No I did not. It will be something that can be solved. It isn't going to be solved tomorrow, sure. But the world isn't static. If the right incentives exists, a solution will be found. The whole point of tariffs is to create the incentive in the first place.
I literally started off my previous reply by prefacing my frustrating around discussions of this type where people assume the current situation is going to stay in place as is. Sure in the short term things maybe negatively affected however in the long term there are benefits, one which is often over looked is a more robust domestic supply chain, which was a real problem back in 2020.
Only when they are sold, or if you receive dividends. If he doesn't sell them he doesn't pay tax on them.
He can then leverage those stocks BTW to receive loans, which he won't pay taxes on as they are a debt. Then he can make use of the stock without selling it, and then use that extra income to invest in other things that will generate him additional income/capital or whatever.
There are even more tricks you can do at that point, where on paper you are technically making a loss and never pay a cent in tax.
It is not really a fair comparison between an iPhone and the Librem because the Librem is catering for a completely different market.
The phone itself is quite different in some respect to other mobile phones e.g. parts of the phone that would be on the SoC are on removable M.2 cards. It is a niche product, meant for a particular audience. You are going to be paying a premium even if it was manufactured in offshore.
I pay a premium on any add-on/upgrade card to my Amiga. These products are made in smaller batches and thus cost a lot more than simply getting an ARM chip and emulating it. I accept that because my use case is extremely niche.
Umm. Tim was taxed there for selling his shares. Not a salary. His Salary I don't think is mentioned in the article you linked. As of 2022 it was $3,000,000, he was getting ~$47 million that year in stock compensation, which I doubt he gets taxed on unless he sells it.
> That doesn't account for steel, aluminum, vehicles, etc. We import $12B of aluminum alone, $51B of vehicles, etc. etc. etc.[0] The large majority of stuff we import is raw goods that you can't just avoid as a consumer.
The biggest issue I have when having these discussions is that people assume that the situation currently is what will always be. Part of rationale behind the Tariff is that you increase domestic production. Obviously it isn't going to happen over night, but the cure for high prices, is high prices as this will create the incentive for people to domestically produce.
> Re: energy independence, US was not "energy independent" in that we didn't import any energy. We were (and still are) energy independent in that we produce more than we consume
Right so you could meet the energy needs right?
> Tariffs threaten those export relationships, and it's not trivial to just ship electricity wherever it's needed. It's far easier for us in the North to get electricity from Canada than to ship it in from the desert or something.
It may not be. However the entire point is to create a incentive to solve these problems domestically.
Yes it does if you understand the context. We are comparing having similar tariffs with 0% income tax to the current situation which is income tax and some Tariffs.
If the income tax didn't exist at all, I would keep all of the £65,000 and it would be totally worth working those hours. The extra £13-16k a year would allow me to pay off my current apartment in 3-5 years, not 10-15 and then I could get a lower paying job anyway and work less sooner. So the trade off IMO would be totally worth it.
The US can be energy independent and was IIRC under Trump's first term. The point of the tariff is to increase domestic production, which is entirely possible.
I know it has nothing to do with being rich. I know middle class people do this in the US. He was asking how people could avoid it, the simplest way is to become a contractor/consultant/freelancer rather than a full time employee so *you can* restructure your tax.
That is why many people become contractors/consultants/freelance when they are in the higher tax bands. Which was the point I was making, if people are being smart they will try to avoid the tax.
Yes I know. But often it is not worth going into the upper band at all unless you towards the top of that band. I am equating my own time, stress etc into this calculation and not just monetary amount.
> Trying really hard to refrain from a snarky response, because this analysis is 100% incorrect. First, where do you think a substantial portion of food, drink and disposable items in the US comes from?
I was talking about how a similar policy would affect me in the UK where far more food is domestically produced.
> More importantly, though, the entire economic rationale of import tariffs is to allow domestic producers to charge more. It doesn't matter if you just "buy American", because if the competition that American producers face is now 10% more expensive, these producers will raise prices. Or, if more charitably, foreign goods were making American-made products uncompetitive, American producers can now come in and make those goods, but only at the higher prices.
You can adjust your consumption much more easily than you can adjust your income tax. If you want to be in the lower band of progressive income tax.
> Also, you misunderstand how progressive taxes work. When you make more and go into "the higher income band", you're not taxed more on ALL your income, just the portion that is in the new band (at least in the US). Yes, there have been cases in the US e.g. with welfare where if people made above a certain amount their welfare was cut off, but those have all been highlighted as examples of poor tax policy that have largely been fixed.
I do already understand this. You don't understand what I was telling about how it affected my wages that month. Once I went over the band, the increase in tax was enough to make working the overtime not worth it, as I would maybe get a few hours of OT. It would only be worth it, if I was working lots of OT ... which I couldn't do because I was studying.
It also stops me from bothering to get a higher salaried job. I am at the highest pay before you go into the 50% band. So if go from £55,000 to 65,000, that £5000 of the extra £10000 will be taken by the taxman. A £65,000 job has a lot more expectations than a £45-55k job. The extra stress and hours that will be expected isn't worth the extra £5000 which over the year is an extra £415 month.
"*Only*" That is a lot of money for most people. How the other half live!
> The threshold to enter top 10% is only 180K
Yes. I was doing it when I was earning less than that as a contractor in the UK. I can tell you how it generally works in the UK:
* You set up a LTD company.
* You pay yourself a minimum salary where you pay the bare minimum tax this is approximately £13000 the last time I checked. I think you can pay any other "directors" this as well, you basically make your significant other one.
* Anything related to work becomes an expense e.g. parking tickets, mileage on your vehicle, laptop, computer software etc. So you don't pay this, the company does and thus you get a tax relief.
* You pay yourself dividends from your LTD company. You pay yourself the bare minimum and leave as much as possible in the company. These were taxed at a far lower rate that the equivalent money if you worked perm.
* You pay your pension via the company (this is tax free upto £60,000 IIRC).
In the US how it is exactly done will be of course different as the taxes are structured differently but I know for a fact that people are doing similar in the US.
You can structure your income to be more tax efficient if you aren't a full time employee. Most people in the top 10% of wealth will be structuring their income in such a way to avoid as much tax as possible.
> Upper income people will be fine with a 10-25% increase in cost of things they purchase. Regular income taxes are progressive.
This is assuming you are buying goods that are outside of the country. Most consumption weekly is things like food, drink, disposable items and not things like computer hardware which is refreshed every few years normally.
> There is a reason why rich prefer tariffs over a progressive income tax.
I am not rich and would prefer Tariffs over income taxes (I am in the UK). I would rather save the that gets taken every month from the taxman and I could afford to buy myself a nicer property. I could also make the conscious decision to make sure I purchase items produced in the UK which presumably for food, drink (at least) I would wager is produced in the UK and thus would be cheaper than things produced outside of the country.
As for progressive taxes they actually make it more difficult to earn more money even at a near minimum wage. When I worked at a super store (Tesco) many years ago, If I worked a few hours overtime, I would go over income band for that month and it effectively made working that shift a waste of time. I am including my time to commute which was a 30 minute cycle and not wanting to have to stack onions. So I didn't bother working overtime as a result. Neither did many of my colleges. Granted I normally would get a check back at the end of the year from HMRC as I would have over-payed for the year, but when you are living month to month, I would always prefer the cash in my pocket as the end of the tax year is an eternity away in comparison.