historian said:

---

The U.S. has the largest economy in human history since 1900. We most definitely were an economic world power at the time but not militarily and not so much politically because we chose not to use our international political power very much. WWI changed things a little since the US was the decisive factor in the allied victory even though we were not a filly ally in the legal sense (no treaty). It didn't really change until the end of WWII.

Moving to tariff only is unrealistic for multiple reasons. The world is so different than it was 100 years ago it's ridiculous to think we could go back. It's not in our interest to pull back that radically from world affairs. We must remain involved to some extent. That does not mean we need to have military forces in 100+ countries, fight ridiculous & costly "forever wars", or give billions to countries like Ukraine to maintain such a war. Domestically, we probably do need a drastic curtailment but will almost certainly not happen. That's where the budget will be brought under control and the economy turned back towards long term prosperity.

The budget must be balanced and the debt reduced. That is an imperative.

---

We agree on Tariffs.

I am all for not fighting forever wars. But, I do want the US to have a presence in the 100+ Nations. Special Operations does an excellent job of providing the presence with advisors and task forces there for a specific purpose. I think Africa is a prime example of a model, at least I like it, that works and is cost efficient.

For example, of some military spending that I think show the potential value of DOD, besides basic defense and war fighting.

The Anti-Piracy Task Force in the Horn of Africa. There for a specific purpose that supports freedom of navigation. Multi-National and provides benefit as well as presence. Think it is an example of the US Military at its best modern use.

Advisors, specially trained to provide and teach how the US military operates and force multipliers. Worth the money invested.

USAF Pararescue - Premier Paramedics in the world, they serve a purpose under any conditions. See the Earthquakes in Northern Calf those guys went underground to rescue people. A story that did not get enough press.

Freedom of Navigation - This is what our Destroyers were made to accomplish. I support this fully.

Anti-Terror Units - Not massive deployments, but targeted protection. Would like to see more on Border.

I am sure there are more, just the ones that I see.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

The U.S. has the largest economy in human history since 1900. We most definitely were an economic world power at the time but not militarily and not so much politically because we chose not to use our international political power very much. WWI changed things a little since the US was the decisive factor in the allied victory even though we were not a filly ally in the legal sense (no treaty). It didn't really change until the end of WWII.

Moving to tariff only is unrealistic for multiple reasons. The world is so different than it was 100 years ago it's ridiculous to think we could go back. It's not in our interest to pull back that radically from world affairs. We must remain involved to some extent. That does not mean we need to have military forces in 100+ countries, fight ridiculous & costly "forever wars", or give billions to countries like Ukraine to maintain such a war. Domestically, we probably do need a drastic curtailment but will almost certainly not happen. That's where the budget will be brought under control and the economy turned back towards long term prosperity.

The budget must be balanced and the debt reduced. That is an imperative.

---

We agree on Tariffs.

I am all for not fighting forever wars. But, I do want the US to have a presence in the 100+ Nations. Special Operations does an excellent job of providing the presence with advisors and task forces there for a specific purpose. I think Africa is a prime example of a model, at least I like it, that works and is cost efficient.

For example, of some military spending that I think show the potential value of DOD, besides basic defense and war fighting.

The Anti-Piracy Task Force in the Horn of Africa. There for a specific purpose that supports freedom of navigation. Multi-National and provides benefit as well as presence. Think it is an example of the US Military at its best modern use.

Advisors, specially trained to provide and teach how the US military operates and force multipliers. Worth the money invested.

USAF Pararescue - Premier Paramedics in the world, they serve a purpose under any conditions. See the Earthquakes in Northern Calf those guys went underground to rescue people. A story that did not get enough press.

Freedom of Navigation - This is what our Destroyers were made to accomplish. I support this fully.

Anti-Terror Units - Not massive deployments, but targeted protection. Would like to see more on Border.

I am sure there are more, just the ones that I see.

---

Agreed.

It depends on the nature of America's military presence in dozens of countries. I have no problem with the kinds of deployments in your examples. Those are all excellent and important uses of American military power. Even Obama was correct in going after the Somali pirates, perhaps the only correct decision he made in 8 years!

I do not want to put American forces at risk needlessly in the more dangerous parts of the world acting as tripwires for potential forever wars.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

---

That assumes that everything remains the same. China, Canada and everyone else that Tariffs are imposed just say ok,we will pay. Charge whatever you want. What is the impact to imports? Do they develop.msrketd in Asia, India, EU? Those nations are already looking toward BRIC and creating a competing market option.

Trump will raise some tariffs based on whether he is pissed at those Nations, but income tax is staying. Sales tax will go up. VAT will not come to the US.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

---

That assumes that everything remains the same. China, Canada and everyone else that Tariffs are imposed just say ok,we will pay. Charge whatever you want. What is the impact to imports? Do they develop.msrketd in Asia, India, EU? Those nations are already looking toward BRIC and creating a competing market option.
Ever heard of "price theory?" The more China/Canada & everyone else pays, the higher the price of their goods rises. At some point, the price rises enough to where US producers become price competitive, which would then bring home those manufacturing jobs. Sure, if tariffs cause the return of manufacturing jobs, then the tariffs will no longer be much of a revenue producer. But new manufacturing jobs here expands payroll, which is taxable at considerably higher rates than tariffs.

Trump will raise some tariffs based on whether he is pissed at those Nations, but income tax is staying. Sales tax will go up. VAT will not come to the US.
Vat is bad. What Democrats had lined up to do had Harris won is far worse - wealth tax, drastic cuts to inheritance tax, etc......

---

China is a defacto "rust belt." There's not as much cost advantage from outsourcing there as there used to be. Lots of foreign investment there is just running out the clock on depreciation - it's profitable now because it's paid for, but it will not be profitable (or pragmatic) to reinvest in new capacity. Those companies will rehome much of their production.

In that sense, one can say globalism "worked." It leveled the playing field between the developed and the developing world ENOUGH that offshoring is not as nearly as compelling an option as it once was.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

---

That assumes that everything remains the same. China, Canada and everyone else that Tariffs are imposed just say ok,we will pay. Charge whatever you want. What is the impact to imports? Do they develop.msrketd in Asia, India, EU? Those nations are already looking toward BRIC and creating a competing market option.
Ever heard of "price theory?" The more China/Canada & everyone else pays, the higher the price of their goods rises. At some point, the price rises enough to where US producers become price competitive, which would then bring home those manufacturing jobs. Sure, if tariffs cause the return of manufacturing jobs, then the tariffs will no longer be much of a revenue producer. But new manufacturing jobs here expands payroll, which is taxable at considerably higher rates than tariffs.

Trump will raise some tariffs based on whether he is pissed at those Nations, but income tax is staying. Sales tax will go up. VAT will not come to the US.
Vat is bad. What Democrats had lined up to do had Harris won is far worse - wealth tax, drastic cuts to inheritance tax, etc......

---

China is a defacto "rust belt." There's not as much cost advantage from outsourcing there as there used to be. Lots of foreign investment there is just running out the clock on depreciation - it's profitable now because it's paid for, but it will not be profitable (or pragmatic) to reinvest in new capacity. Those companies will rehome much of their production.

In that sense, one can say globalism "worked." It leveled the playing field between the developed and the developing world ENOUGH that offshoring is not as nearly as compelling an option as it once was.

---

Once again, Tariffs are not effective revenue tools. They are effective for behavior modification. I am not the only one, many conservatives too, that are not in favor of relying on tariffs to that extent.

Tariffs have failed before and ended up costing the US, see steel, aluminum and major appliances.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

---

The problem with all taxes on producers (or importers) is that the people will pay it eventually. If taxes are raised on something, anything really, the producers who pay it will pass it on to the consumers who buy their products or services. In the end we all pay them. Taxes are inflationary too.

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

---

The problem with all taxes on producers (or importers) is that the people will pay it eventually. If taxes are raised on something, anything really, the producers who pay it will pass it on to the consumers who buy their products or services. In the end we all pay them. Taxes are inflationary too.

---

So very true. So what are alternatives for the consumers? Services and producer companies can't be forced to eat the cost so what is the way out of the conundrum?

As Ben Franklin said, death & taxes are unavoidable. The solution is to have limited govt as the Founding Fathers envisioned do's that taxes could be kept to a minimum. Instead shag we have is bloated, wasteful, corrupt, & tyrannical. Today it resembles Big Brother more than what it's supposed to be.

historian said:

---

As Ben Franklin said, death & taxes are unavoidable. The solution is to have limited govt as the Founding Fathers envisioned do's that taxes could be kept to a minimum. Instead shag we have is bloated, wasteful, corrupt, & tyrannical. Today it resembles Big Brother more than what it's supposed to be.

---

So what are alternatives for the consumers? Services and producer companies can't be forced to eat the cost so what is the way out of the conundrum?

Waco1947

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For most of our country’s history

the federal government was funded by tariffs, there was no income tax, the budget was (mostly) balanced, and federal spending was less than 10% of GDP. pic.twitter.com/vyxL9LTT9A

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 15, 2024

I don't think this will work today. It is a useful reminder, though.

---

I agree. Defense alone will be more than Tariffs can generate. There are also more choices in the market than before, Asia did not exist as a market (at least a competitive market). Finally, look at the US status in the world during that time. The US was not a world power economically, financially or militarily.

Serious question, is that where the US wants to go? If we move to Tariff only, it will be an extreme cut to pretty much everything the US has been since 1939. Many on this Board think that would be great, I am not sure they understand what that means in practice.

---

Think of tariffs are a defacto Value Added Tax. Pick a tariff rate and multiply by the percentage of the economy involved in trade....voila, you have a revenue number, imbedded in the final cost of one or more layers of finished goods. That is what Trump is looking at. it's a quick & easy revenue booster.

We will not replace the income tax with tariffs. We will add tariffs to the mix. I'm not a particular fan of that. Just noting what is most likely to happen.

---

I agree it will be a combination, Income Tax is not going away.

I don't agree a Tariff is nothing more than VAT. Tariff's are more regulatory, targeted and based on Country of Origin. I am not a fan of VAT, unless you get rid of everything else. Having VAT and Income Tax seems to me to be a double hit.

I can't see Tariff's, in the modern day, being an efficient revenue producer. Much more of a behavior influencer.

---

Here's a simple macroeconomics 101 exercise. The US economy is 25% trade related, so a 10% tariff would be roughly equivalent to a 10% sales tax on a quarter of US GDP. Here's what that would look like:
$28T (GDP) x .25 (trade percentage) = $7T (trade sector) x 10% (tariff rate) = $700B tax revenue (almost 40% of the $1.8T budget deficit). That's a pretty big chunk of a pretty big problem. Explains why Trump is talking about it. He can raise a lot of revenue without reducing anyone's paycheck and get revenue equivalent to net 2.5% of GDP.

Tariffs are conceptually similar to a VAT in that much of them are imbedded deep in the cost, i.e. not all of that nominal import sector number represents completely finished goods manufactured abroad that are straight up imported to the USA. There are a huge number of domestically manufactured goods which have some percentage of imported content....from raw materials, to a key components, all the way thru to packaging. That's kinda/sorta the way a VAT works = imbedded down inside the cost structure - goods are taxed every time they are touched from being dug from the ground to set on the table at home (only VAT has multiple layers where tariffs in most cases would be a one-time event).

VAT is insidious precisely because it is invisible. It's impossible for the consumer to know how much tax he/she is paying.
Same for tariffs.

---

That assumes that everything remains the same. China, Canada and everyone else that Tariffs are imposed just say ok,we will pay. Charge whatever you want. What is the impact to imports? Do they develop.msrketd in Asia, India, EU? Those nations are already looking toward BRIC and creating a competing market option.
Ever heard of "price theory?" The more China/Canada & everyone else pays, the higher the price of their goods rises. At some point, the price rises enough to where US producers become price competitive, which would then bring home those manufacturing jobs. Sure, if tariffs cause the return of manufacturing jobs, then the tariffs will no longer be much of a revenue producer. But new manufacturing jobs here expands payroll, which is taxable at considerably higher rates than tariffs.

Trump will raise some tariffs based on whether he is pissed at those Nations, but income tax is staying. Sales tax will go up. VAT will not come to the US.
Vat is bad. What Democrats had lined up to do had Harris won is far worse - wealth tax, drastic cuts to inheritance tax, etc......

---

China is a defacto "rust belt." There's not as much cost advantage from outsourcing there as there used to be. Lots of foreign investment there is just running out the clock on depreciation - it's profitable now because it's paid for, but it will not be profitable (or pragmatic) to reinvest in new capacity. Those companies will rehome much of their production.

In that sense, one can say globalism "worked." It leveled the playing field between the developed and the developing world ENOUGH that offshoring is not as nearly as compelling an option as it once was.

---

Once again, Tariffs are not effective revenue tools. They are effective for behavior modification. I am not the only one, many conservatives too, that are not in favor of relying on tariffs to that extent.

Tariffs have failed before and ended up costing the US, see steel, aluminum and major appliances.

---

LOL they are highly effective revenue generators until they offset the price advantage of imported goods, at which time they become highly effective at domestic job creation.

You do realize the USG ran almost exclusively on tariffs before the passage of the 16th amendment, don't you?

Any regulations, laws agencies been created since then, which can have a significant positive or negative influence? Just asking, since at least the tax code has had some changes since 1916.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

As Ben Franklin said, death & taxes are unavoidable. The solution is to have limited govt as the Founding Fathers envisioned do's that taxes could be kept to a minimum. Instead shag we have is bloated, wasteful, corrupt, & tyrannical. Today it resembles Big Brother more than what it's supposed to be.

---

So what are alternatives for the consumers? Services and producer companies can't be forced to eat the cost so what is the way out of the conundrum?

Waco1947

---

Minimize the damage as much as possible and hold politicians accountable. This could be done by repealing the 16th amendment (income taxes) and instituting a national sales tax.

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

As Ben Franklin said, death & taxes are unavoidable. The solution is to have limited govt as the Founding Fathers envisioned do's that taxes could be kept to a minimum. Instead shag we have is bloated, wasteful, corrupt, & tyrannical. Today it resembles Big Brother more than what it's supposed to be.

---

So what are alternatives for the consumers? Services and producer companies can't be forced to eat the cost so what is the way out of the conundrum?

Waco1947

---

Minimize the damage as much as possible and hold politicians accountable. This could be done by repealing the 16th amendment (income taxes) and instituting a national sales tax.

---

The December nonfarm payrolls report showed a very healthy labor market: The US economy added over 250,000 jobs in the month, while the unemployment rate fell to 4.1%. That's the good news. The less good news is that the strong reading could prompt the Fed to keep rates higher for longer, some on Wall Street believe. From Yahoo News
Why did the market down on this good news?

This is how Washington really works:

GOP Senators are telling Tulsi Gabbard that the only way she has a chance to be confirmed is if she renounces her long-standing opposition to mass FBI/NSA domestic spying powers, and vows to support FISA Section 702:https://t.co/MQaKRSiP0X

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 10, 2025

At least a few of yesterday's "solutions " are today's problems, as is our failure to abide by the advice of many of our founding fathers, including at least a few in the federalist papers.

Peter Thiel w/ some critical facts for incoming Trump administration:

- Fauci/NIH hid the truth
- NIH-funded research may have caused pandemic
-Virus researchers are not honest and their research is dangerous
-Speech was censored pic.twitter.com/YjrlZAz1iv

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) January 10, 2025

Sen. Lankford's claim that FISA Section 702 "has nothing to do with American citizens" is 100% false.

Prior to its 2008 enactment, the NSA/CIA needed warrants if a foreign target was talking to a US citizen. Sec 702 allows the USG to listen to Americans' calls without warrants. https://t.co/GmqAbnvUl7

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 12, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sen. Lankford's claim that FISA Section 702 "has nothing to do with American citizens" is 100% false.

Prior to its 2008 enactment, the NSA/CIA needed warrants if a foreign target was talking to a US citizen. Sec 702 allows the USG to listen to Americans' calls without warrants. https://t.co/GmqAbnvUl7

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 12, 2025

---

Sec 702 is necessary. Without it, AQ simply has people with claims on US Citizenship, US green card holders, and US citizens to do all its communications. Intel collection grinds down to a halt. Collection cannot easily be started. I have experience with this. One of my junior officers had a chance to recruit a AQ operative, but was told to stand down because the person was a "US person." (i.e. not a US citizen, but had a claim on citizenship by virtue of being married to a US citizen.) That AQ operative is today in a federal prison for terrorist acts against the USA. People got killed/hurt because we could not go where the intelligence led us. And that was not a court rejection. It was a rejection by agency staff. To require warrants against any commo which might include an Amcit would require an exponential expansion of the FISA court to handle the flood of approval request.

The control should be in ombudsmanship - IG functions which ensure that no one is firing up operations against foreigners for the primary purpose of collecting on Americans. i.e. is the foreign target real? Is it material? Is its product duplicative, or inconsequential? That's when you know you have a problem.....lots of operations with high US citizen inclusion producing little or nothing of value against the ostensible target - a terrorist group. Comparable type reviews are done on all intel product, to ensure both effectiveness and economy of resources. And also security concerns. And operation is an operation. There is an inherent CI risk to an operation whether it is productive or not - your officers and your tradecraft are at risk anytime they are used. So make sure they are used in ways that produce enough to justify those inherent risks. Makes no sense to have a Case Officer risking cover & tradecraft to handle someone that produces nothing or little of consequence.

What we are actually talking about here is the kind of problem you have when you purposely import people from places in the world where terrorism is a problem. The problem flows across your borders along with the people.......

I met with Pres.-elect Trump's Secretary of State pick, Marco Rubio.

Senator Rubio and I have worked closely together in the Senate on a number of foreign policy issues. I believe he is a good choice to lead the State Department. pic.twitter.com/n6ykDnvMtX

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) January 13, 2025

Seems like most of the nominations should get confirmed as it should be.

The Democrats turning these into political circuses should stop.

BREAKING: 80% of federal government managers who voted for Harris said they will resist the efforts of the Trump administration, while just 1% said they will somewhat support him, according to a Napolitan Institute/RMG Research survey.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 13, 2025

What is this?

After a faked hate crime, Imam Husham Al-Husainy worked to create a bill banning Koran burning thereby imposing Sharia law on Americans

"He and the imams will collect signatures of supporters before addressing the City Council to inquire about making a new city ordinance." pic.twitter.com/WZQSrLZeB9

— Daniel Greenfield - "Hang Together or Separately" (@Sultanknish) January 13, 2025

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

---

She has some issues to overcome for that role. Intel???put her in charge of interior or something non-security related. I like her, but gonna be tough to put her in national security role.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

---

She has some issues to overcome for that role. Intel???put her in charge of interior or something non-security related. I like her, but gonna be tough to put her in national security role.

---

Idiots falling for another Hillary Clinton Russia Hoax. Amazing.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

---

She has some issues to overcome for that role. Intel???put her in charge of interior or something non-security related. I like her, but gonna be tough to put her in national security role.

---

Idiots falling for another Hillary Clinton Russia Hoax. Amazing.

---

You guys are funny how you let things go for people you like and go nuts over who you don't. Must be tough going through life with a sliding moral compass based on who they tell you is now Ok. In 2016 Musk was a Dem, Lib that could not be trusted, now he is the savior. Gabbard was a liberal, Dem, Leftist (with a voting record in Congress), now she is cool to be in charge of all National Intel, without a blink you shift. This is really interesting for a religious school message board.

You really think there is nothing there if she is having issues with a clearance? You think NSA and the National Intelligence providers are relying on news stories to make Security decisions? If she gets held up at this level, there is something they found that is legitimate. If she passes, it was resolved. This is security and background checks at the highest level. Or is that now the Deep State because you don't like the answer? She has a lot of questions to answer before getting that job.

I am shocked how quickly you would just hand over the reigns of National Intel because Donald said so, even in Hawaii they say her main qualification is loyalty to Trump. Check what Bannon and Musk think so you know what to think. Ow, they butt heads it must make your heart hurt not having a clear MAGA direction.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

---

She has some issues to overcome for that role. Intel???put her in charge of interior or something non-security related. I like her, but gonna be tough to put her in national security role.

---

Idiots falling for another Hillary Clinton Russia Hoax. Amazing.

---

You guys are funny how you let things go for people you like and go nuts over who you don't. Must be tough going through life with a sliding moral compass based on who they tell you is now Ok. In 2016 Musk was a Dem, Lib that could not be trusted, now he is the savior. Gabbard was a liberal, Dem, Leftist (with a voting record in Congress), now she is cool to be in charge of all National Intel, without a blink you shift. This is really interesting for a religious school message board.
Reaching out across the aisle for a cabinet appointment is a "sliding moral compass?"

You really think there is nothing there if she is having issues with a clearance? You think NSA and the National Intelligence providers are relying on news stories to make Security decisions? If she gets held up at this level, there is something they found that is legitimate. If she passes, it was resolved. This is security and background checks at the highest level. Or is that now the Deep State because you don't like the answer? She has a lot of questions to answer before getting that job.
LOL
What are the odds that a LtCol in the US Army Reserves would not already have clearances?
I would caution against assuming that there is much truth to leftist media intimations that there are problems with her clearances.

I am shocked how quickly you would just hand over the reigns of National Intel because Donald said so, even in Hawaii they say her main qualification is loyalty to Trump. Check what Bannon and Musk think so you know what to think. Ow, they butt heads it must make your heart hurt not having a clear MAGA direction.

---

She is the perfect choice to address the very real concerns of a majority of the country - abuse of 1st Amendment protected rights by law enforcement and intel agencies. Who better to clean that up than someone who was put on a TSA watchlist for purely political reasons.

Self-government.
Citizen government.
That means the "experts" work for us, not the other way around.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

---

She has some issues to overcome for that role. Intel???put her in charge of interior or something non-security related. I like her, but gonna be tough to put her in national security role.

---

Idiots falling for another Hillary Clinton Russia Hoax. Amazing.

---

You guys are funny how you let things go for people you like and go nuts over who you don't. Must be tough going through life with a sliding moral compass based on who they tell you is now Ok. In 2016 Musk was a Dem, Lib that could not be trusted, now he is the savior. Gabbard was a liberal, Dem, Leftist (with a voting record in Congress), now she is cool to be in charge of all National Intel, without a blink you shift. This is really interesting for a religious school message board.
Reaching out across the aisle for a cabinet appointment is a "sliding moral compass?"

You really think there is nothing there if she is having issues with a clearance? You think NSA and the National Intelligence providers are relying on news stories to make Security decisions? If she gets held up at this level, there is something they found that is legitimate. If she passes, it was resolved. This is security and background checks at the highest level. Or is that now the Deep State because you don't like the answer? She has a lot of questions to answer before getting that job.
LOL
What are the odds that a LtCol in the US Army Reserves would not already have clearances?
I would caution against assuming that there is much truth to leftist media intimations that there are problems with her clearances.

I am shocked how quickly you would just hand over the reigns of National Intel because Donald said so, even in Hawaii they say her main qualification is loyalty to Trump. Check what Bannon and Musk think so you know what to think. Ow, they butt heads it must make your heart hurt not having a clear MAGA direction.

---

She is the perfect choice to address the very real concerns of a majority of the country - abuse of 1st Amendment protected rights by law enforcement and intel agencies. Who better to clean that up than someone who was put on a TSA watchlist for purely political reasons.

Self-government.
Citizen government.
That means the "experts" work for us, not the other way around.

---

Were they purely political? If she were still a Dem and this were Biden you would be going Ape-***** You worked in Intel, you have no issues using her intel if she were your source with her background? You would put your life on the line based on her intel? If your background people told you there were issues, you would say pass her on your word and you would take the hit...

As I said, I have no issues with her in a non-national security role. Want to put her in charge of the FCC to protect speech and communications, have at it. I think she would be great for Interior, she truly loves the eco-system and would do a great job managing our natural resources. She is a better surfer than me...