Limited Legal Authority:
The President's power to directly control business practices is limited. They cannot impose penalties or fines for raising prices, nor can they legally require companies to absorb tariff costs.
The President cannot dictate the prices that businesses charge their customers.
16 comments:
All he needs is the guilibility of the people and timidity of the courts to inculcate the electorate into believing his bulls**t.
And, if I might say so, he's been very effective in using his gift to fundamentally change the nation in a very disgusting way.
But he can ask. Tariffs will result in price increases just as taxes do. What is your solution to our mounting debt the we are going to saddle our grandchildren with. It is not to cut spending or waste but you are all in favor of raising taxes for businesses and all those who pay federal taxes. You are in favor of products we sell to other countries having a huge tariff but when they sell to us there should be little.
skud, it is you and your ignorance party that is most responsible for the explosion in the national debt. A serious, unbiased analysis of the nation's debt and its trajectory since Saint Ronnie bears this out.
So, if your serious about reducing the national debt and controlling deficits stop voting republican/tRumpublican.
Continuing to do the same things over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. And republicans/tRumpublicans are expert at it.
Stop lowering taxes while giving massive tax breaks and loopholes for corporations and the wealthy. A return to the tax structure under President Dwight David Eisenhower would be a great start.
A nation must be willing to pay for what it demands just like individuals. Tax revenue is how you do that.
Skud asked the pertinent question regarding the debt... "What is your solution..."
This is a question I've asked many times and have yet to get a serious, workable solution from anyone. It always makes me wonder why.
Here's my solution Skud...
Step 1... All government cabinets must cut spending 5%. Their departments can make the decisions. Not cut the rate of growth, but actual cuts.
Step 2... Fund the IRS at whatever levels, probably close to or above the Biden levels, to increase our tax receipts. Audit 5% of all returns reporting over 10 million in income.
Step 3... Move the Social Security tax maximum amount to $250.000 for individuals and $400.000 for couples so as to firm up that important entitlement program.
Step 4... Subject 5% of large earners, those making over 10 millions annually, to annual audits.
Step 5... Set all net capital gains at a 20% tax rate and lower the exclusion rate on inheritance taxes.
Step 6... Tax all annual earned income above $1 million at 65%.
Step 7... End all the crazy deductions [like for luxury yachts] , carried interest, off shore tax deductions, etc. All wage earners, whether they earn 10k a year or 100 million a year, play by the same rules. All earners pay something in our graduated system.
Most of these reforms have been proposed, or have been part of our tax system over the years. Years when our budget was mostly balance and US infrastructure was being built. The admins run the gamut from FDR to Obama, Dem and Rep alike.
However, the post 1980 rush to cut taxes has robbed government of the money it needs to provide for the common good of all Americans, at the level a majority of us expect.
Is my list perfect? I doubt it. But as I've got a busy day today, I won't even respond to anyone who carps about it without also presenting a serious attempt to provide a solution.
I wouldn't be too sure...
I stopped suggesting solutions long ago. Because there actually exits few conservatives that care anymore. Sure, they bullsh*t about it, always with the meme about spendthrift liberal democrats bankrupting the country. Then when they are in charge they go about exploding the debt and running massive annual deficits.
They are NOT serious people. Haven't been fir at least 45 years if not longer.
So, I simply no longer offer sh*t because they are not serious people.
I rest my case.
Dave,
Great ideas.
I'd add dismantling Homeland Security and the DEA.
And how about raising the cap on Social Security to where Billionaires pay the same rate as the rest of us?
Social Security should never have had a max contribution cap and a wise government would immediately remove it.
Great additions to the list Dave D.Both the DEA and Homeland Security are negative energies of unnecessary control over the lives of folks. Both were knee jerk reactions to unfortunate circumstances that could have been addressed more effectively and without criminalizing people.
But conservatives love ultimate and total control.
Especially under tRump.
Good ideas Dave and I agree with most of what you posted. Your solution to budget cuts are far more acceptable than the current hatchet approach. It is easy to say oh it is the republicans or democrats who are responsible but the facts is it is the politicians who are responsible for the mounting debt. They spend whatever they want to appeal to their base.
SS should be paid on dollar one with no ceiling but doing that would mean increasing payments for high payers.
Why do you want to punish people who earn above one million. Go to a fixed rate and they will pay more. Eliminate all deductions be it a yacht, off shore accounts, charities and deduction for interest/taxes on property.
Sadly Les, I tend to agree with you. Most ppl are far to interesting in "owning" someone or scoring useless political points, as opposed to doing the hard work of actually thinking.
Dave, I had a higher cap on Social Security. Everyone pays the same percentage, by law, up to a certain point. Maybe it would be best to eliminate all caps and simply say, you get paid, you pay your share on Social Security, no matter how much you make.
i could live with that.
Skud, you see it as punishment, I see it as good policy. Under Ike, our country moved ahead, our infrastructure was built, the GI bill made it possible for US suburbia to be built and water, electric and natural gas was sent to rural America.
Though a 90% tax rate on millionaires.
Were they being punished or was Ike being wise and instituting a "to whom much is given, much is expected" viewpoint?
All studies on the "flat tax" beloved by many, shows it is a net drain on the US tax system. Because we'll never get close to the 22-25% tax rate needed. Now add the 7% Social Security tax and we're up over 30% for everyone.
Let's take 2 states... Louisiana and Nevada. In both, teachers make about 55K a year. Using the flat tax a teacher in those states would pay in almost $1400 a month, making take home pay, before health insurance bills kick in, $3200.00.
That's a big hit under the flat tax, no deduction scenario. One that could send those families into the poor house.
If that Nevada teacher is a single parent, he or she is also paying rent. Here, that means 2K a month. Now take home pay is $1200. Utilities cost about $400 a month, bringing take home to $800. How does someone pay for a car, fuel, food, co-pays, etc?
They don't. Because they can't. But in an indexed system, log favored here in the US, and with my suggestion that everyone pays something in, that problem is solved.
Do high earners pay more? Yes they do. As they always have throughout our recent history. If someone can't live a nice life on 83K a month, they've got big problems.
We built the best country in the world, the envy of the world, on high taxes on millionaires. They're millionaires because of the opportunities here, available no where else. Out fiscal policy needs to reflect that reality.
BTW all... if we take all of my suggestions and implement them, we might get the budget balanced, but headway on the debt will take years of fiscal discipline, the likes of which our leaders have not shown for decades.
Perhaps after a few years of holding tight on my plan and achieving a balanced budget, instead of a tax cut, America would support, a la post WWII, a special dedicated tax increase to retire that ongoing debt and put our financial house back in order.
But as our themes seem to always come to is this... we need serious people. In 2000, we'd had a few years of balanced budgets. Then "something" happened and we decided to return to tax cuts and deficit spending.
I'll leave it to smarter heads to determine what that "something" was but take it slow. Because when you tell a kid everything in the candy store is free, he's gonna grab a few Snickers bars, no matter what his mom taught him about right, wrong and morality.
Dave, You equate a fixed tax as being he same for everyone which doesn't make sense because of what you said. Should be a tiered fixed tax but a simple system that doesn't allow any personal deductions including RE taxes and interest, charities including church and have a simple card to pay taxes. As an example if you earn under 50K you pay 5%, 50K- 100K 10% and so on but no higher than 35%. The trend of people like AOC and bernard is to campaign against corporations and the rich while flying on a corp jet and bernard is a multi millionaire, seems hypercritical doesn't it.
Post a Comment