Trump says he will cut taxes and reduce the deficit. But what’s the real story? My take is similar to David Stockman’s.
End Federal Income Tax
CNN reports Trump Floats Ending the Federal Income Tax.
After promising to eliminate taxes on tips, Social Security benefits and overtime pay, former President Donald Trump is taking aim at the largest levy of them all — the federal income tax.
With Election Day around the corner, Trump talked about his interest in ending the federal income tax in two high-profile interviews this week, harking back to the late 19th century, when the US relied on tariffs to fund federal spending. The former president has vowed to broadly impose tariffs, arguing they can generate trillions of dollars in revenue.
“When we were a smart country, in the 1890s … this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said after a barber asked whether it would be possible to jettison the federal income tax. “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”
A few days later, podcaster Joe Rogan asked Trump whether he was serious about replacing federal income taxes with tariffs.
“Yeah, sure, why not?” Trump said during his interview Friday on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”
Trump, who also floated the idea of ending the federal income tax in June, has not said whether he would eliminate federal corporate income and payroll taxes or just the individual income tax — which raises about half of the nearly $5 trillion in revenue that the federal government collects.
By contrast, tariffs bring in about 2% of federal revenue.
Campaign Bullshit
Let’s be blunt. Most of that is campaign bullshit. It would take, at a minimum, a trifecta sweep of the House, Senate, and Whitehouse.
I’ll even throw in an extra Senate seat making it 52-48. Would that do it?
For starters, there is always the possibility Trump is as serious as he was about getting Mexico to pay for the wall. Then again, it’s possible to believe Trump thinks that actually happened.
The problem here, is that even if Trump believes what he says, I doubt he can conjure up 50 Republican Senators to go along with these asinine proposals, let alone the constant bickering in the House over fiscal responsibility.
Instead, ponder the likelihood Trump will raise taxes, not cut them.
About Trump’s ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs
Former Republican Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey says “He wants to raise your taxes, and he thinks I’m the stupid one.”
Please consider Pat Toomey’s WSJ Op-Ed About Trump’s ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs
As I tried to explain to Mr. Trump when he was president, another country’s misguided decision to tax its citizens on what they buy from American manufacturers isn’t a good reason to punish Americans who wish to buy that country’s products. But Mr. Trump is determined to punish American consumers for the misfortune indirectly imposed on our export-heavy manufacturers. This is his idea of fairness.
Mr. Trump sees low tariffs as a concession the U.S. makes to other countries to our own detriment. But low taxes on imports give American consumers more choices, cheaper prices and a higher standard of living. Low tariffs also make American manufacturers more competitive: Imports and foreign competition allow for low input prices. Americans benefit the most from low tariffs.
Mr. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs would effectively allow other countries to determine how the U.S. taxes its own citizens. So much for America first. And Mr. Trump often contradicts himself on reciprocity. On a trade-weighted basis, the U.K., Europe and Canada all impose lower taxes on American manufactured goods than the U.S. imposes on comparable imports. Mr. Trump isn’t proposing that we match their lower tariffs, but to add another 10 percentage points—minimum—to the tariffs we impose on Americans who buy goods from Europe and Canada.
Mr. Trump contradicts himself again when he claims that tariffs won’t lead to higher prices for Americans and that tariffs will drive an American manufacturing renaissance. Both can’t be true: If American consumers don’t face higher prices on tariffed imports, why would they begin purchasing domestic products?
Mr. Trump’s strategy would be reasonable if his tariffs were intended to persuade countries to lower theirs. Zero trade restrictions with allies is the economically optimal arrangement. If tariffs could get us there, they might be worth the try. But Mr. Trump declared himself “Tariff Man” because he sees trade restrictions as superior to free trade.
Free trade benefits all Americans, even when the terms are asymmetrical. I obviously failed to convince President Trump with my economic arguments, so I’ll try a political angle: There is a historical example of a presidential candidate who ran on a platform to raise Americans’ taxes. It didn’t turn out well for Walter Mondale.
Fear-of-Trump (FOT)
Sadly, due to FOT and Trump’s vindictiveness, many won’t directly stand up to Trump like Toomey just did.
But Trump’s vindictiveness and demand for loyalty cost Republicans four senate seats already (two in Georgia, one in Arizona, and one in Pennsylvania).
Stop-the-Steal advocate Kari Lake will blow up another Arizona chance.
I doubt Republicans can conjure 50 senate votes for the idiocy Trump is proposing. And he might run into a Tea Party mess in the House even if the Senate would go along.
Trump’s Vindictiveness on Display
On September 25, I commented Trump Threatens John Deere With 200 Percent Tariffs, Farmers Would Be Hurt
Trump has gone mad with threats. Tariffs on John Deere would cost farmers plenty.
The price of soybeans, wheat, and corn have plunged, and here is Trump insisting farmers pay more for farm equipment.
Soybean prices are down about 27 percent from a year ago, back to a level seen in 2007.
Dear Farmers
Trump has a message for you: “I promise to make you pay as much as possible for farm machinery.”
Check it out. Trump would put 200 percent tariffs on Deere but 60 percent on China.
Whirlpool Flashback
Please consider the July 16, WSJ article Whirlpool Wanted Washer Tariffs. It Wasn’t Ready for a Trade Showdown.
After the Trump administration announced new tariffs on imported washing machines in January, Marc Bitzer, the chief executive of Whirlpool Corp., celebrated his win over South Korean competitors LG Electronics Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.
“This is, without any doubt, a positive catalyst for Whirlpool,” he said on an investor conference call.
Nearly six months later, the company’s share price is down 15%. One factor is a separate set of tariffs on steel and aluminum, imposed by the U.S. in March and later expanded, that helped drive up Whirlpool’s raw-materials costs. Net income, even with the added benefit of a lower tax bill, was down $64 million in the first quarter compared with a year earlier.
Please let that sink in. US manufactures who need steel were clobbered by the tariffs they wanted.
It’s like farmers supporting higher prices for combines.
Trump Claims Tariffs Will Reduce the Trade Deficit
Trump proposes 60 percent tariffs on China. Would that reduce the trade deficit? Where? How?
On September 26, I commented Trump Claims Tariffs Will Reduce the Trade Deficit. Let’s Fact Check.
Trump’s Tariff Claims on Truth Social
May 31, 2023: Remember, I terminated the worst trade deal in USA history, NAFTA, and replaced it with the best, USMCA. Also got China to pay our great FARMERS 28 Billion Dollars in damages!
Total Goods Balance of Trade
Trump’s Claims
- The Claims: “Remember, I terminated the worst trade deal in USA history, NAFTA, and replaced it with the best.”
- “In my First Term, we achieved Major Successes to protect American Workers by negotiating Free and Fair Trade Deals, passing the USMCA (U.S./Mexico/Canada), and giving Businesses and their Workers the tools to thrive.”
Trade Realities
- When Trump took office in 2017, the trade deficit with Mexico was $69.06 Billion. It’s now $95.93 billion for just 6 months.
- The Mexico+Taiwan+Vietnam (MTV) deficit went from $124.08 billion to $201.59 in the same time frame despite the fact that Biden kept Trump’s tariffs.
- At this pace, the 2024 deficit with Mexico would hit $191.86 billion for the full year. The MTV deficit would hit $403.18 billion, and the deficit with China would be $317.56 billion.
- When Trump took office in 2017, the total trade deficit was $792 billion. When he left office it was $901 billion. It’s now $660 billion for just 6 months, and Biden continued Trump’s trade policies.
Trump Disavows His Own “Best in History” USMCA Trade Deal
On October 20, I commented Trump Disavows His Own “Best in History” USMCA Trade Deal
Nothing is Better Than Something
Not only is nothing better than something, that something is a deal Trump himself called the best deal in history.
Now Trump says no deal at all is better than the deal he negotiated.
What a hoot.
Trump’s “Art of the Deal” is hypocritical bragging and cognitive dissonance. But it will make complete sense to all his true believers.
Trump vs Frederic Bastiat: Who Is Right About Tariffs?
Previously, I discussed tariffs and the trade deficit. Let’s now discuss Trump’s ridiculous proposal to use tariffs to fund projects.
Please consider Trump vs Frederic Bastiat: Who Is Right About Tariffs?
Ignorance or a Lie?
Trump claims foreigners pay the bill. That either ignorance or a flat out lie.
US importers can either eat the cost or pass it on. In most cases it is the latter.
But foreign exporters can mask the exports by value added processes that hide the origin of the goods. This adds cost frictions as well, but at a lesser rate.
Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump-Biden Tariffs
The Tax Foundation Tariff Tracker investigates the Economic Impact of Trump-Biden Tariffs.
Please read the sobering report.
CATO on Trump’s Tariffs
For those seeking a second opinion, please see the CATO article Assessing Trump’s New Tariff Ideas
To better understand the full extent of a tariff’s cost, we need to realize that it leads competing US producers to raise their own prices. As the quantity demanded for the domestic product increases, its price is bid up by consumers until the domestic price reaches the taxed price of the foreign good. Imports will have decreased, domestic production increased, and domestic purchasers will be paying the same price for both the imported good and its domestically produced equivalent—for example, two cars of the same brand or quality produced in Germany and in the United States. This is what “protection” means: Domestic producers are protected from the lower prices of foreign competitors; the tariff is a discriminatory tax that allows them—and even pushes them—to increase their own prices to the level of the now-tariffed imported goods.
Economists have tried to forecast the economic costs of this pair of new Trump tariff proposals. Clausing and Lovely estimate they would impose on American consumers a combined cost equivalent to “at least” 1.8 percent of gross domestic product. This would amount to nearly five times the comparative cost of the 2018–2019 tariffs. Another estimate, produced by Erica York using the Tax Foundation’s general equilibrium model, is a 0.8 percent reduction of GDP. The two estimates suggest a cost on the order of 1–2 percent in terms of lost GDP, which is still conservative when we realize that they admittedly ignore many further likely consequences of the tariff shock, too uncertain to be quantified.
One such consequence is the retaliation and trade war (or other international conflicts) that would likely follow. Indeed, the government of the European Union has been working on a list of American products to hit with retaliatory tariffs of 50 percent or more if Trump is elected and goes ahead with his 10 percent across-the-board tariff.
Retaliation
Like other economists, I have previously argued that retaliation by a national state—hitting some of its own consumers with tariffs in the hope of helping some of its producers preserve a foreign market—is a bad strategy (Lemieux 2014a, Lemieux 2018). If your neighbors’ government dumps rocks in their country’s harbors to block imports, you gain nothing if your own government retaliates by dumping rocks in your country’s harbors. Yet, governments still use this absurd strategy because they respond more to the concentrated interests of well-organized producers than to the dispersed and disorganized interests of more numerous consumers.
Trump has floated other tariff ideas besides those reviewed in this article. For example, he threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on all imported cars. Imagine Americans being obliged to pay twice the price for their cars! One wonders what other protectionist ideas he may dream up.
Trump Says He Wants Global Tariffs, but Could He Actually Do It?
On October 16, CATO addressed the question Trump Says He Wants Global Tariffs, but Could He Actually Do It?
Trump, for his part, confidently claimed last month he has the legal authority to apply the tariffs without congressional consent, and his advisers are reportedly scouring the law books to justify any such actions. However, several educated observers—maybe even more educated than Trump!—have confidently disagreed with his legal analysis. In their view, it’s one thing to unilaterally apply global steel or aluminum tariffs, tariffs on half of all Chinese imports, or other security-related sanctions, but belching out tariffs on everything from everywhere is a totally different animal. And, given U.S. tariff laws’ text and intent, they’re sure that federal courts and Congress would finally put their collective foot down if Trump were to try to fulfill his promises next year.
I was once similarly confident about the institutional checks on the president’s abuse of congressionally delegated tariff powers but, needless to say, have since been humbled by seven solid years of unfettered trade meddling. Thus, my Cato colleague Clark Packard and I set out to explain in a brand new paper why anyone who thinks a 20 percent global baseline tariff is a bad idea should be at least a little concerned about a future president not only trying to implement the policy, but maybe even getting away with it too.
Under the Constitution, it’s Congress—not the president—who has the authority to implement tariffs. Under Article I, Section 8, the legislative branch has the sole power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to regulate commerce with foreign countries. And Congress exercised this power—setting tariff rates periodically via legislation—for the first 150-plus years of the republic.
Then came Donald Trump, who exploited the system to implement unilateral tariffs on highly dubious grounds—and ones that, at least in the case of “national security” tariffs on basically all steel and aluminum from even our closest allies, defied longstanding precedent from previous U.S. presidents. The Biden administration then maintained most of those tariffs (in original or modified form) and even increased some of the China tariffs, relying on Trump’s previous abuses to do it.
History shows that Trump might abuse these laws, but surely Congress or the courts would stop him, right? Well, history also indicates that neither branch may be willing or able to check future protectionist abuses—even ones that go far beyond the 232/301 tariffs.
In Congress, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers loudly complained about the Trump/Biden tariffs and even sponsored several pieces of reform legislation. Yet Congress has taken a grand total of zero actions to actually move those or any other bills toward a floor vote.
So, Are We Screwed?
To summarize, the key issue here isn’t whether the law truly does permit a unilateral tariff action like the ones Trump is proposing, but whether the courts (mainly) would step in quickly to stop him.
How Might China Respond
There is strong doubt about Trump’s ability to cut taxes as he has proposed. That would take an act of Congress.
However, when it comes to Tariffs, Trump appears likely to go it alone.
If so, how might China respond?
Critical Materials Risk Assessment by the US Department of Energy
Please consider a Critical Materials Risk Assessment by the US Department of Energy
The US Department of Energy has placed some of the rare earth minerals we need for weapons systems, windmills, batteries, and aircraft on a critical materials list.
Nearly all of them are mined or refined in China. Yet Biden just blocked production in the US.
It takes decades to get a mine in operation so don’t think Trump can snap his fingers and get things done.
Both Trump and China (throw in the EU for good measure) are willing to retaliate.
So, how might China respond to 60 percent tariffs? How about restricting rare earth mineral exports,
The best we can hope for regarding Tariffs is that Trump’s proposals are more Trumpian bullshit like getting Mexico to pay for the wall.
Don’t count on it. The idea that Trump will raise taxes (properly counting tariffs as a tax hike) seems far more likely.
There are reasons to vote for Trump, but tariffs sure isn’t one of them.
Addendum
David Stockman has a similar post on ZeroHedge that I highly recommend.
He does an excellent job on tax and budget issues.
Please consider Trump’s 19th-Century Solution To Fiscal Disaster
Stockman concludes
“So if the Fed were to accommodate these massive Trump tariffs by running the printing presses red-hot in an attempt to compensate for lost household purchasing power, it could well trigger a burst of inflation even more virulent than that of 2021-2024.”
“Still, we can actually think of a decidedly worse scenario. To wit, perpetuation of the UniParty status quo, which is what we would get from the Washington ruling party that replaced a failing mind in the Oval Office with an empty one on the Democratic presidential ticket.”
David Stockman was a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan.
So, don’t take my word for it, instead consider CATO, Stockman, Toomey, the Tax Foundation, or any other clear-thinking person who discusses a real setup instead of believing any fool thing Trump says.
An argument can be made that tariffs will increase inflation and the cost of goods, however the taxes collected “could’ reduce an equivalent amount of income taxes to the population.
The argument against that is that equality in lowering income taxes is questionable, and even if they were lowered, would the decreases go to the same sectors facing the inflation, for net zero effect?
Further, other countries might raise their tariffs in retaliation. If so we would end up trying to compete in areas where we don’t have a competitive advantage, while losing ground in areas where we do.
Is this election the choosing of the lesser of two evils?
I’ll take the one that is pro free speech, pro less government.
How about you?
And while I’m at it, I don’t care about tariffs. Tariffs screw everybody while taxes screw only certain people.
There is absolutely NO WAY the feral income tax ends, ever. It’s one of the ways politicians reward their friends and punish their enemies and control the public. And the only one who wins in elections is the government.
Mish ironically makes a strong arguement for tariffs. Offshoring so many things has made the US weak and vulnerable to being Chinas bitch. Just because Biden is an idiot and weakens your rare earth mining doesn’t mean Trump should follow suit. Day one of Trumps admin should be to find the US vulnerabilities and give a green light to fast track rare earth mining. Skip the decade or more on NIMBY greenie court challenges and envioro studies on those sites that have no endangered species and have engineers work 24/7 to build the roads, processing plants etc to have production running in a year, not 20. Then when near autarky the US can be it’s own master and use tariffs to encourage onshoring as well as cut other taxes.
As for inflation it can be offset by enforcing the laws against price fixing and collusion both for import substitution and for things like overpriced healthcare.
I have homes in 2 countries (Australia and Egypt) and being dependent on imports is horrible as I’ve experienced what happens when the imports are unavailable and there are no local suppliers. Things get rationed, prices triple and a black market rules.
Hey Mish, the ads on the left part of the screen are blocking that section of your articles. Just an FYI.
5 star response, Mish.
The Trumplicans in the house and senate if they are successful at gutting the income tax code will feel the wrath of Wall Street the next day.
Will Powell’s FED come to the rescue as the BOE did?
Prime Minister Truss and the Gilt crises are prima facia what can happen when you screw with the plutocrats money.
Here is a thought. Impose the tariffs and put Americans back to work. To offset the inflation make comparable cuts in the inflationary government spending making it all come out even. We have offshored our jobs so that government can continue its spending spree. Sounds like a fair trade off to me…
The 49% who don’t pay income tax will start contributing. The 51% who vote for Trump will be happy for an income tax break.
There must be some limits of a free market to the benefit of the US as a whole, not just some academic thought experiment – no differently than a monopoly destroys a free market by creating new opportunity
stop exporting Nat Gas and oil
stop exporting food
stop allowing foreigners to buy up US land
stop corporations and private equity from buying residential-zoned homes
I mean, why is it that it’s so convenient to argue that a free market works when there are minimal governmental interference, but only when it benefits the company?
Clean Air Act surely cost entrenched companies money, but it also created a whole new industry and jobs that benefited all Americans.
Tariffs WILL create new US-based markets, it’s just a matter of how long it would take.
It is an assumption that other countries will merely pass on the tariff penalty to US consumers. Another possibility is they settle for lower margins. But let’s assume they pass on the tariff penalty to consumers and raise prices. Demand might go down. Rut roh.
Re “It takes decades to get a mine in operation…”
This is not at all true. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Many mines, both here and in friendly nations, for many materials, were simply mothballed when China began to undercut on prices while sacrificing environmental, safety and financial considerations.
These mines could be restarted in very little time, especially if regulations were loosened and foreign “dumping” was blocked for national security reasons.
These mines could be upgraded as well.
It’s far from clear whether the current Chinese market dominance is sustainable. China does not have a monopoly on the best mineral reserves.
There’s nothing about the situation that says we should simply give up!
Teach kids about economic theory early on so they can put it to use.
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal – Addict
Fairly big hole in the analysis done by Bankers and economists.
That is understandable as these types do not want to relinquish control from their story time.
Trump remains committed to returning the economy to people who actually produce something. This of course is a message that can not be accepted by economists and status quo politicians.
Just imagine an economy which does real things. Simply not possible for these types to wrap their heads around. No windy endless pages analysis to back up a stated belief structure.
Only common business sense based upon lifelong of producing real things.
How novel an idea, that people will get their asses in gear because they can turn a dollar without selling their soul to Bankers and bean counters (economists).
Lots of strange things are said during a campagne but anything to do with taxes will have to be voted on by Congress and we do not know its composition yet. Because of that I avoid having to speculate about them. I will say that looking at the possible Team Trump will be putting in, I think we will be in for major surprises on that side.
America needs to fire up its own factories.
O wait. They have to be built first, & the capital borrowed.
The consumer is going to be chomping at the bit with no hay for a long time.
Don’t be ridiculous. The U.S. already has factories, and in fact the U.S. produces more value than any other nation. We’re just focused on high-value items rather than bulk commodities.
Additional factories are not that hard to create, and there are a lot of existing structures that could be repurposed.
There are also millions of workers currently doing jobs that aren’t really needed, who could be much more productive and get paid a lot more in manufacturing.
“…there is always the possibility Trump is as serious as he was about getting Mexico to pay for the wall”
I think the more important point here is he was actually building the wall. This despite all the resistance from from both sides of the aisle.
… and never finished it, so the billions that went into it were gifts to his cronies. Nothing more.
“… individual income tax — which raises about half of the nearly $5 trillion in revenue that the federal government collects.”
And they think the problem is the SOURCE of this revenue?
Bingo — govt in this country is a consuming monster, cut it severely and let people get real, productive jobs…
Lol. Dave Stockman is a charlatan.
Seriously, what a ridiculous statement. Facts don’t matter to you?
Seriously man, get educated:
Former Reagan Aide Stockman Charged with Securities Fraud
NEW YORK, April 19 (Reuters) – Former White House Budget Director David Stockman would pay $7.2 million under a settlement with U.S. market regulators, who sued him and others on allegations of accounting fraud at bankrupt auto parts maker Collins & Aikman Corp [CKCRQ.UL], court documents filed Monday said.
Stockman agreed to pay $4.42 million plus prejudgment interest of $2.37 million and a civil penalty of $400,000, according to the final judgment filed in U.S. District Court in New York in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2007.
But you don’t use the word “Liar” in the headline? Like you do for Harris and Biden?
If only Ditka had not been talked out of running for U.S. Senator (R) in Illinois 2004 general election by those nicely dressed gentlemen in dark sunglasses who showed up at his north suburban door, then the last 20 years of history sure would have been a lot different. Run that one by Nate Silver.
The Biden administration spent trillions on swing states. Innovation co moved to W. PA gobbling up houses. Demand for highly skilled CMU and other colleges workers is high.Those industries are protected by tariffs. Many of them are German or other European co. Some from CA : federal money pour in, great talents and tariffs. PGH days on the market and new listings are the lowest in the country.
Biden knocked of Trump before Obama coup attempt !
JD Vance will dominate the Trump administration. A vote for Trump is a vote for Vance.
Very true, especially around the investment in the Strip District.
As Mish is saying here: TARIFFS are a tax and a bad idea in an inflationary Economy. AS IF WE NEED HIGHER COSTS on goods that are imported?
If the front end of the yield curve will be under the CPI, thanks to CL, while demand for highly skilled workers is high, along with tariffs and lower tax rates ==> the economy will thrive and gov debt will shrink if the gov is fully committed to cut spending, a semi libertarian gov, like financing a war with Iran.
Trump’s first term should provide anyone with all the evidence needed. Reducing income taxes and increasing tariffs is the way to go. You want to ignore reality and live in hypotheticals, that’s your problem.
You think it really matters at this point?
If the U.S. needs money they just print it. If they can’t pay it they go to war and default (on the lives of millions of dead humans).
The only reason the U.S. has an economy is because they launder it through the military industrial complex by paying 1,000 x what it should cost to produce basic weapons. And then those companies double and triple charge for the same items until they get caught and say; “oh, my mistake, sorry” then never pay it back.
Look at the worthless bonds over hundreds of years framed on peoples walls.
The number that comes after a trillion is a quadrillion, which is represented as 1 followed by 15 zeros: 1,000,000,000,000,000.
BRICS nations are going to be 40% backed by gold.
40% of 1 quadrillion is like 400 trillion which is probably about 40 years.
In my estimates one cup of coffee should cost $32.43 U.S. dollars per cup in about 31.74 years
Yes.
Y = e to the power of x
Both Keynes and Stockman understood that and to not be at the wrong end of the hockey stick curve, “…in the long run…”.
No : they can raid your bank account
Yes, but the average worker will be making $320/hr, so $32.43 won’t be that much. Welcome to inflation.
It doesn’t work that way, currency debasement is a sign of sickness associated with a declining standard of living. No fiat currency has ever survived. They always go to zero purchasing power. The post WWII Hungarian Pengo appears to hold the record, it got to sextillion (1 followed by 21 zeroes) Pengo bills before it gave up the ghost and assumed it’s rightful place in history.
They don’t print it, they borrow it with interest due. Essentially: “We have to borrow more to pay off the debt.” If they stop, the whole thing implodes. Too stupid to be stupid. Watch “Hidden Secrets of Money” episode 4 on how dollars are created, between the Fed and the banking system it’s mind-blowing.
If he is interested in keeping American jobs, here’s a simple proposal. Any American company closing plants and sending their production to another country is restricted from importing that production back into the US. If they sell that production in the new host country or into any other country, they pay a fine of 50% of the sale. Also, for every job sent to another country, the company owes a fine of $1 million payable to the employees affected. And that fine is received tax free and not deductible by the company. No need to impose tariffs.
Did Warren Buffet have a plan 25 or so years ago?.
A second term prez, if he wins, will not give a hang about taxes or inflation or taxpayers or war or prices or anyone. He will not be back for a 3rd term. This is of course assuming he doesnt declare a national emergency in 2028 and refuse to leave the White House in the interest of national security and the safety of US citizens/babies who cant live without him. Dictators never leave, and they dont care about anyone but themselves.
Right. He didn’t leave in 2020….oh wait.
I do remember that fateful January when I thought he really was gonna fly off to Saudi Arabia, or somewhere that wouldnt extradite him, and live off whatever money he had left to avoid prosecution. And then, he didnt.
SCLB: “This is of course assuming he doesn’t declare a national emergency in 2028 and refuse to leave the White House …”
Mish: SCLB Please get an “I Have TDS” button and wear it proudly.
These will be collectors items when Trump loses bigly!
Took me a full minute to figure out who SCLB was. 🙂
I agree most of Trump’s terrible ideas won’t get through Congress. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney will still be in the Senate as well. The tariff stuff does worry me though. Economic populism is a bad recipe. Many stark examples just to the south in Lat Am.
Here’s a good Harris/anti-Trump ad:
Lincoln Project? Those weirdo groomers?
You have an odd fixation with pedophilia….
Isn’t that what has been going on for the last 3+ years?
Oh, that tax cuts on rates, that was Trump
There’s a broader critical discussion by David Stockman on ZeroHedge today. His conclusion isn’t cheerful:
Trump’s 19th-Century Solution To Fiscal Disaster | ZeroHedge
The 2017 Trump tax cuts are due to expire next year. If not renewed, taxes will jump several percent to match what they were in 2016. That will be a tax increase. If Trump (and Congress) renew the cuts, Trump will have maintained the lower taxes. So any tax increase you think will be coming, might simply keep taxes where they were in 2016. Tax Cut + Tax Increase ~ same taxes as in 2016.
Not for the wealthy… their tax cut is permanent.
Funny how that worked out…
No bashing the Don 😡😡😡😡
Is it the United States or American Empire? In the empire one is a subject. The over financialized, debt burdened, third world shift to manufacturing all point to Empire. Its time to shit can the Empire.
It will be a negotiation like anything else. Nothing set in stone.
Then surely you must believe the same thing re: Harris economic proposals, yes?
Shes been in office for 4 years and she said she’d change nothing Biden did. Her words
Uh huh. I thought so.
Yes, her proposals are bullshit. Her intrinsic leftist impulses, however, remain the same as when she was in San Fran. She’s probably trying to impregnate her husband Doug. He’s going to beat the shit out of her if she loses. (Hope I’m not offending any Lincoln Project paintywaists.)