The conversation

Business & incomeExperience excerpt · English

When I learned of the blanket tariffs being imposed on everything imported into the US, I think I …

… When I learned of the blanket tariffs being imposed on everything imported into the US, I think I knew what I was seeing-- this was a National Sales Tax in disguise . This was an attempt to fund the federal government off the backs of people, who will at the very least pay 10% more for everything they buy. The big lie was told-- that this was an emergency necessary correction for an ongoing American-life-threatening international trade imbalance. But the real lie was bald-faced, right there in front of us-- everybody was going to have to pay more for everything , because this was, and is, a new tax. I think there's a slim chance the Supreme Court may not even issue a decision addressing the legality of the president's impertnent array of tariffs. Although two full months have passed since oral arguments were made before the court, we may have an even longer wait for a decision, because it sure looks like John Roberts and company can't find/manufacture a reason to uphold/allow the president's seizure of tariff power. They have demonstrated a preference for empowering the president. …

Original discussionDrugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure130 source comments · at import
2

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

CK

Why is the supreme-court slow-walking the tariff decision which is crystal clear as lower courts clearly demonstrate only Congress can set taxes/tariffs? It would end inflation within 90 days Even their silly 15% tariff fallback law abuse would be more sane than the 50-150% currently Next few years is going to be insanity

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 2

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

TZ

> Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally" I'm not sure what you mean by "socially backwards". "Regressive" and "progressive" are terms of art in tax law and theory. A tax is regressive if people with less income pay a higher percentage of their income toward that tax than do people with more income. Progressive is the opposite. Sales taxes are regressive because most people with lower income necessarily spend a higher percent of their income than most people with higher income, and so even if a sales tax is the same percentage of the sale price of items lower income people end up spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax.

Full original
AN

> Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, That's not what "regressive" means in the context of taxation. A "regressive tax" is one that takes a successively higher proportion of your income/wealth the poorer you are, while a progressive tax is one which takes a higher proportion of your income/wealth the richer you are. This is standard vocabulary in economics.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.