We all know when you tax/tariff something the negative result always gets passed down to the consumers/employees in a capitalist economy. I’ve seen people time and time again champion for tariffs or champion for taxing the wealthy more. These are two separate issues championed by two separate political identities that result in the same thing with no logical or even feasible response in how to respond to the inevitable backlash of those actions.

Republicans say “Tariff other countries until we get a fair deal”. Then prices go up on certain goods and people suffer(usually the poorest among us.)

Democrats say “Tax the rich” and in response companies start doing massive layoffs and raising the price of their goods and services.


Let’s be honest for once here. CEOs and Owners of businesses are not going to lower their income or living standards in order to accommodate people they view as “lesser beings”. All of these Tarrif and Taxing the rich plans are idealism at its finest and will never result 100% in the way they are pitched. Could short term success “possibly” happen? Yes. Will long term damage “definitely” happen? Yes.

This post was edited by T3XBOT on Jul 9 2025 05:24am

I'm behind bringing more to our country.

More businesses, more distribution, more jobs, American made, illegals out of the country, etc.

I want to see our country focused on better ourselves and putting ourselves first.

I'm not ignorant to the negative effects of tax shifting and I imagine both sides have plenty of people that see the risks. I just genuinely think our country is so far behind and in the particular situation that things might get worse before it gets better. I see the positives and I see the risks/effects.

What would your solution be to ensure 100% of the population has a positive effect with zero downside?

This post was edited by D_urRRR on Jul 9 2025 05:28am

I’m not ignorant enough to think I have a solution. I don’t think there is one while remaining a fully untethered capitalist nation.

We need to make the US more appealing for both consumers and producers though somehow. How do you do that? No clue. Because if you tax owners or raise wages the price of things and unemployment goes up. I honestly don’t think a successful solution exists without a big wealth gap.

I’m not opposed to wealth gaps in a capitalist economy. As long as I live comfortably what someone else makes doesn’t bother me.

I also think the tax system is partially flawed. For instance. If a celebrity who employs 10 people (mostly servant type positions) pays the same amount as a CEO who provides tons of jobs I find it appalling in cases where their net worth is nearly identical. One does a HUGE service for the economy and employment while the other does mostly selfish endeavors that benefit no one long term.

This post was edited by T3XBOT on Jul 9 2025 05:42am

AOC did it best when she wore tax the rich dress at super elite party. i bet they all had a good laugh


This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 9 2025 05:42am

I wouldn't know of a solution either and I agree with you on your tax example. I just personally feel the goal of bringing more to our country would be a great thing and want to see every class thrive off of it.

Difficult to wind back the clock to where csuite was not paid 80x the average worker, where we had an actual competition between many players compared to total market consolidation to just a few controlling players.

Lack of competition in the US is part of the issue too. As SBD said a few players control it all.

Importers pass along costs when they can, not when they want. Tariffs artificially increase price, which impacts demand. As demand falls the price falls with it. Whether the price is passed straight through, in part, or not at all depends on the specific market. If the end consumer functions as a monopsonist, the answer might be that the cost is hardly passed through at all. If demand is inelastic, it might be passed through entirely. If there are ready made domestic substitutes, the pass through will be less, if there are none, costs will be passed through more.

The United States is a wealthy market representing a considerable portion of world GDP, and an even greater share of global discretionary spending. In the case of Mexico and Canada, it's hard to see how they could reasonably replace US demand for their products. Exporting overseas costs money, and South American wealth is finite. In the case of Europe, there's no comparable market which stands ready to absorb European exports. The Chinese like to sell, not buy, and no one else has nearly the same purchasing power. In aggregate, I'd say that the US has a greater share of leverage.

Why do you not defer to Peter Navarro, a distinguished titan of economics?

They absolutely have a greater share of leverage. Currently. The gaps are closing and eventually we will be replaced. Not as soon as doomsayers say but definitely in my children’s lifetime on the current course we are on.

But nevertheless I’m not talking about the right/wrong of the trade war. I’m simply stating that the lower income people will suffer because the buck will be passed on regardless and increased minimum wage wages aren’t keeping up with costs.