General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Yahoo Finance
comments

Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Yahoo Finance" channel.

In fantasies. In reality, most companies that produce things in the US still have to import large portions of their supply chain, and it would be impossible for US manufacturing to ever fulfill our needs. All this would do is shift more of the imports from China to places like Indonesia (in many cases with such countries just repackaging Chinese products at a mark-up to avoid the tariffs), and raise the prices of US goods. A few Us manufacturers might see increased profits, but not enough to justify the change for consumers.
35
@Luckyrider1958 Nope, tariffs would not reverse that. That's not how tariffs work.
13
That's not how this works though. Those jobs would not come back, because it would be silly for them to do so.
11
@jjkhawaiian The opposite, actually. All those things have been improvising under Brand, when they had been in decline before him.
10
Memo back: It's not the taxes that makes your life unaffordable, it's your wages. Blame the company you work for.
10
ralphferley2602 The economy would actually go down, due to the higher inflation.
9
@dongrinolds140 No, it means bigger government, to manage these tariffs.
7
@logangodofcandy The tariffs would not be high enough to make it worth them not importing. You would need something like a 200-400% tariff for that to happen.
7
@junyajax And yet a lot of these products have low profit margins, they couldn't just eat the 60%. They would either pass it on, or go out of business entirely.
7
@tat2zz68 Individual income tax makes up 54% of total tax revenues. Social Security payroll tax is another 30%. Corporations only pay 9%.
5
Also those who buy anything, like food or clothing.
5
@rospencer611 But we've since shifted the economy away from that model. It would cost trillions of dollars to rebuild the US economy to be manufacturing based, and even if we did, we would have to pay people a fraction of minimum wage, and still be producing goods that could ONLY sell domestically because they would costs several times the going rate outside the US "tariff death spiral zone." THERE IS NO REASON TO DO THIS. Now yes, wages have been falling relative to things like CEO pay and inflation. This has nothing at all to do with manufacturing, it has to do with corporate deregulation since Reagan. Manufacturing would do nothing to help with this.
5
@tat2zz68 No, it had nothing to do with corporate taxes. Nothing whatsoever.
4
@logangodofcandy A 60% tariff would not lead to increased US manufacturing, because it would cost more than twice as much to hire an American to do the job, even if you ignored the cost of setting up the facilities. And if we're comparing it to the 10% from other countries, that isn't even enough to get a factory owner to turn over in his sleep.
4
"We don't have any legislative agenda to help this country, so. . . let's just bully the president's children a bit and then take off for Cancun."
4
@jeffb321 Corporations are indeed taxed at 21%, loopholes aside, but combined they only make up 9% of total revenues, while 84% are paid by individuals. Raising their taxes by reasonable amounts would not lead to significant negatives. They would continue to want to make money.
3
@randomhiphop5055 It won't bring back manufacturing though, so that wouldn't be a factor. It would still be much cheaper to just pay the tariff.
3
@davehconner I know that you don't see why we can't, but that doesn't change the fact that we can't. Even if we could get started producing stuff tomorrow, most products would cost 3-4 times as much in labor as if we got them produced overseas, and we don't currently have people trained to do the work, or factories set up to do the work, so that would take years and millions of dollars per product just to produce something that can be made better and cheaper overseas. Why? If there are better ways to do something, DO THAT. Why keep trying to pound a square peg into a round hole?
3
@jjkhawaiian I'm not the one in favor of the tariffs.
2
@TheBane616 Nope, that's not how it would work. US manufacturing would never be able to produce goods at prices close to foreign competitors, and even if the tariffs made the foreign options even more expensive, it still wouldn't sell overseas, so we would be producing ONLY for the domestic market, while our exports would crash. Some tariffs can work if they are extremely precisely targeted at specific markets, but blanket tariffs across the board are never a good idea, and tariffs in general could NEVER make up the revenues of income tax without crippling the US economy in the process. It would be like claiming to make up for the loss of a river by using a bucket brigade. At the end of the day, if you don't want the IRS harassing you about how you lied, then don't lie. Why is that so hard?
2
@votaric But, again, his efforts to "expand" the business accomplished less than if he'd just left the money in an indexed fund. He LOST money relative to what anyone else could have done with it. Also, he's refused to pay most of the people he's employed over the years. More people have put in a hard days work and NOT been paid for it by him than he's actually employed. He's caused far more harm than good through his actions, that's all I'm saying, I don't know why you'd disagree, when even he brags about doing it.
2
@tat2zz68 It was passed with plenty of votes.
2
@Power5 But with most "American made" products, it's not just raw materials that need to be sourced from elsewhere, it's also significant components. Like you might have a car that is "manufactured" in the US, but has dozens of parts to it that are manufactured in other countries. Those would still likely be subject to tariff, and if not, the tariffs would be too easy to dodge and you would end up with projects 99% built overseas and then an American company puts the bow on top and claims it's "American made."
2
@Power5 Right, and I'm just saying, if we aren't talking strictly about "things that come directly form the Earth," then policing which things are and are not "raw materials" would be far more trouble than it would be worth.
2
So basically he's proposing 40-50% inflation. Fun.
2
@chrishavill6458 I don't think you understand how these systems work. Inflation has nothing to do with this, and you wouldn't want inflation to reverse anyway, because it would just mean that the economy would collapse and people would be out of their jobs. What you want is to have a very small amount of inflation.
1
@gyn6131 Can you find me a source for that? I can find no evidence that corporations pay any portion of employees' income taxes. Are you sure you aren't just thinking of withholdings? Workers and employees do split the payroll tax, but payroll tax is only 30% total, so if that's split 50/50, then that would just be 15%, which, added to the 9%, would make the corporate contribution HALF of the individual income tax portion. Even if employers payed 100% of the payroll tax (which, let's be clear, they do not), it would still be 15% lower than income taxes.
1
ralphferley2602 But it's important to keep in mind that none of that is actually true of the real world.
1
@gyn6131 Employers don't pay anything into witholdings though, they just collect the employee's money so that he doesn't have to do it himself. Employers only match the payroll tax, which, as I explained, is a lot smaller. So, again, using 2022 numbers, employee income tax paid for 54% of the total tax revenue, this came 100% for employees, 0% from corporations. Then 30% came from payroll taxes, this came 15% from employees, 15% from corporations. Then 9% came from taxes on corporate profits. Then there were 7% in excise and "other" taxes, things like fees, tariffs, and inheritance. So adding that up, 69% of the total tax revenues came directly from employees, and 24% came from corporations, plus as much as 7% on each since depending on how that amount gets divided. In NO calculation do the corporations end up paying more. Now that you understand that, I'm glad we can agree that you were wrong and move on. As to your next point, there have been plenty of studies on this, and no, when taxes are lowered, corporations do not invest in growing things, they just buy back stocks and do other things to enrich investors. Companies ONLY spent money on improving the business when the business conditions are good, and that is BETTER achieved by giving more money to employees, so that they spend more. Basically, any tax cut to lower income individuals is worth several times the value of any tax cut to corporations or the wealthy.
1
@gyn6131 So, again, once ALL the math has been accounted for, private individuals pay 69% of the tax revenues, and corporations only account for 24%, roughly 1/3 as much. That's all I was saying. And again, history shows that raising taxes on corporations has no downsides and ONLY upsides. When you give corporations more money, they don't :invest" it in ways that benefit the average person, they "invest" it in things that pay off CEOs and shareholders, and nothing improves for the average American. Corporations have ZERO interest in "sharing with their employees," and will only "share" with them the bare minimum that it would take to get them to come in to work the next day. No more, no less, no matter how much windfall they are provided. It is pure fantasy that "give corporations more money, and good things will happen for ordinary people," but most small children grow out of such fantasies. On the OTHER hand, when you RAISE taxes on the corporations, the average citizen benefits significantly, from either lower taxes for themselves, or for improved services from the government. It's win-win. Those are according to the facts, at least, I can't speak for your feelings on the matter.
1
@gyn6131 So, again, once ALL the math has been accounted for, private individuals pay 69% of the tax revenues, and corporations only account for 24%, roughly 1/3 as much. That's all I was saying. And again, history shows that raising taxes on corporations has no downsides and ONLY upsides. When you give corporations more money, they don't "invest" it in ways that benefit the average person, they "invest" it in things that pay off CEOs and shareholders, and nothing improves for the average American. Corporations have ZERO interest in "sharing with their employees," and will only "share" with them the bare minimum that it would take to get them to come in to work the next day. No more, no less, no matter how much windfall they are provided. It is pure fantasy that "give corporations more money, and good things will happen for ordinary people," but most small children grow out of such fantasies. On the OTHER hand, when you RAISE taxes on the corporations, the average citizen benefits significantly, from either lower taxes for themselves, or for improved services from the government. It's win-win. Those are according to the facts, at least, I can't speak for your feelings on the matter.
1
@gyn6131 So, again, once ALL the math has been accounted for, private individuals pay 69% of the tax revenues, and corporations only account for 24%, roughly 1/3 as much. That's all I was saying. And again, history shows that raising taxes on corporations has no downsides and ONLY upsides. When you give corporations more money, they don't "invest" it in ways that benefit the average person, they "invest" it in things that pay off CEOs and shareholders, and nothing improves for the average American. Corporations have ZERO interest in "sharing with their employees," and will only "share" with them the bare minimum that it would take to get them to come in to work the next day. No more, no less, no matter how much windfall they are provided. On the OTHER hand, when you RAISE taxes on the corporations, the average citizen benefits significantly, from either lower taxes for themselves, or for improved services from the government. It's win-win. Those are according to the facts, at least, I can't speak for your feelings on the matter.
1
@gyn6131 Corporations are not entities that serve people. You're thinking of "government." Corporations are entities that use people make money for shareholders. They never intentionally help people, they only help people as much as is strictly necessary to meet production goals. This is why if you give a corporation more money, they will not translate that to higher wages or hiring more employees, because the wages and employees they have are already calculated to best meet their production goals. If you want them to increase wages or hire more employees, then you need to raise market DEMAND for those things, which you do by giving the CONSUMERS more money. This has all been tested and determined to be a fact, whether your feelings agree or not.
1
@brianhill1546 I doubt you do either, but out of curiosity, what do you think such a "line" would be? And on what product?
1
@KnittyKitty215 Nope, it doesn't work that way.
1
@cw6136 Of course AI can take over manufacturing jobs. AI has already taken over a huge number of manufacturing jobs, and it's only getting better and better at it over time.
1
@votaric He became a billionaire by being given a billion dollars in real estate by his father. If he'd just put his inheritance into an indexed fund he would be richer today than he is now.
1
@votaric But the properties he inherited is what made him his billions, through no fault of his own. Again, if he'd just put that money into the stock market, no effort needed, he'd have MORE money today than he made doing all the various other things he's done in his life. It ALL came from daddy.
1
@TheBane616 Nope, because it would cost billions for them to build those new factories, years for them to build up the workforce needed to staff them, and even once they did, their products would cost more than people currently pay in the US, AND they would be impossible to sell in any other market, because they would be so much more expensive. There is just ZERO point to it. People in America should not be producing things that other people are willing and able to produce for pennies. People in America should be doing better things with their lives than that. Also, when was this period of "no or low tax?" Because the 30s-70s were generally considered to be a prosperous time in America, and taxes were much higher back then than they are today.
1
maryjane9842 But in the real world, that is not the case.
1
How'd he end up there?
1
@gyn6131 It would not incentivize them enough though, so they would still import them, they would just charge consumers more for them. In practice it would add up to around 40-50% additional inflation.
1
@Spoon101 Yes, but it's companies paying low wages that puts the pinch on the workers, not the tax rates.
1
ralphferley2602 But prices would rise more than that. They need to for the tariffs to function. It would just lead to people buying less stuff, so US companies would be selling less stuff, and hiring less workers, so more workers would go on unemployment, which would cause them to need to raise the tariffs more to cover them. Why is income somehow magically immune to taxation?
1
@jjkhawaiian The people who have read those books are all laughing at you.
1
@amishpat5201 Why does that matter?
1
Nope. There are other ways to keep track of that.
1
ralphferley2602 If you don't know how many people you have, then you can't plan ahead for how much services will cost or how many people they need to be prepared for. This is why we have things like the census.
1
Not at all.
1
@SandyCheeks63564 The federal reserve is appointed by the President, and help to balance inflation. Without them at work, things would have gone more like in Turkey.
1
@AgeofCraccadilliaassent That has nothing to do with the Fed's role. Where did you get that idea?
1
@Luckyrider1958 Democrats had nothing to do with this though. This was just capitalism. Most of it happened under Nixon and Reagan.
1
@Power5 In your opinion, that may be true. In actual fact, no, it is not a "raw material," and there is no easy way to split that difference. It would lead to mountains of red take and a massive increase in the size of government to police such claims, for no benefit.
1
@Power5 I doubt that would be a factor, it would still be a massive shift to how things operate that would take decades to settle into place, and would likely lead to much worse outcomes in every possible way. So why do it?
1
@Power5 I'm not concerned for the corporate profits. Boo hoo for them. I'm concerned that people would not be able to afford things anymore. And for NO good reason whatsoever, because this benefits no one.
1
@Luckyrider1958 Straight As, actually, why do you ask?
1
@Luckyrider1958 And? What's your point?
1
@noahmartin3057 The purchasing power of the dollar has fallen over time. This is not a bad thing, because wages are intended to keep up with this. The goal is never to keep the purchasing power of the dollar the same, the goal is to keep the purchasing power of someone's wages the same. In so far as the purchasing power of wages have fallen, that has nothing to do with the Fed, that is entirely due to businesses under-paying employees.
1
@noahmartin3057 Well look, the current inflationary spike has nothing to do with the fed. It's much worse in other countries, that the Fed have no influence over. The Fed is doing what they can to get inflation back down to reasonable levels. Too much inflation is definitely bad, everyone agrees on that, including the Fed, and rich people. But most economists agree that some inflation is good, 1-2%, because that means that if you just hoard money under the mattress, it loses value, and thing swill only get more expensive later, so you should probably buy things now. It keeps the economy moving at a steady pace. If your dollar could buy twice as much tomorrow as it does today, then why spend it today? That leads to economic stagnation, where nobody is buying, so nobody is selling, so nobody is producing, so nobody has jobs. So the "value of the dollar" is lower than it used to be, and it always will be, unless things go terribly wrong. But this does not matter. All that actually matters is that the value of an hour of work remains steady or improving, and that has nothing to do with the Fed, it has to do with business. The value of an American worker's labor has never had anything at all to do with actions of the Fed, it has had to do with policies that allowed businesses to shift money from workers to management and shareholders. And as for two-worker households, that again had nothing to do with the Fed, that had to do with women entering the workforce. When you have twice as many employees, the value of labor goes down. This is inevitable. I don't know why anyone would think the Fed has any say in the matter.
1
@DaytonaRoadster Our needs have changed since then. If your argument is that we should go back to dipping candles to light our homes, then. . . that's a take, but I doubt you'd get much support for it. But if the goal is to maintain our current standard or living or better, that would require at least some level of globalization, and significant globalization if we want to keep purchasing power roughly the same as it currently is.
1
Because there was a pandemic that killed more Americans than WWII?
1
@tat2zz68 Exactly, and this would add another 40-50% on top of that.
1