- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Did you find that on YouTube?
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,795 comments
- 1,796,936 views
Did you find that on YouTube?
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
I did 👍
You are going to have to do much better than that, we are in negotiations and nothing more. They have tbh never cared about the border the way they should, it's their border also. I know you don't have any but we have two, one works and the other doesn't. Care to guess which one and why?
What do you think, we will go to war with Mexico now? Talks have already resumed and agreements will be made.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
And yet, the Mexican economy still took a hit.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
That is not our fault, they've been slacking for way too long. If you lived anywhere near that border like I do and have for more years than you've been alive you might begin to understand, maybe.
- 24,639
- Anoka, MN
That's kind of how markets work, they fluctuate on a very frequent basis. Sort of like how Wall Street freaked out after Trump won but has rebounded just fine in the time since.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It is when grossly irresponsible statements cause the markets to tumble.
The Mexican economy wasn't as strong as the American economy to begin with. And I wouldn't dismiss it as simple market fluctuation - Trump hasn't delivered on the promises he made. He might have signed executive orders, but they're only a few days old. There hasn't been enough time to assess the long-term consequences.
Actually, you don't know. It's quite clear that your knowledge of economics is nowhere near as comprehensive as you think it is.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Actually there has according to you, and if it turns out to be negative to Mexico so what, look at all the damage that has happened to us over the border, do you know? We've seen the liberal approach and it stinks.
All I can say is your worry is without warrant. There is no point in continuing this so, we'll see how it goes.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Yeah, you're right. I was silly to get worked up over an egomaniacal buffoon becoming President and trampling on womens' rights, denying climate change, suppressing the media, being outright xenophobic in his immigration policies, promoting economic policies (such as a trade war with China) that will almost certainly trigger a recession, and generally demanding that other countries bow to America when conducting their affairs. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Actually, he does submit the budget every year, and if he thinks that a negotiated deal, like the TPP and NAFTA for example, is bad for the US in the long run, then he has every right to pull the US out of the deal (like the TPP) or renegotiate the deal (like NAFTA). Almost always, those deals involve foreign aid, and if Trump feels that the foreign aid isn't to the benefit of the US, you bet your hide that he will pull the foreign aid to pay down the deficit.
Stop right there. Need I remind you that we have military protection treaties with most of the countries that are IN the South China Sea like Taiwan? The aggressive saber-rattling by China in the South China Sea, in particular where China's Territorial waters are, is just a sign that war is an "not if but when" scenario.
Then please explain why Mexico charges a 16% IVA (Value-Added Tax) to US exports, but the US does not? Seems pretty reasonable that with Trump wanting to renegotiate NAFTA and all of that, that tarriff talks would naturally be implied anyways.
Source
Last edited:
- 6,076
- Simcoeace
As I explained to Danoff a while ago, IVA is is NOT an import tariff it is a sales tax that applies to ALL sales. Mexico collects a 16% IVA on goods imported from the US, but also collects 16% IVA on goods produced & sold within Mexico. So, as an example, a guitar manufactured in the US & exported to Mexico for $1000 US, will cost the importer $1,160 US. Somebody buying a similar guitar in Mexico for $1000 will also have to pay 16% IVA, so it will also cost $1,160. This is the same in Canada. In fact, it is the same in practically every developed country in the world. The US is an outlier in not having its own version of an IVA.
The US should probably have its own IVA - it would help minimize the unfair trade distortions that occur with online sales & cross-state line sales that currently exist within the US. However, I'm guessing that no US politician wants to be the one to step up to the plate on that issue.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Or long term benefits.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Would YOU like to be the one to tell the states that they can't have their income taxes or their own sales taxes to help negate the eventual rising cost of goods that a VAT would have on the American economy? Or perhaps you would like to submit a constitutional amendment to Congress that repeals the 16th amendment to the constitution? Perhaps you should have better luck with the former since the amendment was declared unconstitutional the four times it was up for discussion in the Supreme Court and the court has since refused to take an income tax related case since.
Besides, I made it perfectly clear that it wasn't a tariff by definition.
- 11,297
- Sweden
- eran0004
A tax that is applied to goods regardless of where they are produced cannot be compared to a tax only on imported goods. The latter will make the price of imported goods less competitive on the market and serves to limit imports in favour of goods produced within the country.
The former does not have such effects at all, so it's strange to claim that such a tax would be some kind of unfairness in the trade deal.
Mexican goods are probably more competitive on the US market than US goods are on the Mexican market, but that is because it's cheaper to produce in Mexico, not because of the IVA.
The former does not have such effects at all, so it's strange to claim that such a tax would be some kind of unfairness in the trade deal.
Mexican goods are probably more competitive on the US market than US goods are on the Mexican market, but that is because it's cheaper to produce in Mexico, not because of the IVA.
- 6,076
- Simcoeace
I'm afraid you haven't made it perfectly clear. In fact, I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say - perhaps you could clarify?
I'm not sure what you are saying, but Trump appears to have suggested that because Mexico has IVA, US exporters to Mexico are being treated unfairly. This argument has no merit, although I doubt Trump supporters would bother to question the truth behind it.
"Would YOU like to be the one to tell the states that they can't have their income taxes or their own sales taxes to help negate the eventual rising cost of goods that a VAT would have on the American economy?"
What does this sentence mean? How could income tax or sales tax negate rising costs due to a VAT?
Just so you understand: in Canada, which also has a federal structure, there is a federal component to VAT and a provincial one, which the provinces are able to set independently of the federal component. The provinces also have their own income tax which they are also able to set independently of the federal income tax rate.
Prior to the introduction of VAT, Canada had an extremely unwieldy, illogical & unfair sales tax system. The VAT (called GST in Canada) was very unpopular (understandably) when it was introduced, but it is, at least, a logical system.
Bernie Sanders would, no doubt, be opposed to a VAT as it is generally considered a somewhat regressive tax.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
When Trump first announced his plans to "Make America Great Again", most of the people I know responded by asking "was America really all that great to begin with?" - and the answer was a resounding "no". But if the Global Financial Crisis taught us anything, it's that things that you do have the potential to affect us all, which is why we're watching you with concerned murmuring and not the gales of laughter that the situation would otherwise deserve. Suddenly we've woken up to the way we've been fed an American version of history, and I think a lot of people feel that it's time for someone else to step forward and lead the world.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,744
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Thoughts on Mexico.
If the result of any deal results in at the very least pain for the Mexican economy and people (and by current tone it must do as Trump has been quite clear in his belief that the current situation favours Mexico), then Mexico has options.
One is a deal with the US that weakens them in terms of trade and results in at least a contribution towards the wall (the cost of which I believe is massively underestimated at present).
The other is for them to agree to the end of NAFTA and seek deals with the countries to the south and overseas. In pulling out of NAFTA they would no longer have to recognise any US patents or trademarks (which is part of the NAFTA deal as with any trade deal), they have the plants, knowledge and tooling to then produce dirt cheap consumer goods and pharmaceuticals.
Yes the US could start a legal case, but that would have to be via the WTO and would potentially take decades.
I personally don't see it to be quite as on sided as others do, particularly as the current Mexican Presidents term is almost up and with his popularity at an all time low (in part because he is seen as weak on Trump), a candidate who is anti-American and willing to take that short term hit is more likely than another who is seen as soft on the US to replace him.
Thoughts on the 'Muslim Ban'.
I personally see this as IS having all their metaphorical Christmas' come at once. They have just been gifted a recruitment campaign that perfectly suits the inane ideology they spout. That the west really hates all Muslims and they (IS) are your only option.
I don't see how this will make America safer (as you are statistical more likely to be killed by the far right or your clothing than by an immigrant terrorist), and you already have one of the strongest refugee screening programme on earth (only the Aussies have you beat on that one) with it taking around two years of screening before a refugee can set foot on US soil.
I don't buy the 'ooo look Trump has business links with the countries not on the list' argument. However I do think the list is bias towards countries the US has strong links with. The odd thing in that is that the countries listed are not the ones who's citizens have moved to the US and killed thousands of people. The nations that applies to (Saudi, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) are not on the list.
As such I don't see this as making America or Americans safer, but rather quite the opposite.
If the result of any deal results in at the very least pain for the Mexican economy and people (and by current tone it must do as Trump has been quite clear in his belief that the current situation favours Mexico), then Mexico has options.
One is a deal with the US that weakens them in terms of trade and results in at least a contribution towards the wall (the cost of which I believe is massively underestimated at present).
The other is for them to agree to the end of NAFTA and seek deals with the countries to the south and overseas. In pulling out of NAFTA they would no longer have to recognise any US patents or trademarks (which is part of the NAFTA deal as with any trade deal), they have the plants, knowledge and tooling to then produce dirt cheap consumer goods and pharmaceuticals.
Yes the US could start a legal case, but that would have to be via the WTO and would potentially take decades.
I personally don't see it to be quite as on sided as others do, particularly as the current Mexican Presidents term is almost up and with his popularity at an all time low (in part because he is seen as weak on Trump), a candidate who is anti-American and willing to take that short term hit is more likely than another who is seen as soft on the US to replace him.
Thoughts on the 'Muslim Ban'.
I personally see this as IS having all their metaphorical Christmas' come at once. They have just been gifted a recruitment campaign that perfectly suits the inane ideology they spout. That the west really hates all Muslims and they (IS) are your only option.
I don't see how this will make America safer (as you are statistical more likely to be killed by the far right or your clothing than by an immigrant terrorist), and you already have one of the strongest refugee screening programme on earth (only the Aussies have you beat on that one) with it taking around two years of screening before a refugee can set foot on US soil.
I don't buy the 'ooo look Trump has business links with the countries not on the list' argument. However I do think the list is bias towards countries the US has strong links with. The odd thing in that is that the countries listed are not the ones who's citizens have moved to the US and killed thousands of people. The nations that applies to (Saudi, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) are not on the list.
As such I don't see this as making America or Americans safer, but rather quite the opposite.
Last edited:
- 2,801
- fatkrakr
Finally the truth comes out of your keyboard. You hate America and all we stand for, which is fine you have that right, but you should of made that clear long ago. It wouldn't of mattered who got elected its America your against not Trump. That makes it much clearer where your coming from.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Your friends are ignorant and/or foolish. Discussions between you and them must be real enlightening.
Making America Great Again, by saving one flag from burning at a time. FedEx driver for the win
:
Last edited:
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 2,421
- Kentucky, USA
- James_Page
- PageyTheSquid
I genuinely laughed out loud at this, thank you. The last time I heard that was at a Black Lives Matter "rally" I had to work.
