That propaganda has impressed a lot of the mainstream media too — and has for years. I have almost never seen any of them point out that Reagan’s claim that tax cuts for the rich would pay for themselves but were actually massive budget busters.
When Bush ran on getting rid of the Clinton budget surplus that was being used to pay down the debt — the same debt the media had been so worried about (remember the debt clock of doom?) — the media didn’t care. They preferred Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with” than serious, boring, fiscally responsible Al Gore.
Under Biden the media put a spotlight on the economists who were convinced we needed a recession to get inflation under control and ignored those like Paul Krugman who were saying we would likely have a “soft landing” because inflation was mostly a temporary supply chain problem. Our edia have what British economist Simon Wren-Lewis calls a “media macro” bias in favor of austerity, at least for those ordinary Americans the mainstream media is always talking to in red state diners.
In these data, i’m most impressed by how low the corp tax revenue is, compared with individual tax burden. And decreasing, even worse! They are similar to the wealthy - too much voice and influence in DC, pol’s not willing to do the hard tasks needed to get their taxes raised.
I hope that every retailer who has to pass along the cost of tariffs to their customers specifically labels the increase as a tariff tax. The tariffs will hurt all retailers, such as WalMart & AMZN: they'll absorb some of the costs, but they'll still lose business as consumers scale back purchases. Hopefully the CEOs and owners will complain about it, rather than silently cow-tow to Trump in hopes of bigger tax breaks.
Trump is a master of the shell game. First, he keeps repeating "tariffs are paid by exporters." (Remember "Mexico will pay for the wall!?") Then he picks the pockets of domestic consumers to the extent of $118 billion and counting. And the MAGA falls for the shell game over and over again. For them ignorance is bliss; but what of the rest of us?
"At least for now, Ds are winning that fight, which makes a lot of sense to me, as we are in the middle of one of those moments where it’s crystal clear as to who is fight[ing] for whom"
I have pretty much the same question: of the estimated $118B increase in duties/tariffs, how much is NOT being passed on to consumers? Strikes me that there’s lots of scope for investors to gripe about dividends being lower than the could be or ought to be. Or, put differently, how much of the estimated $77B reduction in corporate taxes is being eaten by tariffs?
A few weeks back the Yale Budget Lab folks thought tariff passthrough to consumers was 60-80 percent. As time passes, the share tends to climb, as business run down inventory they built up to front-run the tariffs. And, sure, some part of the rest shows up in smaller profit margins. But depending on demand elasticities (how price sensitive consumers are to what you're selling them), we'd expect firms to eventually protect their margins by increasing their pass-through share.
Type “ADM and Cargill weight in agricultural demand.” My point is that the bailouts (past and coming) don’t primarily help smaller farmers. Former Senator Stabenow once explained that, since 1996, the Farm Bill is mainly a trade of support for Big Ag in return for not killing SNAP.
I did a search on your terms but while the intermediaries like ADM and Cargill benefit from low crop prices, it seems to me that the farmers are compensated for those low prices with subsidy so farmers, especially, those that produce 48% of output, are beneficiaries as well. It seems like a system filled with misincentives.
What about getting rid of the Carried Interest scam? (it's salary - tax it as such)
In fact, get rid of all of the special treatment for economic rents.
The propaganda of the Republicans is impressive; very convincing to all the Fox viewers.
That propaganda has impressed a lot of the mainstream media too — and has for years. I have almost never seen any of them point out that Reagan’s claim that tax cuts for the rich would pay for themselves but were actually massive budget busters.
When Bush ran on getting rid of the Clinton budget surplus that was being used to pay down the debt — the same debt the media had been so worried about (remember the debt clock of doom?) — the media didn’t care. They preferred Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with” than serious, boring, fiscally responsible Al Gore.
Under Biden the media put a spotlight on the economists who were convinced we needed a recession to get inflation under control and ignored those like Paul Krugman who were saying we would likely have a “soft landing” because inflation was mostly a temporary supply chain problem. Our edia have what British economist Simon Wren-Lewis calls a “media macro” bias in favor of austerity, at least for those ordinary Americans the mainstream media is always talking to in red state diners.
In these data, i’m most impressed by how low the corp tax revenue is, compared with individual tax burden. And decreasing, even worse! They are similar to the wealthy - too much voice and influence in DC, pol’s not willing to do the hard tasks needed to get their taxes raised.
FREE GROUP THERAPY !!!
There will be a No Kings demonstration on October 18. Spread the word! 👑👑👑👑👑
This No Kings demonstration was scheduled so that We the People can respond to the Republican government shutdown!
To find a location, follow this link--
https://www.nokings.org/
I hope that every retailer who has to pass along the cost of tariffs to their customers specifically labels the increase as a tariff tax. The tariffs will hurt all retailers, such as WalMart & AMZN: they'll absorb some of the costs, but they'll still lose business as consumers scale back purchases. Hopefully the CEOs and owners will complain about it, rather than silently cow-tow to Trump in hopes of bigger tax breaks.
Bezos is calling the tariffs "delivery charges" on the Amazon website.
I experienced something like that first hand last month, when an item I purchased ia AMZN for $5.50 ended up with a $21 shipping and handling charge.🤬
Trump is a master of the shell game. First, he keeps repeating "tariffs are paid by exporters." (Remember "Mexico will pay for the wall!?") Then he picks the pockets of domestic consumers to the extent of $118 billion and counting. And the MAGA falls for the shell game over and over again. For them ignorance is bliss; but what of the rest of us?
Dear Jared Bernstein,
Tiny typo:
"At least for now, Ds are winning that fight, which makes a lot of sense to me, as we are in the middle of one of those moments where it’s crystal clear as to who is fight[ing] for whom"
Fixed. Thnx
Aren't tariffs, to the extent that they are not passed on, a drag on bottom line corporate earnings? So much for being "pro business" I guess.
I have pretty much the same question: of the estimated $118B increase in duties/tariffs, how much is NOT being passed on to consumers? Strikes me that there’s lots of scope for investors to gripe about dividends being lower than the could be or ought to be. Or, put differently, how much of the estimated $77B reduction in corporate taxes is being eaten by tariffs?
A few weeks back the Yale Budget Lab folks thought tariff passthrough to consumers was 60-80 percent. As time passes, the share tends to climb, as business run down inventory they built up to front-run the tariffs. And, sure, some part of the rest shows up in smaller profit margins. But depending on demand elasticities (how price sensitive consumers are to what you're selling them), we'd expect firms to eventually protect their margins by increasing their pass-through share.
With you on incidence of tax cut benefits. Not sure on deficit/GDP. Tariff receipts may fully fund tax cuts.
Farmers hurt by Trump's tariffs will be bailed out to the tune of $10 billion and not deficit reduction.
Farmers already got $40 billion in the “Big beautiful bill,” with more on the way. Of course, it mostly goes to ADM, Cargill, et al.
How do you know it goes to ADM and Cargill? I'd be interested in that source.
Type “ADM and Cargill weight in agricultural demand.” My point is that the bailouts (past and coming) don’t primarily help smaller farmers. Former Senator Stabenow once explained that, since 1996, the Farm Bill is mainly a trade of support for Big Ag in return for not killing SNAP.
I did a search on your terms but while the intermediaries like ADM and Cargill benefit from low crop prices, it seems to me that the farmers are compensated for those low prices with subsidy so farmers, especially, those that produce 48% of output, are beneficiaries as well. It seems like a system filled with misincentives.
So are you saying the tariffs (a tax increase on consumers) will fund the tax cut for corporations and very wealthy people?
Yes. And wealthy will pay most of the tariffs: the richest 10% account for 53% of consumer spending.
But much of that spending is on services, not imported goods.
Just found an NBER paper that says top 20% (not 10%) account for 49% of goods demand. Your point stands. Thx again.
Good point. I missed that. Thank you. (I was unduly influenced by new cars and trucks, where the richest 10% buy 70% by $value.)