House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Monday declined to support President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed 35 percent tariff on companies that leave the U.S., warning it could spark a trade war.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Trump threatened to seek retribution against U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas by imposing a 35 percent tariff on their goods. But McCarthy and other free-market Republicans seem skeptical of that plan.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/308786...ariff-plan


Looks like the honeymoon is going to be over before Trump even takes office.

(12-05-2016 02:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Monday declined to support President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed 35 percent tariff on companies that leave the U.S., warning it could spark a trade war.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Trump threatened to seek retribution against U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas by imposing a 35 percent tariff on their goods. But McCarthy and other free-market Republicans seem skeptical of that plan.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/308786...ariff-plan


Looks like the honeymoon is going to be over before Trump even takes office.

I didn't know the majority leader had more pull than the speaker?

(12-05-2016 02:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Monday declined to support President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed 35 percent tariff on companies that leave the U.S., warning it could spark a trade war.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Trump threatened to seek retribution against U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas by imposing a 35 percent tariff on their goods. But McCarthy and other free-market Republicans seem skeptical of that plan.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/308786...ariff-plan


Looks like the honeymoon is going to be over before Trump even takes office.

35% always seemed a little high. Tariffs do need to raise up some, but my guess is that 35% is a starting point, and will probably end up around a 1/3rd of that.

IMO McCarthy is right. A trade war would almost certainly cause a recession.

(12-05-2016 02:24 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  IMO McCarthy is right. A trade war would almost certainly cause a recession.

Agree. What we need is a consumption tax. That levels the playing field worldwide.

Kevin McCuckthy must go. Trump will steamroll him.

It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

Let's talk about tariff baby, let's talk about you and me, let's talk about all the good things and the bad things and his-tor-y, let's talk about tariff....let's talk about tariff.

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.
MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

Consumption tax doesn't punish them for moving jobs overseas so much as it reduces the incentive to move overseas.

And here's the thing. Companies aren't staying fixed sizes. They expand over time. If they put their expansion overseas instead of here, they're not really leaving. Same effect, but it's not a "leave," it's a "never come here." So you expand overseas, and over time you wind the size of the US operation down. Going to be hard to write tax or other legislation to address that. Have to have some sort of regulation, if you shut down a US operation within X years of opening an expansion overseas, then you have to pay. So companies wait X years plus 1 day.

You can play all the games you want with tariffs and penalties and all that. Who pays is the American consumer. Or you can bite the bullet and address the problem head-on.

The most bone headed idea Trump has.

If any of the Hollywood types keep their promise to leave the US in the event of a Trump win, they should be hit with a 35% excise tax on any earnings they receive if they return to the US to make a movie, cut a record or appear on TV.

If they make a movie in Canada, etc., all earnings in the US should also have a 35% excise tax.

(12-05-2016 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.
MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

Consumption tax doesn't punish them for moving jobs overseas so much as it reduces the incentive to move overseas.

And here's the thing. Companies aren't staying fixed sizes. They expand over time. If they put their expansion overseas instead of here, they're not really leaving. Same effect, but it's not a "leave," it's a "never come here." So you expand overseas, and over time you wind the size of the US operation down. Going to be hard to write tax or other legislation to address that. Have to have some sort of regulation, if you shut down a US operation within X years of opening an expansion overseas, then you have to pay. So companies wait X years plus 1 day.

You can play all the games you want with tariffs and penalties and all that. Who pays is the American consumer. Or you can bite the bullet and address the problem head-on.

But Republicans have been talking about this for decades now (consumption taxes) and Democrats, despite following Europe for everything else, have repeatedly sold this as 'taxing the poor'.... and the public hasn't caught on yet. Trump alluded to it with Mexico in the debates and nobody said a word about it.

Tariff, Tax, penalty, reduction of incentive, all semantics dealing with using the tax code to encourage firms to stay/discourage them from leaving. THIS action is what is important as it is what will determine if jobs stay or go, and not what form that takes.

Maybe I'm just getting caught up in all these stupid posts from the left where Trump isn't supposed to consult with congress on issues... or to give broad strokes and let congress fill in the blanks... or to adapt the 'theme' to logical responses... regardless of which party those solutions come from.

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

(12-05-2016 05:05 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Kevin McCuckthy must go. Trump will steamroll him.

Correct, he will get onboard if he wants to keep his job.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Maybe go check out what Conservatives have been saying. You'll have to venture away from this board to find 'em.


I wonder if those Trump hats, shirts and ties in the Towers gift shop include a 35% tariff yet.

(12-05-2016 02:10 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 02:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Monday declined to support President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed 35 percent tariff on companies that leave the U.S., warning it could spark a trade war.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Trump threatened to seek retribution against U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas by imposing a 35 percent tariff on their goods. But McCarthy and other free-market Republicans seem skeptical of that plan.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/308786...ariff-plan


Looks like the honeymoon is going to be over before Trump even takes office.

35% always seemed a little high. Tariffs do need to raise up some, but my guess is that 35% is a starting point, and will probably end up around a 1/3rd of that.

I kind of agree with that 10-15% would feel like a decent amount. But when you negotiate you start high.

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

It's only remotely the same thing if you're digging hard to try and make it so.

1) these were state incentives, not Federal incentives. Trump didn't give them a dime as he doesn't have a dime to give them. All he could do is tell them about his plans and goals and vision.
2) picking winners and losers is about companies going out of business because they can't compete... people losing jobs because the companies fail, and rewarding 'failing' businesses.... OR about choosing (as an example) Solar companies in California over natural gas companies in Texas.

I used to call on 2nd tier banks before the collapse... and we were extremely solvent with none of the crap, because we knew it was priced to a Goldilocks environment. What SHOULD have happened is that the bonds should have been repriced and the holders forced to sell, eliminating investor capital. Depositors should have been insured and those deposits (and assets) sold to companies like mine at their proper economic value. The government could have/should have kept a 'claw back' for any extraordinary terms. Much more so than they did for GM, bailing out stock investors and killing bond investors... even though bond investors were legally secured and stock holders weren't. Instead, they gave billions to the guys who caused the problems, and essentially priced the guys who did it right out of the market.

THAT is picking winners and losers... not helping a state keep jobs by 'supporting' their decision to offer incentives (which they will lose anyway if the company leaves).

Said simply, the state's choice is to have no corporate tax revenue, 1,000 people on unemployment with very little personal tax revenue, and the multiplier effect (in reverse) of that outcome on other industries and property values.... OR, to have no corporate tax revenue, but keep those 1,000 people employed plus their personal tax revenue and the multiplier effect of that outcome on other industries and property values. YOU do the math.

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

Pretty sure most state/localities will do a cost/benefit analysis. If given up 7 million dollar in incentives equates to greater than 7 million in benefits, then it's the right move. If not, it's just bad financial management to proceed with the incentives.