Tariffs will raise $700 billion a year in revenue

I'm not sure that you know what "irony" is, based on this post. But let's see if you could generate complete thoughts rather than simply incorrectly using a word. Perhaps, you could start by figuring out how he gets to $700 billion per year in revenue.

 

Well, in his defense, no one said there would be math.

 

Does MAGA still not comprehend this is essentially just money coming from US consumers? How many times does this have to be explained? Did they all fail Economics?

 

Yup, I could read the headline. But not post in correct thread

Like a catch 22. Do we celebrate the win absent details or can we ask questions. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Well I’ll be damned.

Looking at it, probably LNG and maybe crude if we have excess. There was a 2024 article where the EU proposed to Trump they could start purchasing LNG from US vs Russia. The EU also had a 22 resolution to start moving away from Russia as an Energy Supplier. No idea where that landed.

The EU was also starting to move away from US as a armament supplier (or maybe thinking about making noise about it) and to get more independence/ self reliance. This would seem to have paused as part of this deal is arms. Who knows if the other goods tariffs get waived in a week or two or are permanent.

As to investment? No details worked out yet. Could end up being arms or baguettes for everyone.

 

even if your math is correct, that amount would basically offset the additional debt burden of OBBBA. So Trump will basically get to approximately the same deficit numbers if OBBBA never passed, and tax rates reverted to 2017 levels.

Now I’d argue that is a terrible trade off - decreased income taxes - mostly on the wealthy and paid for it with moderately higher prices and $1 trillion less health care for the poor over a decade

In some ways the tariffs resemble a consumption tax, but mainly on imports.

I don’t agree with the prioritization, or the haphazard way this has all come about but from a macro perspective it may not be all that significant net/net.

One other risk is that the tariffs either have to raise prices or decrease profits. Evidence so far is they are mostly decreasing profits. If that persists lower earnings could eventually make stocks with nose bleed valuations more precarious.

 

Long term, Trump may have unwittingly accomplished two things:

1. Put a fork in the “No new taxes” tax pledge that has ruled the R party ever since GHWB made his infamous “read my lips” statements.

2. Opened the door for a future consumption tax. Realistically the only ways make a dent in deficits is with something like a VAT. It’s unlikely we can raise income taxes enough to make a serious dent.

 

I remember when we talked about corporate taxes here and conservatives argued that they were 100% passed on to customers and that was bad (might as well have no corporate taxes they would say), so it seems like we killed that argument against corporate taxes too, since raising revenue with tax-fueled higher prices apparently is no longer bad for business.

 

I remember those days too. Back before the upside down.

 

that was always me. why I've always said corporate tax rate should be zero. Corporations don't pay taxes. Customers do. Tax income/wealth/VAT, whatever you want. Corporate taxes are a waste of everyone's time.

 

Tariffs are essentially a consumption tax, and whether or not the business chooses to eat the cost, or pass it on partially or fully to consumers, it’s still paid by Americans.

I don’t know how they can in good conscience tout tariff revenue as if it’s coming from foreign countries, but based on this thread, their base actually believes this.

For those that say the intention is to bring back jobs, there are infinitely more consumers who will now pay more than there are potential job gains (mostly low wage at that).

And if you think for a second that American companies aren’t going to use tariff inflation to raise their own prices (just a little lower than the foreign product), you’re naive as hell.

Even if another administration comes in and reduces these tariffs, prices won’t go down since companies know consumers will now pay the higher prices.

 

Happy to engage in economic discussion. First question. Since it’s part of 100% of democratic tax policy discussions. Can you please quantify fair share? I’ll hang up and listen.

 

Fair share is debatable. One thing that isn't is tariffs cause inflation. Proctor and Gamble today announced a price increase today to offset the expected $1 billion in extra tariffs they will be spending.

Whom is this going to hit harder? Lower classes who spend less on P&G products? One argument says no, because they are spending less, therefore they pay less in taxes. However, look at percentage of a household's budget, lower classes spend more of their budget on common P&G products. Therefore, this tariff induced price hike will hit them harder.

What's a "fair share?" If there was a perfect formula, we would have found it by now. But tariffs? The are consumption taxes on everyday products. They are regressive in that lower classes pay a higher percentage of their relative income to the tax. And anyone want to argue that's fair?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

so your answer is no you can’t quantify it. Thank you for your call.

 

Correct. There is no magic formula number, and people have been debating fair share of taxes since the inception of taxes. Now, answer my question. Is a tariff that causes prices of everyday items such that P&G sells that will be regressive considered fair?

 

Fair share of what? I'm not a Democrat and am not tied to any tax policies of theirs.

 

Lol! Explain it again. I haven't seen it, but ill be happy to take a few swings at your pinata...

...let the candy rain down...

 

Read the link about Proctor and Gamble raising prices on a large number of their products because they expect to pay an additional $1 billion in tariffs next year. Really think P&G is going to eat $1 billion in profits? Or, are they going to raise prices, like they did, and pass the costs to the consumer, who are now paying higher prices?

 

Democrats are pissed that we aren't screwing our own producers in favor of the Euros, Canadians, Mexicans, et. al., bc they really enjoy looking groovy to their exotic Euro Frenchy sophisticate snobs in high society...

...and looking down their sbob noses at working class Walmaet shopping 'murican deplorable fellow countrymen...

They still haven't figured out why their ... party is watching the Great American come back parade from the cheap seats...

LOL(osers)!

 

Short term sting, vs long term health.

When a smoker quits smoking, they're miserable, and their health even faces short term problems due to the shock to the system. Then they start to reap the benefits of severe reduction of ingesting carcinogens, and no longer being enslaved to their habit.


Heres a small taste of whst awaits beyond the DT's:


TRUMP EFFECT: A Running List of New U.S. Investment in President Trump’s Second Term

New U.S. Factories Announced in March 2025 - IndustrySelect®

https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insi...ing-renaissance-drive-new-era-prosperity.html

 

Here is a very very simple explanation. And this is a true story. My price of dumpsters went up from steel.

My cost of goods sold goes up because of tarrifs. So I raised my prices to customers. The customer pays the increased price (tarrifs) .