Economy Trump's April 2nd Tariffs

[Rod1]

Because he wasn’t for Trump and Trump won him back again . I guess same thing could be said why people bring up Vance not liking Trump back then ? Of course I don’t expect a real reply , so don’t bother

Trump could have won him back on his social conservative agenda. It says absolutely nothing about this shitshow banana republic economics levels.

Trump is pushing the Fed to cut rates by three fucking points as prices are going up, its weird that conservatards are now all about money printing as it if was Hugo Chavez who was in power.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Which fantasy world is that?

- The one where Trump isnt a kid didler.

 

[Squarechoke]

You would "certainly expect better from a right wing candidate"?

While I would agree that Trump is unquestioningly bad, which right wing candidate has balanced the budget in the past 50 years?

I'll do you one better. Can you show me any major policy initiative, as put for by the Republicans, that wasn't some version of trickle down economics?

I'll give you the last 50 years. One policy, as implemented by Republicans, that had a positive financial impact on anyone but the filthy rich, over time. Just one.

I'm not American so my political views aren't restricted to only two parties in one country.

 

[MrShady]

Cool any more of the 180 countries call to make deals?

Are we still in the pause or the pause to the pause now? Will there be another pause or are tariffs now permanent.

 

[ShadowRun]

Cool any more of the 180 countries call to make deals?

Are we still in the pause or the pause to the pause now? Will there be another pause or are tariffs now permanent.

• United Kingdom: Finalized trade deal on June 30, 2025, at G7 summit; 10% tariff on most goods, 10% on up to 100,000 cars annually, no tariffs on steel and aluminum within quotas.
• Vietnam: Loose deal on July 2, 2025; 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports, 40% on transshipped goods; Vietnam allows more U.S. goods access.
• China: Preliminary deal on May 12, 2025; mutual tariff reduction by 115%, China retains 10% tariff for 90 days, U.S. removes additional April 2025 tariffs.
• South Africa: Proposed deal on May 21, 2025; offers U.S. LNG purchases for duty-free export quotas; status unconfirmed.
• Israel: Offered to remove tariffs on U.S. goods on April 7, 2025; U.S. retains 17% tariff on Israeli goods, no deal finalized.

 

[MrShady]

• United Kingdom: Finalized trade deal on June 30, 2025, at G7 summit; 10% tariff on most goods, 10% on up to 100,000 cars annually, no tariffs on steel and aluminum within quotas.
• Vietnam: Loose deal on July 2, 2025; 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports, 40% on transshipped goods; Vietnam allows more U.S. goods access.
• China: Preliminary deal on May 12, 2025; mutual tariff reduction by 115%, China retains 10% tariff for 90 days, U.S. removes additional April 2025 tariffs.
• South Africa: Proposed deal on May 21, 2025; offers U.S. LNG purchases for duty-free export quotas; status unconfirmed.
• Israel: Offered to remove tariffs on U.S. goods on April 7, 2025; U.S. retains 17% tariff on Israeli goods, no deal finalized.

The fact you put China and preliminary deal tells me all I need to know lol

Glad you're avoiding the epstein threads though. Cowards gonna coward. Tell me, are you still gobbling him up or are you now a "past supporter"

 

[ShadowRun]

The fact you put China and preliminary deal tells me all I need to know lol

Glad you're avoiding the epstein threads though. Cowards gonna coward. Tell me, are you still gobbling him up or are you now a "past supporter"

You could have just said hey I’m going to keep trolling don’t waste your time responding to me . That would have been more civil . I just posted in a Epstein thread before you posted this you reeee

 

[MrShady]

You could have just said hey I’m going to keep trolling don’t waste your time responding to me . That would have been more civil . I just posted in a Epstein thread before you posted this you reeee

Support MAGA and shut up about Epstein or You care about Epstein and now you're a radical left

Choose one

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

 

[helltoupee]

I'm not American so my political views aren't restricted to only two parties in one country.

If you aren't American, why were you commenting on expecting better right wing candidates than Trump? Were you thinking that right wing candidates from whatever country you live in are going to be running in US elections?

I can certainly understand that you aren't aware that Republicans, or the "right wing" in the US, have offered absolutely nothing except redistribution of wealth upwards, and culture wars, for the past 50 years. However, your statement above, and the one I replied to, do not make sense.

 

[Squarechoke]

If you aren't American, why were you commenting on expecting better right wing candidates than Trump? Were you thinking that right wing candidates from whatever country you live in are going to be running in US elections?

I can certainly understand that you aren't aware that Republicans, or the "right wing" in the US, have offered absolutely nothing except redistribution of wealth upwards, and culture wars, for the past 50 years. However, your statement above, and the one I replied to, do not make sense.

No, I'm talking about right wing politics as a concept, not tied to any specific person or party. There is of course many nuances within any political leaning, within both wide and narrower ones, but something one should generally expect from the right wing should be competent economic efficiency. Trump is pretty much exhibiting the opposite of that, and he's also being anti-free trade in his policies (including the state messing with private companies' ability to do business) which is also generally not expected from the right wing. Hence he's not a candidate that I think delivers on what one should expect from that part of the spectrum. Whether politicians have delivered or not in the past doesn't really change what the voters should be expecting of them. At least voters that don't just vote based on team mentality, which is a part of the criticism I was delivering.

 

[Phisher]

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Wasn't the idea to abolish income tax and to replace it with tariffs? That's what my American friend told me.

 

[Rational Poster]

Wasn't the idea to abolish income tax and to replace it with tariffs? That's what my American friend told me.

The math doesn't add up. The income tax alone generates over $2T per year.

You aren't replacing anything, you're decreasing federal tax revenue by over a trillion per year. You would have to roughly triple the tariff income to just break even, and the overall rate on all imports would have to be around 70% to achieve that. (And that's assuming sustained trade relations at unreasonable tariff rates, which is a pure fantasy)

Tariffs are a consumption tax, it shifts the tax burden from high incomes to middle and lower incomes, which is unironically what republicans want.

 

[Seano]

The math doesn't add up. The income tax along generates over $2T per year.

You aren't replacing anything, you're decreasing federal tax revenue by over a trillion per year. You would have to roughly triple the tariff income to just break even.

Tariffs are a consumption tax, it shifts the tax burden from high incomes to middle and lower incomes, which is unironically what republicans want.

The idea was only for folks making under 100k.year, I believe.

 

[Rational Poster]

The idea was only for folks making under 100k.year, I believe.

Yes the idea Republicans have is to shift the tax burden from the wealthy and ultra wealthy onto people like you, correct.

 

[Seano]

Yes the idea Republicans have is to shift the tax burden from the wealthy and ultra wealthy onto people like you, correct.

Why are you responding as though I asked about something like that? I just said that the potential abolition of income tax was only for lower income folks. I don't know how what you said relates to that. No need to be a douche 100% of the time.

 

[Rational Poster]

Why are you responding as though I asked about something like that? I just said that the potential abolition of income tax was only for lower income folks. I don't know how what you said relates to that. No need to be a douche 100% of the time.

Lower income folks already pay almost no income taxes. Republicans have been complaining about it for decades.

What you're saying just makes no sense at all.

It doesn't matter what your income is, you are subject to increased costs from tariffs. Tariffs are consumption taxes, everyone in every income bracket consumes, but poor folks have less income to spare so it impacts them the most. It's one of the reasons we settled on progressive taxes in the first place.

If you actually wanted to help lower income folks you would be arguing in favor of more aggressive progressive income taxes, not the abolishment of them.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

The math doesn't add up. The income tax along generates over $2T per year.

You aren't replacing anything, you're decreasing federal tax revenue by over a trillion per year. You would have to roughly triple the tariff income to just break even, and the overall rate on all imports would have to be around 70% to achieve that. (And that's assuming sustained trade relations at unreasonable tariff rates, which is a pure fantasy)

Tariffs are a consumption tax, it shifts the tax burden from high incomes to middle and lower incomes, which is unironically what republicans want.

We got a consumption tax of sorts in Canada. It's called HST. Sucks balls.

 

[Rational Poster]

We got a consumption tax of sorts in Canada. It's called HST. Sucks balls.

Yeah, that's just a sales tax, most states have that as well. Tariffs are sales taxes on top of sales taxes.