America At the Crossroads Economically with the Tariffs Case Heard Today by SCOTUS

[Rogue AI]

The bureaucracy can't impose any taxes. That is purely the constitutional job of congress.
The bureaucracy can only impose fee's and penalties, which are NOT taxes.

Taxes are compulsory levies collected for general government services, while fees are collected for a specific service that benefits the payer, and penalties are imposed as a deterrent against undesirable behavior, such as filing or paying taxes late.

Tariffs are fees, not taxes.

 

[Crepitus]

Absolute nonsense, in fact just the opposite of what it would do to the economy. The only ones who want to tank the economy are you liberal scum. That is your only hope in midterms. A terrible economy is the only thing that might distract people from all the rest of the evil loaded into your degenerate agenda.

LOL, no. Just no.

 

[Leo123]

The bureaucracy can't impose any taxes. That is purely the constitutional job of congress.
The bureaucracy can only impose fee's and penalties, which are NOT taxes.

Taxes are compulsory levies collected for general government services, while fees are collected for a specific service that benefits the payer, and penalties are imposed as a deterrent against undesirable behavior, such as filing or paying taxes late.

If fees and penalties are not taxes, neither are tariffs.

 

[Leo123]

And labor walkouts aren't strikes, they're negotiating tools for the "union".

No comparison.

 

[postman]

Tariffs are fees, not taxes.

Anyone who believes tariffs are fees, should answer the question,
Who pays the tariffs?

a) Foreigners
b) Americans

 

[postman]

If fees and penalties are not taxes, neither are tariffs.

Smoke another doobie.

What a fool believes.

 

[postman]

No comparison.

Sure it is.
If a tariff isn't a tax
and a walkout isn't a strike.
They're just negotiating tools

Then the no-strike provision of federal law doesn't apply.

 

[Rogue AI]

Anyone who believes tariffs are fees, should answer the question,
Who pays the tariffs?

a) Foreigners
b) Americans

Hardly, one needs only look to see who collects tariffs.

 

[postman]

Hardly, one needs only look to see who collects tariffs.

The question isn't who collects tariffs, but WHO they collect the tariffs from.

The government extracts money from people foreign and domestic in any of a number of ways. But the imposing of a tax on Americans was a power they reserved to begin in the peoples house.
Not the white house.

 

[Rogue AI]

The question isn't who collects tariffs, but WHO they collect the tariffs from.

The government extracts money from people foreign and domestic in any of a number of ways. But the imposing of a tax on Americans was a power they reserved to begin in the peoples house.
Not the white house.

Wrong. Who collects the tariffs defines what the tariffs are. Try harder.

 

[postman]

Wrong. Who collects the tariffs defines what the tariffs are. Try harder.

You have many types of taxes, and many times of fees, and penalties. But they are no interchangeable, or redefineable.

A tariff is by definition a tax on imported goods, paid for by the importer.

A legal tariff is a tax or duty imposed by a government on imported goods and services, also known as a customs duty. Its primary legal purpose is to regulate trade by making imported goods more expensive to protect domestic industries. Legal definitions also include the official schedules or documents that list these duties and their associated rates and provisions, such as the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) in the U.S.

Also:

Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › Tariff
A tariff or import tax is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer.

 

[citygator]

Tariffs are NOT taxes. They are negotiating tools for POTUS, not congress or judges in black robes. Moreover, Trump does not have unbounded tariff power. Meanwhile the bureaucracy has unbounded power to effect all aspects of our society through regulation and indirect taxation which raises 'taxes' on everyone.

 

[Rogue AI]

You have many types of taxes, and many times of fees, and penalties. But they are no interchangeable, or redefineable.

A tariff is by definition a tax on imported goods, paid for by the importer.

A legal tariff is a tax or duty imposed by a government on imported goods and services, also known as a customs duty. Its primary legal purpose is to regulate trade by making imported goods more expensive to protect domestic industries. Legal definitions also include the official schedules or documents that list these duties and their associated rates and provisions, such as the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) in the U.S.

Also:

Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › Tariff
A tariff or import tax is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer.

Wrong again. Duties and fees are not taxes. Try harder. Your wiki education is failing you. Again, it is all about who collects it that defines it. You loons simply revel in ignorance. How very sad.

 

[drudge X]

Trump is trying to play his hand carefully. The announcement of $2000 rebate check is to get the SC to leave tariffs as is. I guess the total mess from reversing the tariffs isn't convincing enough for Democrats. Trump took it to the people instead.

If leftists ***** and moan, I am more than happy to accept your $2000.

 

[MisterBeale]

I just heard that the SCOTUS is going to slap down the tariffs today. . .

 

[candycorn]

Today, the Supreme Court heard the challenge to Trump’s tariffs.

If the Court says Trump cannot impose tariffs, as the law enacted by Congress years ago allows him to do, trillions of dollars of investment in the USA from foreign sources will vanish.

Only the President can speak with one voice; there is no way that a President can achieve such positive deals for the USA while hoping that Congress will back him up and eventually pass tariffs. No way.

In a few months, we will know where we are at on this issue.

Trillions of dollars of investments in the USA are in the balance.

If SCOTUS says the President cannot do this, they will bear the economic responsivity for those deals drying up. SCOTUS cannot wash their hands and say anything else, this will be on them.

The tariffs case and whether amicus briefs matter

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives. […]

www.scotusblog.com

Advisory Opinions live broadcast: Trump's Tariff Showdown

Oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s tariffs case have concluded, but the conversation isn’t over. Listen now to a special live broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast to reflect on […]

www.scotusblog.com

Blob got slapped down.

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

The Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

apnews.com

 

[Zincwarrior]

Blob got slapped down.

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

The Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

apnews.com

Oh shit.

 

[Ringo]

Blob got slapped down.

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

The Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

apnews.com

Bloody hell! My $2000 gone!

 

[theHawk]

Blob got slapped down.

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

The Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

apnews.com

The ruling only affects certain tariffs.

The Chinese steel one remains unaffected, as well as many others.

It’s a procedural ruling, not saying he can’t enact tariffs. He supposedly just can’t do it under that specific authorization.

 

[sparky]

can someone put the pro / cons in pig farmer logic here?

~S~