politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Now I'm no economician, but isn't this like saying "we'll replace writing class with origami class?"
No, replacing income tax with tariffs isn't basically the same thing. It's worse. It is replacing a progressive tax (one that is easiest on lower wage earners and gets higher with income levels) to a regressive tax (one that more greatly effects lower wage earners than higher) because lower wage earners have to spend most or all of their income for survival, while high income earners regularly use their surplus money for things unaffected by tariffs, like investments, property, travel, etc.
*affects. What you wrote - that it effects low income earners - means the opposite, that it enables them.
Is it regressive though? Multimillionaires don't pay income taxes at all, they have no income. Elon musk isn't sitting down in April to fill out a 1040 or a 1099. They pay capital gains and other rich people taxes. With a consumption tax like a tarriff they'd at least be paying something even if it's a lower percentage of their wealth than yours or mine.
Multimillionaire do not, no. The ultra rich either have no income, have negligible income, or are compensated in ways that aren't subject to income tax. That's why there should be a wealth tax and sensible capital gains tax.
I agree. But wealth taxes aside, assuming the middle and lower classes end up paying about the same as they do now, the wealthy will pay more under a consumption tax (as in, more than the nothing they pay now).
Marginally. They don't spend most of their money on goods.
Not most of their money, no. Way more than I spend on goods. Exponentially more. I have no faith that the current admin will pull this off in a way that benefits the 99% but it's not outside the realm of possibility that some form of consumption tax would. It doesn't have to be regressive.
There is literally no way to put a flat tax on goods without it disproportionately effecting poorer people unless it is exclusively on luxury goods they are not buying
And yet, if it replaced income tax, it could affect the wealthy who are currently paying nothing. It's not a perfect solution. If implemented right, it could be an improvement over the current one.
Ok, so yes, more ultra rich may pay a little more tax than they would with income tax. But, the much more important part here, the poorest people will ALSO pay more in taxes, money that they do not have to spare. That is what makes it regressive.
That's a good point. I forgot there were people who weren't paying any income tax at all at the lower end of the wealth spectrum.
It's more like Trump saying "we'll replace taxes on me with taxes on you."