Given it is neither unexpected nor unearned ("free money") other people are also using windfall incorrectly.
I'm not a financial expert; I believe anyone who is would be retired since they'd know how to make a fortune rapidly.
We are talking about tariffs. Understanding economic impacts of tariffs is not an obvious source of wealth, so this statement is quite misleading.
If you feel I'm trying to mislead you. I'm very sorry.
Targeted tariffs would be targeted taxes, and the significant, widespread tariffs that this administration has applied are broad taxes.
They are on foreign trade, paid by consumers both in consumption and in distorted economic growth.
I agree that the taxes and tariffs paid by corporations will eventually be paid for by the consumer. I've argued this for years. I've seen people say that big companies should pay their fair share! Companies do not pay.
I'm not sure how something is paid for in "distorted economic growth." Are you saying the outcome of tariffs distorts economic growth?
If that's correct then I agree. I think tariffs are intentionally meant to distort markets.
Many believe that the administration's tax reduction on businesses was made up for by the tariffs those same businesses have to pay. Some say it's more, some say it's less.
And some have little idea of their subject. The consumer pays, after all the business dealings.
I agree that some, even many, have little idea of their subject. The news is full of pundits, talking heads, and supposed experts. And they all seem to disagree.
I also agree that consumers pay corporate tax, regardless of whether it is assessed as taxes on revenue, employment, tariffs, or any of the many other means that governments use to generate revenue streams.
The nuance is that companies once paid general taxes for their existence and earnings, and now pay tariffs as taxes on imports.
This is not economically neutral for the country.
Agreed, and I don't think that's the intent.
Whether that spurs companies to change from importing is yet to be seen. This becomes a carrot and stick to push the US companies to source from places with favorable tariffs/taxes.
Why? Kindly advise the economic benefit of paying more, potentially for less?
I don't believe I argued that there is an economic benefit. I'm not arguing in favor of the tariffs or what they may potentially achieve, fail at, or worse, cause damage.
What I've read/heard is that the supposed benefits of taxing companies are that they will use write-offs and so on to avoid a tax burden. Those write-offs can be building, research, or lots of things. Tariffs, as taxes on trade, prompt companies to seek ways to circumvent them. They will seek to avoid paying as much as possible; the rest will be passed on to the consumer. The behaviors of the company are what I assume the regulators are trying to influence.
I have seen no rational economic argument from the current US administration, only attitudes to countries or to people. In that respect this discussion can go nowhere, having started with an error.
Thank you for your perspective. Again, I'm not defending the tariffs, taxes, or administration. The US administration has given its views on what they are attempting to achieve. It's fair enough to call what they've said BS and not discuss it because you see it as an error.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something; I apologize if that's the case. It perplexes me that you discussed US tariffs in this thread, but you've stated your belief that such a discussion can go nowhere.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
