• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,527
Reaction score
9,417
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CBS News

Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most

President Donald Trump's tariffs are causing more pain for middle- and low-income households than for wealthy ones, a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation found. Tariffs already imposed, like those on Chinese goods, may cut income by $146 for each of the middle- and low-income households, according to the analysis. If all of Mr. Trump's threatened tariffs are ultimately imposed, those households would lose $453.

That may not sound like much, but consider: $148 is roughly the weekly cost of food for a "thrifty" family of four, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Tax Foundation looked at the impact of tariffs by household income. For the lower and middle groups, tariffs cut their after-tax income the most, at 0.33 percent, compared to 0.23 percent at the highest income level. That's because most middle-income families buy more of what economists call consumables -- clothes, food and even autos -- that are subject to Mr. Trump's tariffs than their wealthy counterparts, the analysis found.

"Those lower-income households are spending a larger share of their income on consumption," Tax Foundation analyst Erica York said in an interview.

COMMENT:-

If a "left-leaning" media source reports something from a "right-leaning" source does that mean that whatever the "right-leaning" source said is a lie?
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
80,778
Reaction score
48,872
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What!!?? No, Trump's tariffs are bringing back manufacturing. No way did they benefit large corporations at the expense of small business and lower incomes. Why that's unpossible.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From CBS News

Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most

President Donald Trump's tariffs are causing more pain for middle- and low-income households than for wealthy ones, a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation found. Tariffs already imposed, like those on Chinese goods, may cut income by $146 for each of the middle- and low-income households, according to the analysis. If all of Mr. Trump's threatened tariffs are ultimately imposed, those households would lose $453.

That may not sound like much, but consider: $148 is roughly the weekly cost of food for a "thrifty" family of four, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Tax Foundation looked at the impact of tariffs by household income. For the lower and middle groups, tariffs cut their after-tax income the most, at 0.33 percent, compared to 0.23 percent at the highest income level. That's because most middle-income families buy more of what economists call consumables -- clothes, food and even autos -- that are subject to Mr. Trump's tariffs than their wealthy counterparts, the analysis found.

"Those lower-income households are spending a larger share of their income on consumption," Tax Foundation analyst Erica York said in an interview.

COMMENT:-

If a "left-leaning" media source reports something from a "right-leaning" source does that mean that whatever the "right-leaning" source said is a lie?

IOW, China is going to pay for these tariffs is as big a lie as Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
20,985
Reaction score
9,922
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I guess people would rather China keep giving it to us in the ass instead of paying for all the IP stuff and military espionage.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,527
Reaction score
9,417
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I guess people would rather China keep giving it to us in the ass instead of paying for all the IP stuff and military espionage.

One way to IMMEDIATELY reduce the amount of American IP that the Chinese are "stealing" is to make it illegal (with incredibly huge penalties [for example "sequestration of all assets of whatever nature and wherever located upon accusation and forfeiture upon conviction"]) for American companies to agree to share their IP with any non-American entity REGARDLESS of whether or not the American company wants to trade their own IP for something that it wants to get or not.

There isn't a single Board of Directors in the United States of America that would agree to ANY transfer of IP to ANY Chinese entity for ANY reason if that was what the law of the USA was.

That should stop at least 75% of all of the "theft" of American IP by Chinese entities.

Of course, then there would still be the remaining 25% that is actually "stolen". Since that theft is generally accomplished via internet hacking, the simple solution is to make it illegal for any US internet provider and/or telecommunications company to allow any links outside of the United States of America. That should remove at least 75% of the remaining 25% and reduce the amount of "theft" down to around 6.25% of the current level.

If that is too high, then simply make it illegal for any person in the United States of America to talk or otherwise communicate with any person who is not an American citizen. That should remove at least 75% of that 6.25% which would bring it down to around 1.5625% of the current level and that probably wouldn't provide enough of a benefit to make it worth while.

However, you could probably eliminate even that 1.5625% if you made it illegal to talk or otherwise communicate with any person who did not possess, at least, a "Secret" security clearance from the US government AND had produced the original documents showing that they had such a clearance PROVIDED THAT you had personally checked the validity of those documents.

PS - Did you know one of the reasons that "Entity-1" surpasses "Entity-2" at "Enterprise-A" is that "Entity-1" is BETTER at "Enterprise-A" than "Entity-2" is NOW (regardless of how much better "Entity-2" USED TO BE at "Enterprise-A")?
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,560
Reaction score
6,272
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I guess people would rather China keep giving it to us in the ass instead of paying for all the IP stuff and military espionage.

Or the United States could restrict and actually investigate Chinese entering the United States who have to ties to the CCP or large corporations. What that can't stop is usually the result of bad security and idiocy by companies which you would have to legislate away.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,527
Reaction score
9,417
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Or the United States could restrict and actually investigate Chinese entering the United States who have to ties to the CCP or large corporations. What that can't stop is usually the result of bad security and idiocy by companies which you would have to legislate away.

That might not be so easy since EVERY person in China "has ties to" the CCP and/or large (here I presume you mean Chinese) corporations.

Making it illegal for ANY company to transfer ANY intellectual property to ANY other entity (unless that other entity was an entity that was 100% American owned AND which operated ONLY in the United States of America) would be a "good first step" because most of the IP that gets transferred to China is traded by American companies who want to acquire a benefit for their American owners and that means you could (if you wanted to) consider that as selling American assets to the enemy knowing that that will either provide a benefit for the enemy or will harm the United States of America (and that sounds pretty close to treason to me).

PS - If you want to bet that those American companies would NOT transfer all right and title to all intellectual property that the own to an "off-shore" company that they are the sole owner of and which is outside of the jurisdiction of the government of the United States of America, don't both to include your return address when you send me your money.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That might not be so easy since EVERY person in China "has ties to" the CCP and/or large (here I presume you mean Chinese) corporations.

Making it illegal for ANY company to transfer ANY intellectual property to ANY other entity (unless that other entity was an entity that was 100% American owned AND which operated ONLY in the United States of America) would be a "good first step" because most of the IP that gets transferred to China is traded by American companies who want to acquire a benefit for their American owners and that means you could (if you wanted to) consider that as selling American assets to the enemy knowing that that will either provide a benefit for the enemy or will harm the United States of America (and that sounds pretty close to treason to me).

Whenever you see a so-called journalist using those words in that order you can be fairly certain that they are trying to manipulate your brain, it is pure sleaze, if there is something to point out then they would be pointing it out not using these weasel words.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,560
Reaction score
6,272
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That might not be so easy since EVERY person in China "has ties to" the CCP and/or large (here I presume you mean Chinese) corporations.

Making it illegal for ANY company to transfer ANY intellectual property to ANY other entity (unless that other entity was an entity that was 100% American owned AND which operated ONLY in the United States of America) would be a "good first step" because most of the IP that gets transferred to China is traded by American companies who want to acquire a benefit for their American owners and that means you could (if you wanted to) consider that as selling American assets to the enemy knowing that that will either provide a benefit for the enemy or will harm the United States of America (and that sounds pretty close to treason to me).

PS - If you want to bet that those American companies would NOT transfer all right and title to all intellectual property that the own to an "off-shore" company that they are the sole owner of and which is outside of the jurisdiction of the government of the United States of America, don't both to include your return address when you send me your money.

I mean more things like are they related to party officials, business partners, active participants in party activities, etc.? Do they have connections to large state-run companies that operate in similar industries to where they will work in the US?

Also I think you greatly underestimate the extent of US export controls already in existence. Currently if you have export controlled data on your laptop and your plane even flies over a non-NATO, non-NATO-allied country, or a tax haven you are going to jail for a while. They control everything that no joke an American citizen has even been in the same room as that data or step in designing, production, selling, maintaining, etc. of a product. And I was just an intern at a US defense contractor here in Canada and the Canadian government even interviewed my friends for my security clearance application and I am a Canadian born citizen who has not left the country for years.
 
Last edited:

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From CBS News

Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most

President Donald Trump's tariffs are causing more pain for middle- and low-income households than for wealthy ones, a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation found. Tariffs already imposed, like those on Chinese goods, may cut income by $146 for each of the middle- and low-income households, according to the analysis. If all of Mr. Trump's threatened tariffs are ultimately imposed, those households would lose $453.

That may not sound like much, but consider: $148 is roughly the weekly cost of food for a "thrifty" family of four, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Tax Foundation looked at the impact of tariffs by household income. For the lower and middle groups, tariffs cut their after-tax income the most, at 0.33 percent, compared to 0.23 percent at the highest income level. That's because most middle-income families buy more of what economists call consumables -- clothes, food and even autos -- that are subject to Mr. Trump's tariffs than their wealthy counterparts, the analysis found.

"Those lower-income households are spending a larger share of their income on consumption," Tax Foundation analyst Erica York said in an interview.

COMMENT:-

If a "left-leaning" media source reports something from a "right-leaning" source does that mean that whatever the "right-leaning" source said is a lie?

True, the growth of Walmart and incidentally the off site storage industry both accelerated when China became "America's manufacturer".

And like drinking too much at a party, you are going to have to suffer the hangover of dealing with a mercantilist economy. The sooner we chose the door on China the better off the free world will be.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From CBS News

Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most

President Donald Trump's tariffs are causing more pain for middle- and low-income households than for wealthy ones, a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation found. Tariffs already imposed, like those on Chinese goods, may cut income by $146 for each of the middle- and low-income households, according to the analysis. If all of Mr. Trump's threatened tariffs are ultimately imposed, those households would lose $453.

That may not sound like much, but consider: $148 is roughly the weekly cost of food for a "thrifty" family of four, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Tax Foundation looked at the impact of tariffs by household income. For the lower and middle groups, tariffs cut their after-tax income the most, at 0.33 percent, compared to 0.23 percent at the highest income level. That's because most middle-income families buy more of what economists call consumables -- clothes, food and even autos -- that are subject to Mr. Trump's tariffs than their wealthy counterparts, the analysis found.

"Those lower-income households are spending a larger share of their income on consumption," Tax Foundation analyst Erica York said in an interview.

COMMENT:-

If a "left-leaning" media source reports something from a "right-leaning" source does that mean that whatever the "right-leaning" source said is a lie?

First of all, Trump tariffs are bad short term but great long term as they will bully other countries into playing fairly. Sometimes you have to take a short term step backwards in order to take two steps forward at a later date. Secondly, this report does not take job gains into account.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,579
Reaction score
6,689
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
IOW, China is going to pay for these tariffs is as big a lie as Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
Bigger, actually.

At least we don't actually HAVE to pay for the wall, but we've already started paying for the tariffs.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First of all, Trump tariffs are bad short term but great long term as they will bully other countries into playing fairly. Sometimes you have to take a short term step backwards in order to take two steps forward at a later date. Secondly, this report does not take job gains into account.

Is the bolded opinion or do you have data/evidence in support?
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
53,168
Reaction score
19,301
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I guess people would rather China keep giving it to us in the ass instead of paying for all the IP stuff and military espionage.

Now we have our own President screwing us too. Yea that feels much better. Why should we have to pay the highest prices in the world for sugar, and now steel and aluminium too?
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,527
Reaction score
9,417
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I mean more things like are they related to party officials, business partners, active participants in party activities, etc.? Do they have connections to large state-run companies that operate in similar industries to where they will work in the US?

That may be what YOU mean, but it isn't what the US government means (when it suits its purposes "has ties to" means, to the US government, something along the lines of "knows someone whose second cousin's boyfriend's old college roommate once was in the same room as someone who might possibly have had an opportunity to order Chinese food".

Also I think you greatly underestimate the extent of US export controls already in existence. Currently if you have export controlled data on your laptop and your plane even flies over a non-NATO, non-NATO-allied country, or a tax haven you are going to jail for a while. They control everything that no joke an American citizen has even been in the same room as that data or step in designing, production, selling, maintaining, etc. of a product. And I was just an intern at a US defense contractor here in Canada and the Canadian government even interviewed my friends for my security clearance application and I am a Canadian born citizen who has not left the country for years.

Well then every port of departure should have facilities for completely deleting 100% of the content of anything that even looks like it might resemble a computer (and, of course, reinstalling it when the legitimate owner of the data presents a notarized statement verifying their identity and activities for the past 10 years.

Absolutely no connections (that are not live monitored) should be allowed between any American communication system and any non-American communication system.

That'll fix everything.

Right?

PS - You, like I do, live in "Communist Canada" so we are naturally 100% untrustworthy and shouldn't be allowed to have any contact with any American electrons lest we destroy America. (Believe me, there are Americans who actually believe that crap.)
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,527
Reaction score
9,417
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
First of all, Trump tariffs are bad short term but great long term as they will bully other countries into playing fairly. Sometimes you have to take a short term step backwards in order to take two steps forward at a later date. Secondly, this report does not take job gains into account.

The chart for "job creation" is a statistical straight line for the past 93 months (not all of which had Mr. Trump as the President of the United States of America). Maybe that will continue and maybe it won't. We don't have all the evidence yet so we shouldn't make up our minds. But my gut tells me that it will and it doesn't matter if the so-called "experts" say that it won't because I trust my gut over the words of any so-called "experts" any day of the week.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
38,527
Reaction score
9,417
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Now we have our own President screwing us too. Yea that feels much better. Why should we have to pay the highest prices in the world for sugar, and now steel and aluminium too?

Because the fact that Americans pay those high prices proves how great America is?
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Is the bolded opinion or do you have data/evidence in support?

It's already happened! Not my fault you don't keep up with the news. One example: NAFTA is gone, both Canada and Mexico had hissy fits, followed by both of them agreeing to better terms than were in NAFTA.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The chart for "job creation" is a statistical straight line for the past 93 months (not all of which had Mr. Trump as the President of the United States of America). Maybe that will continue and maybe it won't. We don't have all the evidence yet so we shouldn't make up our minds. But my gut tells me that it will and it doesn't matter if the so-called "experts" say that it won't because I trust my gut over the words of any so-called "experts" any day of the week.

LOL. Yes, a straight line going up. You conveniently left that fact out of your post.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's already happened! Not my fault you don't keep up with the news. One example: NAFTA is gone, both Canada and Mexico had hissy fits, followed by both of them agreeing to better terms than were in NAFTA.

NAFTA 1.0 became NAFTA 2.0. Almost all experts agree that the new trade deal doesn't do much more than the original NAFTA did.
 

JustHanging

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
17,236
Reaction score
7,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess people would rather China keep giving it to us in the ass instead of paying for all the IP stuff and military espionage.

And instead have Trump give it to you twice as often? Does him promising to keep you safe make it feel better?
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes, I suppose it I cut 25 calories from my diet, I will lose an extra pound every 140 days!

We got a better NAFTA deal and we will get a better China deal. The whole world has issues with China. It's about time someone had the balls to stand up to them. It will create havoc during these times but in the end, things will be much better. We have been patsies for far too long.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We got a better NAFTA deal and we will get a better China deal. The whole world has issues with China. It's about time someone had the balls to stand up to them. It will create havoc during these times but in the end, things will be much better. We have been patsies for far too long.

What specifically is better in the new NAFTA?
 
Top Bottom