|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 21 2026 00:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 00:13 Billyboy wrote: Trump lost the Supreme court decision on his tariffs. Time for corps to sue for a bunch of money back, and them not pass the savings on to the people. Damn, all those people that bribed him are going to ask for their shit back now. Trump will invoke the ancient rite of "No takesy backsy" and if they say anything he will counter with "I'm rubber and your glue". His supreme maturity and stable genius will win again except for that ever climbing percentage of people that have TDS and can't see the 6d chess in reverse.
|
On February 21 2026 00:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 00:26 LightSpectra wrote:On February 21 2026 00:13 Billyboy wrote: Trump lost the Supreme court decision on his tariffs. Time for corps to sue for a bunch of money back, and them not pass the savings on to the people. Damn, all those people that bribed him are going to ask for their shit back now. Trump will invoke the ancient rite of "No takesy backsy" and if they say anything he will counter with "I'm rubber and your glue". His supreme maturity and stable genius will win again except for that ever climbing percentage of people that have TDS and can't see the 6d chess in reverse. None of that will help when the SC just ruled them illegal. But ofc the tactic then becomes to stall the proceedings so Democrats get left with the bill, and Republicans will them blame them for it.
|
He’s just gonna start a war with Iran, conjuring up another fabricated emergency and a distraction all at once.
|
I'm really curious about the timing of the decision.
They, for no apparent reason kicked the can down the road a few times and decided to make the most obvious decision now, more then a year into his presidency.
Given that the SC is completely beholden to Trump, I have a feeling that this was something they told him they "have" to do and asked him when would it be the most convenient. Considering that it's Friday and markets are closing soon, I have a feeling that he is now gauging the reaction and waiting to see how the weather in the gulf turns out to be before making a decision to go into yet another "look at me" campaign with attacking Iran.
If the markets react positively, I have a feeling we are in for a start of a new war fellas. If they tank, and the weather is bad he might keep Iran in his pocket for a few more weeks, perhaps for the next big Epstein piece of news.
|
On February 21 2026 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 00:35 Billyboy wrote:On February 21 2026 00:26 LightSpectra wrote:On February 21 2026 00:13 Billyboy wrote: Trump lost the Supreme court decision on his tariffs. Time for corps to sue for a bunch of money back, and them not pass the savings on to the people. Damn, all those people that bribed him are going to ask for their shit back now. Trump will invoke the ancient rite of "No takesy backsy" and if they say anything he will counter with "I'm rubber and your glue". His supreme maturity and stable genius will win again except for that ever climbing percentage of people that have TDS and can't see the 6d chess in reverse. None of that will help when the SC just ruled them illegal. But ofc the tactic then becomes to stall the proceedings so Democrats get left with the bill, and Republicans will them blame them for it. Pretty sure they did not rule on the bribes, and likely won't. People seem pretty OK with his open corruption.
|
What bribes did he accept after telling people he got the SCOTUS case in the bag and there's no way he'll lose? That's the kind of stuff that usually gets people JFK'd.
|
The bribes that are related to tariffs mostly came by way of flattering gifts and spineless shits like Tim Cook coming in, giving him some stupid gold shit and bending over publicly.
There is nothing that Trump loves more then powerful people bending over for him, given that all of the companies that got special exemptions from tariffs like Apple and NVIDIA are ran by sociopaths they will simply not care and carry on, they know that if they try to retaliate against the mad king, or sue the government he'll make their life difficult, and that is not good for business.
|
on the other hand and those woke SC judges be damned, the DOW was and soon most likely will be 50k again you guys!
that's what we should be talking about. not Epstein friends implicated in pedophilic cabal. or exploding deficits and debts. or rights and freedoms trampled at an unprecedented rate.
naked corruption? an afterthought at best. it will be interesting if they ignore/fight this or attempt another way to enforce a Trump Tariff regime. after all it is the major agenda item besides entrenching their power and building a police state.
one thing's for certain, Trump delivering hard and fast in season 2 of "The Infinite Jest Presidency - joke's on you edition"
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
I feel like this is more prophetic than ever and nowadays could just say "sure we squandered an empire by believing a mad man - but for a short while we made libs cry and that felt fantastic"
|
I wonder how the people who had to close or downsize their businesses due to tariffs are feeling now
|
On February 21 2026 00:52 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:On February 21 2026 00:35 Billyboy wrote:On February 21 2026 00:26 LightSpectra wrote:On February 21 2026 00:13 Billyboy wrote: Trump lost the Supreme court decision on his tariffs. Time for corps to sue for a bunch of money back, and them not pass the savings on to the people. Damn, all those people that bribed him are going to ask for their shit back now. Trump will invoke the ancient rite of "No takesy backsy" and if they say anything he will counter with "I'm rubber and your glue". His supreme maturity and stable genius will win again except for that ever climbing percentage of people that have TDS and can't see the 6d chess in reverse. None of that will help when the SC just ruled them illegal. But ofc the tactic then becomes to stall the proceedings so Democrats get left with the bill, and Republicans will them blame them for it. Pretty sure they did not rule on the bribes, and likely won't. People seem pretty OK with his open corruption. sorry I thought you were talking about the tariff money. No the bribes are his and he isn't going to give them back but companies won't be asked for that back anyway, that was peanuts. The tariff money is what they want back, that is 175 billion.
|
Don't know if it's just the broker I work with but there were certainly material duty/tariff calculation disputes (say a million bucks) which are still pending with them (broker paid, dispute with gov). The dispute revolves around the accuracy of the duty calculation due to the constant rule changes at the onset.
I think in some cases the records that the government has is based on the brokers filing which is wrong due to the constant rule changes which the broker paid on behave of the company to the government. With disputes coming in from these same entries, and the government needs to partially refund parts of these entries based on which part were tariff related or not? I think it's not hard to imagine it being a bit messy and everyone related is reluctant to do anything.
|
On February 21 2026 01:27 PoulsenB wrote: I wonder how the people who had to close or downsize their businesses due to tariffs are feeling now
I wonder if those people can sue. If Trumps illegal tariffs killed your business, that sounds as if you should have damages?
Maybe even sue Trump personally, not the office of the president or the US? That would of course be pretty karmic, but is probably not possible.
|
On February 21 2026 02:07 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 01:27 PoulsenB wrote: I wonder how the people who had to close or downsize their businesses due to tariffs are feeling now I wonder if those people can sue. If Trumps illegal tariffs killed your business, that sounds as if you should have damages? Maybe even sue Trump personally, not the office of the president or the US? That would of course be pretty karmic, but is probably not possible. Remember when the Supreme Court ruled that Biden could have Trump shot by seal team 6 and be immune from prosecution because he would be acting in his role as President?
Yeah that.
|
United States43593 Posts
The reason they relied so heavily on broker/importer submitted filings and calculations is that despite promising to replace almost all forms of revenue generation with expansive new tariffs the administration neglected to actually create or task an agency with the collection of the tariffs. It was only ever the concept of a plan.
Most companies couldn’t reasonably be expected to know what was required for compliance because the tariffs didn’t really exist, there was no legislative guidance to follow. New policy was issued through social media proclamations, then backtracked by cabinet members, then POTUS and cabinet members had a slap fight on social media, and then the deadlines changed anyway. By the time any authoritative guidance could be issued the policy would have changed a dozen times over.
It’s like if people had to fill out their own taxes freehand but the Internal Revenue Code didn’t exist. You just find a CPA and ask them to give it their best guess and then mail a check for some amount in.
Only in this metaphor the Internal Revenue Service also doesn’t exist and so there’s nobody to actually check your calculations and nothing to really check it against. They just cash the checks. They don’t know, they can’t know, what is actually owed. They weren’t staffed for it, the reporting infrastructure doesn’t exist, the rule book they’re enforcing hasn’t been written.
The whole situation is batshit insane. At one point the administration declared that foreign mail carriers were the agencies in charge of collection and enforcement. The mail carriers explained that actually they’re not a part of the Trump administration and the international postal system temporarily froze.
There’s a reason tax policy typically moves slowly and changes are incremental. Everyone with more than two brain cells could see that even if a tectonic shift in revenue collection to an expansive external tariff was desirable you’d need to create an enforcement department for tax collection. They decided to completely revolutionize the system and didn’t see the need to change anything.
|
Consumption based taxes are an effective way to tax the rich. This is prolly why they are never brought up as a viable option.
Tariffs are "barely ok" as a consumption based tax. The better way: a straightforward national sales tax similar to Canada's GST. I'd crank it up to a % high enough until it completely replaces income tax. Then, I'd end income tax. You exempt rent, groceries, and medical care from this sales tax. This is the best way to tax the rich who love to spend money on total bullshit. You can always double the tax % for things like video games, $250,000 sports cars, ZEGNA Black Zai skiis, sugar filled carbonated drinks, cigarettes etc etc.... Warren Buffett 2011: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich". This is from an NY Times Op-Ed by Buffett in 2011. + Show Spoiler +OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn’t refuse, nor did others. [...] People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent. Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. [...] I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged [...] But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Any how, thank God the US Supreme Court made the proper decision today.
|
United States10315 Posts
Kavanaugh's dissent is so pitiful, and while I know he's a rat, I'd really expect more from a SC justice... basically said "well, we don't know how to resolve the issue if we rule this is illegal! What do we do with refunds, we haven't thought of that!"
Yeah Justice Kavanuagh, I guess if the illegal item is too hard to fix, we shouldn't rule it illegal. Fucking joke.
|
There‘s to hope Andrew produces useful information while in custody. Meanwhile Kash enjoys a trip to Milan…
Maybe he‘ll let the authorities there know how billionaires have been subverting this country, even. But he‘s probably too deep in himself to do that.
Kurz ‚working‘ for Thiel is surely a coincidence, along with these strange activities on the internet nowadays. Maybe they‘re scouting out which Euros they‘re going to recruit to onlyfans next. Seems like the most productive thing they can get done.
How to bastardize European countries for dummies.
Does make you wonder where all these drug dealers came from when Kurz took over.
Given the circumstances I consider Germany and Austria fully bastardized, but maybe there‘s refuge in Italy. Low hopes.
|
i think US Alcohol is going to get the "Bud Light" treatment from Canadians.
California wine, Tennessee Whiskey and Kentucky Bourbon has already been replaced for months. If the next US Prez negotiates an excellent trade deal with Canada I think the boycott can possibly weaken. As long as Trump is in power I don't see Canadians reversing the current boycott. The whole thing is an unnecessary cryin' shame. Also, Canadian Premiers have set a very high bar to reversing their decisions to keep US Alcohol off store shelves.
I'll be riveted to my 80", 4K, HD, OLED TV, with 7 speaker dolby surround sound tomorrow to watch the big Canada/USA curling game!
|
Canada11425 Posts
Your Warren Buffet quote doesn't seem to align with your go all in on sales tax idea? Like, at all???
Looks like Warren just wants to fix the current progressive tax systems so people in the ultra rich categories actually pay what it says on paper? As well as creating a new tax bracket with a much higher percentage than taxing at 17%. Which sounds eminently reasonable.
It's 'prolly' useful to have a few different sources of revenue so you have a few different levers to pull to raise revenue without being regressive on the poor or stifling growth. 'Prolly' that's the reason no country has tried a mono-tax policy?
|
On February 21 2026 03:35 Falling wrote: Your Warren Buffet quote doesn't seem to align with your go all in on sales tax idea? Like, at all???
that is why the Warren Buffett item is in a separate paragraph. The initial paragraph about consumption based taxation does not reference Buffett's insights at all. To summarize, i'm covering "tax the rich" from several perspectives. if you disagree with any of the individual points made ... make your case.
Any way you want to cut it the rich and ultra rich are not paying enough tax. They should pay more tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|