The recently announced car rates are expected to yield around $ 100 billion a year in income. How does that relate to other large tax increases?
According to the Loaded foundationThe previous record was $ 76.8 billion for the 2011 tax increase to finance the ACA (Obamacare).
In real terms, the car rates are not as great as some of the previous tax increases, but it remains one of the largest tax increases since 1968 (the CPI has risen by around 50% since 2009.)
With more rates expected, the ultimate tariff program for Trump Administration can be the largest tax increase, even in real terms. So what do the democrats of this policy, one of the most consistent changes in federal tax policy throughout my life?
I checked with the New York TimesAnd as usual they had a very long article that contained many interviews. I was especially interested in learning what the democrats of the policy thought. The article presented the views on a number of important political figures, but None of them was Democrats. Indeed, apart from Trump, none of them were republicans.
You may believe that the NYT has a liberal bias, but I am pretty sure that when Obama’s tax increase was proposed, the “newspaper of the record” at least offered some coverage of the Republican views on legislation. Are the Democrats planning to withdraw the automatic rate the next time they affect? Have Republican Congressmen the issue about this issue? Isn’t that something we should know?
It is certainly interesting to hear that Trump’s rates are opposed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and France, but given that the tax is actually paid by AmericansI wish they had told us what American politicians thought of the idea.
Here is AI overview:
The US Constitution grants the Congress the authority to make and collect “taxes, rights, imposts and excites” (Article I, section 8), including rates, and to regulate trade with foreign nations. However, the president also has the authority to impose rates, in particular by delegated powers and under certain conditions, such as threats of national security or unfair commercial practices.
I have problems understanding the legal basis for these rates. It is hard to believe that Canada is a threat of national security, and our free trade agreement with Canada was negotiated by President Trump in 2020. Best trading deal ever. So the “unfair commercial practices” also do not seem to apply.
In the past, the Supreme Court has often taken the opinion that governments can virtually do whatever they want. So although the ‘rural clause’ says that Eminent Domain only applies to projects with ‘public use’, the courts have ruled that a public goal is almost everything that the government says it is. Perhaps that reasoning also applies here.
I notice that the administration denies that the bombing of Yemen is a ‘war’, and yet it says that we can use ‘war forces’ to deport Venezolans. So war also seems to be one of those things that have a fairly loose definition – darling is migration, not bombing.
The bottom line is that we should not expect the Constitution to be an effective limit for the powers of the US government.
Ps. It is also expected that a large tax reduction will be established later this year, which takes the form of extending the earlier Trump tax reductions, which would otherwise expire.