- 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: Tariffs. What libertarian Economists don't grasp and more.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:24 pm to BCreed1
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:24 pm to BCreed1
quote:
People paid more for sugar in the 70s than now. The paid more for it in 2010...
What does any of that have to do with Americans paying about double for sugar than the world market price because of tariffs?
1
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:25 pm to Penrod
quote:
That’s silly. Greed would prevent people from paying their fair share.
People pay for goods and service all the time, yet they are "greedy". Private security firms, private fire departments, privately funded roads, private schools, private companies delivering packages and mail..... If government was worth a damn, it would survive market forces.
Not sure what he'd say about Khan or that he's talked about them much, but he talks a ton about the Icelandic private law society that existed for hundreds of years. Then, there's the ancient Irish who had the Brehon Law, which was basically a private law society as well which lasted for about a thousand years. For the time, a very peaceful society. Yes, they had kings, but they were figureheads
.Hey, we disagree on the end goal, but up until that point, I'll be 100% w/ you on reducing the size and scope of government, which pragmatically means for the rest of my life.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:26 pm to BCreed1
quote:
People paid more for sugar in the 70s than now. The paid more for it in 2010...
We are dealing with idiots that thought Ron Desantis would be the only person to win the WH
They cannot provide any math ever. Just all BS
Oh look RogertheFluffer
quote:
Indian government sources told Reuters on Tuesday that New Delhi is considering $23 billion in tariff reductions on U.S. imports to stave off President Donald Trump’s threatened reciprocal tariffs, which will affect at least $66 billion in Indian exports if they take effect on April 2.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:26 pm to Ten Bears
quote:
No I did not. Provide receipts where I specifically stated that YOU claimed Sowell was open border
Like I said, it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.
quote:
Holy twisted logic batman. Using your logic, allowing women or blacks to work, was what? a tax cut? Please. Make. The. Stupid. Stop.
If you can get there from what I stated, make the case that it's the same.
Gov intervention in the economy are both tariffs and immigration control. Even Sowell stated that not controlling the border lowers wages and controlling it raises wages.
Direct question. Does limiting immigration cause wages to rise in the USA?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:41 pm to David_DJS
quote:
What does any of that have to do with Americans paying about double for sugar than the world market price because of tariffs?
-America’s sugar producers support 151,000 U.S. jobs.
-Sugar producers generate nearly $23 billion a year for the U.S. economy.
-Sugar policy is predicted to cost taxpayers $0 in 2024. And hasn’t cost taxpayers a dime for 20 out of the last 21 years.
-Sugar farmers don’t receive government subsidy checks. Instead The Farm -Bill Authorizes loans to producers which allow producers to store inventory until it is needed, the loans are paid back WITH INTEREST every year.
-U.S. Growers are producing 14% more sugar on 8% less land than 20 years ago and have increased yields by over 23% while using less water, less energy, and fewer chemicals.
-The world sugar market is a thinly traded, heavily subsidized dump market and is the world’s most volatile commodity market.
The other side:
Sugar Mill Jobs:
The average salary for a Sugar Mill job is around $61,129.
Lunchbox Jobs:
Lunchbox jobs related to sugar mills can pay significantly more, with average salaries 42.1% higher than the average Sugar Mill salary.
U.S. Sugar:
Indeed data shows that U.S. Sugar employees can earn around $15.09 per hour as a Utility Worker, $26.10 per hour as a Diesel Mechanic, and $33.69 per hour as an Instrument Technician.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:42 pm to stuntman
quote:
So, if wages aren't income, then wages shouldn't be taxed at all, since it's not "income".
I'm just telling you the arguments. I don't know 100% either way.
Specious.
Clearly, "wages" are income.
quote:
wage
noun
1a: a payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis
quote:
income
noun
1: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor
also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time
- merriam-webster.com
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:50 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Then it should be easy to break down the math for us
Yet it never happens. Thanks for confirming
Look up. Someone posted the actual results. Somehow you missed it. An accident, I'm sure.
Just like you ignored my response when I pointed out the fallacy in your previous response.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:54 pm to Harry Boutte
Now find the statute that defines income. That's what's important here.
"Shall not be infringed" is clear, supposedly undisputable language as well, but how many court cases have their been on owning arms?
"Shall not be infringed" is clear, supposedly undisputable language as well, but how many court cases have their been on owning arms?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 3:58 pm to Jjdoc
quote:What “Americans”? We almost at minimum structural employment and employers already cannot find workers.
So you disagree with Sowell here. He pointed out that you have to control the borders and immigration to allow Americans to fill the void.
quote:Well, if we’re going to ignore if they work or not, I guess we can conclude any tho g we want?
This isn't about how to make tariffs work. It's about government "interference " in the economy. Via immigration policies.
quote:Huh? i’m pointing out why tariffs in our current conditions won’t work the way you think.
One you want, the other you don't.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:00 pm to GeauxBurrow312
quote:Protectionism and anti-illegal immigration is straight 80s democrat policy.
Paleo-conservatism won, decisively There is no other conservative movement in the US with meaningful support
Look up Barbara Jordan’s DNC speech. She sounds just like Trump. This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:02 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Those are different. Because of “policies”. Learned that last night.
How did Bidens tariffs work out?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:03 pm to BCreed1
quote:
-America’s sugar producers support 151,000 U.S. jobs.
The average American is forced to overpay so some guy in a sugar plant can have a high paying job.'
Just another redistribution scheme you leftists love so much.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:03 pm to Taxing Authority
Those are different. Because of “policies”. Learned that last night.
quote:
Message
Notify when someone replies
Yeah, Ive gotten the same vapid replies before.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:05 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Pffft. I announced I’m investing 100 trillion last week. Might announce another 200 trillion this week. Depends on my mood.
4 trillion announced investments.
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:08 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
So you are saying that McKinsey Global Institute is wrong. Economists are wrong?
quote:I wonder if he realizes he’s quoting from Pete Buttogege’s old gig.
I laughed so hard at this I almost spit all over my laptop.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:08 pm to stuntman
26 U.S. Code § 61 - Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Obviously, the definition for "income" is common knowledge - which is why I included Webster's definition and not Oxford's.
Otherwise there would have been a suit, I imagine.
But then, I'm no attorney.
ETA: "Shall not be infringed" hasn't been the issue. "Arms" and "A well regulated Militia" are what have been adjudicated, I believe.
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Obviously, the definition for "income" is common knowledge - which is why I included Webster's definition and not Oxford's.
Otherwise there would have been a suit, I imagine.
But then, I'm no attorney.
ETA: "Shall not be infringed" hasn't been the issue. "Arms" and "A well regulated Militia" are what have been adjudicated, I believe.
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:09 pm to David_DJS
Here's a massive 38 page study (published March 24th) signed off on by nearly 30 trade organizations. This is specifically about what happens with the $1.5 million dollar fee the Chinese ships will pay per port. It goes into great detail as I'm sure you can imagine. It isn't a rosy picture. Trade deficits increase, employment drops, all sorts of nightmarish stuff.
Trump wants this fee to get domestic ship building back on track which is a noble endeavor. How much pain are we willing to absorb to make that happen?
Here are a couple highlights:
Exports would decline by up to $21.4 billion, worsening the U.S. trade deficit.
Industries that rely on cost-effective shipping, including manufacturing, retail and agriculture, would experience higher costs and lose the ability to remain competitive.
USTR’s proposed remedies would increase shipping costs by 8% to 14%, leading to higher prices for imported goods, according to the new study.
More than 60% of U.S. imports rely on maritime shipping, meaning increased costs would affect nearly all industries.
Supply chain delays would worsen, impacting retailers, manufacturers and distributors.
Port traffic could decline by up to 11%, as shipping companies reroute through Canada or Mexico to avoid fees. As a result, U.S. warehousing and trucking jobs would be lost due to reduced port activity and the price of everyday goods would rise due to supply chain disruptions.
Tradepartnership.com
Trump wants this fee to get domestic ship building back on track which is a noble endeavor. How much pain are we willing to absorb to make that happen?
Here are a couple highlights:
Exports would decline by up to $21.4 billion, worsening the U.S. trade deficit.
Industries that rely on cost-effective shipping, including manufacturing, retail and agriculture, would experience higher costs and lose the ability to remain competitive.
USTR’s proposed remedies would increase shipping costs by 8% to 14%, leading to higher prices for imported goods, according to the new study.
More than 60% of U.S. imports rely on maritime shipping, meaning increased costs would affect nearly all industries.
Supply chain delays would worsen, impacting retailers, manufacturers and distributors.
Port traffic could decline by up to 11%, as shipping companies reroute through Canada or Mexico to avoid fees. As a result, U.S. warehousing and trucking jobs would be lost due to reduced port activity and the price of everyday goods would rise due to supply chain disruptions.
Tradepartnership.com
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:09 pm to Jjdoc
quote:’Murica first!
Those continue to grow due to LG and Samsungs continued expansion with out the tariffs.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:11 pm to Harry Boutte
My bad. Income looks to be defined.
Where's "wages" in that statute?
Where's "wages" in that statute?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 4:11 pm to MizzouBS
quote:They seem to be big fan of Biden’s policies. Wonder who they voted for?
Samsung and other electronics companies are getting money from the Chip’s program that was awarded last year.
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News