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
making a dent into the massive public debt
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
The hunters become the hunted
reply
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
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
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
entitlement reform
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
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
Trump administration have indicated that there will be increased military personnel.
Hopefully less wars = less spending
Medicaid is a handout not entitlement
Medicare Social Security Medicaid Defense Interest on debt
Not necessarily in this order
reply
We can make cuts in Medicaid. For instance stop covering pregnancies. I know Ron Paul delivered babies but Medicaid should not
reply
I'm on board for any reductions in any of these programs.
I haven't heard any serious proposals to do so, though.
reply
politically, Medicaid is easiest to cut
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
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
Tariffs are not enough. We would need excise and a federal consumption tax to replace income tax
reply
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