re: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come

quote:

---

Yeah. We're not willing to lie about it.

---

You absolutely are. Trumps policies are jump starting the affordability crisis all over again.

With a tariff you have a choice to not buy from outside the borders/restrictions of the tariff. They are also based on the rate of consumption, the more you consume/purchase the more you pay.

A tax is imposed and you don't have a choice unless you want to face the penalties. Ours, income taxes at least, are progressive. The more you make, the more you pay.

So for all the "tariffs are a tax" people you have it backwards.

Taxes are more like internal (referencing the border) tariffs than tariffs are like taxes.

quote:

---

So a sales tax isn't a tax

---

30 pages in and our resident yapper has now relegated himself to talking about state purview sales taxes. You started off in the first few pages at least understanding a little bit about interstate taxes/commerce, but now you've gotten bored with playing volleyball with your alts in this thread and have moved the goal posts to the state level. Take a lap and step away from the monitor for a few hours please.

quote:

---

So a sales tax isn't a tax?

---

who said that.

More STRAWMAN from verySlowFloPro

quote:

---

who said that.

---

You said

quote:

---

With a tariff you have a choice to not buy from outside the borders/restrictions of the tariff. They are also based on the rate of consumption, the more you consume/purchase the more you pay.

A tax is imposed and you don't have a choice unless you want to face the penalties.

---

How is that distinguished from a sales tax?

quote:

---

Why all the tax talk?

---

I responded to a post trying to distinguish the 2 who seemed to equate a sales tax to a tariff.

quote:

---

So, why the continued misnomer?

---

In terms of federal law, tariffs are typically considered taxes.

Note, Roberts is brought up in OP b/c of the ACA ruling, but Gorsuch went much harder on the admin.

Reason had a pretty good breakdown of multiple justices

quote:

---

Then, some two hours later, as the oral arguments were winding down, Gorsuch spoke up in support of one of the key arguments advanced by the legal challengers. Here is the relevant exchange between Gorsuch and that lawyer:

quote:

---

JUSTICE GORSUCH: It does seem to me, tell me if I'm wrong, that the really key part of the context here, if not the dispositive one for you, is the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people is just different and it's been different since the founding and the Navigation Acts that were part of the spark of the American Revolution, where Parliament asserted the power to tax to regulate commerce…and Americans thought even Parliament couldn't do that, that that had to be done locally through our elected representatives.

Isn't that really the major questions, nondelegation, whatever you want to describe it, isn't that what's really animating your argument today?

MR. GUTMAN: I think it's a huge piece of what's animating our argument. Thank you.

---

When a justice takes the time to restate an advocate's key argument even more eloquently and forcefully than the advocate himself has managed to do during oral arguments, that is a very strong indication that the justice is sympathetic to that argument. Put differently, Gorsuch likely views Trump's tariffs as a violation of both the separation of powers and the nondelegation doctrine and is therefore much more likely to rule against them.

---

quote:

---

With a tariff you have a choice to not buy from outside the borders/restrictions of the tariff.

---

Just like you have a choice to not earn any income and never pay income tax. Well, I guess it's not a tax...by your definition. Neither would property taxes be a tax. Just don't own any property. Next... you'll be adoptiong the democrat's language and calling them "investments" and "contributions".

quote:

---

Its already happening, you bubble dwellers are too removed from normal humans to understand it

---

you literally live in an area of the country that isn't indicative of the country as a whole

quote:

---

Structurally, the same thing can be said about Social Security & Medicare (which is retirement insurance) and car insurance at the state level.

The SCOTUS rulings on SS are similar legal gymnastics to get to their decisions. It would be really interesting to see someone try to take that policy before this conservative SCOTUS

---

Yessir.
We see these things very similarly.
But I see a bit of a thin distinction involving auto insurance as it regulates usage of a vehicle on the public roads.