- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,599
- Reaction score
- 19,334
- 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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
Bigger, actually.IOW, China is going to pay for these tariffs is as big a lie as Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is the bolded opinion or do you have data/evidence in support?
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.
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.
In other words, it DOES do more.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?