It’s pragmatic libertarians vs delusional ones. Between Trump and Kamala one has libertarian elements and one is a socialist, if you burn your vote on a third party who cannot win you have done less for the liberty movement than any Trump voter.
Only on r/libertarian do I still find libertarians who would rather burn their vote than stop a literal socialist from becoming their president. Massie who endorsed Trump has done more for the liberty movement than this sub combined ever will.
And Dave Smith… And a ton of other prominent libertarians… and as evidenced by the amount of the vote that chase Oliver received - most libertarians voted for Trump.
It’s only on Reddit, which is a leftist shit hole, that you get this line of thinking and chastised as “not a real libertarian” for participating in the system we have with the choices we have.
I voted for Gary Johnson, and Jo Jorgensen, and Trump for the first time this election. I’m not gonna listen to some teenage redditor or troll farm account tell me I’m not a libertarian.
You’re 100% right. I got flamed on this subreddit for stating that funding the Ukrainian proxy war was a bad thing. The democrats in libertarian clothing actually made arguments about why America as world-police good. Baffling.
Yes. Oliver was an absolutely terrible candidate for the LP to run, couple that with the implications of this election and you had most libertarians holding their nose and voting for Trump.
Can you just like define socialism real quick? Because I always see people call her a socialist, but afaik she's pretty capitalistic, can you indicate what of her proposed policies are socialist?
Capitalist? Yah the lady who wants price controls is def a capitalist. I knew yall are Democrat shills but i didn’t know y’all are straight up lefties now.
No no, you tried to provide an example of her anti capitalist policy. However price controls are not inherently socialist. So please, give me YOUR definition of socialism. Because its clearly not a widely recognized definition.
Quick update because yall are still crying (I love liberal tears). Ron Paul wanted Trump to win, Rand Paul wanted Trump to win, Millie wanted Trump to win, Thomas Massie wanted from to win, he’ll even Dave Smith brought him to the national convention. Yall are a bunch of stuck up sore losers COPE LMFAOOOOOO
I don't want to get into any excessive debates here, I am a guest on this sub after all. I just like to follow the political discourse from the full spectrum of opinions. But Harris being a socialist is just plain incorrect, a strawman.
The point is though that I'm not surprised libertarians may choose to vote for Trump over Harris, but I am surprised by the enthusiasm lots of the voters here express over it.
She holds a lot of socialist opinions and has voted in line with her views since 2017. She is quite literally one of the farthest left senators in the last decade.
You're off topic and I dont feel comfortable getting into lengthy discussions on a sub for libertarians, this isn't my space to express myself. You're more than welcome to send me a PM if you want to continue that conversation though.
Sorry man I don’t like spending any more than this on Reddit. You seem like a smart bloke, just do a lot of research, and don’t give your life to a fringe third party that’s never gonna win.
Harris is definitely further left than I want her, but she's not a socialist and Trump's ties to libertarianism are overstated.
A socialist doesn't lower taxes for the middle class. I'd rather she not raise taxes on anyone, but if we're gonna have this big government that neither candidate truthfully wants to shrink, and fund it using taxation, might as well make the people that can afford it pay for it. A socialist would also make a greater push toward universal healthcare, which she hasn't made any big pushes to do as president.
Trump's biggest two claims to libertarian fame are a) the tax cuts he did the first time around as president and b) DOGE, which we have no promise will actually do anything it claims it will do, because it has no real power. Everything else Trump promises to do is worlds more authoritarian than Kamala could dream of. A Trump presidency is tariffs and bump stock bans and ICE being the biggest pain-in-the-ass 3 letter agency in the nation.
And I realize that abortion is a pretty split issue amongst libertarians, but those who are pro choice see Trump's potential supreme court picks as generally a greater threat to liberty than a good deal of Harris's policies.
Tldr both suck, and Trump isn't some obvious choice just because he's a Republican and Republicans used to pretend to be fiscally libertarian.
Palragmatic libertarian is supporting Rand Paul's policies, someone that is not perfect but will take us in a libertarian direction. Supporting these Bernie Sanders policies because Trump advocates for them is not pragmatism
I suppose I've forgotten because most of the recent posts are either legit libertarianism or Trump Bonerism, which talking points specifically? Legitimately curious.
Because we unfortunately have a 2 party system and both of Trump's opponents are radically opposed to libertarian ideals. Trump isnt the best libertarian either but he's much closer to the ideal than Harris or Biden.
As a libertarian, it absolutely kills me to see so many “libertarians” celebrating Trumps election. I’m not saying I clearly favored Harris, because she doesn’t align with my principles either, but I consider myself socially liberal, so in that sense I preferred her. I definitely like the notion that Trumps new administration is saying they will cut government waste, but I doubt they will do this in a way that actually moves the country forward.
Either way, we’re looking at increases on consumer prices, and the continuation of funding foreign tyranny. Those points alone should make any libertarian cringe.
Yep. If I could vote on domestic policy, Kamala would be my choice. Foreign policy? Trump. I think the reality that we fail to emphasize, even in this sub, is that both choices are shitty.
Like I said, on social issues, I preferred her. On the topic of individual liberties as it applies outside of social issues (2A, etc.), fuck Harris.
It’s wild to me that I feel like there would be a similar backlash from this community for saying I genuinely preferred, and voted for Chase (there are literally dozens of us). At the end of the day, fuck Harris, fuck Trump, and I’m proud I never have, and never will vote for either of them. I don’t get how this sub has shifted so much, that there’s this pandering to the two party system.
Consumer prices and funding foreign tyranny ? From what I remember they both increased dramatically under Biden whereas they were much lower under trump. Do you just make stuff up?
You're right, Biden pushed through $14 billion to Israel, and $60 billion to Ukraine, and I'm proud to say that I didn't vote for him. It's worth noting however, that the United States has provided Israel with over $200 billion in military funding alone since it's inception. That speaks pretty highly to how all presidents, including Trump, have approached the military industrial complex in the region. If you think that is changing in this new Trump administration, you're lying to yourself. You may not consider that funding foreign tyranny, but there are millions of oppressed Palestinians that would disagree with you.
If Tariffs aren't used correctly, the ultimate result will be a negative impact on the middle-class and below. If we increase tariffs, but continue to use that money to fund foreign wars instead of investing more heavily in domestic interests, we likely will see increases to consumer prices. Admittedly, this is more speculative, and it will take years to truly reveal the impact, but the point I was trying to make, is that Trump has no more of a plan to end inflation than Harris did. I wasn't even trying to be partisan, everything I've read said that plans from both the major parties to reduce inflation were likely to fail.
Here's a source to reassure you about my truthfulness:
On a more personal note, you seem to personify the kind of "libertarian" I was referring to. I see the cabinet appointments Trump's making, and the loose promises that are floating around making it seem like we might be headed in a more libertarian direction, and it gets me intrigued. Unfortunately, I am quickly brought back to the reality of the situation we are in. We elected a billionaire, who is bringing his billionaire cronies into positions of great influence. To add to that, the billionaire in charge is a convicted felonious liar. I will not believe anything until I see these systems actually making a positive impact. The problem is, it will probably take decades to straighten itself out, and we get to risk electing someone who will roll it all back every 4 years. Call me cynical, but I have not been given reason to have faith in this political system as it stands.
I seriously doubt that Trump will do much. Trump is mostly a reaction to the system, and he's more of a salesman than a doer.
Ultimately, this is about voters and that most of them take very little interest in government or economics. They buy into the most outrageous bullshit because it sounds good, because they're not spending time thinking about it. Then when it turns out to be bullshit, they just vote for the other side, who have a different brand of bullshit. It's why libertarian politics struggles.
King George III: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King George III: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
George: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
THANK YOU. I get called crazy for being against democracy, but I don’t think 51% of the voters (or 22.4% of the country) should be able to control the rest of us under threat of violence and imprisonment.
... and in the real world, libertarians who are actually principled continue to stand for those principles regardless of who's in office, whereas those who are not principled abandon all notions of principle when a big-government Republican gets elected.
To be fair, the elected government at Westminster, rather than the king, enacted those taxes. The king had no say in the matter, as the head of state, with the possible exception that he could have withheld assent. But that was and is something rarely done.
Very rarely. And honestly, if I had to guess, this was probably legislation that was somewhat “small potatoes” in the grand scheme, at least as far as the Brits thought at the time.
What would be the point of that? I don't see how tariffs would be functionally better than income tax. Tariffs are more comparable to sales tax, so you're basically just saying you want a higher sales tax.
In the end you would probably wound up paying the same in taxes or even more. It would probably create more weird legal loopholes for billionaires to avoid paying taxes too. It would also make the cost of everything go up more too.
The thing is we'll have more money than the government takes. Income tax is a joke. They take like 200+ a paycheck over 1000 a year, then income tax time comes, and you either get 200 back or end up owing the government more money. I'd rather have that extra 400/month and pay extra sales tax. Like I'm living paycheck to paycheck being full-time with a decent paying job in my area, like the only things paying higher that you don't need a degree in are disturbing centers and factories
You do realize the only reason anyone gets money back is because you pay in extra to avoid having to worry about paying anything back, and the government returns any extra amount left over back to you, right?You can actually change your tax form so the extra taxes aren't taken out and you get more on your check, that's what I used to do when I was still employed, so when tax time came around I only got like $100 back.
Do you really think those are the only two no college degree industries that pay well or nothing pays more than those?
Idk what else to say though, if we take away income tax in exchange for tariffs, billionaires will profit more and people like me and you will pay more. I mean even bananas are imported lol.
Pretty much every single product that is made of more than one component is going to have some part of it that is imported. Unless you think every company in the US is going to completely change their supply chain while at the same time keeping prices lower than imported goods, and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
But as we saw with steel tariffs recently, domestic producers will then raise prices on their product to be very close to the tariff'd imported product.
THIS & Thank you. I forget to not open Reddit before bed because the flagrant extreme left bombardment in every single subreddit. They don’t even try to make it nuanced. It’s just constant, divisive drivel.
I need to repeat this until I fall asleep… I will not let moronic Reddit bot thoughts live rent free in my head.
Income taxes are a far more intrusive tax than a tariff. The government has to collect and keep tabs on each person's income and expenses, which is a massive intrusion into our privacy.
Really? You can't possibly imagine how it would be bad to give the government access to lots of information? The 20th century is littered with examples of governments collecting information on its citizens that it then uses to do all sorts of horrendous things to them. Hell, we just went through a COVID lockdown where the government used its knowledge and control of people's banking habits to try to silence dissenting opinions and punish politician's enemies.
But beyond privacy issues, an income tax is about the most expensive form of tax to implement due to its huge overhead cost, especially compared to sales taxes or tariffs.
To me it sounds like you just don't want the government to have any information on you. Like you don't actually care about them knowing how much you make as a specific issue, you would just rather them not know anything about you, have any information on you, tell you what you can or can't do or anything.
I think this poster, like myself, believes in a right to privacy under which the government knows the absolute minimum necessary about me.
With an income tax, enforcement and collection of the tax obviously requires the government have detailed information on my finances. I don't necessarily agree this is sufficient grounds to eliminate income taxes, but in a world where with all else being equal the government has either more or less information about me, I will close less every time
Like what? That's not even a good argument, you don't know what I buy or do or how much I make or anything. That's a very privileged and narrow minded line of thinking.
Do to income taxes what the DNC did to the border. Just stop enforcement.
Then, just like the illegals once it hits a certain point, throw your hands up in the air and say "what do you expect us to do? Arrest 40 million people?"
In exchange for 0% income tax, yes. I will be taxed much less. I mostly purchase domestic products and contribute to my local economy because I am a libertarian, I vote with my dollars.
Trumps tariffs will be put in place before income taxes are reduced (if ever). Being a "libertarian" and being ok with this is like if you're anti-war, but fall for the old "if we fight this war, it will finally bring peace". Gullible af
Ok but we’re talking about the past. It used to be that the government was funded exclusively by tariffs. There was no income tax. We are saying that the system that used to exist is preferable to today’s system. No one is talking about Trump.
Check again. This whole post is about Trump's tariffs. This comment thread is about "libertarians" embracing Trump's tariffs bc they have a fantasy that he'll eliminate income tax in the future.
He was saying that he’d rather have a 25% tariff than income tax. Which I would strongly agree with. Since you shouldn’t be spending as much as you earn, you’ll ultimately be ahead this way. Further, you can still purchase domestically produced goods at the same price. This boosts American industry and produces jobs. So yeah, I’m with that guy. Give me a 25% tariff and cancel income taxes.
I don't know why someone, if forced to make a choice, would choose to be penalized for their production (income tax) instead of their consumption (tariff). Especially when the penalty for your consumption grows proportionally larger as you produce more.
They call that the roadless time. It wasn't until income tax was invented that the entire US highway sprang into existence in roughly 4 minutes after the bill was signed.
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Iron horseshoes practically glide across asphalt, so you'd be increasing your horse's speed exponentially by creating an asphalt-covered interstate horse highway. 😜
Yes, but a personal income tax is universally agreed to be a more efficient way to generate government income. Let the economy cook, then tax the profits (personal incomes)
Tariffs double nuked the economy in the early 30s, exacerbating the Great Depression. They’re just inefficient at what they want to do.
Most big things that happen are the result of several little things. The increased price of foreign goods was something the economy could take before the Fed policies and the stock market and this and that and the other thing. Most of those things caused a recession, but it was tariffs, the fed, and the new deal that turned it into the depression we all know and love
While I agree there were many factors as the economy is extremely enormous,I believe this correlation shouldn't be ignored nor should the fact that tariffs were nothing new. People pretend that they know better because "our companies pay for it" as if Trump wasn't aware of this. Everyone knows this, it's just that the foreign entity has to reduce price to be cost competitive long term and we also can compete vs their unfair labor laws and incentives they have. We have a big, diverse country, it's usually better to produce here in the long run imo. It worked for a long time and it will again. Don't listen to political actors such as economists or people who pretend to be economists. Only listen to people who actually have to be right to keep their job.
I’m not informed enough to comment on that, but I am informed enough to know and confidently affirm that tariffs are shit economic policy whether it’s in 1929 or 2025. They weren’t great in the 1800s before the Fed either. They’re just inefficient and bad, you don’t have to blame any other stuff when strictly talking about tariffs.
Tariffs are bad, to say they exacerbated the Great Depression is a bit dishonest. Tariffs weren’t new, all of the other taxes and monetary policies were though. While not having tariffs would have lessened the blow (because they’re bad), not implementing the new taxes in the first place would have helped much more.
say they exacerbated the Great Depression is a bit of a dishonest way of looking at it.
Is it dishonest? The 1930 Smoot Hawley Tariff Act is commonly, and fairly, considered to have exacerbated the depression. It didn't cause the depression, it wasn't an overwhelming secondary force, but it was exacerbatory.
Very few people think Tariffs are inherently bad. Have you read the comments on here? Are we dealing with bots here? Also to the other guy, why do you feel you are educated enough to even presume tariffs were "nukes" to the economy that caused the great depression if you don't even know anything about how the federal reserve would impact the economy?
That would be any respected economist in the modern era. Tariffs are distortionary on the economy and in the beginning/middle of the supply chain. Income tax is an end source tax, taxing individual gains once the (hopefully as open as possible) economy has been able to generate as much wealth as possible.
Honestly, if like 1% of economists said the personal income tax was sort of okay, they’d still favor it over tariffs. Free trade is the way to a freer society. Tariffs are antithetical to that economic truth and libertarian supported ideal.
I realize personal income tax isn’t beloved by libertarians, but since that isn’t going anywhere the focus should be making sure the tax system fucks with the economy as little as possible. I’m not sure what the ideal ranking system of taxes is but tariffs are hot garbage and are near the bottom.
Not really. Here is a panel of economists asked whether steel and aluminum tariffs would benefit Americans. The answers range from no, to no. Here is a similar question specifically with regards to China, which has a much more flattering 79-6 break in the overall effect being bad vs good.
Perhaps I was slightly too mean - if you got 7% of economists to say the income tax is sort of okay sometimes, it would still be more favorable than tariffs for generating the same amount of income.
You are welcome to research this yourself. It’s as understood in economics that tariffs are toxic as it is in medicine that cigarettes are toxic. If your contribution to discussions is limited to “prove it” and “fake news” then you’re not doing your position any justice.
You're moving the goalpoast and neither of your links support your original claim that personal income tax is "universally agreed to be a more efficient way to generate government income."
I doubt a majority of economists would agree with you on that, simply because it is an untrue statement. Income tax has a much higher cost of collection that tariff taxes.
income tax having a higher burden on accountants to manage it does not mean the actual effects of the tax are worse than tariffs. I just provided two surveys in which 0% and 7% of economists believed tariffs would be beneficial to the American economy.
Here is an additional survey regarding raising the top tax rate to 70%, in which (when weighted by confidence) economists state that is a bad policy by a 63-21 margin. Surprise - they don’t like income taxes either, but they still support a doubling of the income tax at 3x the rate they supported an increase in tariffs.
I don’t care about your doubts, I feel like you read about the half a trillion or whatever in opportunity costs complying to income taxes takes and assumed nobody else knew that and it meant income taxes are secretly the worst types of taxes. For people who do this professionally it’s well understood what types of taxes are efficient (LVTs), which types suck normally (income taxes), and which types of taxes are hot garbage (tariffs). Imagine a tax being so bad that economists could support $500b/yr in lost productivity over it. That’s tariffs.
You didn't say "effects". You made a comparison on efficiency, which is usually interpreted to mean the cost of collecting the tax.
But even if you didn't mean just the cost of collecting the tax and were instead referring to the overall impact on the economy, then you still haven't provided any support for your original assertion that income taxes are preferred to tariffs simply because none of the links you provided even include a comparison between tariffs and income taxes. If you ask 100 economists whether they think raising tariffs is bad, of course 100 economists are going to agree. If you instead ask them whether they think collecting taxes via tariffs is economically more benign than collecting taxes via income tax, you're going to get a much more mixed result with lots of different opinions.
So quit pretending that your links support your original statement. They don't.
You didn't say "effects". You made a comparison on efficiency, which is usually interpreted to mean the cost of collecting the tax.
I meant the tax that generates the most revenue with the least detrimental effect on the economy. I assumed that was obvious and am sorry if you interpreted it otherwise.
If you instead ask them whether they think collecting taxes via tariffs is economically more benign than collecting taxes via income tax, you're going to get a much more mixed result with lots of different opinions.
If you’re going to discuss in bad faith then don’t discuss at all. The initial poll was regarding tariffs, in which 93-100% of economists agreed they were detrimental. The following polling was regarding a doubling of the top tax rate, which 3x as many economists (still a low number) said would not have a detrimental effect.
If in the best case (tariffs on a specific item from a specific bad actor) you have 7/100 experts saying X is fine, and in the worst case (a doubling of said tax) 21/100 saying Y is fine, you can use your own common sense to piece together that X and Y could both be bad things, but that X is worse than Y.
I think you should go and ask an actual economist why they think tariffs are better than an income tax for generating revenue without harming the economy and see how long it takes them to stop laughing before they realize you’re serious. My god. This is the libertarian sub. If a liberal and a libertarian can’t agree income taxes are less distortionary and bad than tariffs then good lord. You don’t pick a conclusion and work to justify it, you can watch any basic macroeconomics video or take a class or email a local adjunct at a community college. They’ll all tell you that tariffs are absolutely shit policy.
My first reaction is we need to heavily downsize the government, remove the income tax, and then figure out how to pay a limited amount to fund what is left of the fed. If that is via limited tariffs then so be it.
Have you guys read about a historical event in the 1930s called the "Great depression"? If you haven't, you should, before people keep advocating for tariffs.
Do you have empirical, causal evidence? Because evidence points to tariffs being the most distortionary taxes right alongside capital gains and corporate income taxes.
Right, but that's the point They are distortionary with the intention to incentivize domestic production. And yeah. You could argue it breaks the idea of competitive advantage. But there's more to a good nation than just good economics. I'd much rather us be a bit less economically efficient, but have more of our production be domestic.
Okay, but how much should taxpayers burden to onshore?
Besides, subsidies are more cost effective to induce manufacturing than tariffs, why not raise general revenues through efficient taxation (ex. Consumption taxes) and subsidize? And why is manufacturing desirable to have, why not let companies and consumers decide beyond targeted security concerns?
I think everyone kinda forgets just how fucking large the US economy is. We probably have an economy larger than the next 5 countries combined (we do looking only at GDP, but there are certain to be a number of other factors involved in that destination), we have multiple states that by themselves would be in the top 20 largest economies in the world. Even small products can get a massive gain by simply releasing in a US market. We have more to do with the rise of China as an economic super power than anything else.
Even massive tariffs don't mean much, because everyone still has to trade with us, they basically don't have a choice.
Yes, factoring in for inflation, people are wealthier today than they were in the past. The median household income in 1960 was $5,600, which is ~$60,331 in today’s money. Meanwhile the median household income in 2024 is $80,610. Over $20k more.
Here's why I'm okayish with tarrifs: I think we all agree that slavery is bad. I think we all agree that destroying the environment is bad. Tarrifs disincentivize trade with countries that significantly undercut us due to using slave labor and having a near complete lack of environmental policy.
I say tarrifs the shit out of them, outlaw the importation of any goods made in these countries, or with components sources from those countries, or stop being hypocrites and allow those practices here... I really don't want the later, but I abhor hypocrisy and NIMBYism
Internet tough guys ....I never get tired of the liberals running there mouth...jus hysterical....four years of Trump and since Democrapts can't realize why they just got mopped they ain't gonna see a presidency till maybe ....jus maybe 2036....sorry libatards u got 8 years of Vance/ Gabbard next lol
This is what you hang your hat on? Despite being taxed into the dirt by the Democrats then being driven deep into the dirt with inflation...youre complaining about tariffs that will force companies to manufacture in the United States, or to allow US products to be sold in their country, or for us to negotiate a better trade deal?!?! Posts like this lose credibility for claiming to be a libertarian
I know that this comment won’t be welcomed, but we’re not really the same boat as the founders were. Our country has become weak partly because all of our manufacturing has went overseas. I think sacrifices need to be made in order to rebuild our own self reliance. I’m sure some good American versions of scotch will arise if tariffs make it unaffordable to buy imports.
The importers aren't going to absorb the difference, it will directly go into retail pricing and if Trump gets carried away, it will also affect parts used in assembling various products and those companies are going to pass that on to every customer in the chain.
No, they don’t. They believe that American companies will see the competition’s prices rise and now be able to sell their own product at a competitive rate
That’s the entire point of these tariffs that isn’t making money for the federal government. Will it work? We’ll see
They have no incentive to do so and manufacturing domestically in the US is not competitive with current foreign manufactures - the only reason some companies made big noise with announcing US plants was to avoid tariffs the last Trump administration was dealing out and incentives, plus tax breaks. ( Most of the projects have either folded or are massively scaled down.)
Trying to boost local business and become more self-sufficient would be a wonderful thing. The employment of extraordinarily cheap labor outside of the US kinda acts as a gate for businesses in the US, where the ones who can handle shipping easily are immediately way ahead. But that’s not something just “durrr mah high tariffs” is gonna fix. That requires a comprehensive plan.
Also if the US needs more money for their self-sufficiency, maybe looking internally at the price gouging and comical amounts of money laundering and corruption would be great. Actually, I’m giving them too much credit: they don’t even bother with the laundering, they just ignore audits and any form of consequence since they just… don’t have to listen to it
Fuck, I'd pay income tax to abolish property tax. If the goverment can take my house from me because I didn't pay tax on it, it means I never owned the house, I was only renting it from the government.
I’ll one up that… get rid of the income tax and property tax, then replace that with a 3% tea tax! That should be enough money to fund the federal government to my liking.
But there is very little comparable to Scotch, American malts are virtually all overpriced underaged crap. Just like our domestic cheeses are great but not really comparable to European cheeses (no one in the US makes anything like Parmigiano Reggiano for instance). America makes plenty of great products but there are plenty of imports that cannot be replicated. And we all know there is zero chance Trump is going to get rid of the income tax, we'll simply be paying more for what will almost certainly be less actual selection.
Perhaps he will not eliminate income tax, but he will certainly lower the income tax. It's one policy plank he has been consistent on. Tariffs will not be enough to fund government on their own to eliminate the income tax, I would suspect a national VAT to also come into play. Trump however is the only Republican with the mandate to actually lower military spending, so anything is possible. Unfortunately, I am in Soviet Canuckistan so anything close to this here is a pipe dream.
When Rogan asked him about dumping the income tax, trump never answered the question, just kept meandered along. Rogan should have stayed on that until trump acknowledged that he was serious about it or doesn’t know how the income tax works.
So making Scotland pay to import Scotch causing a price bump in their already over-priced “special whisky” is the equivalent of tyranny? Ok, bud. Good luck in 10th grade next year.
I’m calling it now. He won’t do it. Legacy and image is too important to him. He doesn’t want to be remembered as the guy that made everything more expensive. It’s antithetical to his message and platform.
It's important to remember that the Boston Tea Party was over taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. We have representation in the government now. Tariffs effing suck, but this isn't the right way of going about arguing that fact.
I get why people get worried when they see tariffs. But saying "tariffs ultimately cost the customer more" is only half of the conversation.
The idea is to use tariffs as a negotiating tool. If a country charges us 200%, we're going to charge them the same 200%. The goal is for the country to eliminate the tariff placed on us. By matching the tariff other countries charge us we at least level the playing field.
They can eliminate the tariff they charge us, or reduce it. Either way, utilizing tariffs as leverage, ultimately leads to the opportunity for the customer to be charged less, with the reduction or elimination of tariffs other countries impose on us.
I can't say what exactly will happen. But after doing my due diligence and not just listening to what people say on the Internet, I at least have an understanding as to how this strategy is planned to be implemented and what the end goal is.
And just coming to the conclusion that "Republicans are pussies" is idiotic and clearly indicative of the lack of thought you've put into this topic. Maybe ask a question before you make a statement. Especially one so half witted.
Ultimately does the difference even matter if it means the consumer is paying more because of government fuckery? Either way the amount of money you have is less.
England IMPOSED a tea tax on the Colonies. It was a direct, top-down tax on the populace,
A tariff is strictly a trade tax imposed on FOREIGN entities, NOT the domestic populace.
Why is this so hard to understand?
A 25% tariff on scotch would make foreign, imported scotch more expensive - at a 25% tariff rate, it probably wouldn't be imported AT ALL. This means, in-effect, if people want scotch they will be FORCED to produce and market it domestically, with the end result likely being a cheaper product (lower logistical burden, no international trade fees) and increased domestic economic growth (new business, employed citizens, etc).
From a Libertarian perspective, yes all taxes and tariffs are to be ideally avoided. But this meme is idiotic.
if people want scotch they will be FORCED to produce and market it >domestically, with the end result likely being a cheaper product >(lower logistical burden
Not how that works, as the reason for importing is pricing wholesale is cheaper then what can be made domestically, further alcohol is a luxury item so carries with it a higher mark up.
You do not quite understand either of those situations, and while I agree taxation and tarrifs are not good, you seem to not understand the point of either of them as they were used in different situations with different goals and in only one of those situations was it meant to intentionally punish the colonies.
Sure they are different situations, but the point is valid. BTP was over a tax that they realized was punitive on the colonists. Trumpers are celebrating a tax they think is punitive on China but is actually punitive on Americans, which is fucking stupid.
The point is they are different situations as one is punitive by intent towards a specific a group, and the other is a cost to the consumer via a punitive measure on another.
Tea was also drank by essentially 100% of people in the colonies with little alternative to the same beverage, while scotch is drank by only a sub set of people that drink liquor. The domestic scotch product was also still available, while tea was effectively not a product of the colonies.
It affects far less people, and was enacted by a president elected by the people who knew he was pro tariff, meaning they elected someone that may or may not tariff one of things they purchase. That's representative.
The king taxing tea without consent of the governed to a populace where it affects almost the entire populace on a product they have no alternative to, with the intent to punish them for avoiding two other taxes, is far different than the first Trump administration imposing a tariff on the EU as punishment for them intentionally subsiding airbus.
We can be against tarriff and tax, but still need to parse the situations, especially when a meme is so broad to the point of intentional obtuseness/misinformation.
I guess I forgot that imperfect analogies are the true misinformation menace facing the country today. Would the Trumpers also have to dress up as Native Americans for the analogy to work?
No, they would have to dress as Scottish highlanders wearing kilts, and destroy a ton of imported scotch with claymores. At least keep the narrative up if you want to improperly use analogies.
I disagree with the reasoning for the tea taxes. Were they not a means of generating revenue to defray the costs of funding the French & Indian/7 Years War?
They were enacted in order to collect on a previous tax the colonists were attempting to avoid. I am sure they used the money for war, just like we do today lol.
I think its likely both are true. The king also needed to flex he still mattered and that he could circumvent any form of colonial representation if he so chose because they were not "english".
I would be curious to see how much money they actually thought they would get from the colonists.
I said this in response to another comment regarding the king:
To be fair, the elected government at Westminster, rather than the king, enacted those taxes. The king had no say in the matter, as the head of state, with the possible exception that he could have withheld assent. But that was and is something rarely done.
If you are making the “flexing” argument, it might be the government in Parliament more than the king that is trying to flex itself.
In the U.S. we tend to make it all about the king this and the king that, but in reality, this was all the government. It is a common and easy way of expression dissatisfaction with the policies of the government to being angry with the king even as the king was not involved in the making or implementing of those policies.
I am not sure about your “flex” argument but it may very well be true. One might have to go back to the debates in Parliament to make such a determination.
It has been years since I read excerpts from Edmund Burke’s arguments in Parliament from that era. He recognized, early on, the dangers of the policies being enacted and spoke against them.
What I cannot recall was when he started to speak against them and to your point, if his arguments were suggesting if there was some degree of vengeance involved or sort of flexing their muscles.
It makes rereading that material and those speeches worth the effort.
Yeah I really need to go back and read the early materials, been close to a decade since I left university and I never focused on early American history. I can tell you way too much about imperial rome though!
I made the arrogant and lazy decision to think the colonial period was not as important to my future, and yet here we are discussing the ramifications of taxes and tarrifs and how they have been a failure for centuries here, and elsewhere.
The good thing is we can go back and educate ourselves. We are never too old to learn new stuff.
I actually think the history of Rome is very important to what is occurring now. The fall of the empire can be very loosely compared to the decline of the U.S.
Pax Romana could not be sustained without inflationary policy and we know that Pax Americana is also having to be sustained in the same way and may have the same outcome.
This is a take from someone who doesn’t drink, no one drinks fucking Scotch. The people who do will pay whatever just to act like they are better than everyone else.
Also, there is a difference between a tax that applies to all tea bought in the colonies and a tariff that charges a tax only on a few specific whiskeys. Domestic whiskey will not be taxed the 25%.
To be fair i dont see really any americans as diferent. everyone's afraid of legal action against them. You protest tax with zealous destruction you pay the fine or the time. This country doesn't give a shit about us it cares about business.
LegitimateResolve522@reddit
Tariffs-taxes = apples-oranges
monkeyleg18@reddit
Tarrifs are a type of tax.
yogabbigabbi@reddit
Ya on the one’s being tariffed. The other countries.
monkeyleg18@reddit
Absolutely false.
If the USA places a 25% Tariff on Scotch, then Scotland doesn't pay it.
Importers pay it.
Let's assume Bob's liquid Mart imports his own alcohol.
He must pay for the product itself (this goes to the manufacturer) then he must pay import fees and import taxes. Then he must pay tariffs.
All of these are paid for by the USA companies, not the companies in Scotland.
If Honda USA buys steel from Japan and a tariff is placed on Japanese steel, then the US Honda branch will pay that fee.
If John Smith Bearing Corp. Buys his raw material from China but there is a tariff on it, John Smith Co pays the tariff.
China and Scotland and Japan pay nothing. They may be affected by decreased sales, but they pay no money.
Kiggzor@reddit
The replies on this post lol
As an outsider I have no idea why r/libertarian simps so hard for Donald. Y'all are weird.
NameTooCool@reddit
It’s pragmatic libertarians vs delusional ones. Between Trump and Kamala one has libertarian elements and one is a socialist, if you burn your vote on a third party who cannot win you have done less for the liberty movement than any Trump voter.
bobloadmire@reddit
Only on r/libertarian would I see someone simping for Donald over actually voting libertarian.
NameTooCool@reddit
Only on r/libertarian do I still find libertarians who would rather burn their vote than stop a literal socialist from becoming their president. Massie who endorsed Trump has done more for the liberty movement than this sub combined ever will.
headpsu@reddit
And Dave Smith… And a ton of other prominent libertarians… and as evidenced by the amount of the vote that chase Oliver received - most libertarians voted for Trump.
It’s only on Reddit, which is a leftist shit hole, that you get this line of thinking and chastised as “not a real libertarian” for participating in the system we have with the choices we have.
I voted for Gary Johnson, and Jo Jorgensen, and Trump for the first time this election. I’m not gonna listen to some teenage redditor or troll farm account tell me I’m not a libertarian.
yogabbigabbi@reddit
You’re 100% right. I got flamed on this subreddit for stating that funding the Ukrainian proxy war was a bad thing. The democrats in libertarian clothing actually made arguments about why America as world-police good. Baffling.
TheBones777@reddit
Didn't RFKjr get more votes than Oliver after asking people to not vote for him?
headpsu@reddit
Yes. Oliver was an absolutely terrible candidate for the LP to run, couple that with the implications of this election and you had most libertarians holding their nose and voting for Trump.
dillong89@reddit
Can you just like define socialism real quick? Because I always see people call her a socialist, but afaik she's pretty capitalistic, can you indicate what of her proposed policies are socialist?
NameTooCool@reddit
Capitalist? Yah the lady who wants price controls is def a capitalist. I knew yall are Democrat shills but i didn’t know y’all are straight up lefties now.
dillong89@reddit
You did not answer my question.
NameTooCool@reddit
Right because stating one of her actual policy positions isn’t an answer. Average lefty.
dillong89@reddit
No no, you tried to provide an example of her anti capitalist policy. However price controls are not inherently socialist. So please, give me YOUR definition of socialism. Because its clearly not a widely recognized definition.
Flybuys@reddit
Ok. Socialist: definition; Kamala Harris.
Check and mate!
notdez@reddit
Which party does more for personal liberty? Republicans or Democrats?
bobloadmire@reddit
Yes voting libertarian is the same as voting for Kamala, you got me good.
NameTooCool@reddit
Quick update because yall are still crying (I love liberal tears). Ron Paul wanted Trump to win, Rand Paul wanted Trump to win, Millie wanted Trump to win, Thomas Massie wanted from to win, he’ll even Dave Smith brought him to the national convention. Yall are a bunch of stuck up sore losers COPE LMFAOOOOOO
Kiggzor@reddit
I don't want to get into any excessive debates here, I am a guest on this sub after all. I just like to follow the political discourse from the full spectrum of opinions. But Harris being a socialist is just plain incorrect, a strawman.
The point is though that I'm not surprised libertarians may choose to vote for Trump over Harris, but I am surprised by the enthusiasm lots of the voters here express over it.
Push_Dose@reddit
She holds a lot of socialist opinions and has voted in line with her views since 2017. She is quite literally one of the farthest left senators in the last decade.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678
dillong89@reddit
Can you define socialism for me real quick? Because most of the policies and bills that article talks about are no inherently socialist.
Kiggzor@reddit
Again, I'm not a libertarian so I don't want to get into lengthy discussions here. You can PM me if you're actually interested in the matter.
NameTooCool@reddit
Harris is a “democratic socialist” (Bernie type) and always was until she started to right-wash a bunch of her policy stands after Biden dropped out.
Kiggzor@reddit
You're off topic and I dont feel comfortable getting into lengthy discussions on a sub for libertarians, this isn't my space to express myself. You're more than welcome to send me a PM if you want to continue that conversation though.
NameTooCool@reddit
Sorry man I don’t like spending any more than this on Reddit. You seem like a smart bloke, just do a lot of research, and don’t give your life to a fringe third party that’s never gonna win.
Kiggzor@reddit
I'm not even American lol
LibertarianTrashbag@reddit
Harris is definitely further left than I want her, but she's not a socialist and Trump's ties to libertarianism are overstated.
A socialist doesn't lower taxes for the middle class. I'd rather she not raise taxes on anyone, but if we're gonna have this big government that neither candidate truthfully wants to shrink, and fund it using taxation, might as well make the people that can afford it pay for it. A socialist would also make a greater push toward universal healthcare, which she hasn't made any big pushes to do as president.
Trump's biggest two claims to libertarian fame are a) the tax cuts he did the first time around as president and b) DOGE, which we have no promise will actually do anything it claims it will do, because it has no real power. Everything else Trump promises to do is worlds more authoritarian than Kamala could dream of. A Trump presidency is tariffs and bump stock bans and ICE being the biggest pain-in-the-ass 3 letter agency in the nation.
And I realize that abortion is a pretty split issue amongst libertarians, but those who are pro choice see Trump's potential supreme court picks as generally a greater threat to liberty than a good deal of Harris's policies.
Tldr both suck, and Trump isn't some obvious choice just because he's a Republican and Republicans used to pretend to be fiscally libertarian.
DoctorGonzoEsquire@reddit
Authoritarianism is more antithetical to libertarianism than socialism is.
Ok_Quail9760@reddit
Palragmatic libertarian is supporting Rand Paul's policies, someone that is not perfect but will take us in a libertarian direction. Supporting these Bernie Sanders policies because Trump advocates for them is not pragmatism
Roctopuss@reddit
I guess you're never around when extremely progressive talking points are heavily up voted here as well?
guehguehgueh@reddit
That literally never happens lmao
Roctopuss@reddit
Yeah I guess I've been hallucinating for the last 11 fucking years.
guehguehgueh@reddit
Feel free to find an example from the last year, any post.
LibertarianTrashbag@reddit
I suppose I've forgotten because most of the recent posts are either legit libertarianism or Trump Bonerism, which talking points specifically? Legitimately curious.
EnemyUtopia@reddit
Everyone else seemed to explain their reasoning for why they formulated their opinion, and you just call them weird. You win! Good job bro! 🤣
FIBSAFactor@reddit
Because we unfortunately have a 2 party system and both of Trump's opponents are radically opposed to libertarian ideals. Trump isnt the best libertarian either but he's much closer to the ideal than Harris or Biden.
RaptorRex787@reddit
It's cause half the people here aren't libertarian
Kiggzor@reddit
Me neither but you're probably right. Lots of them THINK they are though.
xjohnmcclanex@reddit
Oh but you, YOURE the real deal. High horse and all that
HalfRatTerrier@reddit
They literally said "me neither."
fightnagainstgravity@reddit
Republicans love to hide under the title of “libertarian”
abbadabba52@reddit
76 million people voted for Donald Trump
0 people voted for George III
Swarez99@reddit
76 million voted to increase a tax on themselves. For some reasons so called libertarians are ok with it ?
Deuce46@reddit
As a libertarian, it absolutely kills me to see so many “libertarians” celebrating Trumps election. I’m not saying I clearly favored Harris, because she doesn’t align with my principles either, but I consider myself socially liberal, so in that sense I preferred her. I definitely like the notion that Trumps new administration is saying they will cut government waste, but I doubt they will do this in a way that actually moves the country forward.
Either way, we’re looking at increases on consumer prices, and the continuation of funding foreign tyranny. Those points alone should make any libertarian cringe.
Oystercracker123@reddit
Yep. If I could vote on domestic policy, Kamala would be my choice. Foreign policy? Trump. I think the reality that we fail to emphasize, even in this sub, is that both choices are shitty.
Deuce46@reddit
Starts making it feel like France is on to something…..
For real though, the giant douche vs a turd sandwich analogy is still holding strong after 20 years
Oystercracker123@reddit
What's the deal with France? I am relatively uneducated with foreign governments.
chucklesdeclown@reddit
Me when you said you prefer Harris: brother ahhe
Deuce46@reddit
Like I said, on social issues, I preferred her. On the topic of individual liberties as it applies outside of social issues (2A, etc.), fuck Harris.
It’s wild to me that I feel like there would be a similar backlash from this community for saying I genuinely preferred, and voted for Chase (there are literally dozens of us). At the end of the day, fuck Harris, fuck Trump, and I’m proud I never have, and never will vote for either of them. I don’t get how this sub has shifted so much, that there’s this pandering to the two party system.
Fred_Sanford-2020@reddit
Consumer prices and funding foreign tyranny ? From what I remember they both increased dramatically under Biden whereas they were much lower under trump. Do you just make stuff up?
Deuce46@reddit
You're right, Biden pushed through $14 billion to Israel, and $60 billion to Ukraine, and I'm proud to say that I didn't vote for him. It's worth noting however, that the United States has provided Israel with over $200 billion in military funding alone since it's inception. That speaks pretty highly to how all presidents, including Trump, have approached the military industrial complex in the region. If you think that is changing in this new Trump administration, you're lying to yourself. You may not consider that funding foreign tyranny, but there are millions of oppressed Palestinians that would disagree with you.
If Tariffs aren't used correctly, the ultimate result will be a negative impact on the middle-class and below. If we increase tariffs, but continue to use that money to fund foreign wars instead of investing more heavily in domestic interests, we likely will see increases to consumer prices. Admittedly, this is more speculative, and it will take years to truly reveal the impact, but the point I was trying to make, is that Trump has no more of a plan to end inflation than Harris did. I wasn't even trying to be partisan, everything I've read said that plans from both the major parties to reduce inflation were likely to fail.
Here's a source to reassure you about my truthfulness:
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
On a more personal note, you seem to personify the kind of "libertarian" I was referring to. I see the cabinet appointments Trump's making, and the loose promises that are floating around making it seem like we might be headed in a more libertarian direction, and it gets me intrigued. Unfortunately, I am quickly brought back to the reality of the situation we are in. We elected a billionaire, who is bringing his billionaire cronies into positions of great influence. To add to that, the billionaire in charge is a convicted felonious liar. I will not believe anything until I see these systems actually making a positive impact. The problem is, it will probably take decades to straighten itself out, and we get to risk electing someone who will roll it all back every 4 years. Call me cynical, but I have not been given reason to have faith in this political system as it stands.
Teembeau@reddit
I seriously doubt that Trump will do much. Trump is mostly a reaction to the system, and he's more of a salesman than a doer.
Ultimately, this is about voters and that most of them take very little interest in government or economics. They buy into the most outrageous bullshit because it sounds good, because they're not spending time thinking about it. Then when it turns out to be bullshit, they just vote for the other side, who have a different brand of bullshit. It's why libertarian politics struggles.
The_Adm0n@reddit
I think you're mistaking tariffs for taxes on the people.
PissOnUserNames@reddit
King George III: You don't vote for kings. Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then? [Angelic music plays... ] King George III: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king. Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. George: Be quiet! Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
LoneHelldiver@reddit
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
Glad_Hand_7595@reddit
Yeah, yeah sums it up pretty good
EndlessExploration@reddit
As long as 51% of people agreed, it's OK to fuck me.
MangoAtrocity@reddit
THANK YOU. I get called crazy for being against democracy, but I don’t think 51% of the voters (or 22.4% of the country) should be able to control the rest of us under threat of violence and imprisonment.
trustedbyamillion@reddit
Tyranny of the majority
gumby_twain@reddit
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it!
cadencehz@reddit
Nancy? That you?
SemblanceOfSense_@reddit
1/2 People enjoy democracy
PrettyBoyToes@reddit
We're at 50/50 now people! Someone join me to put us over the top!
UuuBetcha@reddit
The quickest divorce ever is between a “libertarian” and their espoused principles once a Republican gets elected
abbadabba52@reddit
... and in the real world, there are degrees of good and degrees of evil.
Imperfect Democracy > Hereditary Monarchy
UuuBetcha@reddit
... and in the real world, libertarians who are actually principled continue to stand for those principles regardless of who's in office, whereas those who are not principled abandon all notions of principle when a big-government Republican gets elected.
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
To be fair, the elected government at Westminster, rather than the king, enacted those taxes. The king had no say in the matter, as the head of state, with the possible exception that he could have withheld assent. But that was and is something rarely done.
Teembeau@reddit
Very few people voted back then. Only in 1918 did all men get to vote in the UK. Around 40 years earlier, it was less than half of all men.
dbackbassfan@reddit
I suppose he could have exercised his power to dissolve parliament, but that was also rarely done.
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
Very rarely. And honestly, if I had to guess, this was probably legislation that was somewhat “small potatoes” in the grand scheme, at least as far as the Brits thought at the time.
SemblanceOfSense_@reddit
Fuck that. End democracy.
dn35@reddit
Yeah, let's just go back to praying the current monarch won't use their totalitarian powers to ruin the lives of their subjects.
That sounds wonderful.
analthunderbird@reddit
True. People like to forget the “without representation” part
ttandam@reddit
Everyone has forgotten how terrible tariffs are.
serpicowasright@reddit
Wasn't the entirety of early US government funded by tariffs before the income tax?
c0horst@reddit
And if Trump abolishes income tax and funds the government through Tariffs, I'll take back everything bad I've said about him.
lewis_swayne@reddit
What would be the point of that? I don't see how tariffs would be functionally better than income tax. Tariffs are more comparable to sales tax, so you're basically just saying you want a higher sales tax. In the end you would probably wound up paying the same in taxes or even more. It would probably create more weird legal loopholes for billionaires to avoid paying taxes too. It would also make the cost of everything go up more too.
QuestionerOfRandom@reddit
The thing is we'll have more money than the government takes. Income tax is a joke. They take like 200+ a paycheck over 1000 a year, then income tax time comes, and you either get 200 back or end up owing the government more money. I'd rather have that extra 400/month and pay extra sales tax. Like I'm living paycheck to paycheck being full-time with a decent paying job in my area, like the only things paying higher that you don't need a degree in are disturbing centers and factories
lewis_swayne@reddit
You do realize the only reason anyone gets money back is because you pay in extra to avoid having to worry about paying anything back, and the government returns any extra amount left over back to you, right?You can actually change your tax form so the extra taxes aren't taken out and you get more on your check, that's what I used to do when I was still employed, so when tax time came around I only got like $100 back.
Do you really think those are the only two no college degree industries that pay well or nothing pays more than those?
Idk what else to say though, if we take away income tax in exchange for tariffs, billionaires will profit more and people like me and you will pay more. I mean even bananas are imported lol.
LostMyGunInACardGame@reddit
I can choose not to buy imported goods. I don’t get to choose not to pay an absurd portion of my income.
jcutta@reddit
Pretty much every single product that is made of more than one component is going to have some part of it that is imported. Unless you think every company in the US is going to completely change their supply chain while at the same time keeping prices lower than imported goods, and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
oxcrete@reddit
But as we saw with steel tariffs recently, domestic producers will then raise prices on their product to be very close to the tariff'd imported product.
yvonnalynn@reddit
THIS & Thank you. I forget to not open Reddit before bed because the flagrant extreme left bombardment in every single subreddit. They don’t even try to make it nuanced. It’s just constant, divisive drivel.
I need to repeat this until I fall asleep… I will not let moronic Reddit bot thoughts live rent free in my head.
Asangkt358@reddit
Income taxes are a far more intrusive tax than a tariff. The government has to collect and keep tabs on each person's income and expenses, which is a massive intrusion into our privacy.
lewis_swayne@reddit
I'm having a hard time understanding why that's bad. Why do you have an issue with the government knowing how much you make?
Asangkt358@reddit
Really? You can't possibly imagine how it would be bad to give the government access to lots of information? The 20th century is littered with examples of governments collecting information on its citizens that it then uses to do all sorts of horrendous things to them. Hell, we just went through a COVID lockdown where the government used its knowledge and control of people's banking habits to try to silence dissenting opinions and punish politician's enemies.
But beyond privacy issues, an income tax is about the most expensive form of tax to implement due to its huge overhead cost, especially compared to sales taxes or tariffs.
lewis_swayne@reddit
To me it sounds like you just don't want the government to have any information on you. Like you don't actually care about them knowing how much you make as a specific issue, you would just rather them not know anything about you, have any information on you, tell you what you can or can't do or anything.
Asangkt358@reddit
It's almost as if I hold Libertarian political positions.
dranklie@reddit
lol I'm only here to read up on different opinions, but do you realize what subreddit you're on?
lewis_swayne@reddit
I do now lmao, I'm not even sure how I ended up here in the first place.
BuilderOfDragons@reddit
I think this poster, like myself, believes in a right to privacy under which the government knows the absolute minimum necessary about me.
With an income tax, enforcement and collection of the tax obviously requires the government have detailed information on my finances. I don't necessarily agree this is sufficient grounds to eliminate income taxes, but in a world where with all else being equal the government has either more or less information about me, I will close less every time
warm-n-fuzzy@reddit
not if you stop buying crap you dont need
lewis_swayne@reddit
Like what? That's not even a good argument, you don't know what I buy or do or how much I make or anything. That's a very privileged and narrow minded line of thinking.
Ruijerd566@reddit
I mean, he said that's what he wanted, but I don't see how it would be possible in 4 years. Mby 8 but still so unlikely.
TellThemISaidHi@reddit
Do to income taxes what the DNC did to the border. Just stop enforcement.
Then, just like the illegals once it hits a certain point, throw your hands up in the air and say "what do you expect us to do? Arrest 40 million people?"
BannedAgain-573@reddit
2020blowsdik@reddit
Only for like the first 150 years of our existence
Chosen_Undead@reddit
Soo.... most of it.
False_Question_2377@reddit
They suck regardless of what the country used to do..
dangered@reddit
Definitely, sad to think that the current state of the country is so far off course that this trade off would still be beneficial.
UuuBetcha@reddit
The fed is demanding more taxes from you and this is your reaction? I thought this was r/Libertarian??
dangered@reddit
In exchange for 0% income tax, yes. I will be taxed much less. I mostly purchase domestic products and contribute to my local economy because I am a libertarian, I vote with my dollars.
UuuBetcha@reddit
So you’re telling me if I promise you that I’ll reduce taxes in the future, you’ll let me create as many new taxes as I want in the meantime??
Also, just curious… Do you have a sign taped to your back?
MangoAtrocity@reddit
Where’d you get the “in the future” part?
UuuBetcha@reddit
Trumps tariffs will be put in place before income taxes are reduced (if ever). Being a "libertarian" and being ok with this is like if you're anti-war, but fall for the old "if we fight this war, it will finally bring peace". Gullible af
MangoAtrocity@reddit
Ok but we’re talking about the past. It used to be that the government was funded exclusively by tariffs. There was no income tax. We are saying that the system that used to exist is preferable to today’s system. No one is talking about Trump.
UuuBetcha@reddit
Check again. This whole post is about Trump's tariffs. This comment thread is about "libertarians" embracing Trump's tariffs bc they have a fantasy that he'll eliminate income tax in the future.
MangoAtrocity@reddit
This comment thread started with a comment that reads,
MangoAtrocity@reddit
He was saying that he’d rather have a 25% tariff than income tax. Which I would strongly agree with. Since you shouldn’t be spending as much as you earn, you’ll ultimately be ahead this way. Further, you can still purchase domestically produced goods at the same price. This boosts American industry and produces jobs. So yeah, I’m with that guy. Give me a 25% tariff and cancel income taxes.
IranianAntiAir@reddit
There is no such thing proposed.
MangoAtrocity@reddit
I’m aware…? We were talking about how the US government used the be completely funded by tariffs.
False_Question_2377@reddit
THANK YOU
richmomz@reddit
So do income taxes. If I had a choice I’d take the tariffs.
UuuBetcha@reddit
You don’t have a choice. You will pay both. Now how do you feel about Trump creating more new taxes, fellow “libertarian”??
richmomz@reddit
Ask me again four years from now.
UuuBetcha@reddit
I'm old enough to remember Trump's first term.
gadzookery12@reddit
I don't know why someone, if forced to make a choice, would choose to be penalized for their production (income tax) instead of their consumption (tariff). Especially when the penalty for your consumption grows proportionally larger as you produce more.
MissHotPocket@reddit
welp looks like we’re gonna have both
DixieNormas011@reddit
I'd take tariffs over income tax. Having my money confiscated before I even get to touch it has never sat well with me
ourstupidearth@reddit
They call that the roadless time. It wasn't until income tax was invented that the entire US highway sprang into existence in roughly 4 minutes after the bill was signed.
Sizzlinskizz@reddit
We had private trains before that. Pay for the ticket or don’t go anywhere. Seems fair to me
thelowbrassmaster@reddit
OK, but having infrastructure that gives people the ability to have their own transportation is also fair.
richmomz@reddit
I think that probably had more to do with the fact cars hadn’t been invented yet 🤦
Edohoi1991@reddit
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Iron horseshoes practically glide across asphalt, so you'd be increasing your horse's speed exponentially by creating an asphalt-covered interstate horse highway. 😜
toastedoats-@reddit
according to historians it was about 3 minutes, 38 seconds, 636 milliseconds.
Flybuys@reddit
You've got to be accurate when talking about history.
dubyahhh@reddit
Yes, but a personal income tax is universally agreed to be a more efficient way to generate government income. Let the economy cook, then tax the profits (personal incomes)
Tariffs double nuked the economy in the early 30s, exacerbating the Great Depression. They’re just inefficient at what they want to do.
Orack@reddit
Lol, I'm sure the federal reserve being created a decade or so before that had nothing to do with the depression.
LibertarianTrashbag@reddit
Oh yeah, that for sure had something to do with it. So did tariffs.
Orack@reddit
Why did it take 150 years of tariffs to cause the depression?
LibertarianTrashbag@reddit
Most big things that happen are the result of several little things. The increased price of foreign goods was something the economy could take before the Fed policies and the stock market and this and that and the other thing. Most of those things caused a recession, but it was tariffs, the fed, and the new deal that turned it into the depression we all know and love
Orack@reddit
While I agree there were many factors as the economy is extremely enormous,I believe this correlation shouldn't be ignored nor should the fact that tariffs were nothing new. People pretend that they know better because "our companies pay for it" as if Trump wasn't aware of this. Everyone knows this, it's just that the foreign entity has to reduce price to be cost competitive long term and we also can compete vs their unfair labor laws and incentives they have. We have a big, diverse country, it's usually better to produce here in the long run imo. It worked for a long time and it will again. Don't listen to political actors such as economists or people who pretend to be economists. Only listen to people who actually have to be right to keep their job.
dubyahhh@reddit
I’m not informed enough to comment on that, but I am informed enough to know and confidently affirm that tariffs are shit economic policy whether it’s in 1929 or 2025. They weren’t great in the 1800s before the Fed either. They’re just inefficient and bad, you don’t have to blame any other stuff when strictly talking about tariffs.
dangered@reddit
Tariffs are bad, to say they exacerbated the Great Depression is a bit dishonest. Tariffs weren’t new, all of the other taxes and monetary policies were though. While not having tariffs would have lessened the blow (because they’re bad), not implementing the new taxes in the first place would have helped much more.
FreeDarkChocolate@reddit
Is it dishonest? The 1930 Smoot Hawley Tariff Act is commonly, and fairly, considered to have exacerbated the depression. It didn't cause the depression, it wasn't an overwhelming secondary force, but it was exacerbatory.
Orack@reddit
Very few people think Tariffs are inherently bad. Have you read the comments on here? Are we dealing with bots here? Also to the other guy, why do you feel you are educated enough to even presume tariffs were "nukes" to the economy that caused the great depression if you don't even know anything about how the federal reserve would impact the economy?
Asangkt358@reddit
Universally agreed by whom?
dubyahhh@reddit
That would be any respected economist in the modern era. Tariffs are distortionary on the economy and in the beginning/middle of the supply chain. Income tax is an end source tax, taxing individual gains once the (hopefully as open as possible) economy has been able to generate as much wealth as possible.
Honestly, if like 1% of economists said the personal income tax was sort of okay, they’d still favor it over tariffs. Free trade is the way to a freer society. Tariffs are antithetical to that economic truth and libertarian supported ideal.
I realize personal income tax isn’t beloved by libertarians, but since that isn’t going anywhere the focus should be making sure the tax system fucks with the economy as little as possible. I’m not sure what the ideal ranking system of taxes is but tariffs are hot garbage and are near the bottom.
Asangkt358@reddit
Nice made up statistics.
dubyahhh@reddit
Not really. Here is a panel of economists asked whether steel and aluminum tariffs would benefit Americans. The answers range from no, to no. Here is a similar question specifically with regards to China, which has a much more flattering 79-6 break in the overall effect being bad vs good.
Perhaps I was slightly too mean - if you got 7% of economists to say the income tax is sort of okay sometimes, it would still be more favorable than tariffs for generating the same amount of income.
You are welcome to research this yourself. It’s as understood in economics that tariffs are toxic as it is in medicine that cigarettes are toxic. If your contribution to discussions is limited to “prove it” and “fake news” then you’re not doing your position any justice.
Asangkt358@reddit
You're moving the goalpoast and neither of your links support your original claim that personal income tax is "universally agreed to be a more efficient way to generate government income."
I doubt a majority of economists would agree with you on that, simply because it is an untrue statement. Income tax has a much higher cost of collection that tariff taxes.
dubyahhh@reddit
income tax having a higher burden on accountants to manage it does not mean the actual effects of the tax are worse than tariffs. I just provided two surveys in which 0% and 7% of economists believed tariffs would be beneficial to the American economy.
Here is an additional survey regarding raising the top tax rate to 70%, in which (when weighted by confidence) economists state that is a bad policy by a 63-21 margin. Surprise - they don’t like income taxes either, but they still support a doubling of the income tax at 3x the rate they supported an increase in tariffs.
I don’t care about your doubts, I feel like you read about the half a trillion or whatever in opportunity costs complying to income taxes takes and assumed nobody else knew that and it meant income taxes are secretly the worst types of taxes. For people who do this professionally it’s well understood what types of taxes are efficient (LVTs), which types suck normally (income taxes), and which types of taxes are hot garbage (tariffs). Imagine a tax being so bad that economists could support $500b/yr in lost productivity over it. That’s tariffs.
Asangkt358@reddit
You didn't say "effects". You made a comparison on efficiency, which is usually interpreted to mean the cost of collecting the tax.
But even if you didn't mean just the cost of collecting the tax and were instead referring to the overall impact on the economy, then you still haven't provided any support for your original assertion that income taxes are preferred to tariffs simply because none of the links you provided even include a comparison between tariffs and income taxes. If you ask 100 economists whether they think raising tariffs is bad, of course 100 economists are going to agree. If you instead ask them whether they think collecting taxes via tariffs is economically more benign than collecting taxes via income tax, you're going to get a much more mixed result with lots of different opinions.
So quit pretending that your links support your original statement. They don't.
dubyahhh@reddit
I meant the tax that generates the most revenue with the least detrimental effect on the economy. I assumed that was obvious and am sorry if you interpreted it otherwise.
If you’re going to discuss in bad faith then don’t discuss at all. The initial poll was regarding tariffs, in which 93-100% of economists agreed they were detrimental. The following polling was regarding a doubling of the top tax rate, which 3x as many economists (still a low number) said would not have a detrimental effect.
If in the best case (tariffs on a specific item from a specific bad actor) you have 7/100 experts saying X is fine, and in the worst case (a doubling of said tax) 21/100 saying Y is fine, you can use your own common sense to piece together that X and Y could both be bad things, but that X is worse than Y.
I think you should go and ask an actual economist why they think tariffs are better than an income tax for generating revenue without harming the economy and see how long it takes them to stop laughing before they realize you’re serious. My god. This is the libertarian sub. If a liberal and a libertarian can’t agree income taxes are less distortionary and bad than tariffs then good lord. You don’t pick a conclusion and work to justify it, you can watch any basic macroeconomics video or take a class or email a local adjunct at a community college. They’ll all tell you that tariffs are absolutely shit policy.
UuuBetcha@reddit
Trump creates NEW TAXES and your first reaction is to justify it? I thought this was r/Libertarian … ???
serpicowasright@reddit
My first reaction is we need to heavily downsize the government, remove the income tax, and then figure out how to pay a limited amount to fund what is left of the fed. If that is via limited tariffs then so be it.
GLFR_59@reddit
They don’t want to hear that. They want to keep paying taxes and are addicted to being told what a good for them.
UuuBetcha@reddit
These “libertarians” want to celebrate NEW TAXES 🥳just because Trump is creating them. Principals are always the first casualty.
GoodKushNalcohol@reddit
Have you guys read about a historical event in the 1930s called the "Great depression"? If you haven't, you should, before people keep advocating for tariffs.
LibertyorDeath2076@reddit
Yes, and individuals were relatively more wealthy when personal income tax wasn't a thing
CorneredSponge@reddit
Do you have empirical, causal evidence? Because evidence points to tariffs being the most distortionary taxes right alongside capital gains and corporate income taxes.
holmesksp1@reddit
Right, but that's the point They are distortionary with the intention to incentivize domestic production. And yeah. You could argue it breaks the idea of competitive advantage. But there's more to a good nation than just good economics. I'd much rather us be a bit less economically efficient, but have more of our production be domestic.
CorneredSponge@reddit
Okay, but how much should taxpayers burden to onshore?
Besides, subsidies are more cost effective to induce manufacturing than tariffs, why not raise general revenues through efficient taxation (ex. Consumption taxes) and subsidize? And why is manufacturing desirable to have, why not let companies and consumers decide beyond targeted security concerns?
Disastrous-Trust-877@reddit
I think everyone kinda forgets just how fucking large the US economy is. We probably have an economy larger than the next 5 countries combined (we do looking only at GDP, but there are certain to be a number of other factors involved in that destination), we have multiple states that by themselves would be in the top 20 largest economies in the world. Even small products can get a massive gain by simply releasing in a US market. We have more to do with the rise of China as an economic super power than anything else.
Even massive tariffs don't mean much, because everyone still has to trade with us, they basically don't have a choice.
EmployeeAromatic6118@reddit
Relative to what? I don’t like income taxes but people are definitely more wealthy now than they were in 1910.
richmomz@reddit
That’s because of industrialization and global trade, not taxes.
EmployeeAromatic6118@reddit
Yeah I don’t disagree, like I said I am against taxes. But to claim people were wealthier in 1910 before income tax is just a blatantly not true.
lewis_swayne@reddit
Who is more wealthy since then? Rich white people? Corporation owners? Working class Midwesterners? How are you measuring wealth?
Pyro_Light@reddit
If he’s being remotely intellectually honest it’d be median household income but I have never heard this argument before so I have no idea…
EmployeeAromatic6118@reddit
Yes this is what I am referring to.
lewis_swayne@reddit
This is with inflation factored in? For the entire US population im assuming?
EmployeeAromatic6118@reddit
Yes, and idek exactly what you mean by this. It is simply the median income of all US citizens, so yes?
EmployeeAromatic6118@reddit
Based on the median household income
mtnmanratchet@reddit
No way if you factor in inflation. Hell even comparing 1960’s to now.
EmployeeAromatic6118@reddit
Yes, factoring in for inflation, people are wealthier today than they were in the past. The median household income in 1960 was $5,600, which is ~$60,331 in today’s money. Meanwhile the median household income in 2024 is $80,610. Over $20k more.
mctwiddle@reddit
Yes
Chance-Vacation@reddit
And most roads were private toll roads too....
flying_unicorn@reddit
Here's why I'm okayish with tarrifs: I think we all agree that slavery is bad. I think we all agree that destroying the environment is bad. Tarrifs disincentivize trade with countries that significantly undercut us due to using slave labor and having a near complete lack of environmental policy.
I say tarrifs the shit out of them, outlaw the importation of any goods made in these countries, or with components sources from those countries, or stop being hypocrites and allow those practices here... I really don't want the later, but I abhor hypocrisy and NIMBYism
PM_ME_DNA@reddit
Yes but we’re not going to have a repeal of the income tax yet.
Vexillologia@reddit
How technologically advanced was the U.S. back then? How much better did things get for industries when they stopped using tariffs as crutches?
dovakin422@reddit
Yes.
Ok_Feeling2049@reddit
Internet tough guys ....I never get tired of the liberals running there mouth...jus hysterical....four years of Trump and since Democrapts can't realize why they just got mopped they ain't gonna see a presidency till maybe ....jus maybe 2036....sorry libatards u got 8 years of Vance/ Gabbard next lol
Just_perusing_415@reddit
They are just stupid.
Incrementum1@reddit
The Revolutionary War was about so much more than the Tea tax.
Source:
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/boston-tea-party-history/
It was generally about the colonists not wanted to be under British rule.
BeachBumEnt01@reddit
The White Pine tree laws as well
BeachBumEnt01@reddit
This is what you hang your hat on? Despite being taxed into the dirt by the Democrats then being driven deep into the dirt with inflation...youre complaining about tariffs that will force companies to manufacture in the United States, or to allow US products to be sold in their country, or for us to negotiate a better trade deal?!?! Posts like this lose credibility for claiming to be a libertarian
Jwright000@reddit
I know that this comment won’t be welcomed, but we’re not really the same boat as the founders were. Our country has become weak partly because all of our manufacturing has went overseas. I think sacrifices need to be made in order to rebuild our own self reliance. I’m sure some good American versions of scotch will arise if tariffs make it unaffordable to buy imports.
Jwright000@reddit
Drink whiskey.
The_Adm0n@reddit
I think you're confusing taxes and tariffs.
baithammer@reddit
The importers aren't going to absorb the difference, it will directly go into retail pricing and if Trump gets carried away, it will also affect parts used in assembling various products and those companies are going to pass that on to every customer in the chain.
plastic_Man_75@reddit
And? American buissneses will pick up the slack
Whats the problem?
helloiisjason@reddit
lol that's not how tariffs work. You actually believe a business is willingly going to ABSORB cost? Really?
Flying_Pretzals1@reddit
No, they don’t. They believe that American companies will see the competition’s prices rise and now be able to sell their own product at a competitive rate
That’s the entire point of these tariffs that isn’t making money for the federal government. Will it work? We’ll see
baithammer@reddit
They have no incentive to do so and manufacturing domestically in the US is not competitive with current foreign manufactures - the only reason some companies made big noise with announcing US plants was to avoid tariffs the last Trump administration was dealing out and incentives, plus tax breaks. ( Most of the projects have either folded or are massively scaled down.)
lordcatbucket@reddit
Trying to boost local business and become more self-sufficient would be a wonderful thing. The employment of extraordinarily cheap labor outside of the US kinda acts as a gate for businesses in the US, where the ones who can handle shipping easily are immediately way ahead. But that’s not something just “durrr mah high tariffs” is gonna fix. That requires a comprehensive plan. Also if the US needs more money for their self-sufficiency, maybe looking internally at the price gouging and comical amounts of money laundering and corruption would be great. Actually, I’m giving them too much credit: they don’t even bother with the laundering, they just ignore audits and any form of consequence since they just… don’t have to listen to it
Illythia_Redgrave@reddit
They don't even adhere to the traditional platforms of the party!
Rollercoasterfixerer@reddit
I’ll pay 25% more for my scotch to abolish income tax, pretty good trade at the end of the day.
7o83r@reddit
Fuck, I'd pay income tax to abolish property tax. If the goverment can take my house from me because I didn't pay tax on it, it means I never owned the house, I was only renting it from the government.
SkinnyPuppy2500@reddit
I’ll one up that… get rid of the income tax and property tax, then replace that with a 3% tea tax! That should be enough money to fund the federal government to my liking.
ninjacereal@reddit
Arizona's run at 99¢ a can is doomed.
LoneHelldiver@reddit
As long as it's domestically produced no tariff!
mertaugh1234@reddit
This won't ever change don't you worry
SkinnyPuppy2500@reddit
I guess I didn’t think things through… Nevermind 😂
trustedbyamillion@reddit
100% agree, and there are plenty of good bourbons in America. OOPS, I just admitted Tariffs change spending behaviour.
Red_Spork@reddit
But there is very little comparable to Scotch, American malts are virtually all overpriced underaged crap. Just like our domestic cheeses are great but not really comparable to European cheeses (no one in the US makes anything like Parmigiano Reggiano for instance). America makes plenty of great products but there are plenty of imports that cannot be replicated. And we all know there is zero chance Trump is going to get rid of the income tax, we'll simply be paying more for what will almost certainly be less actual selection.
trustedbyamillion@reddit
Perhaps he will not eliminate income tax, but he will certainly lower the income tax. It's one policy plank he has been consistent on. Tariffs will not be enough to fund government on their own to eliminate the income tax, I would suspect a national VAT to also come into play. Trump however is the only Republican with the mandate to actually lower military spending, so anything is possible. Unfortunately, I am in Soviet Canuckistan so anything close to this here is a pipe dream.
MyAdviceIsGr8@reddit
Is he abolishing income tax
bobloadmire@reddit
Wait you actually believe trump will abolish income tax? Lmaooo
SkinnyPuppy2500@reddit
When Rogan asked him about dumping the income tax, trump never answered the question, just kept meandered along. Rogan should have stayed on that until trump acknowledged that he was serious about it or doesn’t know how the income tax works.
bobloadmire@reddit
Even if Trump had said he was going to abolish income tax, he'd never do it.
SkinnyPuppy2500@reddit
Yeah, agreed.
deep6ixed@reddit
Jokes on you! You pay both
nlfortier@reddit
Mark my words. Trump will impose tarrifs without abolishing the income tax.
Cambronian717@reddit
Abolishing income tax would be the biggest step forward America could make in at least 100 years
redacted_republic@reddit
Tariffs only affects me if I buy the goods. The income tax affects me just for living.
biglaurelbeast@reddit
So making Scotland pay to import Scotch causing a price bump in their already over-priced “special whisky” is the equivalent of tyranny? Ok, bud. Good luck in 10th grade next year.
MangoAtrocity@reddit
I’m calling it now. He won’t do it. Legacy and image is too important to him. He doesn’t want to be remembered as the guy that made everything more expensive. It’s antithetical to his message and platform.
Malagoy@reddit
It's important to remember that the Boston Tea Party was over taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. We have representation in the government now. Tariffs effing suck, but this isn't the right way of going about arguing that fact.
ayecappytan@reddit
Get Sober and it won't be a big deal.
Actual_Blueberry5940@reddit
I get why people get worried when they see tariffs. But saying "tariffs ultimately cost the customer more" is only half of the conversation.
The idea is to use tariffs as a negotiating tool. If a country charges us 200%, we're going to charge them the same 200%. The goal is for the country to eliminate the tariff placed on us. By matching the tariff other countries charge us we at least level the playing field.
They can eliminate the tariff they charge us, or reduce it. Either way, utilizing tariffs as leverage, ultimately leads to the opportunity for the customer to be charged less, with the reduction or elimination of tariffs other countries impose on us.
I can't say what exactly will happen. But after doing my due diligence and not just listening to what people say on the Internet, I at least have an understanding as to how this strategy is planned to be implemented and what the end goal is.
Actual_Blueberry5940@reddit
And just coming to the conclusion that "Republicans are pussies" is idiotic and clearly indicative of the lack of thought you've put into this topic. Maybe ask a question before you make a statement. Especially one so half witted.
MaskedCorndog@reddit
Drink bourbon Homo!
tylerb1130@reddit
Scotch taste like a disembodied butthole someone pulled out their pocket and set on a shelf in a dusty library for 10 years.
UuuBetcha@reddit
Trump adds NEW TAXES and conservatives rejoice!?! Principals really are the first casualties when joining a cult.
Mastiffmory@reddit
Look up tax vs tariff
Robbie122@reddit
Ultimately does the difference even matter if it means the consumer is paying more because of government fuckery? Either way the amount of money you have is less.
LibertarianTrashbag@reddit
A tariff is a tax against American companies to punish them for importing goods from those damn foreigners
okay-then08@reddit
lol that’s what I came here to say. With that being said I’m against both
Gtip@reddit
Tarrifs FTW. Income tax is for cucks.
Sea_Contract_7758@reddit
Well liquor is gross so
vikesinja@reddit
Drink American!
FrancoisTruser@reddit
Still less expensive than in Canada (still, all tariff are stupid)
FenwayWest@reddit
Drink bourbon
CTEcowboi@reddit
Buffalo Trace gang
TheWest_Is_TheBest@reddit
Why tax scotch I thought he was meant to like Scotland?
Stiks-n-Bones@reddit
Andalusia
GeneralBurzio@reddit
SCOTCH!?
Fml, I'm going back to the US soon. This is bullshit
PapaGrizzlyOld@reddit
Scotch is for pussies, drink bourbon.
lenajoy@reddit
We have distilleries in the United States. Nice try!
FilipM_eu@reddit
There are still a lot of things that go into producing pretty much anything that are imported.
Secret_Love_2927@reddit
I’m not a democrat or republican by any means. But it’s time china pays their fair share. Cry harder soy boys and drink ur god damn kool aid…
FilipM_eu@reddit
China will not pay, American consumer will pay.
Machinedgoodness@reddit
It’s the other way around so it’s ok. King was tryna tax the USA. Trump taxing other’s good.
DejaWiz@reddit
False dichotomy
msears101@reddit
Isn’t every meme?
DejaWiz@reddit
Hard to argue against that!
Semirahl@reddit
predictably shit post made by and for standard mom's-basement libertarians. moving on.
Ryman43@reddit
Fuck scotch. Steal run like a pirate and drink bourbon
R_O@reddit
People are legitimately brain-dead.
England IMPOSED a tea tax on the Colonies. It was a direct, top-down tax on the populace,
A tariff is strictly a trade tax imposed on FOREIGN entities, NOT the domestic populace.
Why is this so hard to understand?
A 25% tariff on scotch would make foreign, imported scotch more expensive - at a 25% tariff rate, it probably wouldn't be imported AT ALL. This means, in-effect, if people want scotch they will be FORCED to produce and market it domestically, with the end result likely being a cheaper product (lower logistical burden, no international trade fees) and increased domestic economic growth (new business, employed citizens, etc).
From a Libertarian perspective, yes all taxes and tariffs are to be ideally avoided. But this meme is idiotic.
baithammer@reddit
Not how that works, as the reason for importing is pricing wholesale is cheaper then what can be made domestically, further alcohol is a luxury item so carries with it a higher mark up.
F_n_Doc@reddit
My understanding of the 25% tariff is a US company that outsources for cheap labor….
baithammer@reddit
No, this is on goods being imported into the US for domestic use, and no importer is going absorb the tariffs, which will be past on to the consumer.
candidly1@reddit
Drink local bourbon.
Fawkes89D@reddit
So...OP doesn't understand tariffs? Oh, ok
whathellsthis@reddit
This is going to be a very libertarian take but are you sure you’re a real libertarian? How do you think the government was funded before?
dham65742@reddit
ah yes, the gross oversimplification of history
tropicsGold@reddit
Apparently OP doesn’t know the definition of “dictate” 😂
i-self@reddit
If you don’t like tariffs on fancy expensive scotch, try 100% tax-free Appalachian Moonshine
0311Yak@reddit
Isn’t this how the US operated all The way from inception through the Industrial Revolution until WW1? Idiot
MurkyChildhood2571@reddit
Taxation without representation
V.S.
Taxation with somewhat representation
aed38@reddit
The income tax of 1913 has entered the chat.
squirtlekid@reddit
I think you spelled American wrong
HastingsIV@reddit
You do not quite understand either of those situations, and while I agree taxation and tarrifs are not good, you seem to not understand the point of either of them as they were used in different situations with different goals and in only one of those situations was it meant to intentionally punish the colonies.
DoctorGonzoEsquire@reddit
Sure they are different situations, but the point is valid. BTP was over a tax that they realized was punitive on the colonists. Trumpers are celebrating a tax they think is punitive on China but is actually punitive on Americans, which is fucking stupid.
HastingsIV@reddit
The point is they are different situations as one is punitive by intent towards a specific a group, and the other is a cost to the consumer via a punitive measure on another.
Tea was also drank by essentially 100% of people in the colonies with little alternative to the same beverage, while scotch is drank by only a sub set of people that drink liquor. The domestic scotch product was also still available, while tea was effectively not a product of the colonies.
It affects far less people, and was enacted by a president elected by the people who knew he was pro tariff, meaning they elected someone that may or may not tariff one of things they purchase. That's representative.
The king taxing tea without consent of the governed to a populace where it affects almost the entire populace on a product they have no alternative to, with the intent to punish them for avoiding two other taxes, is far different than the first Trump administration imposing a tariff on the EU as punishment for them intentionally subsiding airbus.
We can be against tarriff and tax, but still need to parse the situations, especially when a meme is so broad to the point of intentional obtuseness/misinformation.
DoctorGonzoEsquire@reddit
I guess I forgot that imperfect analogies are the true misinformation menace facing the country today. Would the Trumpers also have to dress up as Native Americans for the analogy to work?
HastingsIV@reddit
No, they would have to dress as Scottish highlanders wearing kilts, and destroy a ton of imported scotch with claymores. At least keep the narrative up if you want to improperly use analogies.
DoctorGonzoEsquire@reddit
Touché
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
I disagree with the reasoning for the tea taxes. Were they not a means of generating revenue to defray the costs of funding the French & Indian/7 Years War?
HastingsIV@reddit
They were enacted in order to collect on a previous tax the colonists were attempting to avoid. I am sure they used the money for war, just like we do today lol.
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
I agree with that but I am not sure that is punishment. Just the state trying to keep its books balanced.
HastingsIV@reddit
I think its likely both are true. The king also needed to flex he still mattered and that he could circumvent any form of colonial representation if he so chose because they were not "english".
I would be curious to see how much money they actually thought they would get from the colonists.
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
I said this in response to another comment regarding the king:
If you are making the “flexing” argument, it might be the government in Parliament more than the king that is trying to flex itself.
In the U.S. we tend to make it all about the king this and the king that, but in reality, this was all the government. It is a common and easy way of expression dissatisfaction with the policies of the government to being angry with the king even as the king was not involved in the making or implementing of those policies.
I am not sure about your “flex” argument but it may very well be true. One might have to go back to the debates in Parliament to make such a determination.
It has been years since I read excerpts from Edmund Burke’s arguments in Parliament from that era. He recognized, early on, the dangers of the policies being enacted and spoke against them.
What I cannot recall was when he started to speak against them and to your point, if his arguments were suggesting if there was some degree of vengeance involved or sort of flexing their muscles.
It makes rereading that material and those speeches worth the effort.
HastingsIV@reddit
Yeah I really need to go back and read the early materials, been close to a decade since I left university and I never focused on early American history. I can tell you way too much about imperial rome though!
I made the arrogant and lazy decision to think the colonial period was not as important to my future, and yet here we are discussing the ramifications of taxes and tarrifs and how they have been a failure for centuries here, and elsewhere.
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
The good thing is we can go back and educate ourselves. We are never too old to learn new stuff.
I actually think the history of Rome is very important to what is occurring now. The fall of the empire can be very loosely compared to the decline of the U.S.
Pax Romana could not be sustained without inflationary policy and we know that Pax Americana is also having to be sustained in the same way and may have the same outcome.
I_HopeThat_WasFart@reddit
Finally a coherent and critical thinker
BigNewt05@reddit
Lol cry harder.
WaldoFrank@reddit
This is a take from someone who doesn’t drink, no one drinks fucking Scotch. The people who do will pay whatever just to act like they are better than everyone else.
7o83r@reddit
Also, there is a difference between a tax that applies to all tea bought in the colonies and a tariff that charges a tax only on a few specific whiskeys. Domestic whiskey will not be taxed the 25%.
MedusaMadeMeHard94@reddit
This. Post makes it sound like now all we have to drink is scotch.
dangered@reddit
If I had just 1/4 of the annual income tax I pay given back to me I would be able to pay 300% for imported goods and wouldn’t bad an eye
just_a_un@reddit
I prefer bourbon anyway.
Small_Mushroom_2704@reddit
Shshsh you aren't supposed to point that out!
Glad_Hand_7595@reddit
Yeah, not the same thing
stichwang@reddit
Going to love watch libertarian trying to defend when the nation debt inevitably rises AGAIN under Trump
Bruny03@reddit
It’s amazing how so many think other countries will pay the tariffs.
UNAMANZANA@reddit
I enjoy not seeing total trash posts in this sub again.
Lickem_Clean@reddit
Is there a delicious Chinese whiskey I'm unaware of?
Radamand@reddit
Then you got your ass kicked by pussies
flex674@reddit
We are talking about tariffs on imports from other countries , the tea tax was a tariff on basically the uk s own country. This is apple and oranges.
bb0110@reddit
You really do not understand the economic policy of the historical US. We were pretty much entirely funded on tariffs.
Rbelkc@reddit
Why they elect a president
ColoradoQ2@reddit
The only thing worse than tariffs are income taxes.
Small_Mushroom_2704@reddit
Taxation is theft. Y'all didn't give a shit about terrifs under Biden or any other president until Trump started talking about it.
Mostfunguy@reddit
What else are we supposed to do to combat china's literal slave labor
Composite-Redd1232@reddit
To be fair i dont see really any americans as diferent. everyone's afraid of legal action against them. You protest tax with zealous destruction you pay the fine or the time. This country doesn't give a shit about us it cares about business.
liqamadik@reddit
guy 1: uses gun to steal your money guy 2: uses gun to stop guy 1 libertarians: don't those idiots know guns are bad. (I am very smart by the way)
Do we have to be pure ideologues 24/7? Cuz I thought we were just against the abuse of government, but turns out we're anarchists now?
darin_thompson@reddit
I voted for the Libertarian party not for the person who represented it. But I did do it.
spaztick1@reddit
Hey Google! How was the US government originally funded?
parityposse@reddit
Sadly, many Americans think the exporting country pays the tariff.
NameTooCool@reddit
Rather tax Euros than us 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Triumph-TBird@reddit
This is a pretty irresponsible and misleading meme-that will work with a lot of Redditors.