pull down to refresh
155 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xIlmari 13h
Look at them yuuuuuge profits! Best profits! Only the greatest profits!
Why would you want to come back to those piddly sub-5% profits!?
On a more serious note, like I said elsewhere (#872224), if you want to start making a dent into the massive public debt (which is not going to magically go away), Treasury needs to start turning a profit. I don't think cutting out a massive source of revenue is conducive to that goal.
reply
9 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 12h
People are mid-curving this trying to square the circle around revenue and the debt, particularly irksome in Bitcoin where we know you can't taper a ponzi.
This is a currency war.
Gutting the fed is offsetting the income tax and slowing the print relative to foreign currencies, which strengthens the dollar against other fiats. The tariffs further slow the export of dollars, which is a big problem for the rest of the world who's debt is largely denominated in those dollars.
This will create a global debt crisis and defacto jubilee that crushes all other fiats in a necessary step toward Bitcoinization as I've been saying for some time. Dollarization via stablecoins is another prong in this attack.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xIlmari 11h
There are no Marks, Francs and Liras anymore. Are you suggesting the first shots have already been fired? 🤣
reply
9 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 11h
The hunters become the hunted
reply
49 sats \ 21 replies \ @Undisciplined 15h
I've never seen that graph before.
The questions that are going to hang people up is whether it's possible to replace that much revenue with tariffs and, when they realize it's not, how high of sales taxes will they have to pay.
How are Canadians taking the new 25% tariff rate?
reply
41 sats \ 1 reply \ @Jer 6h
You'd think it was end of days, based on the news coverage. Our premier in Ontario said a couple weeks ago this will mean 500K job losses in Ontario alone.
I've stopped trying to understand Trump. It's clear he, or his handlers want something. Why not just say it? I've heard 2% GDP on defence. I've read increase border security. Who knows?
My sats are on some type of Euro-style unified North American currency.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6h
With Trump, that Euro-style currency will be the dollar.
What makes the most sense to me is that it's about border security.
reply
41 sats \ 18 replies \ @kr OP 14h
I think the big assumption is that revenue must stay at 15-20% of GDP, tariffs won't cover that alone. But maybe a smaller government with less revenue is the direction the US is heading in.
Too early to know how Canada will react to the tariffs, I suspect things will just get more expensive in the coming months.
reply
89 sats \ 17 replies \ @Undisciplined 14h
Obviously, I would love a smaller government that absorbs less revenue, but entitlement reform is the only way to make a real dent and that's not even being discussed.
reply
66 sats \ 8 replies \ @freetx 14h
True, but the largest single line item is either interest on debt or defense, both of which could be brought down significantly by firing 80% of federal workforce
I don't mean their salaries consume that much, but their actions do.
reply
30 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 14h
Defense is even more of a non-starter than entitlements, though.
The workforce reduction messages from the Trump administration have indicated that there will be increased military personnel.
reply
65 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 14h
Hopefully less wars = less spending
view all 1 replies
6 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 13h
Medicaid is a handout not entitlement
view all 3 replies
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13h
Medicare
Social Security
Medicaid
Defense
Interest on debt
Not necessarily in this order
reply
24 sats \ 7 replies \ @Bell_curve 13h
We can make cuts in Medicaid. For instance stop covering pregnancies. I know Ron Paul delivered babies but Medicaid should not
reply
9 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 13h
I'm on board for any reductions in any of these programs.
I haven't heard any serious proposals to do so, though.
reply
36 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 11h
politically, Medicaid is easiest to cut
view all 5 replies
39 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 13h
goddamn long experiment...
reply
94 sats \ 4 replies \ @Aardvark 14h
Either way, we need to drastically reduce government spending.
reply
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 11h
Yeah, this would only work if spending were cut drastically and I don't see that happening.
reply
65 sats \ 2 replies \ @Aardvark 11h
A boy can dream...
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 11h
I do tire of constant virtue signaling by anti-gov types (people I agree with) when anyone expresses anything positive that is happening. Just this conversation happening is incredible.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8h
Nuts
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 14h
Tariffs are "not enough" to cover large offsets from decreasing income taxes https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/can-trump-replace-income-taxes-tariffs
And in addition, since income taxes are very progressive (the more you earn the higher the percentage you pay) and tariffs (which are basically consumption taxes) are NOT...
Replacing income taxes with tariffs is VERY regressive taxation, lowering tax rates on high-earns dis-proportionally while increasing them on everyone based on what they buy a little.
While I personally would benefit more from this is this actually what the American people voted for??? To lower tax rates on high-earners while taxing everyone more especially if they shop at Walmart?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8h
Tariffs are not enough. We would need excise and a federal consumption tax to replace income tax
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8h
I only read the introduction summary
I remember Mike Huckabee pitched this in 2008 or 12
https://www.npr.org/2007/12/13/17209388/huckabee-whips-up-debate-with-fair-tax-plan
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/us-consumption-tax-vs-income-tax/
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8h
There was no income tax before 1913. There was no federal reserve bank before 1913.
Social Security was created in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid started in 1966 or 67.
I think what Trump means to say is a consumption tax to replace income tax. In addition to tariffs and excise taxes
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @iguano 14h
it looks like 3 - 5% tariffs were the norm.
we are now being rape.
reply