3 ms·

> I haven't found anyone who can make an argument that makes sense to me. The goal is to eliminate income taxes and replace it with tariffs. An added bonus (fo

> I haven't found anyone who can make an argument that makes sense to me. The goal is to eliminate income taxes and replace it with tariffs. An added bonus (for the administration), is that tariffs can be changed if the party in question pays for access to make their case. The stated reasoning of supporting domestic industry is a smoke screen for the above.

scoofy 1y ago
Right, except that’s self-defeating and won’t work. The idea that we can plausibly generate enough revenue from tariffs to replace the income tax is inherently self-defeating, because if the tariffs work at bringing back manufacturing, we’ll stop imports. If they don’t, we’ll consume significantly less, more people will become poorer, and expenditures will increase as revenues decrease. Maybe there is an equilibrium in there, but I don’t see it.
- pupperino 1y ago
  Baked in this plan is the idea that the revenue from tariffs will be much smaller than income tax revenues, and therefore that the federal government will also get smaller.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    Right, but that implies that spending is controlled by revenues… when it’s clearly not. That just means higher deficits, threatening a default of US Bonds, which is a worst case scenario for American prosperity.
    - pupperino 1y ago
      I'm confident the people pursuing this mad agenda don't know the first thing about US budget laws and think they can just cut spending DOGE-style forever.
      - pstuart 1y ago
        Considering that the driver of all this is surrounded by yes-men and has spent his entire entitled life getting his way, I think their goal is to will it into being. And when it fails, blame the other party.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  I don't think the policy working out for the country was considered in deciding to go this route.
beAbU 1y ago
Replacing taxes with import tarriffs will dramatically reduce consumption, and therefore tax revenue. Taxes don't incentivise earning less, but tarriffs most definitely incentivises spending less! This theory does not make sense.
- pstuart 1y ago
  > This theory does not make sense. The theory "makes sense" in that it's what he's stated as a goal. But as policy, it's nonsensical. This is our world now.

scoofy 1y ago

Right, except that’s self-defeating and won’t work. The idea that we can plausibly generate enough revenue from tariffs to replace the income tax is inherently self-defeating, because if the tariffs work at bringing back manufacturing, we’ll stop imports. If they don’t, we’ll consume significantly less, more people will become poorer, and expenditures will increase as revenues decrease. Maybe there is an equilibrium in there, but I don’t see it.

pupperino 1y ago
Baked in this plan is the idea that the revenue from tariffs will be much smaller than income tax revenues, and therefore that the federal government will also get smaller.
- scoofy 1y ago
  Right, but that implies that spending is controlled by revenues… when it’s clearly not. That just means higher deficits, threatening a default of US Bonds, which is a worst case scenario for American prosperity.
  - pupperino 1y ago
    I'm confident the people pursuing this mad agenda don't know the first thing about US budget laws and think they can just cut spending DOGE-style forever.
    - pstuart 1y ago
      Considering that the driver of all this is surrounded by yes-men and has spent his entire entitled life getting his way, I think their goal is to will it into being. And when it fails, blame the other party.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
I don't think the policy working out for the country was considered in deciding to go this route.

beAbU 1y ago

Replacing taxes with import tarriffs will dramatically reduce consumption, and therefore tax revenue. Taxes don't incentivise earning less, but tarriffs most definitely incentivises spending less! This theory does not make sense.

pstuart 1y ago
> This theory does not make sense. The theory "makes sense" in that it's what he's stated as a goal. But as policy, it's nonsensical. This is our world now.