C'mon.
It's basic math that the poor shoulder an unduly high tax burden with a non-progressive tax system. We all know this, Earp. That's why the billionaires all want to abolish income tax and replace it with consumption taxes.
And if I thought for a second that tariffing China and Mexico would bring the car factories back to Oshawa and Windsor, I'd support them. But those factories will never come back. All that'll happen is that the poor will pay 25% more for everything they buy and essentially support the government, while Soros and Musk'll pay no income tax.
It's a corrupt fuckover. Like everything Trump and the GOP do.
It's not at all black & white as all that. There are some independent economists who make distinctions regarding how tariffs change domestic employment, wages and help countries with chronic trade deficits. I think some members were alluding to the trade deficit being the United States' own doing. This is an oversimplification. In our current trade system, some countries pursue aggressive mercantilist trade policies that rely on chronic surpluses to underpin their economies and growth. Since global trade is "double entry", every surplus requires a corresponding deficit. The U.S. is considered the consumer of last resort. I tagged the Google AI on this concept below. It's interesting to consider.
I don't want to be too critical, but your aggressive tone kind of leaves no room for tact and collegiality. I suspect most of your understanding of economics is fairly limited to headlines and what you read and hear in media. You probably are not getting nothing more than a superficial analysis that quotes a few go-to aligned economists to support the headline. The author of the piece might have nothing more than a journalism degree and work experience in journalism. Even some of the folks in our business media, could be described as talking heads without much genuine insight.
By the way, the tariffs are progressive taxes argument selectively ignores what the government could do with the revenues. This assumes no impact to domestic employment and the indirect benefit of lowering the fiscal deficit.
