8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You seem to have a rather poor understanding of economics. So you think if a Japanese company sells goods to the US (imports from a US perspective) this would raise monies for the Treasury over and above tariffs? It doesn't to any meaningful degree. The tariffs ARE the cut the Treasury gets. So whilst in number imports may have fallen (obviously as Japanese will sell less in the US they export less to the US) in monies collected for the treasury, because of the massive tariff hikes, the money has actually increased.

 

Do you not understand how this works?

 

The import decrease is not only Japanese cars, it is many goods.

Less imports obviously means less goods on the shelves, and less sales.

Less sales mean less sales and less income taxes on the profits.

Less exports also means less profits and less income taxes.

 

Do you not understand how it works?

Just now, CallumWK said:

The import decrease is not only Japanese cars, it is many goods.

 

I know, and the formula is the same for each product - Less imports, higher tariffs equals more money for the treasury.

 

It doesn't mean less "sales". If Walmart imports less from Japan, they can substitute the products from elsewhere.

 

So sales figures and income taxes need not be affected at all or could go up, not just down.

 

Same for profits.

 

Your figures don't add up.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I know, and the formula is the same for each product - Less imports, higher tariffs equals more money for the treasury.

 

It doesn't mean less "sales". If Walmart imports less from Japan, they can substitute the products from elsewhere.

 

So sales figures and income taxes need not be affected at all or could go up, not just down.

 

Same for profits.

 

Your figures don't add up.

 

I wonder why you keep rambling about Japan, is it because you actually have nothing?

The farmers couldn't sell there harvest, so no sales no income taxes. On top of that Trump gonna subsidize them from the tariff incomes.

That is 2 time wham bam, losing money

 

 

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Is there a single MAGA like you that understands:

 

(a) Tariffs are inflationary.

 

(b) They are paid by American businesses and consumers.

 

(c) Farmers can't sell their crops, and manufacturing workers are losing their jobs?

 

You have heard of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which triggered the Great Depression?

 

Talk about being savaged by a dead sheep.

 

 

A yes

B only if they buy imported goods

C farmers will always sell their crops 

More American workers will be employed 

Wages will go up.

 

Wether the economy survives is debatable.

 

Can always have another world war to sort it out.

Worked last time.

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

 

I wonder why you keep rambling about Japan, is it because you actually have nothing?

 

 

 

Just to give a specific example. Because it is known that Japan has exported less to the US since the tarffis.

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

A yes

B only if they buy imported goods

C farmers will always sell their crops 

More American workers will be employed 

Wages will go up.

 

Wether the economy survives is debatable.

 

Can always have another world war to sort it out.

Worked last time.

 

 

Just now, TheAppletons said:

 

  "Quote a few"?  Did I mention literacy not being a MAGA talking point?

Not that I saw. Did you mean to say that literacy is not a MAGA talking strong point? That would make more sense. 

 

Did I mention that studies have shown that people who are incapable of formulating a coherent augment, often nitpick spelling and grammar pf others when they feel inferior?  It's a way for them to deal with their inadequacies and it bolsters their self-esteem. 

 

For what it's worth, I'm happy to do my part. 

9 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

A yes

B only if they buy imported goods

C farmers will always sell their crops 

More American workers will be employed 

Wages will go up.

 

Wether the economy survives is debatable.

 

Can always have another world war to sort it out.

Worked last time.

Australians think that just because they are really smart and can't build cars, that those lazy, stupid Americans they surely can't.  

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

A lot. It's an example of how the tariffs work. A subsidiary of Hyundai in the US that imports Hyundai cars has to pay the tariff to Customs. Then this money becomes part of the Treasury funds.

 

This would not have happened without tariffs.

 

100 billion poured into the Treasury.

And the people in the USA who want to buy a Hyundai car pay more, simple as that. BTW Hyundai is a bad example don't you think ?  ICE comes to mind.

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

 

Yet another brilliant, fact filled response from the high IQ left. 

1 minute ago, bubblegum said:

And the people in the USA who want to buy a Hyundai car pay more, simple as that.

 

Well, of course, but if you can afford a brand new Hyundai car, then you should be paying more, arguably, to make American manufacturing great again.

 

Or, you can opt for a beautiful Cadillac which suddenly looks a lot cheaper.

 

Up to you, Ka.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, of course, but if you can afford a brand new Hyundai car, then you should be paying more, arguably, to make American manufacturing great again.

 

Or, you can opt for a beautiful Cadillac which suddenly looks a lot cheaper.

 

Up to you, Ka.

Yet, according to the law of supply and demand, if demand increases for non-tariffed products, their price should increase.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Yet, according to the law of supply and demand, if demand increases for non-tariffed products, their price should increase.

 

Very true, so more income and profits for American companies, higher wages for Americans and more income tax for the Treasury.

 

Winnning.

7 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Is there a single forum lefty that understands negotiating tactics and how tariffs work? Talk about playing chess with a pigeon🤣

 

How can you expect the lefties to understand if the big man himself doesn't?

 

Shucks, he thinks foreign governments are paying the taxes levied on the American consumer.

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Australians think that just because they are really smart and can't build cars, that those lazy, stupid Americans they surely can't.  

Huh?

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Very true, so more income and profits for American companies, higher wages for Americans and more income tax for the Treasury.

 

Winnning.

Not for consumers....

4 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Huh?

https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcGd5M3lxeWMxMzJoOGQ1OHJ2OWZ2Zm4xeXJoMTVyOWJ2NXhxcHhvYiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/GRk3GLfzduq1NtfGt5/giphy.gif

Just now, candide said:

Not for consumers....

 

Well the people who work at Cadillac are consumers too.

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Well the people who work at Cadillac are consumers too.

 

Yeez, you take trolling to new unseen levels.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcGd5M3lxeWMxMzJoOGQ1OHJ2OWZ2Zm4xeXJoMTVyOWJ2NXhxcHhvYiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/GRk3GLfzduq1NtfGt5/giphy.gif

Doesn't make much sense to me. Can you repeat that in English?

Instead of garbled letters.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Not for consumers....

Is raising taxes ever good for consumers? 

 

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Doesn't make much sense to me. Can you repeat that in English?

Instead of garbled letters.

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is raising taxes ever good for consumers? 

 

Depends on the return on investment. Equalising income to expenditure is not necessarily a bad thing. Cheaper health care, medicines, social cohesion etc.

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Depends on the return on investment. Equalising income to expenditure is not necessarily a bad thing. Cheaper health care, medicines, social cohesion etc.

Not at the consumer level. 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not at the consumer level. 

 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not at the consumer level. 

At the national level?

9 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Depends on the return on investment. Equalising income to expenditure is not necessarily a bad thing. Cheaper health care, medicines, social cohesion etc.

 

Cheaper healthcare as in kicking people out of Medicare, and putting 200% tariffs on pharmaceutical products?

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

 

At the national level?

Equalizing income to expenditure is a good thing for a government. 

 

Getting there by increasing taxes is not a good thing.  

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Cheaper healthcare as in kicking people out of Medicare, and putting 200% tariffs on pharmaceutical products?

The only people that are being kicked off Medicare are people committing fraud. 

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Cheaper healthcare as in kicking people out of Medicare, and putting 200% tariffs on pharmaceutical products?

Dunno, matter for the US Government.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The only people that are being kicked off Medicare are people committing fraud. 

 

Nope, let someone read the big ugly bill for you, as it is clear that in a few years pensioners will not have access to medicare anymore.