• SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Maybe in a properly functioning capitalistic system that ensures truly fair competition, prevents monopolies (or near/effective monopolies), and properly manages limited resources (and I’m sure other things that didn’t immediately come to mind). Not so much what exists currently.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Let me rephrase: in the system that exists, today, the argument “it’s consumers that end up paying” works the same for the tarrifs as for sales tax?

      • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Sales tax is imposed by the states (and sometimes smaller localities) to help fund their operations, not the feds (although the tariffs have effectively amounted to that without actually saying it) - people can move to places like Delaware if they have a problem with that. These tariffs are universal, and since the manufacturing of the bulk of products has been offshored LONG ago, there’s no alternative.

        Gotta love people like you who deliberately ignore the detailed nuances because it destroys your so-called argument.

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Fucking hell what a toxic, ad-hominem, reply!

          (although the tariffs have effectively amounted to that without actually saying it)

          Especially considering we’re saying the same thing.

          Politics really destroys the logical thinking part in many people’s brains.

          • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 days ago

            I’ll agree with the last sentence, but where’s the ad-hominem? I addressed your “argument” - such as it was, since we are most definitely NOT saying the same things - and said you were ignoring details. YOU, on the other hand, did not rebut what I just said, but jumped to playing the victim. GMAFB.

            • iii@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              but where’s the ad-hominem?

              “Gotta love people like you who deliberately etc…”

              There wasn’t a need to rebut anything. Your comment confirmed what I asked from the start. Just in a very unpleasant, toxic, angry, way. They’re the same thing under a different name.

              • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                There wasn’t a need to rebut anything. Your comment confirmed what I asked from the start. Just in a very unpleasant, toxic, angry, way. They’re the same thing under a different name.

                If you don’t see the difference between states taxing for their own operations that benefit its residents, and federal “tariffs” that didn’t even have to get approved by Congress to be legal & that get funneled towards things that rarely benefit those paying, then this is pointless.