this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
211 points (98.2% liked)

politics

23243 readers
3056 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] selkiesidhe@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago

Stupidest idiot in the history of stupid. It's like he learned a new word and it's stuck in his head and all he can say is tarrif, tarrif, rarifffFfffFffs.

[–] omega_x3@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

If he is so certain it will work why isn't he ending income tax right now?

Exactly whenever I see some rightiod say this shit I'm just like why didn't he completely eradicate income taxes as apart of the tarrifs if that's how they work

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trump got caught knowing nothing about tariff's when on a finance news show. Trump said to the interview guy "No! You know nothing about tariff's!". Since then he has gone all in on the tariff's he knows nothing about because he does not want to admit he was a fool.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

No at this point it's so we'll known that Peter Navarro just lied and created fake experts to make his bullshit tariff theories seem more sane.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

These guys are just such assholes.

How sick do you have to be to shift all the burden on to the people that have the least?

[–] manxu@piefed.social 65 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Of course he would. It would be a massive shift of taxation towards the middle class and especially the lower classes, and on top of that, he personally gets to decide who gets to pay and who doesn't; how much and when, and especially why or why not.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

On top of the continual shift of taxation towards the middle and lower classes we’ve had since Reagan.

The “good old days”the Republicans want to go back to were only good in the sense that the top tax rate was 90% and the rich paid something much closer to their fair share, and the middle class was able to actually have comfortable lives. But they want everyone other than them to be on the brink of economic ruin at all times so that they are more easily controlled.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely. It's as if they had declared that life in America was much better in the 50s, and the lesson they learned was that it wasn't possibly because of the economic policies of the post-war era, but because of the bigotry and racism and xenophobia.

[–] Rucifer@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Yes it’s all connected to racism and sexism.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago

But George Santos did.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

It's the main tentpole of Project 2025.

[–] HorreC@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So it is a tax on the people with out any representation. Seems like there was something like this in the past the North Americans dealt with

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Time to start throwing big macs in the harbor?

At least the tea was biodegradable.

[–] Kookie215@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is like the $5,000 stimulus checks Elon talked about and that "concept of a plan" from 2016. He knows his base doesn't want to pay taxes, so if he references the possibility to get rid of them, they will keep holding on and later he can just blame the libs for it never happening.

[–] msprout@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Sadly, the "concept of a plan" line was from last year. :/

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Now I'm no economician, but isn't this like saying "we'll replace writing class with origami class?"

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (10 children)

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.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 day ago

*affects. What you wrote - that it effects low income earners - means the opposite, that it enables them.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's more like Trump saying "we'll replace taxes on me with taxes on you."

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I almost say do it, triple-double-multiplier tariff added on everything! From water to bathroom visits to minutes of watched television, sodas to butter, corn to newspapers, even icecubes must not escape tariffs to make the country great again...
Then I give it 6 months, after which I suspect personal hells will open up...

Say, what about sales taxes eh? Seems those remain, hmm, so it's actually a tariff on top of taxes?

[–] greyfox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sales taxes are state/city level taxes, there are no federal sales taxes (yet). But he is essentially using the tariffs as a way to enact sales taxes without really adding a sales tax.

With the tariffs he can add a massive tax on the people which Republicans would normally be very much against, but he can say it is about being pro American and most of them forget about all of the extra money they will be paying.

This shifts the tax burden further onto middle/lower income homes and lets him give more income tax cuts to higher earners without increasing the deficit so much that congress would turn on him.

The Republicans have actually been talking about this for a long time they called it the "fair tax". Their fair tax plan was basically a flat ~23% federal sales tax that would replace income tax, but they could never get their base behind it.

Someone on Trump's team realized that we buy so much from other countries that he could accomplish the same thing the fair tax aimed to do via tariffs while selling them to his party as "buy American". His lower/middle income base eats that up, and his campaign donors see it as killing their overseas competition.

If it weren't for the other countries reciprocating it would have been a good plan for them.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Sales taxes are state/city level taxes

Many other countries have them at the national level too.

[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

Maybe if we stopped wasting so much of our money on "defense" spending

[–] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You know the last time tariffs got out of control here we threw some tea in the bay.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This time it’ll be teslas. Teaslas?

[–] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

I think Boston knows what they need to do. have a tesla party.

[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd rather have it replaced with a sovereign wealth fund or something ngl.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Those are for nations running a surplus, not a deficit.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] caffinatedone@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'd rather have it replaced with a sovereign wealth fund…

I'd rather not have it replaced with a ~~sovereign wealth~~ trump slush fund

The reason that sovereign wealth funds have cropped up recently in discussions is that trump really, really wants to have an unaccountable slush fund like his authoritarian buddies.

It makes like zero sense for a country like the US

load more comments
view more: next ›