Trump announces 35% tax on companies leaving US

[Sultan Of Swing]

In a series of tweets (naturally), President-elect Trump announced a 35% tax on companies that leave the US and sell goods back across the border.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805376548882776064

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805378393537658880

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805380553008680961

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805382541343653888

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805386422807105536

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/805387038048612356

Thoughts?

Do you agree with such a measure? Would it help or hurt America? Does it make you feel better or worse about the prospects of a Trump presidency?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't like it.
Create a climate wherein businesses want to be here.
Then no threats of punishment are necessary.

 

[tytlyf]

He acts like a dictator. And why is he hiring tons of insiders and establishment people? I thought he was draining the swamp?

 

[esmith]

I don't like it.
Create a climate wherein businesses want to be here.
Then no threats of punishment are necessary.

How about doing both. Carrot and stick approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about doing both. Carrot and stick approach.

The "stick" smells too much like something a Democrat would do.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

He acts like a dictator. And why is he hiring tons of insiders and establishment people? I thought he was draining the swamp?

Why is this acting like a dictator? And if draining the swamp meant emptying Washington of all experienced officials, might you then be complaining that he has a new cabinet of untested inexperienced people which posed unnecessary risk?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The "stick" smells too much like something a Democrat would do.

Democrats don't simultaneously lower corporate taxes and regulations.

 

[esmith]

Why is this acting like a dictator? And if draining the swamp meant emptying Washington of all experienced officials, might you then be complaining that he has a new cabinet of untested inexperienced people which posed unnecessary risk?

I would suggest that anything President-elect Trump does one way or another will be found at fault by many.
When one walks through life with filters on their eyes and ears one has a problem of accepting reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do agree with this, except if were me, the tax rate would be absolutely crippling and so deep it would be impossible to recover the loss. And each job lost would also be taxed, and very heavily so. If they want to save money and put workers here on government support, they can pay for the support and abit extra for the troubles caused.

I don't like it.
Create a climate wherein businesses want to be here.
Then no threats of punishment are necessary.

That would mean expecting the average American worker to be about on par with the average Chinese worker. They are going to want to shirk more of their tax obligations. They aren't going to want to follow "costly" safety regulations.

Why is this acting like a dictator? And if draining the swamp meant emptying Washington of all experienced officials, might you then be complaining that he has a new cabinet of untested inexperienced people which posed unnecessary risk?

At least we could be surprised and blind sided instead of knowing we have establishment Conservative buffoons who are coming in. We can already anticipate problems with a bunch of states and and the soon-to-be-highest authority law enforcement officer in the nation, given, according to him, good people don't smoke pot and he thought the KKK were good people till he learned they smoke pot. He's not changing anything, he's scraping together the worst the Republican party and Conservatives have to offer.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

While as president Trump may propose such changes, it will take Congress to actually pass it into law so that the Trump administration can implement it.

I find this unlikely...but we'll see

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

While as president Trump may propose such changes, it will take Congress to actually pass it into law so that the Trump administration can implement it.

I find this unlikely...but we'll see

Republicans won't be too happy I suspect, but he'll have loyalists among them, and potentially Democrats willing to support, especially the Bernie-types.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In a series of tweets (naturally), President-elect Trump announced a 35% tax on companies that leave the US and sell goods back across the border.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805376548882776064

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805378393537658880

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805380553008680961

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805382541343653888

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805386422807105536

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/805387038048612356

Thoughts?

Do you agree with such a measure? Would it help or hurt America? Does it make you feel better or worse about the prospects of a Trump presidency?

I actually agree with this. Businesses which sacrifice peoples' jobs in the name of profit so they can exploit people in poorer countries by paying them less need to be strongly discouraged from doing so. I also think governments ought to make the 'leaving' process harder, longer & more expensive for businesses.

 

[Sunstone]

Why is this acting like a dictator? And if draining the swamp meant emptying Washington of all experienced officials, might you then be complaining that he has a new cabinet of untested inexperienced people which posed unnecessary risk?

Do you really think Trump could not find a Secretary of the Treasury who wasn't from Goldman Sachs if he really wanted to drain the swamp?

 

[katiemygirl]

Do you really think Trump could not find a Secretary of the Treasury who wasn't from Goldman Sachs if he really wanted to drain the swamp?

He looked for and found someone who knows how to make money. People who know how to make money are rich, so I suspect you would have complained no matter who Trump picked.

I don't think Trump was referring to rich people when he spoke about "draining the swamp." I think the swamp refers to gov't insiders.

Trump needs both insiders and outsiders. IMHO, he's doing a great job with his cabinet picks.

 

[Sunstone]

He looked for and found someone who knows how to make money. People who know how to make money are rich, so I suspect you would have complained no matter who Trump picked.

I don't think Trump was referring to rich people when he spoke about "draining the swamp." I think the swamp refers to gov't insiders.

Trump needs both insiders and outsiders. IMHO, he's doing a great job with his cabinet picks.

If you know anything at all -- anything at all -- about who the insiders are, you would know quite well that Goldman Sachs executives are the insiders at the Treasury department. For Trump to pick a former Goldman Sachs exec for Secretary of the Treasury spells "INSIDER" in all caps. Heck, it's even the joke on Wall Street to refer to Goldman Sachs as "Government Sachs". Trump isn't draining the swamp as he promised, he's re-stocking the gators.


And if you think he needs a rich person as Secretary, then just how many rich people do you think there are in this country who are NOT former GS execs. Jesus, you make it sound like all he could pick from were GS execs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Republicans won't be too happy I suspect, but he'll have loyalists among them, and potentially Democrats willing to support, especially the Bernie-types.

Realistically, Trump said somethings that are Left-supported, but he's surrounding himself with those who do not support those causes. Trump is a fool if he thinks he can do what he wants and keep the company he's choosing to keep. They'll let him do some of what he wants, but it won't be the things that will excite Bernie supporters, because the Fool King's court does not approve.
The real point of interest will be the Senate, were the Republicans hold so few seats over the Democrats that they hold no real advantage, especially should Libertarian-leaning Republicans ever decide to ever make a meaningful move to put the spotlight on themselves, bridge a huge gaping divide in politics, forming an alliance that easily upsets the sliver of a Republican advantage.
Example, Sessions is not pro-marijuana, period, and if Trump shreds all Obama's executive orders, this means the DEA and DOJ can be sent into states that have legalized, for medical and/or recreational, and make massive arrests. This will not go over well with Democrats, and if there is any shred of anything left that resembles reason in Capital Hill, the Libertarian leaning Republicans will fight it in the Senate, fiercely pointing out all the hard and undeniable facts of great statistics coming from those states, and those that have legalized will not face any legal obstructions. This can lead Libertarian leaning Republicans in the House to follow suit, strengthening the Libertarians while weakening Conservatives just in time for mid-terms.
And if the Libertarians fail to take this moment to swoop in and save the day and make themselves look like the saviors of Humanity, I'm officially labeling them worse than the Left at talking and no acting, because at least they're in a position to actually do something.
It won't necessarily be a "Sander's supporters approved" compromise, but any sane and rational person will agree we have far more pressing issues than religious crusades to define gender, marriage, science, and history, and things will be easier when we can focus on how to best take care of the poor and not worry about religious nuts trying to keep certain people from having rights just because of what their book says.

 

[Sunstone]

In a series of tweets (naturally), President-elect Trump announced a 35% tax on companies that leave the US and sell goods back across the border.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805376548882776064

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805378393537658880

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805380553008680961

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805382541343653888

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805386422807105536

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/805387038048612356

Thoughts?

Do you agree with such a measure? Would it help or hurt America? Does it make you feel better or worse about the prospects of a Trump presidency?

It's a risky move in the sense it could start a tariff war leading to protectionism and an economic downturn, but it might be worth saying you're going to do it in order to see what sort of retaliation you get threatened with. Trump can always back out of his proposal if the threats look too credible and great. He's pretty good at backing out of promises.

 

[McBell]

How about doing both. Carrot and stick approach.

Um...
How many horses eat the stick?

 

[kaoticprofit]

I don't like it.
Create a climate wherein businesses want to be here.
Then no threats of punishment are necessary.

Truth is it's the tax breaks that create the climate for businesses to leave!

 

[Revoltingest]

Democrats don't simultaneously lower corporate taxes and regulations.

But they're big on punishment .
I prefer encouragement.