President Donald Trump announces 5% tariff on all goods from Mexico

Jul 2018
2,287
558
Earth
Didn't any of the dummies in Washington tell PODS trump that a lot of US government uniforms are made in Mexico? So, the government ends up paying more for things that it has outsourced to Mexico. Your taxes are going to go up to pay the tariffs.

Why ‘Made in America’ Is Stitched Into the Law, but Not the Uniforms
"So it might come as a surprise that the uniforms of those Secret Service agents that protect and surround him every day are probably made outside the United States, most likely in Mexico.

As a result, over roughly the past three years, more Secret Service uniforms have been made in Mexico than in any other country — including the United States. The same goes for uniforms procured for Transportation Security Administration workers. The majority of uniforms for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are also made outside the United States, in countries like El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico and Cambodia."
Why ‘Made in America’ Is Stitched Into the Law, but Not the Uniforms
 
Dec 2015
17,352
16,339
Arizona
Had a feeling that question might demonstrate who's lacking a clue.

Do tell. How does increasing taxes increase wages?
That's not what Goober said and you know it. As usual, you were baiting---hoping for that particular response so you could play your ACE and your ACE turned out to be a deuce.
Corporate revenue has dropped over 31%. Why? Go ahead. Tell us WHY tax revenues have dropped so dramatically.
Though business profits remain healthy and the economy is strong, total corporate taxes are at the lowest levels seen in more than 50 years. WHY?
 
Dec 2018
3,350
980
New England
That's not what Goober said and you know it. As usual, you were baiting---hoping for that particular response so you could play your ACE and your ACE turned out to be a deuce.
Corporate revenue has dropped over 31%. Why? Go ahead. Tell us WHY tax revenues have dropped so dramatically.
Though business profits remain healthy and the economy is strong, total corporate taxes are at the lowest levels seen in more than 50 years. WHY?
Clara, take a breath and read a bit more slowly.

I asked "What do you think has caused the slower [wage] growth?"
Goober's answer: "Taxes are too low, the after tax rate of return on investment is too high. That's what destroys an economy."

So yes, that's exactly what goober said; he's claiming that lower taxes lead to lower wages, thus higher taxes would raise wages. I'm simply asking him to explain himself, and especially so after his "you don't have a clue" shot at me.

As for you questions, would you please rephrase them in a way that makes sense. I've the slightest idea what you're trying task.
 
Jul 2014
14,938
9,156
massachusetts
Clara, take a breath and read a bit more slowly.

I asked "What do you think has caused the slower [wage] growth?"
Goober's answer: "Taxes are too low, the after tax rate of return on investment is too high. That's what destroys an economy."

So yes, that's exactly what goober said; he's claiming that lower taxes lead to lower wages, thus higher taxes would raise wages. I'm simply asking him to explain himself, and especially so after his "you don't have a clue" shot at me.

As for you questions, would you please rephrase them in a way that makes sense. I've the slightest idea what you're trying task.
Nat, it's economics, why don't look at growth from 1930 to 1980, when taxes were much higher, and government benefits were much higher, and compare that to 1981 to the present.
Why during the period 1930 to 1980, do wages increase and the concentration of wealth decreases?
Why during the period 1981 to the present , does the rate of wage increase decrease as the concentration of wealth increases?
 
Dec 2015
17,352
16,339
Arizona
Clara, take a breath and read a bit more slowly.

I asked "What do you think has caused the slower [wage] growth?"
Goober's answer: "Taxes are too low, the after tax rate of return on investment is too high. That's what destroys an economy."

So yes, that's exactly what goober said; he's claiming that lower taxes lead to lower wages, thus higher taxes would raise wages. I'm simply asking him to explain himself, and especially so after his "you don't have a clue" shot at me.

As for you questions, would you please rephrase them in a way that makes sense. I've the slightest idea what you're trying task.
Okay. If I misunderstood, I apologize, but there are SOME truths here. Goober is right about a strong economy. And corporate tax cuts have NEVER increased middle-class incomes.
Economic growth doesn’t come from making the rich richer; it comes from making the middle class and working people generally stronger. When President Bill Clinton hiked taxes, the economy boomed. When President George W. Bush slashed taxes, the economy ultimately collapsed.
Obviously, the trickle down theory hasn't worked. It's a con and here's how it works: If we can get you to believe these three things—that if you raise taxes on the rich, we’ll refuse to invest; that if you regulate corporations, they’ll be less competitive; and that if you raise the minimum wage, we’ll hire fewer workers—then you will accede, to some degree or another, to a 1 percent–enriching trickle-down agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of the powerful, and wage suppression for everyone else. Yet despite these claims, what you’ll never get from trickle-down is faster growth and better jobs. Because economic growth doesn’t come from making the rich richer; it comes from making the middle class and working people generally stronger.
If we want a stronger middle class, we need to 1) Raise the minimum wage. 2) Offer incentives to our employees--overtime work and pay, better benefits, bigger discounts. 3) Offer universal healthcare and lower prescription drug prices 4) Offer more tax credits to middle-class Americans. 4) Raise taxes on the wealthy and their corporations 5) Create more tax brackets-not fewer--and sock it to the 1%.
All these things put MORE MONEY into middle-class families. It may not be classified as "wages" but it boosts their buying potential and that's what we're after.

Tax the rich to put money back in the hands of the American people through middle-class tax cuts, and corporations will expand production and payrolls to meet the resulting spike in consumer demand. Tax the rich to invest in roads, transit, bridges, health care, schools, and basic research, and we will create millions of better-paying jobs.
 
Likes: RNG
Dec 2018
3,350
980
New England
Nat, it's economics, why don't look at growth from 1930 to 1980, when taxes were much higher, and government benefits were much higher, and compare that to 1981 to the present.
Why during the period 1930 to 1980, do wages increase and the concentration of wealth decreases?
Why during the period 1981 to the present , does the rate of wage increase decrease as the concentration of wealth increases?
Take a stats course, goober. Correlation is not causality. There are other reasoned arguments to make that explain why wage growth was higher then than now.

We can start with the basics of supply and demand. There were far fewer workers available for good paying jobs back then. Women and minorities were effectively excluded from the work force for all but certain, lower paying jobs. Add to that the availably of off-shore labor over the last two decades; with information technology, managers need not be in the same physical location as those they manage. In short, the glory days of wage growth you describe was a time when employers had their choice of domestic, white men. Shorter supplies (of labor) mean higher prices (wages).
 
Dec 2018
3,350
980
New England
Okay. If I misunderstood, I apologize, but there are SOME truths here. Goober is right about a strong economy. And corporate tax cuts have NEVER increased middle-class incomes.
Economic growth doesn’t come from making the rich richer; it comes from making the middle class and working people generally stronger. When President Bill Clinton hiked taxes, the economy boomed. When President George W. Bush slashed taxes, the economy ultimately collapsed.
Obviously, the trickle down theory hasn't worked. It's a con and here's how it works: If we can get you to believe these three things—that if you raise taxes on the rich, we’ll refuse to invest; that if you regulate corporations, they’ll be less competitive; and that if you raise the minimum wage, we’ll hire fewer workers—then you will accede, to some degree or another, to a 1 percent–enriching trickle-down agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of the powerful, and wage suppression for everyone else. Yet despite these claims, what you’ll never get from trickle-down is faster growth and better jobs. Because economic growth doesn’t come from making the rich richer; it comes from making the middle class and working people generally stronger.
If we want a stronger middle class, we need to 1) Raise the minimum wage. 2) Offer incentives to our employees--overtime work and pay, better benefits, bigger discounts. 3) Offer universal healthcare and lower prescription drug prices 4) Offer more tax credits to middle-class Americans. 4) Raise taxes on the wealthy and their corporations 5) Create more tax brackets-not fewer--and sock it to the 1%.
All these things put MORE MONEY into middle-class families. It may not be classified as "wages" but it boosts their buying potential and that's what we're after.

Tax the rich to put money back in the hands of the American people through middle-class tax cuts, and corporations will expand production and payrolls to meet the resulting spike in consumer demand. Tax the rich to invest in roads, transit, bridges, health care, schools, and basic research, and we will create millions of better-paying jobs.

Well, let's start with your ideas on minimum wage. Why do you think raising the price of a service (in this case, labor) will not lead to people buying less of that service? Do price increase have no effect on your purchasing behavior?