4 ms·

Why is the supreme-court slow-walking the tariff decision which is crystal clear as lower courts clearly demonstrate only Congress can set taxes/tariffs? It wo

by ck2 10mo ago

Why is the supreme-court slow-walking the tariff decision which is crystal clear as lower courts clearly demonstrate only Congress can set taxes/tariffs? It would end inflation within 90 days Even their silly 15% tariff fallback law abuse would be more sane than the 50-150% currently Next few years is going to be insanity

philipallstar 10mo ago
There was a lot of inflation before tariffs, and it didn't even have the effect of slowing China down economically or Russia militarily.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  It slowed down Americans because we aren't recently used to it. The rich did adapt relatively quickly by buying up all the housing they could at negative real interest, stocks, gold, and to a lesser extent crypto. The lesson has been learned by this point though, even a day laborer is holding silver and crypto nowadays because we have in recent memory the COVID shenanigans of mass QE. People in China and Russia have basically taken for granted so long that their currency is completely manipulated, they all already knew to not be hoodwinked.
Analemma_ 10mo ago
Mate, this Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune to prosecution and de facto outside and above the law. I’m honestly not sure what to tell you if you’re still hoping for rule-of-law decisions to come out of it.
- tzs 10mo ago
  The 14th Amendment says all people born or naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. If someone is immune to prosecution and de facto outside and above the law, I wonder if a case could be made that they are not subject to US jurisdiction, and that invalidates prior citizenship by birth or naturalization.
  - collingreen 10mo ago
    I sure hope not. We don't need any help weakening citizens' protections from the government.
Workaccount2 10mo ago
Inflation is low (relative to the last few years) and so far tariff related inflation hasn't manifested.
metadope 10mo ago
Someone once proposed a National Sales Tax. I think it was suggested that we could eliminate personal income taxes if we imposed a federal sales tax on all purchases. Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally". For some reason, a majority of public opinion leaned left on this particular idea, and it never gained a foothold. When I learned of the blanket tariffs being imposed on everything imported into the US, I think I knew what I was seeing-- this was a National Sales Tax in disguise. This was an attempt to fund the federal government off the backs of people, who will at the very least pay 10% more for everything they buy. The big lie was told-- that this was an emergency necessary correction for an ongoing American-life-threatening international trade imbalance. But the real lie was bald-faced, right there in front of us-- everybody was going to have to pay more for everything, because this was, and is, a new tax. I think there's a slim chance the Supreme Court may not even issue a decision addressing the legality of the president's impertnent array of tariffs. Although two full months have passed since oral arguments were made before the court, we may have an even longer wait for a decision, because it sure looks like John Roberts and company can't find/manufacture a reason to uphold/allow the president's seizure of tariff power. They have demonstrated a preference for empowering the president. The court's character is displayed with quick mute indecipherable decisions from the shadow docket, while unpopular new anti-precedents get leaked ahead of release, delayed until opinion can be spun. So I would not be surprised to see the decision delayed, maybe even all the way to next October. However it turns out, I'll pay the price and take my medicine, and try to be happy.
- tzs 10mo ago
  > Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally" I'm not sure what you mean by "socially backwards". "Regressive" and "progressive" are terms of art in tax law and theory. A tax is regressive if people with less income pay a higher percentage of their income toward that tax than do people with more income. Progressive is the opposite. Sales taxes are regressive because most people with lower income necessarily spend a higher percent of their income than most people with higher income, and so even if a sales tax is the same percentage of the sale price of items lower income people end up spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax.

by ck2 10mo ago

philipallstar 10mo ago

There was a lot of inflation before tariffs, and it didn't even have the effect of slowing China down economically or Russia militarily.

mothballed 10mo ago
It slowed down Americans because we aren't recently used to it. The rich did adapt relatively quickly by buying up all the housing they could at negative real interest, stocks, gold, and to a lesser extent crypto. The lesson has been learned by this point though, even a day laborer is holding silver and crypto nowadays because we have in recent memory the COVID shenanigans of mass QE. People in China and Russia have basically taken for granted so long that their currency is completely manipulated, they all already knew to not be hoodwinked.

Analemma_ 10mo ago

Mate, this Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune to prosecution and de facto outside and above the law. I’m honestly not sure what to tell you if you’re still hoping for rule-of-law decisions to come out of it.

tzs 10mo ago
The 14th Amendment says all people born or naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. If someone is immune to prosecution and de facto outside and above the law, I wonder if a case could be made that they are not subject to US jurisdiction, and that invalidates prior citizenship by birth or naturalization.
- collingreen 10mo ago
  I sure hope not. We don't need any help weakening citizens' protections from the government.

Workaccount2 10mo ago

Inflation is low (relative to the last few years) and so far tariff related inflation hasn't manifested.

metadope 10mo ago

Someone once proposed a National Sales Tax. I think it was suggested that we could eliminate personal income taxes if we imposed a federal sales tax on all purchases. Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally". For some reason, a majority of public opinion leaned left on this particular idea, and it never gained a foothold. When I learned of the blanket tariffs being imposed on everything imported into the US, I think I knew what I was seeing-- this was a National Sales Tax in disguise. This was an attempt to fund the federal government off the backs of people, who will at the very least pay 10% more for everything they buy. The big lie was told-- that this was an emergency necessary correction for an ongoing American-life-threatening international trade imbalance. But the real lie was bald-faced, right there in front of us-- everybody was going to have to pay more for everything, because this was, and is, a new tax. I think there's a slim chance the Supreme Court may not even issue a decision addressing the legality of the president's impertnent array of tariffs. Although two full months have passed since oral arguments were made before the court, we may have an even longer wait for a decision, because it sure looks like John Roberts and company can't find/manufacture a reason to uphold/allow the president's seizure of tariff power. They have demonstrated a preference for empowering the president. The court's character is displayed with quick mute indecipherable decisions from the shadow docket, while unpopular new anti-precedents get leaked ahead of release, delayed until opinion can be spun. So I would not be surprised to see the decision delayed, maybe even all the way to next October. However it turns out, I'll pay the price and take my medicine, and try to be happy.

tzs 10mo ago
> Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally" I'm not sure what you mean by "socially backwards". "Regressive" and "progressive" are terms of art in tax law and theory. A tax is regressive if people with less income pay a higher percentage of their income toward that tax than do people with more income. Progressive is the opposite. Sales taxes are regressive because most people with lower income necessarily spend a higher percent of their income than most people with higher income, and so even if a sales tax is the same percentage of the sale price of items lower income people end up spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax.