast Asia, etc.
Like why can’t we think about the future? Why do we care about keeping people rich? They literally serve no purpose compared to a program of universal healthcare or free college?
DT: "We will lower your taxes to 20%, I promise you this." BL: "Uh... cool?" \*whispers to aid\* "Does he not know we literally don't pay those?"
When asked why he chose 20% Trump responded that it was a round number. Fiscal genius.
He is selling you out. No skin off his back.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unusual_whales/comments/1dfdi5r/trump_tells_ceos_he_will_cut_taxes_including/
Not a fan of that
A man of the people
#gaysforTrump Let’s Go!
The global average is under 25%, I believe. CEOs and shareholders would benefit, but it's doubtful that the lower rate would help the average person.
Would help in the vote for communism
Absolute disaster
Very nice, impressive, now lets see Joe Biden's corporate tax cuts.
There's a global tax rate now, no?
The US has one, but other countries don’t
Seditionist rapist felon Donald Trump? Fuck that guy.
Is the corporate tax rate not 21% at the moment? I believe it has been since 2018.
This sub is beyond gullible at this point.
Of course he did, he will not do it. Dems control congress. He’s a lame duck president. He will cry and cry because congress will not help him. He does not know how to work with others.
Why would anyone be against this?
Because we know Trump keeps promises
He promised me 15% when I met Trump at my local restaurant called McDonald’s. It’s a mom/pop restaurant that sells delicious burgers and fries. Their secret menu is even better. He ordered a Big Mac with extra sauce supersize, just like me 😍 /s
So he’s gonna drop it by 1%? The current corporate tax rate is 21%.
Think of all the trickling!!
Why 20%?
Most Corps pay little to no taxes anyways
It feels like he’ll say what ever todays crowd wants to hear, no matter who he’s going to talk to tomorrow.
Sounds good. Corporations just pass their taxes to us with higher prices
If that occurred, how would the socialists pay for all their monetary gifts to parasite America.