Post New

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-s...

It appears set to immediately halt a massive section of Trump’s tariffs announced last year on “Liberation Day” using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Lets see how he bobs and weaves to justify these tariffs. It's not over yet, but a first step.

IP

Lets see how he bobs and weaves to justify these tariffs. It's not over yet, but a first step.

Apparently, "Plan R for Robert" is in hand.

Trump calls US Supreme Court's tariff ruling ‘a disgrace,’ says ‘backup plan’ ready: Report

Donald Trump on Friday called the United States Supreme Court’s decision striking down his global tariffs “a disgrace” and told governors he has a backup plan to reinstate the measures, reported CNN, citing people familiar with his remarks.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internat...

Steve

The immediate challenge is that the funding of the US has shifted from income tax revenue to tariff revenue as Congress has passed tax reduction bills. With out either tariff or income tax revenue, the national deficit will skyrocket. Without tariff revenue, Congress will have to wrestle with how to take candy from children as the tax cut would have to go.

Jeff

What matters is debt to GDP, not deficits, really. Deficits don't pose risk to economic health so long as debt grows slower than GDP.

Debt is rising FAR faster than GDP under Spankee--and always has.

Without tariff revenue, Congress will have to wrestle with how to take candy from children as the tax cut would have to go.

Or, find other things to cut. Several years ago, as an exercise, I went through all the money the Feds dole out to cities and states: Education funding, which I think is being phased out anyway, road funding, police funding, "blight clearance" funding. I found about $1T that could be cut. When I did that exercise, that would have been enough to balance the budget.

Just exactly how did the Federal government get into the business of funding state and local responsibilities, for people who refuse to tax themselves to raise that money? Did this grow out of Nixon's "revenue sharing" program in the early 70s? I remember Kalamazoo County resurfacing roads that were not that bad in the first place, just to use up that free money from DC. Now, it seems states and cities are dependent on Federal handouts.

from the net sifter:

President Richard Nixon’s revenue sharing, a cornerstone of his "New Federalism" program, was enacted through the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. It distributed $30 billion in federal tax revenue to state and local governments over five years with few strings attached, aiming to decentralize power, reduce federal bureaucracy, and allow local governments to tailor spending to their needs.

Key Aspects of Nixon’s Revenue Sharing:

Purpose: The initiative sought to return authority to state and local officials, shifting power away from Washington D.C.

General Revenue Sharing (GRS): Signed in 1972, this provided flexible, "no-strings-attached" funds, which could be used for, among other things, public safety, environmental protection, transportation, and health.

Special Revenue Sharing (SRS): Proposed to consolidate hundreds of categorical grants into broader block grants for specific areas like community development, law enforcement, and manpower training.

Impact: It represented a major shift in federal aid, allowing local governments to fund services, reduce taxes, or start new programs.

Background and Goals:

"New Federalism": Revenue sharing was designed to foster a new partnership between the federal government and localities, based on the belief that local officials were best suited to address local needs.

Political Strategy: The plan was aimed at shifting funding away from traditional Democratic strongholds (major cities) toward states and suburban/rural areas that formed part of Nixon's political base.

Reducing Bureaucracy: It intended to cut through federal "red tape" associated with traditional, highly specific federal grants.

Steve

With out either tariff or income tax revenue, the national deficit will skyrocket. Without tariff revenue, Congress will have to wrestle with how to take candy from children as the tax cut would have to go.

Don't think that Trump hasn't had staff giving him options if he lost in the Supreme Court. The outcome was obvious unless he controlled the Supreme Court through appointments. What he did was mostly illegal. And it was. We haven't yet lost total control of democracy.

So Trump had already identified other options he could try when/if he lost.

One thing that Trump doesn't do - even if he's proven wrong. He ignores the judgment, and he counter attacks. He will not give up - even dating back to reelections even after all these years. He isn't capable of admitting losing. It's in his upbringing as a child. He can't admit he was wrong, or lost.

So we'll see the second round of "oop's-laws" that will permit him to continue to act as if tariff's aren't controlled by Congress. That's already been evident. That's what his staff has been looking for, and that's what he's been preparing for after losing.

There's still a long way to go before this all works out. As Buffett taught, "You can't make a good deal with a bad person." We've already done that. The consequences are still to be faced.

But, maybe, getting a little better? Maybe America is waking up from it's mistakes? Maybe we have a second chance in the next round of elections?

I still retain some faith in America to do what's right.

Without tariff revenue, Congress will have to wrestle with how to take candy from children as the tax cut would have to go.

“A tax cut would have to go”. With a Republican Congress.

Hilarious.

Where are you appearing this weekend?

He wants the deficit to skyrocket. He wants to send us into a great depression.

If or when he defaults our next wave of leadership won't have to raise taxes to 90% on the top bracket because the interest on the current debt and the debt will be gone.

Your nest eggs need guarding. He will strip the FDIC out. He won't create a few trillion dollars of debt in his wake after he defaults.

Debt is rising FAR faster than GDP under Spankee--and always has.

Yes, and GDP growth is slowing.

He is purposely mismanaging everything.

He is driving us into default.

It might take one to two more years. We are going into a great depression that will permanently ruin many people.

I still retain some faith in America to do what's right.

I am trying very hard to do this, but I fear it is too little, too late. There are a lot of building blocks already in place that may make it possible to ignore the will of the people. Those large warehouse purchases, supposedly for the keeping of illegals, trouble me. Perfect infrastructure for those who are not loyal, rounded up by his Brownshirts. Hopefully won't happen, but he is being given a long enough leash to strangle us all, and has shown he is capable of anything.

IP,
apparently waking up with a very optimistic mood today

So we'll see the second round of "oop's-laws" that will permit him to continue to act as if tariff's aren't controlled by Congress. That's already been evident. That's what his staff has been looking for, and that's what he's been preparing for after losing.

Yes, so he will be imposing “global” 10% tariffs on some other legal basis (Trade Act section 122).

Risks and downsides are plenty though

* it will do little to the blow suffered yesterday -
→ image-wise and
→ financially (Bessent has telegraphed multiple times the revenues - if found to be illegally collected - will have to be paid back)
* the new tariffs will expire after 150 days (and everyone knows that)
* section 122 is tied to addressing balance of payment problems - which cannot be demonstrated to apply across the board
→ Take Brazil, where the US has a trade surplus, but still applies a 40% tariff as "punishment" for throwing your leader’s good friend in jail for his coup attempt
→ Or take many other countries where there is no balance of payment ‘issue’ as long as trade of goods and services is taken together
* sure, countries can be individually ‘investigated’ to potentially keep tariffs to stick - which will however take a lot of work and time (despised by current leadership)
* finally, judges may consider exploring just another loophole as the administration giving the middle finger to the judiciary, and act accordingly

Much less "satisfying" and less room for "arbitrary and spontaneous executive decision making" from his perspective.
The wind is now blowing into his face.

For the midterms, the GOP is donating to rescue animal shelters. How wonderful. Just in time.

Risks and downsides are plenty though

SB,

He wants only the downsides. In the long run, taxes on the wealthy will be lower.

He wants only the downsides. In the long run, taxes on the wealthy will be lower.

As you appear to assume a US sovereign default -

thereafter, noone would buy USian debt anymore.
So, you'll think you'll be living within your means, as a country, on even lower taxes for the wealthy than now?

Yes, so he will be imposing “global” 10% tariffs on some other legal basis (Trade Act section 122).

I finally got around to watching the presser last night. Two takeaways:

-there will never be a refund of tariff money already paid. The first time he was asked, he said he will keep it tied up in litigation for two years. Moments later, he was asked about refunds again, and said words to the effect "weren't you listening? they will be tied up in litigation for five years". He is expert at keeping things tied up in litigation, for years. He uses a "whack-a-mole" strategy: make one claim, run it through the system, losing at every step, until it reaches SCOTUS, losing there too. Then he makes another claim, runs that one all the way to SCOTUS, losing at every stop, Then he makes another claim. Wash, rinse, repeat. He has the best legal talent money can buy, and all the resources of the United States, to run the litigation for as many years as he wants.

-while the 150 day clock is running, he will have every country investigated for trade violations. By now, every member of staff in every department should understand the consequences of telling him something he does not want to hear. Every investigation will find the country in question "guilty as charged", and will recommend the tariff level that he wants.

In 150 days, we will be right back to where we were three days ago.

Steve

So far in FY 2026, customs duties are only about $120B (6.6% of revenues). The FY25 deficit was $1800B.

"Most of the revenue the U.S. government collects comes from contributions from individual taxpayers, small businesses, and corporations through taxes. Additional sources of tax revenue consist of excise tax, estate tax, and other taxes and fees. So far in FY 2026, individual income taxes have accounted for 52% of total revenue while Social Security and Medicare taxes made up another 32%."
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-g...

Increasing U.S. consumption taxes is sensible. Tariffs are one way (Congress could take this wrong way), or a base national sales tax that is refunded to the state governments. Forty-five states have a sales tax.

"The United States relies much less on consumption taxes than other OECD countries. Taxes on goods and services accounted for only 16.8 percent of total US tax revenue, compared to 31.1 percent in the OECD. This is because all OECD countries, except the United States, levy value-added taxes (VAT), usually at relatively high rates. State and local sales tax rates in the United States are relatively low by comparison, but they are on a different tax base."
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-tax-...

People and countries will buy the future debt.

It is not a no more.

We do business with Germany after WW II

Increasing U.S. consumption taxes is sensible.

Consumption taxes are regressive. People with low incomes spend a far higher percent of income on basic needs, while wealthy people put it in the bank, or use it to buy services, which are (by and large) not subject to tariffs, often not to taxes.

My daily massage is untaxed, as is my regular visit from the gardener or my pool boy, but my pool boy, gardener, and massage person pays consumption taxes on the food they, uh, consume, the clothes they buy, and most everything else they need to do their jobs.

Somehow doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?

Consumption taxes are regressive.

Change tax laws to make failure to buy large amounts of consumption goods a taxable event.

FORCE the wealthy to either spend a significant amount of their income (from all sources) on US consumption goods OR they pay a 75%-90+% tax on their TOTAL income. Their choice.

There's not a rat's @ss chance in h3ll that rapacious revenge-driven maniac will repay a DIME of tariffs. Hell, he didn't pay contractors that built his hotels! "So sue me."

financially (Bessent has telegraphed multiple times the revenues - if found to be illegally collected - will have to be paid back)

FC

If he can bring on a US default on the debt, he will hand sign the refund checks.

He wants to sink the entire ship.

There's not a rat's @ss chance in h3ll that rapacious revenge-driven maniac will repay a DIME of tariffs. Hell, he didn't pay contractors that built his hotels! "So sue me."

Well there are 175 billion reasons to do exactly that :-)

Then again, the funds will likely end up in the pockets of JCs, rather than those of the consumers who paid the lion share.


Feb 20 (Reuters) - After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump lacked authority to impose tariffs under a law meant for use in national emergencies, litigation is expected to turn to the U.S. Court of International Trade, where companies have already hired an army of lawyers to help them recoup their tariff losses. Trade attorneys said the volume of cases seeking refunds for tariffs already imposed – more than 1,800 already – could surge now that the justices rejected the legal rationale behind an estimated $175 billion in U.S. customs revenue since last April. ...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/law-firms...

I would not support a consumption tax but would totally endorse a luxury tax.

fd

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.