Posted on 08/11/2025 12:10:56 PM PDT by RandFan
“Why did he switch to politics?”
The US Senate is a highly ‘exclusive’ club with only 100 members.
Members get the title of ‘Senator’.
Understood.
I just didn’t support PDJT to pay even more taxes
Allowing for the (very small and partially only temporary) tax reduction already achieved, we were: are hoping for a serious , substantial income tax reduction
Hopefully, anyway.
Hoping. Hoping.
American national goverment was financed solely by tariffs for 124 years. Ask Rand Paul why he prefers income taxes.
Yes tariffs can (and apparently now are) be used to address unfair trade relations
That could lead to some useful good results. Especially as with communist China.
We still have hope the tariffs will lead to significant income tax reductions too
There’s no good reason why they can’t or shouldn’t, imho
We will see
Taxes are inevitable, even in Rand Paul’s own private world. Having a preference for what kind of tax you’d rather pay isn’t hypocritical. I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but I’d much rather pay a sales tax than a property tax, for example.
Lately,Rand has been wrong about everything!
“”In fairness he does that as well ...””
Apparently, he just loves to rant. Only... not necessarily against the Marxist left. He voted against the insider trading bill... why? Because he is, in reality, more on the Democrats’ side than on the GOP side and therefore, his status as a “GOPer” is all for show (hornless RINO).
“Rand Paul joins Dems in voting against budget resolution”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhvfzrgjuKU&t=59s
“Levying income taxes on low-income people is problematic because many can barely pay for basic living expenses.”
Total BS! The US has the richest poor(low-income) people in the world. I don’t have much sympathy for these so called poor people.
“Members get the title of ‘Senator’.”
So he’s forfeiting $300K in income per year for a “title”?
Why not just join the Players Club for a few thousand a year? Then he can be a “Plaaayah” and have enough left over for plenty of bling with his title.
As I understand it China was charging the US 28% and the US charging China 2%? Seems a little lopsided to me.
Another look at me attention whore.
How does that idiotic senator think we’re going to get out of our massive debt, when we have a uniparty? Does he have any realistic solutions other than his useless fighting of POTUS? Of course not.
Paul, your support for Kamala did not work out.
Has Rand railed against all the tariffs other countries have imposed on the U.S?
.....
Not if they want to stay Swamp approved.
Regardless of whether or not tariffs are bad, they are in fact largely taxes on large corporations, and they can’t get around any of it through write offs or loop holes.
Now, suddenly, the Democrats are against taxing “rich corporations” and point out that increasing taxes on such entities does result in the costs being passed down to the consumers. They always argued before it was only about making them pay “their fair share” when they argued for higher corporate and business taxes. Now they are forced to admit these costs are passed on. Of course no one in the media takes them to task on this obvious contradiction.
The main reason we probably need these tariffs is in fact for revenue. The reason inflation has not been significant is that on the other end, the Trump administration has been promoting other policies to take the pressures off of production, supply chain, etc. What was causing the inflation before was not tariffs and these pressures are being eased, offsetting the tariffs. And the tariffs also reduces inflation by reducing the deficits - actual, real money is being collected vs. printed or borrowed money.
When the British, for example, tariff a US car, who pays they tariff? The British do, so they are taking money out of their economy. They are paying for their healthcare.
A tariff is a tax, much like a VAT on a nation’s own citizens.
Tariffs can be a useful tax that can be used to change economic behavior, like supporting critical domestic industries, but it is still just a tax on US citizens.
Libertarian purists want us to be Libertarian purists in a world where none other nations operate their economies that way, leaving the U.S. a choice between being Libertarian purists suffering under trade from all nations who are not Libertarian purists and many that are mercantilist dictatorships, or accepting the reality that it is not a Libertarian purist world, and neither can we be.
If you look at most “free trade” agreements, particularly the EUs, they are almost all “carve outs” of accepted protections for some products of one country in exchange for accepted protections for some products of another country (or group of countries).
NONE of the trade agreements in the world are of a type that says “we have no tariffs or non-tariff barriers on any of your goods and you have no tariffs or non-tariff barriers on any of ours” - NONE.
But Paul thinks we should have no tariffs. His world is not the real world.
“...but it is still just a tax on US citizens.”
When all the other countries in the world impose tariffs, is that a tax on their citizens? And the countries impose higher tariffs historically than America.
Tariffs are designed to protect manufacturing. That is why all our manufacturing has gone overseas.
“When all the other countries in the world impose tariffs, is that a tax on their citizens? And the countries impose higher tariffs historically than America.”
Yes, obviously. And we are following their big government, high tax, command economy path.
“Tariffs are designed to protect manufacturing. “
Tariffs are a tax designed to raise revenue. A side effect can be to protect manufacturing. A side effect can be to hurt manufacturing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.