- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If Tariffs Are Put in Place People Won't Be Able to Afford Cars
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:09 am to The Pirate King
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:09 am to The Pirate King
quote:
Tariffs would be a fair and equal tax on all consumers
But a gift to industry. Industries that we have already bailed out many times.
I would much rather have a consumption tax (all products) and no income tax.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 8:10 am
0
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:12 am to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
Today an F 150 Lariat costs about $65k before extras. THE MEDIAN SALARY IS $53K. It costs more than the majority of Americans make in a year to buy a new truck
So don't buy a new truck.
You're not entitled to buy a new truck at a price you demand.
There are several very reliable full size cars and even SUVs you can buy for one-third of that amount brand new.
This is what's wrong with young people today. You can't buy EXACTLY what you want, so you pitch a fit and claim that there is a problem with the auto industry because "nobody can afford any vehicles."
Yeah, they can. You can too. You just can't buy EXACTLY what you want.
Well, grow up. You're not entitled to be able to do that. The Auto industry doesn't owe you that. The government doesn't owe you that.
People used to buy what they could afford and didn't feel like someone owed it to them to make what they wanted instead of what they needed affordable to them.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:16 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:No Rog.
So youre saying you like tariffs as a tax on consumers.
I'm saying we have a gargantuan spending problem atop massive debt, statements that caused oklahogjr to call "economic credentials" to question. Perhaps you have reservations similar to oklahogjr's about the existence of US debt and deficits? But assuming you don't, you know that those two issues are huge inflationary pressures.
Countervailing measures (increased revenue, decreased spending) are anti-inflationary. Oklahogjr's objections aside, that really is not controversial at all. It's why I continue to counter your tariffs = inflation claim.
As you'd surmise, I hate the thought of tax increases, tariffs or otherwise. Unfortunately a majority of the >99% who don't share my tax burden also do not support reduction in Federal spending. At some point, our debt level is going to massacre folks without fungible assets. I'd like to avoid the fiscal dominance precipice for those people.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:16 am to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
1970: Less than 36% of a family's annual income was needed to buy a new car
And in 1970, cars were death traps that killed passengers from fender benders and the gas tanks exploded. R&D engineering for crash testing wasn’t a thing. Most had no air conditioning and no power locks or windows and had manual gearboxes even though the modern tech was available. Suspensions were crappy and so were tires - you were lucky to have independent rear suspension. 5 liter V8 engines had 150hp, while 3 liter 6 cylinders had less than 100hp.
Cars were made cheap, with little features, with weak crappy engines, were death traps, and wouldn’t last more than 100,000 miles without major repairs.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Countervailing measures (increased revenue, decreased spending) are anti-inflationary.
The price of items with tariffs (foreign or domestic) will rise when tariffs are put in place.
Everything will cost more, American producers will raise prices as well.
Half the nation has zero income tax liability. Youre adding a whole lot of cost to these people. This is your working class.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:21 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
And in 1970, cars were death traps that killed passengers from fender benders and the gas tanks exploded.
I see youre advocating for more market interference.
The bigger the nanny state, the less people you have that can self manage. Neither of us like that world.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 8:25 am
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:30 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
And in 1970, cars were death traps that killed passengers from fender benders and the gas tanks exploded. R&D engineering for crash testing wasn’t a thing. Most had no air conditioning and no power locks or windows and had manual gearboxes even though the modern tech was available. Suspensions were crappy and so were tires - you were lucky to have independent rear suspension. 5 liter V8 engines had 150hp, while 3 liter 6 cylinders had less than 100hp.
Cars were made cheap, with little features, with weak crappy engines, were death traps, and wouldn’t last more than 100,000 miles without major repairs.
Another excellent point.
Just like houses.
Young people melt about buying a house now vs 1970 without considering how much nicer (and bigger) the average house is in 2024 compared to then.
Not that I am for tariffs.
I think they are a silly mistake.
But young people have been melting over the price of cars and houses for a lot longer than these tariffs have been an issue.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:30 am to oklahogjr
quote:Oh, I'm not beholden to a particular model.
The cpa gtap model was quite interesting to read about.what makes you trust that model above all the others?
CPA GTAP is arguably a more accurate tool for analyzing economic impact of trade policy, along with the associated impact of tariffs though. It demonstrates that, rather than doom and gloom, tariffs can have positive effects on the economy, including increased GDP, wages, and employment.
Juxtaposed with the US economy/trade deficit ... world's largest economy as well as the world's largest trade deficit ... application of the model to assess effects of tariffs in our unique situation seems logical.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 8:42 am
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:31 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I see youre advocating for more market interference.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:31 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
Well coming out of WW2 we had half the worlds GDP, half, now its less than 25% because we followed the aforementioned thought process. Hmmm maybe its time to go back to what made America great, just a thought
People are so short sighted. Gotta step back and look at the big picture, what's best for America.
Any growth process requires some pain and sacrifice.
Why should China be able to sell here, but America can't sell our products there to compete?
Unless an unfair tariff is paid to China.......
Same with Europe and American made cars.
Tariffs won't be raised across the board, it will be done on items that we're getting fricked over on.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:32 am to Flats
quote:
quote:
I 100% am willing to pay more for USA made products
You can do that now; we all can and you can do it without a government mandate.
But you don't.
Yes I do, f@ggot. I actively always search out made in USA products. Im a contractor. If I find the rare gem of a tool made in USA, I buy it. I even buy stuff I dont really even need from small companies making tools just to support them. Ive spent far more than what is necessary buying made in USA appliances and home fixtures as opposed to stuff made in China.
frick you
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:39 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The price of items with tariffs (foreign or domestic) will rise when tariffs are put in place.
The price of items with corporate taxes will rise when they are put in place.
The price of items will rise when inflationary spending is put in place.
The price of items will rise when the inflationary cost of carry of debt is put in place.
Why the burr under your saddle re: tariffs?
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Everyone needs to pay their "fair share" in taxes. Right? That statement is a Democrat cornerstone. What is "fair share"? Dems refuse to answer. However, we can all agree, can we not, that "fair share" for nearly a trillion dollars is not zero. The US trade deficit runs ~$900Bn/yr. It comprises money hemorrhaged from our economy, and is largely untaxed. Tariffs address that by dictating trading partners either reduce their own trade barriers, thereby reducing the trade deficit, and/or pay their "fair share" in taxes.
100%
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:41 am to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Yes I do, f@ggot. I actively always search out made in USA products. Im a contractor. If I find the rare gem of a tool made in USA, I buy it. I even buy stuff I dont really even need from small companies making tools just to support them. Ive spent far more than what is necessary buying made in USA appliances and home fixtures as opposed to stuff made in China.
And yet ultimately you have no idea if you are or not. The finished product sure, but you have no clue if the components are from the US or the materials or the components to make the components etc. Yes you can buy finished product made in US things, but ultimately everyone buys foreign goods one way or another and there’s no way around it
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The price of items with corporate taxes will rise when they are put in place.
True, I dont want corporate taxes.
Any consumption tax needs to be comprehensive, not just on imports.
MFG jobs are not coming back, regardless of what we do. Tariffs lessen competition, which means less quality at higher prices.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:43 am to Squirrelmeister
Nope, youre firmly a nanny stater.
Populism brought left wing economics into the Republican party.
Populism brought left wing economics into the Republican party.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why the burr under your saddle re: tariffs?
Because they dont work and cost everyone. Funny, tariffs were a Democrat staple until Trump. You ONLY support them because Donny likes them.
Seems like a great reason to me.
This post was edited on 11/9/24 at 8:46 am
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:47 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Nope, youre firmly a nanny stater.
You are the dumbest person on this site. And that’s saying something because there’s a lot of dummies here. I’m pretty sure I’ve told you that before, but I want to make sure you see it again.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:47 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Except that there is no international offset for domestic tax.
Any consumption tax needs to be comprehensive
One way or another the US consumer is 100% exposed.
That is not necessarily true of tariffs. Plus tariffs are at least a way of capturing revenue vis-a-vis our trade deficit.
Posted on 11/9/24 at 8:49 am to PurpleandGold Motown
Build car in Mexico for $20k, 100% tariff means you have to clear $40k to make dollar one.
Same car in USA costs $30k to make, same $40k brings in $10k profit.
It won't make them unaffordable.
Same car in USA costs $30k to make, same $40k brings in $10k profit.
It won't make them unaffordable.
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News