5 ms·
It's almost as if we shouldn't have one person arbitrarily raising taxes on a whim. Hell, it's almost as if taxation without the ability of the people being ta
by lenerdenator 1y ago
It's almost as if we shouldn't have one person arbitrarily raising taxes on a whim.
Hell, it's almost as if taxation without the ability of the people being taxed to give their input on said taxation is the whole reason the US exists in the first place.
- exe34 1y ago[flagged]
- Etheryte 1y agoI hope you understand that this whole binary us versus them is a very large part of why many people voted for the government you guys have today. If you say everyone who doesn't vote like you want is a racist, that's bound to get a counter reaction. I'm European, so no horse in the race outside of the global economy.
- neilv 1y agoNot again already. We're still cleaning tea out of harbor here in Boston.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoYou've had, like, a couple of centuries. I know that public works programs take time in Massachusetts, but...
- shadowgovt 1y agoThe resources were reallocated for the Big Dig.
- captainclam 1y agoSounds like there's not enough tax revenue!
- candiddevmike 1y agoI don't think that's tea
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sigmoid10 1y agoTbf, back then as well as now it's not like the average working class had any input. It's because a certain group of super-wealthy individuals wanted to become even more rich and thought that a radical change in governance might get them to pay fewer taxes. And to be honest, their chances originally looked much better with Trump than they did with George Washington.
- guywithahat 1y agoAlthough we don't have enough data to make a confident statement on the matter, it would seem election spending doesn't have a statistically significant impact on presidential elections https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statistically-significant.html https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statist...
- sigmoid10 1y agoThe existence of super-PACs invalidates any attempt like this to attribute finances to candidates. And they make up billions by now. It's essentially a loophole for the rich to funnel unlimited anonymous money to a campaign.
- briandear 1y agoDo other countries not have tariffs? Is it only when the U.S. chooses to retaliate that it enrages certain people?
- JohnFen 1y agoThis isn't the US "retaliating" (retaliating against what?). This is the US swinging a club in an attempt at beating up the rest of the world and hitting itself on its head.
- fragmede 1y agoYou mean the certain people that are affected by those tarrifs? How enraged do you get by something that doesn't affect you?
- jagged-chisel 1y agoIt’s not they exist. We’ve had tariffs. They’ve had tariffs. It’s raising them arbitrarily high on a whim - that’s the problem.
- gameman144 1y agoThe parent isn't objecting to tariffs, as far as I can tell. They're objecting that tariffs, which are a power vested in Congress, are being driven by one man (the President) in the executive branch.
- klipt 1y agoCongress has the ability to rein in presidential power. In extreme they can threaten impeachment. Republicans control Congress so they are complicit in what Trump is doing.
- gameman144 1y agoTotally, they have the ability to rein in the executive branch for sure! I think the parent's frustration is very justified (and might even be more valid -- there exists a clear path to not have tariffs imposed by edict, and our representatives just aren't taking it).
- fragmede 1y agoFun fact: That slogan is only half of the story. Smuggling was prolific in those days, with John Hancock and Samuel Adams were among them. They were involved with smuggling cheaper Dutch tea and the Sons of Liberty were protecting their own economic interests. Aka those taxes would ruin their smuggling business because the Tea Act of 1773 would let the British sell their tea for cheaper than the smugglers, and the protests were because that threatened their ability to sell their smuggled, but more expensive Dutch Tea.
- bloppe 1y agoI don't think it's called smuggling if you're paying taxes on it. If anything, actual smugglers would've supported the taxes because it gives them an edge over legal importers
- ceejayoz 1y agoThey weren't paying taxes on it. They worried the legal (and taxed, and higher quality) British tea would be, despite the tax, cheaper than the smuggled (untaxed) Dutch tea, which would destroy their smuggling businesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act > A related objective was to undercut the price of illegal tea, smuggled into Britain's North American colonies. > Reducing or eliminating the duties paid when the tea was landed in Britain (if it was shipped onward to the colonies) would further lower the final cost of tea in the colonies, undercutting the prices charged for smuggled tea. Colonists would willingly pay for cheaper Company tea, on which the Townshend tax was still collected, thus legitimizing Parliament's ability to tax the colonies.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y agoHow was smuggled tea more expensive? The shipping costs for both products would be the same (right?), so the price differentiator should be the presence/absence of additional government charges. Unless smuggled tea had to accept more losses due to…piracy?
- 1y ago
- guywithahat 1y agoThe phrase is "taxation without representation", and Trump is the representation. The original founders were upset England could raise taxes and they couldn't vote or do anything about it. We now have elected officials who decide taxes
- Gregaros 1y agogtfo. Nobody voted Trump to _raise_ taxes.
- klipt 1y agoIf republicans don't like Trump's behavior they should call their senators and tell them to threaten Trump with impeachment and conviction. That's the only leverage Congress has over the president. Republicans control Congress and the presidency, so there's nobody else to blame here.
- CamperBob2 1y agoThose who were paying attention the first time and still voted for Republicans voted for exactly that outcome (SALT, anyone?) Those who were not paying attention last time shouldn't have been allowed to vote this time, but... That Would be Bad, mmmkay.
- _1 1y agoCongress voted for him to do exactly that.
- autoexec 1y agoYes they did. He made it very clear that he wanted massive tariffs which by necessity would mean that people would have to pay massive taxes on everything they want to buy. Before the election experts were very clear that those tariffs would cost the consumer and importer. People were told that he wanted to go crazy with tariffs, they were repeatedly told that tariffs would take money out of their pockets, and they voted for that. Nobody should be surprised by that now.
- 1y ago
- madeofpalk 1y agoThe US did give their input. The US voted for Trump who explicitly campaigned on this. The people of the US got what they asked for.
- mikestew 1y agoThe US voted for Trump who explicitly campaigned on this. Campaigned on raising taxes? Not only would a citation be needed, I would defy you to find a single Trump voter who thinks taxes needed to be raised. This whole “it’s what people voted for” meme isn’t always an appropriate answer, and is many times just lazy commenting IMO.
- NeutralCrane 1y agoHe campaigned on tariffs, which are taxes.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoIn the first question of the debate, Harris pointed out that Trump's promises would increase taxes on the average American by $4000.
- no_wizard 1y agoNot taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Trump campaigned on raising tariffs quite heavily, and Trump voters by a wide margin really thought they were a good idea, largely because they didn't seem to actually understand how they work. I am left wondering if Trump fully understands how tariffs work. He spoke at length on multiple occasions about how other countries were going to pay for the tariffs, which runs entirely counter to what a tariff is. The only conclusion I can reasonably make from this is that Trump didn't understand tariffs either
- autoexec 1y ago> Not taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Experts were pretty clear in telling the public that it was a tax. The only people who can say they didn't understand that would have to be people who not only didn't know what tariffs were in the first place, but who also didn't bother to listen to the many many people trying their best to explain it to them. I'm 100% convinced that trump doesn't understand them and refused to listen to the many many people who have tried to explain it to him, which is why he had to suddenly start walking them back. Only his ego is getting in the way now.
- stuaxo 1y agoWasn't it just some rich people that didn't want to pay taxes ?
- bloppe 1y agoThat would be a strange motivation, since American colonists actually paid lower taxes than British citizens, until the American tax rate duly went up after the revolution.
- xyst 1y agoI didn’t vote for this cunt. But I am guessing the neoclassical/neoliberal economists here did because they aspire to be like Peter Thiel (who has backed Trump and GOP since forever). (( note it will _never_ happen and you folks vote against your own interests ))