I guess fireworks were on the list to go up to 25% tariff rate (from 6% currently paid by importers)....if this is imposed I guess we will see about a 15% ??? price bump in wholesale prices?? what a waste to give the US gov. this extortion money especially when they are actively trying to water down consumer fireworks! It's not like they are going to start manufacturing consumer fireworks here again with all the gov. red tape here to go through and insurance rates, we know that will never happen.
Trump 19% increase in duty on fireworks starting in July??
- Thread starter Rio Alsi
- Start date
There was a petition going around on facebook to exclude fireworks. My opinion is that it is just a scare tactic and an agreement will be reached. Something needs to be done to fix the trade deficit though.
mguerramd
Active member
It's not "extortion money". It's a short term tactic by a very experienced negotiator to achieve fair trade practices that will ultimately economically benefit all Americans; consumers and producers.
Stoney
Active member
- Joined
- May 2019
- Messages
- 37
Fireworks were placed on list 4 for a reason, to keep it after everything came in for the year for the consumer market.
This gives them plenty of time to come up with a new trade agreement that isn't so horrible for the United States before firework imports begin again for 2020.
This gives them plenty of time to come up with a new trade agreement that isn't so horrible for the United States before firework imports begin again for 2020.
2020 season of shipping is right now. There is no downtime when it comes to sending fireworks containers to the US. There will be many containers shipped in June, July, August, and September.
Stoney
Active member
- Joined
- May 2019
- Messages
- 37
Yeah i understand that.
My only point was that the lions share of the shipping for the 2019 season will be over with (well at least paid for) before the increased tariffs take effect. It's the reason fireworks wound up on list 4.
Hopefully they can figure this out, it's going to effect everything soon, not just our favorite hobby.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #7
well he is experienced in going bankrupt! I'll stick to freedom over government control because the tariffs only hurt the people and enrich bureaucrats
Stoney
Active member
- Joined
- May 2019
- Messages
- 37
I mean I get what you're saying, and you won't find a more anti-government anti-tax person on here than me...
But China is taxing our stuff going there, and undercutting us over here. China has been stealing our IP and ruining american businesses with cheap goods for decades. Trump is actually trying to do something to fix it. It's a tax on goods coming here from china, all China has to do is sign a better trade deal that is fair to us and the whole thing can end tomorrow.
As much as i can't stand government intervention I'm proud of our president for standing up for our country and the country's business owners... I mean at the end of the day it's actually his job to do this.
I certainly don't love everything Trump does, and i agree that he is certainly using tariffs as a weapon to get what he wants. He just did the same thing with multiple countries, including the one that just got signed yesterday with Mexico (that one not over trade, but over the invasion of illegal immigration).
In this case what he "wants" is legitimately whats best for our country... he wants to force China into a new trade deal that is fair for both countries and not just heavily favoring them instead of us. We want something favoring us, we currently have something heavily favoring them, he's tying to force something fair for both sides.
International trade is a tricky subject, there are a lot of things going on here that most people just can't understand, but no matter who you are you have to agree that China has been doing some super shady shit to the world market for decades, and most of that has been targeted at us.
Intentional devaluing of it's currency
theft of IP (both blatant theft of copyrighted merchandise, and hacking our businesses and our citizens for IP)
flooding the market with cheap goods destroying our manufacturers and putting our citizens out of work
Anything that puts an end to those things is going to help our country and it's his job to make that happen. While it may hurt in the short term to increase the cost of goods coming from China, the pressure should force them to renegotiate a new trade deal when they meet again in less than a month.
The best thing we can do is support his decisions and hope that the experts in charge of foreign trade know more about it than a bunch of people on a fireworks forum.
So long as you understand that "the short term" pain may be 20 years. China invested MASSIVELY for decades in infrastructure - ports, a national rail transport system - and we've invested massively in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The current president has certainly continued that trend. Manufacturing may slowly increase in the US, but manufacturing JOBS won't, as any new factories constructed here will be automated. Automated factories owned by companies that are given tax breaks on the automation may not improve things for 90% of Americans.
Stoney
Active member
- Joined
- May 2019
- Messages
- 37
Yeah it's a very complex issue that our leaders have been slow to act on, some would say intentionally. It's not a matter of weather we will continue to buy things from China, nothing can stop that aside from the total collapse of the Chinese economy. However it would be nice if we'd stop running around the globe apologizing for thinking of our country/people first and stop giving away the farm to virtue signal and/or to punish ourselves for some sort of imagined slight against the world certain people feel we should grovel for.
Many of our existing trade deals are outdated and weren't very good for us as a country to begin with. Someone had to come along and actually do something about it, even if it is too late, and even if it is someone the media loves to trash for click/rage bait. I'm not a fan of everything Trump does but i'm glad he's trying to change the deals to be more fair and stop the bleeding.
When i said "short term" i meant between now and the meeting in 3 weeks... the back and forth tariffs (economic saber rattling) has just been setting the table for that trade deal negotiation and hopefully they can work something out.
20 years would be a disaster, 3 more weeks is nothing if it gets us to a better deal.
Right now we are looking at RECORD low unemployment (by almost all metrics), a booming stock market, and multiple trade deals that have been re-negotiated to be more fair to our country. Trying to be objective here... he's certainly not the best, but he's certainly not the worst. Trumps not that bad, and i think most people could agree on that if they'd turn off the propaganda. i mean honestly look at all that he's been able to do despite being the target of a failed coup as the direct result of some old entitled corrupt drunk lady bricking the easiest free-throw in political history. We spent two years tearing the country apart with verified fake nonsense all because people couldn't stop crying that their team lost.
We had crap choices, but i think we dodged a major bullet... I've been cautiously optimistic since he won and I've been happy to be wrong about him so far.
A better trade deal for our country isn't a bad thing to try for, and if he needs to use temporary tariffs to put pressure on them to gain the leverage he needs to make that happen... I'm all for it.
In the mean time it's just another great reason to buy american whenever we can, while we still can.
- Thread starter
- #11
most of the constitution I realize is completely ignored but allegedly "congress" has the authority to "set tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations". But whether we have a narcissistic executive or a bought and paid for Congress at the end of the day "managed trade" is never about individuals, especially when the state is taking a huge chunk of money for doing next to nothing but look at papers and occasionally charge people to search cargo.... but like I said nobody is going to start making fireworks to sell commercially in the USA due to the massive regulatory burden so this extortion has zero to do with protecting anyone concerning the extortion they are bumping up with fireworks.
Last edited:
mguerramd
Active member
- The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).
- The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent of all taxes paid) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent of all taxes paid).
- The top 10% of earners paid 70% of all taxes paid
- There’s your “tax cuts for the wealthy” and just who is and is not “paying their fair share”
Your numbers are simply an indication that the top 1 percent have all the money. Insert the statements
For the political commentary:
- Over the last 50 years, the top 1% have nearly doubled their share of the country's total annual income, while the share of the bottom 50% has steadily declined
- The richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 170 million
For the political commentary:
- What's the "fair share" of people who are barely scraping by and are worse off than they were 20 years ago, who have no savings, a negative net worth, and couldn't come up with $400. in an emergency?
- If you are a supporter of MAGA, tell me the years when America was at its greatest, then compare the tax rates and structure in those years (including top tax rates, real corporate tax rates after deductions, and estate taxes) to what they are at present.
mguerramd
Active member
The top 1% earned 19.7% of all the income and paid 37.3% of all the taxes in 2016.
Income inequality is a result of the differences in people. All the money doesn't "go to" anyone, it is earned. Some people have more drive, determination, grit, ability, sense of responsibility, and intelligence than others. That's not evil and it's not a conspiracy. It's human nature. There is no reason to expect that all people should be equal, or even nearly so, in their income and standard of living. The only way to ensure that type of equality is through force and coercion, by seizing from those who produce and giving it to those to whom it does not belong, which is not compatible with a free society. Why are there
"people who are barely scraping by and are worse off than they were 20 years ago, who have no savings, a negative net worth, and couldn't come up with $400. in an emergency?"
Is someone taking their money by force, or holding them back from achieving their maximum potential? If so, how is it that the next guy is a wealthy entrepreneur? The richest guy I personally know grew up in a trailer park, had no family money nor influence, worked hard and smart, and is now a mega millionaire in his field. That is achievable by anyone in a free society. We have the lowest unemployment since 1969, and the lowest black, hispanic, and female unemployment in the history of the country! And yet there are 1.4 million more jobs available than there are people who want them. Is there a political body of thought that depresses peoples work ethic and encourages anger, envy and resentment? There is and it harms and depresses people, damages their integrity and sense of self worth and encourages dependence, not success and self sufficiency. And it is not the Conservative body of thought.
As far as the effect of taxes, I had to fire an employee (the "little guy") when my tax rate was increased to 39.6% under Clinton. As well, I had to cancel my plans to build a bigger clinic, and hire more people. Real people in Kerrville, Texas were hurt by that. Taxes are only harmful to the economy and to employment. When Kennedy cut tax rates, we had in excess of 5% GDP growth (job and income growth) for eight and a half years! It's also well documented that whenever tax rates go down, actual tax income to the Treasury goes up. Treasury revenue doubled after the Reagan tax rate reductions. The notion that you have to "pay for tax cuts" is absolute rubbish. Politicians who promote high taxes are well aware that higher tax rates equal lower tax revenue. They don't view taxes as a way to fund government, but a social engineering tool to punish success and appeal to peoples baser feelings of envy and resentment. Inequality of income is normal and natural because all people are unique and different, it's not a problem to be fixed with force.
Income inequality is a result of the differences in people. All the money doesn't "go to" anyone, it is earned. Some people have more drive, determination, grit, ability, sense of responsibility, and intelligence than others. That's not evil and it's not a conspiracy. It's human nature. There is no reason to expect that all people should be equal, or even nearly so, in their income and standard of living. The only way to ensure that type of equality is through force and coercion, by seizing from those who produce and giving it to those to whom it does not belong, which is not compatible with a free society. Why are there
"people who are barely scraping by and are worse off than they were 20 years ago, who have no savings, a negative net worth, and couldn't come up with $400. in an emergency?"
Is someone taking their money by force, or holding them back from achieving their maximum potential? If so, how is it that the next guy is a wealthy entrepreneur? The richest guy I personally know grew up in a trailer park, had no family money nor influence, worked hard and smart, and is now a mega millionaire in his field. That is achievable by anyone in a free society. We have the lowest unemployment since 1969, and the lowest black, hispanic, and female unemployment in the history of the country! And yet there are 1.4 million more jobs available than there are people who want them. Is there a political body of thought that depresses peoples work ethic and encourages anger, envy and resentment? There is and it harms and depresses people, damages their integrity and sense of self worth and encourages dependence, not success and self sufficiency. And it is not the Conservative body of thought.
As far as the effect of taxes, I had to fire an employee (the "little guy") when my tax rate was increased to 39.6% under Clinton. As well, I had to cancel my plans to build a bigger clinic, and hire more people. Real people in Kerrville, Texas were hurt by that. Taxes are only harmful to the economy and to employment. When Kennedy cut tax rates, we had in excess of 5% GDP growth (job and income growth) for eight and a half years! It's also well documented that whenever tax rates go down, actual tax income to the Treasury goes up. Treasury revenue doubled after the Reagan tax rate reductions. The notion that you have to "pay for tax cuts" is absolute rubbish. Politicians who promote high taxes are well aware that higher tax rates equal lower tax revenue. They don't view taxes as a way to fund government, but a social engineering tool to punish success and appeal to peoples baser feelings of envy and resentment. Inequality of income is normal and natural because all people are unique and different, it's not a problem to be fixed with force.
So your analysis is basically that people in the US get what they deserve. It's interesting that apparently you think that people are more different in the US than they are in other developed countries, and they've become more different in the last 30 years than they were 1945-1980. No point in arguing with you, this is just your take on it, and I have my own, which differs dramatically.
If you want to talk about "force and coercion" you might bear in mind that my state pays more to the federal government than we receive, while your state gets more than it pays.
But just sticking to the facts, your comment "It's also well documented that whenever tax rates go down, actual tax income to the Treasury goes up. Treasury revenue doubled after the Reagan tax rate reductions" is deliberately misleading. Look at a chart. Since 1940 the economy and the population have grown steadily, and Treasury revenue has grown steadily except for occasional slight downward turns during and immediately following recessions (1971, 1983, 2001-2003, 2008-2009). The average annual increase has been 9% from 1940-2018. That means it doubles on average every 8 years regardless of who is president or what the president does, or what the tax rates are; crediting it to Reagan is giving credit where it is not due unless you're wiling to say that both Jimmy Carter and Clinton did a lot better. The fact is that during Reagan's two terms, growth was a bit below average for the post-WWII period. Charts are all at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (this is a snapshot site that provides information that under Trump has become a lot harder to find). Any president who has a recession during his term in office looks below average; any president who does not looks like a hero. The absolute best case is Carter, who took office just as we were coming out of a relatively major recession.
If you want to talk about "force and coercion" you might bear in mind that my state pays more to the federal government than we receive, while your state gets more than it pays.
But just sticking to the facts, your comment "It's also well documented that whenever tax rates go down, actual tax income to the Treasury goes up. Treasury revenue doubled after the Reagan tax rate reductions" is deliberately misleading. Look at a chart. Since 1940 the economy and the population have grown steadily, and Treasury revenue has grown steadily except for occasional slight downward turns during and immediately following recessions (1971, 1983, 2001-2003, 2008-2009). The average annual increase has been 9% from 1940-2018. That means it doubles on average every 8 years regardless of who is president or what the president does, or what the tax rates are; crediting it to Reagan is giving credit where it is not due unless you're wiling to say that both Jimmy Carter and Clinton did a lot better. The fact is that during Reagan's two terms, growth was a bit below average for the post-WWII period. Charts are all at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (this is a snapshot site that provides information that under Trump has become a lot harder to find). Any president who has a recession during his term in office looks below average; any president who does not looks like a hero. The absolute best case is Carter, who took office just as we were coming out of a relatively major recession.
Well, surprise, surprise, one major donation to something Trump wanted and everything has changed...
markets.businessinsider.com
A firm donated $750,000 of fireworks to Trump's Fourth of July show — and Trump scrapped planned fireworks tariffs the same day
Phantom Fireworks' CEO lobbied the US government not to impose tariffs on virtually all Chinese goods including fireworks, and met with Trump in May.
markets.businessinsider.com
Its good to see that the tariffs have been put on hold for awhile at least.
The money floe from fed to state and back is misleading and artificial. The farming industry is heavily subsidized by the government. This causes money to flow from the fed to the state. Removing these subsidies at this point would be painful and no one knows the outcome. I would predict that first we would loose a lot of farmers. They would go bankrupt due to cash flow problems. Then food prices would skyrocket. Our food prices are artificiall low due to subsidies. Then corporate fsrms would move in. We would end up with one or two mega farms in each state. Maybe Kellogs or Monsanto would own it all. Anyone remember the telco industry from the early 80s?
The money floe from fed to state and back is misleading and artificial. The farming industry is heavily subsidized by the government. This causes money to flow from the fed to the state. Removing these subsidies at this point would be painful and no one knows the outcome. I would predict that first we would loose a lot of farmers. They would go bankrupt due to cash flow problems. Then food prices would skyrocket. Our food prices are artificiall low due to subsidies. Then corporate fsrms would move in. We would end up with one or two mega farms in each state. Maybe Kellogs or Monsanto would own it all. Anyone remember the telco industry from the early 80s?
Stoney
Active member
- Joined
- May 2019
- Messages
- 37
Well, surprise, surprise, one major donation to something Trump wanted and everything has changed...
A firm donated $750,000 of fireworks to Trump's Fourth of July show — and Trump scrapped planned fireworks tariffs the same day
Phantom Fireworks' CEO lobbied the US government not to impose tariffs on virtually all Chinese goods including fireworks, and met with Trump in May.
So just so I understand...
Trump might tax fireworks = orange man bad
Trump decided not to tax fireworks = orange man bad
At this point if the man cured cancer we'd have to hear about how he's putting oncologists out of work.
cptnding
Member
- Joined
- May 2019
- Messages
- 23
Yeah, I think that sums it up pretty well