Comment by vlovich123
2 days ago
It’s a tax on the US economy. A tax levied by individuals rather than the government itself. An ingenious scheme. Evil, but ingenious.
2 days ago
It’s a tax on the US economy. A tax levied by individuals rather than the government itself. An ingenious scheme. Evil, but ingenious.
Refunds to business, but unless they have to refund to consumers it's free capital to importers
There are Non-Resident Importers, which are foreign companies that import goods into the USA, but do not have a presence in the United States. About 15% of USA imports come through NRIs.
For them this reversal sets up a true irony. Trump effectively forced US citizens to pay more the imported goods. He thought that money would go to the USA treasury. Now the US treasury has to pay it back, so it is a free gift to the exporting countries. Like China.
Truly delicious.
It is a return of their capital illegally acquired by the federal government.
No the consumers paid the price of the tariffs. These refunds are going to businesses who just passed the price along
22 replies →
And that fee was likely passed almost directly onto the consumer. I think I read... 90%?
2 replies →
[dead]
The stated intention was to replace income taxes with tariffs; and it came with a bonus feature of handing the President a cudgel with which to grant him personal powers and personal rewards.
There were something like six different stated intentions, most of which were entirely mutually-exclusive. Replacing income taxes was always the least credible of them.
Least viable at least; considering the "tax reforms" it aligns with his goals.
It's not a legitimate tax.
That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.
maybe i lean too much in one direction, but what is a "legitimate tax"?
Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.
> but what is a "legitimate tax"?
One that goes through all three branches of government, the way it's been since we decided "no taxation without representation" is how such things should be collectively implemented.
If a citizen's stance is there is no such thing as a legitimate tax, perhaps there should be a legal process for banishing them from all public services, including roads, electricity, telephone, fire and rescue services, etc. and make consuming them a crime. But I guess even that would be a problem because we need to pay for the justice system that would prosecute such a sovereign citizen that breaks the rules...
Basically an "opt-out" of modern life almost in its entirety. I think most people that subscribe to "no legitimate taxes" might be surprised how isolating that would be if they actually think it through.
To be clear, I don't think this is a good idea, it's simply a thought exercise.
8 replies →
In this context it simply means "legal".
1 reply →
One the usually friendly Supreme Court doesn't strike down as too blatantly illegal even for them?
Libertarians, please sit this one out. We can have the taxation is theft dialog some other comment section.
1 reply →
Whatever society decides it is via a legal and consistent proccess?
Excellent question.
I lean quite heavily myself.
In more ways than one though ;)
The most legitimate tax I see is one that citizens would cheerfully pay willingly under any economic conditions.
7 replies →
usually one imposed by congress, from my distant memory of reading the us constitution.
Often comments are sufficiently poorly reasoned or defecient that it makes more sense to downvote than reply.
For instance complaining about downvotes always draws more as does collectively insulting the community you are participating in.
As to the original question the problem is that it suggests confusion on a basic topic that was decided here centuries ago and taught in elementary school. If someone said what even is addition in an adult forum would you teach them addition or would you assume that they actually know addition and are arguing in bad faith because they feel math really ought to work differently?
Also when you can divide a particular topic into clearly delineated camps appearing to disagree or question the basic premises that one camp holds is oft taken for disagreement and alignment with the opposing camp even when you are just debating a side issue and may in fact be mostly or entirely aligned with the people who feel like you are opposed to them. This shortcut as far as identifying motive and perspective can misfire but it's often correct and "just asking questions" is often underhanded opposition.
Lastly a legitimate tax is one that is passed by Congress in the normal fashion and not overturned by the courts.
1 reply →
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution makes it the job of Congress, not the President, to levee taxes.
When Donald Trump didn't run his tariffs through Congress he blatantly violated separation of powers. In normal times this would be 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court for being so open and shut and it would not have taken over a year for the decision, but those times have passed.
3 replies →
Down votes because the supreme Court ruled it was illegal.
That's means its not a legitimate tax
7 replies →