RandomTask, why is MAGA a democratic slur for those the agree with the direction Trump envisions. You just insulted half the country.
I guess you did not know Bill Clinton used "make America great again" as one of his campaign slogans.
You were asked to define MAGA. What policies do you object to ?
MAGA is the break off of the GOP (myself) that have fallen in a cult like status with Trump. I fail to see how that's a "slur" but so be it.
I'll tell you the issues I have with policies.
-The massive deficits to fund average growth. -The rejection of reality. -The playing to this "victimhood" complex. -The absence of moral character on nearly everything. -The de-humanization of people based on legal status. -The policies/handling of Russia/NK.
Now you can (and probably will) bring up the democrats and there's a metric ton to ridicule there. But you can't ridicule someone because they have a D next to their name while simultaneously giving someone else a pass because they have an R next to their name; hence my comment about Trump and his pardons.
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 12-31-2024).]
Originally posted by RandomTask: I'll tell you the issues I have with policies.
-The massive deficits to fund average growth. -The rejection of reality. -The playing to this "victimhood" complex. -The absence of moral character on nearly everything. -The de-humanization of people based on legal status. -The policies/handling of Russia/NK.
Thank you ! Interesting. I will give that some thought.
Originally posted by RandomTask: MAGA is the break off of the GOP (myself) that have fallen in a cult like status with Trump. I fail to see how that's a "slur" but so be it.
I remember when the Tea Party faction of the Republican party were called "tea baggers", a definite slur. You mentioned dehumanizing people based on their legal status. Is it okay when people are dehumanized based on their political beliefs ?
Are there any Trump policies you agree with ? I don't think people are enamored with Trump. His policies are the allure of Trump.
Perhaps that could be better expressed as... "I don't think rational people are enamored with Trump."
There's no question that there is a percentage of the population who don't believe Trump's sh!t stinks. Some are members of this very forum.
While I'm sure you'll have some argument against what I'm typing, the American voters chose someone other than what the Dems were offering and didn't want a repeat of the last four years. One doesn't have to be a fan of the man to appreciate the policies DJT puts forth. I'm not a fan of the person but, his policies are what's and was best for the US. How that affects other countries is up to them, they can get with the program or face the consequences. It's the way the world works; doesn't matter what country or leader we're talking about.
Decisions have rewards and consequences, we'll see how this works out. But the majority of American voters made a decision.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-01-2025).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Perhaps that could be better expressed as... "I don't think rational people are enamored with Trump."
There's no question that there is a percentage of the population who don't believe Trump's sh!t stinks.
Patrick, is Hillary Clinton your sancha ? She said Trump supporters could be put into two baskets The irredeemable basket and the deplorable basket. Why didn't you tell her there was an irrational basket ?
While I'm sure you'll have some argument against what I'm typing, the American voters chose someone other than what the Dems were offering and didn't want a repeat of the last four years. One doesn't have to be a fan of the man to appreciate the policies DJT puts forth. I'm not a fan of the person but, his policies are what's and was best for the US. How that affects other countries is up to them, they can get with the program or face the consequences. It's the way the world works; doesn't matter what country or leader we're talking about.
Decisions have rewards and consequences, we'll see how this works out. But the majority of American voters made a decision.
I'll argue it. I'm disagreeable. Not that the majority of Americans chose Trump; that's pretty clear. Where we disagree is how much it had to do with policy. We already know a large portion of Trump voters (and apparently Trump himself) misunderstand/misunderstood his policy suggestions. Example: not realizing that tariffs are a tax, and they they have almost expressly been payed by domestic consumers not the foreign suppliers (the idea of tariffs being to drive up the cost of imported goods to make domestic competitors more competitive). I think the same is true about claims that he'll reduce grocery or gas prices...they're mostly based on misunderstanding his plans to handle those things, the marginal benefits they'll bring, and the externalities they have. Hell, I had a friend tell me the 'chemtrails' were all going to be gone now that Trump is going to be President again.
Trump won based on rhetoric. He convinced a large portion of the American people that he was FOR them and ONLY them, while the rest of the political establishment had spent years convincing that same group they'd forgotten about them entirely. You mix that in with the percentage of the population who is already very pro-big-government but socially conservative, and you get a solid majority.
I'll argue it. I'm disagreeable. Not that the majority of Americans chose Trump; that's pretty clear. Where we disagree is how much it had to do with policy. We already know a large portion of Trump voters (and apparently Trump himself) misunderstand/misunderstood his policy suggestions. Example: not realizing that tariffs are a tax, and they they have almost expressly been payed by domestic consumers not the foreign suppliers (the idea of tariffs being to drive up the cost of imported goods to make domestic competitors more competitive). I think the same is true about claims that he'll reduce grocery or gas prices...they're mostly based on misunderstanding his plans to handle those things, the marginal benefits they'll bring, and the externalities they have. Hell, I had a friend tell me the 'chemtrails' were all going to be gone now that Trump is going to be President again.
Trump won based on rhetoric. He convinced a large portion of the American people that he was FOR them and ONLY them, while the rest of the political establishment had spent years convincing that same group they'd forgotten about them entirely. You mix that in with the percentage of the population who is already very pro-big-government but socially conservative, and you get a solid majority.
What you're arguing is perspective. I, nor you can really speak as to what a large portion of DJT supporters understood or misunderstood. DJT won IMHO more because of what the Dems were offering up. It's my perspective and opinion that quite a few voted against Harris. They did not want four more years of the same. Yes, DJT has a base but, the Dems lost much of the middle class and will have to amend their policies/platform to win them back.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Where we disagree is how much it had to do with policy. We already know a large portion of Trump voters (and apparently Trump himself) misunderstand/misunderstood his policy suggestions.
We ? Do you have a mouse in your pocket ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Example: not realizing that tariffs are a tax, and they they have almost expressly been payed by domestic consumers not the foreign suppliers (the idea of tariffs being to drive up the cost of imported goods to make domestic competitors more competitive).
Not exactly. That is not true. Think about it. Is it a tax on the domestic consumers or a tax on importers. Much like many nations subsidize their industries.
Why should other countries be able to just bring in their stuff scott free ? Many will not even allow our exports into their country. Heck, even a Canadian citizen has to pay a tax/tariff for anything which crosses their border. Whether they personally carry or if it is sent to them.
Do you believe in capitalism ? If domestic consumers do not like the tariff adjusted price, importers will have to decide to lower prices. No sweat off my azz if either do not. If something is in demand, they will buy it. No matter who makes it. Spurring American businesses ? I think so.
We used to fund our government with tariffs before income taxes. Oh snap, you said taxes. When your government raises corporate income taxes, so they can pay their fair share, domestic consumers pay that also. Which devil do you want to tax you ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I think the same is true about claims that he'll reduce grocery or gas prices...they're mostly based on misunderstanding his plans to handle those things, the marginal benefits they'll bring, and the externalities they have.
How old are you ? (I kinda sort of know.) Every President since ??? campaigned to become energy independent. None achieved that. Trump in 2016 did not make that campaign promise but he achieved that ideal. We became an energy exporter. Hitler was going to lose WW II just as they did WW I. Hitler's death blow was he ran out of fuel.
Grocery prices. The cost of resupplying affects price. Fuel prices are a major factor.
A misunderstanding of his plans ? Opening up drilling operations, even on Federal land/waters helped a lot. Rolling back regulations from unelected bureaucrats.
quote
an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.]https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bureaucrat
Intelligent judgement being key words. Paid off bureaucrats is better.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Trump won based on rhetoric. He convinced a large portion of the American people that he was FOR them and ONLY them, while the rest of the political establishment had spent years convincing that same group they'd forgotten about them entirely. You mix that in with the percentage of the population who is already very pro-big-government but socially conservative, and you get a solid majority.
I am going to have to digest that.
No other politician claimed that he was FOR them and ONLY them ? The rest of the political establishment had spent years convincing that same group they'd forgotten about them entirely ?
The percentage of the population who is already very pro-big-government but socially conservative ? What percentage would that be ?
Originally posted by cliffw: I am disagreeable too.
We ? Do you have a mouse in your pocket ?
I used to keep mice in my pocket, but I’d pet ’em, and pretty soon they bit my fingers and I pinched their heads a little and then they was dead—because they was so little.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Not exactly. That is not true. Think about it. Is it a tax on the domestic consumers or a tax on importers. Much like many nations subsidize their industries.
Why should other countries be able to just bring in their stuff scott free ? Many will not even allow our exports into their country. Heck, even a Canadian citizen has to pay a tax/tariff for anything which crosses their border. Whether they personally carry or if it is sent to them.
Tariffs are a tax on the goods imported. Like nearly all taxes on goods, they are passed on to the end consumers of those goods as price increases. If you put tariffs on the goods of our primary trade partners, the end price of those goods will go up.
I'm not sure what law Canadian you are citing here. Trump already negotiated all of the trade agreements we have with Canada. Canada does not have any blanket tariffs like you are mentioning...are you unhappy with any specific terms of the USMCA?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Do you believe in capitalism ? If domestic consumers do not like the tariff adjusted price, importers will have to decide to lower prices. No sweat off my azz if either do not. If something is in demand, they will buy it. No matter who makes it. Spurring American businesses ? I think so.
We used to fund our government with tariffs before income taxes. Oh snap, you said taxes. When your government raises corporate income taxes, so they can pay their fair share, domestic consumers pay that also. Which devil do you want to tax you ?
If I believe in capitalism I believe the government shouldn't be involved in creating a tariff-adjusted price, and that by doing so I've introduced volatility into it's supply/demand, created distortions in market that impact it's ability to self-regulate, and risked other markets via retaliatory trade wars. That would be a pure capitalist perspective.
Tariffs are'nt an effective engine for spurring American business. While they might sometimes be necessary to protect domestic industries, they're an overall economic drain, imposing broader costs on the economy. Believing that they will consistently spur American business ignores how they've performed int he past.
If you are asking me, I would say neither. I accept that there are basic human needs we can ensure do not go unmet, and have a human moral obligation to do so. At the same time, I believe that all taxation is theft and is immoral; as with almost everything you're left balancing "gonna have to steal" vs "gonna have to let babies starve." Sometimes you don't get to NOT choose. In my mind, taxation from amassed, generational wealth has much less market distortion than taxing productive individuals, and encourages meritocracy. I'd target that pool with much higher taxes while reducing the tax burden on the productive classes.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: How old are you ? (I kinda sort of know.) Every President since ??? campaigned to become energy independent. None achieved that. Trump in 2016 did not make that campaign promise but he achieved that ideal. We became an energy exporter. Hitler was going to lose WW II just as they did WW I. Hitler's death blow was he ran out of fuel.
Grocery prices. The cost of resupplying affects price. Fuel prices are a major factor.
A misunderstanding of his plans ? Opening up drilling operations, even on Federal land/waters helped a lot. Rolling back regulations from unelected bureaucrats.
I don't think energy independence is in fossil fuels; I think it appeases people in the short term. It becomes a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face moment when we refuse to adapt beyond them because we currently rely on them. We already drill more than any other country, and while I DO think the engineering of it is cool as hell the marginal benefit of more is not what he is promising.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I am going to have to digest that.
No other politician claimed that he was FOR them and ONLY them ? The rest of the political establishment had spent years convincing that same group they'd forgotten about them entirely ?
The percentage of the population who is already very pro-big-government but socially conservative ? What percentage would that be ?
I don't think any other one has done so convincingly. Not working-class Americans. The Democrats abandoned them under Clinton, by my estimation. I don't know any exact percentages, but I'd say it was enough.
What you're arguing is perspective. I, nor you can really speak as to what a large portion of DJT supporters understood or misunderstood. DJT won IMHO more because of what the Dems were offering up. It's my perspective and opinion that quite a few voted against Harris. They did not want four more years of the same. Yes, DJT has a base but, the Dems lost much of the middle class and will have to amend their policies/platform to win them back.
Rams
I can't argue that. What I'm putting out here is pure conjecture.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Tariffs are a tax on the goods imported. Like nearly all taxes on goods, they are passed on to the end consumers of those goods as price increases. If you put tariffs on the goods of our primary trade partners, the end price of those goods will go up.
I can't argue that tariffs will not affect prices going up. Just as when Democrats want to raise taxes on American companies, the consumer pays an increased price. No country can "tax" another country hence the word tariff. However, a tariff can also be a carrot or a stick. China places big tariffs on American imports (100% in some cases), forcing mfg to open plants there. Then China gets all of our intellectual knowledge. Read about the1983 motorcycle tariff.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not sure what law Canadian you are citing here. Trump already negotiated all of the trade agreements we have with Canada. Canada does not have any blanket tariffs like you are mentioning...are you unhappy with any specific terms of the USMCA?
I am not citing Canadian law. I know from information gleened on this forum that shipping into Canada costs more (for some reason). Perhaps it is called duties.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: If I believe in capitalism I believe the government shouldn't be involved in creating a tariff-adjusted price, and that by doing so I've introduced volatility into it's supply/demand, created distortions in market that impact it's ability to self-regulate, and risked other markets via retaliatory trade wars. That would be a pure capitalist perspective.
Ah yes, the proverbial free trade agreement. Which is not always pure. Some countries products in various industries are not allowed to be imported.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: In my mind, taxation from amassed, generational wealth has much less market distortion than taxing productive individuals, and encourages meritocracy. I'd target that pool with much higher taxes while reducing the tax burden on the productive classes.
You got sum 'splaing to do. Generational wealth was taxed when it was amassed. Do you want to tax it again ? Generational wealth is an engine which has started many businesses and provided many jobs. Then there is more products or services which drives prices down. Why is it always tax the rich more ? The rich pay more than 1/2 of the USA's income from taxes. Is it like robbing a bank because that's where the money is ? Some always biatch that the rich do not pay their fair share. Fix the tax code dumbasses. I once heard the tax code is longer than the Bible.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I don't think energy independence is in fossil fuels; I think it appeases people in the short term. It becomes a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face moment when we refuse to adapt beyond them because we currently rely on them. We already drill more than any other country, and while I DO think the engineering of it is cool as hell the marginal benefit of more is not what he is promising.
It is not the first time you have been wrong and it won't be the last, . We had energy independence when Trump left office. Gas prices were about a buck eighty a gallon. Why on day one did Biden cancel the Keystone pipeline (which Obama would not allow to be built) ? Why isn't all federal land and offshore territory available for drilling ? Certain ones I can understand.
Wind and solar energy is appealing but fossil fuels will always be necessary. Did we ban the horse to advance automobile production ? Wind and solar energy will never make us energy independent and it's time is not ... ripe. Should the government be forcing on it's citizens that as an only choice ? Where is the capitalism there ? Remember Salyndra ?
Go ahead and try to make that Global Warming zhit argument to me.
Oil is sold on the international market. American oil having the cost advantage of not having to be shipped across the world. In the 70's oil producing countries banded together and placed an embargo against us causing shortages, gas lines, and higher prices.
Trump can make oil production easier but will the companies want to flood the market causing prices to go down ? Then again some people will work for less money. Think of illegal aliens driving down wages for American workers and prices for consumers.
We had energy independence when Trump left office.
Because no-one was traveling. You remember this little thing called "covid"? Energy production is up under Biden and we have -more- energy independence. So you're championing Trump for energy independence, surely you're championing the Biden admin for providing -more- independence, right?
quote
Gas prices were about a buck eighty a gallon.
Because no-one was buying gas. . . Remember COVID? Pretty sure you don't have to do a stimulus if the economy was as ripping as Trump supporters claim.
quote
Why on day one did Biden cancel the Keystone pipeline (which Obama would not allow to be built) ? Why isn't all federal land and offshore territory available for drilling ? Certain ones I can understand.
A.) Because that pipeline was for oil to get exported. B.) You just contradicted yourself - you know why "certain ones" are off limits yet why isn't it all available for drilling?
Originally posted by cliffw: I can't argue that tariffs will not affect prices going up. Just as when Democrats want to raise taxes on American companies, the consumer pays an increased price. No country can "tax" another country hence the word tariff. However, a tariff can also be a carrot or a stick. China places big tariffs on American imports (100% in some cases), forcing mfg to open plants there. Then China gets all of our intellectual knowledge. Read about the1983 motorcycle tariff.
Atariffisatax. It is a specific type of tax, but it is unquestionably a tax. It is not a tax on another country, it is a tax on goods being brought into this country, and we absolutely can tax another country's goods. If at any point a tariff was presented or received as anything other than a tax increase, it was misunderstood and/or misrepresented. Increased tariffs are tax increases, and supporting tariffs is supporting higher taxes. The tariffs proposed would specifically be higher taxes on American businesses and consumers.
The way China attempts to centrally manage their economy is inferior to the way ours operates, especially when ours is allowed to do so more freely. If you are suggesting that because China does something to their economy, it is either ok or desirable for us to do it as well, then I'm willing to discuss the benefits of a free-market economy vs a controlled socialist state with you, but we should be open about what we're doing.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: You got sum 'splaing to do. Generational wealth was taxed when it was amassed. Do you want to tax it again ? Generational wealth is an engine which has started many businesses and provided many jobs. Then there is more products or services which drives prices down.
I believe that taxation is theft and is damaging. At the same time I also believe it is necessary to address even greater moral maladies (preventing childhood starvation, for example). I think that creates a need to quantify if a tax base is effective in a cost/benefit analysis (think the The Laffer Curve), as well as a need to ensure those funds are used effectively. If I stress a tax base in a way that does not increase my revenues, I'm engaging in the moral wrongdoing of taxing without reaping the benefits of preventing childhood starvation (from the example). Taxing sitting wealth does have an economic cost -no doubt- but not to the same extent as targeting actively productive capital with those taxes. I'm not worried about sitting wealth providing "many" jobs -that's a simplistic way to look at economic benefit. I'm worried about it providing a proportionately equal amount of jobs to other taxable sources, and it comes up short.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Why is it always tax the rich more ? The rich pay more than 1/2 of the USA's income from taxes. Is it like robbing a bank because that's where the money is ? Some always biatch that the rich do not pay their fair share. Fix the tax code dumbasses. I once heard the tax code is longer than the Bible.
I didn't say "tax the wealthy" and I didn't advocate taxing high income earners or high corporate profits. I said to tax the money that is sitting because it is not being used to drive the economy as effectively as the money that is being taxed by income taxes and tariffs.
It's like robbing some of the excess money a miser has stuffed in his mattress (but might lend out!) verses stealing all of a carpenter's tools. If you have to do one, which seems the less-immoral funding source? Which would impact the local economy less? It's a gross oversimplification, but I think it get's the gist of how feel about it across.
I think most conservative economic principals create the dilemma of tax-as-theft-and/or-depravation-of-liberty. Assuming you are a conservative both socially and economically, how would you address that dilemma?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: It is not the first time you have been wrong and it won't be the last, .
Originally posted by cliffw: We had energy independence when Trump left office. Gas prices were about a buck eighty a gallon. Why on day one did Biden cancel the Keystone pipeline (which Obama would not allow to be built) ? Why isn't all federal land and offshore territory available for drilling ? Certain ones I can understand.
Wind and solar energy is appealing but fossil fuels will always be necessary. Did we ban the horse to advance automobile production ? Wind and solar energy will never make us energy independent and it's time is not ... ripe. Should the government be forcing on it's citizens that as an only choice ? Where is the capitalism there ? Remember Salyndra ?
Go ahead and try to make that Global Warming zhit argument to me.
Oil is sold on the international market. American oil having the cost advantage of not having to be shipped across the world. In the 70's oil producing countries banded together and placed an embargo against us causing shortages, gas lines, and higher prices.
Trump can make oil production easier but will the companies want to flood the market causing prices to go down ? Then again some people will work for less money. Think of illegal aliens driving down wages for American workers and prices for consumers.
I'm not going to "make the Global Warming argument." The consensus on it is as overwhelming as the consensus that the Earth is round, and I'm also not planning to argue that the planet isn't flat. If the overwhelming evidence and near unanimous consensus are not going to convince you, no facts or reality I can bring to your attention will either. There's a link I posted just above there that addresses that.
I didn't suggest we hamstring fossil fuels, but the only alternative is not drilling more; we didn't bolster the car by having the government breed as many horses as they could either. I see a conspicuous lack of nuclear energy being mentioned in your reply. Why is the push not to build a path to an actually sustainable, reliable energy source?
I didn't say "tax the wealthy" and I didn't advocate taxing high income earners or high corporate profits. I said to tax the money that is sitting because it is not being used to drive the economy as effectively as the money that is being taxed by income taxes and tariffs.
NewDustin: Please explain, at what dollar amount do you start taxing that "sitting" money 1k, 5k, 10k?, and at what rate, higher or lower than the rate of gain, one way leads to non generational wealth. just looking for clarification, not trying to stir the pot
Originally posted by bonaduce: NewDustin: Please explain, at what dollar amount do you start taxing that "sitting" money 1k, 5k, 10k?, and at what rate, higher or lower than the rate of gain, one way leads to non generational wealth. just looking for clarification, not trying to stir the pot
I don't mean to give the impression that I have a comprehensive plan laid out and ready in the works, so I'd be open to discussion on what that might look like. I do think at some point it's regressive to tax people based on wealth without setting a floor or considering what the "wealth" actually is (ie the carpenter's tools in my previous example). I liked a lot about the proposal to tax unrealized capital gains over a certain amount.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-03-2025).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: I said to tax the money that is sitting because it is not being used to drive the economy as effectively as the money that is being taxed by income taxes and tariffs.
Please enlighten me/us on exactly what you mean on this.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Please enlighten me/us on exactly what you mean on this.
An example: Taxing long-term unrealized capital gains on equity grants from publicly traded companies vs. taxing income.
We know hoarded wealth is a detriment to the economy; it doesn't 'trickle down' and it doesn't get used to fund entrepreneurship. We know income earners return the majority of what they make to the economy via purchases/expenditures. If you tax the former, the opportunity cost for the lost money is next to nothing; it wasn't being used for anything. If you tax the latter, the opportunity cost of the lost money is almost dollar-for-dollar lost expenditures in the economy.
Again, since tariffs are paid by the domestic end consumer, they operate like a sales tax on anything purchased. An increase on tariffs would function -in this scenario- very similarly to an increase in income tax. You would be targeting a taxable source that is already being used to drive the economy.
An example: Taxing long-term unrealized capital gains on equity grants from publicly traded companies vs. taxing income.
We know hoarded wealth is a detriment to the economy; it doesn't 'trickle down' and it doesn't get used to fund entrepreneurship. We know income earners return the majority of what they make to the economy via purchases/expenditures. If you tax the former, the opportunity cost for the lost money is next to nothing; it wasn't being used for anything. If you tax the latter, the opportunity cost of the lost money is almost dollar-for-dollar lost expenditures in the economy.
Again, since tariffs are paid by the domestic end consumer, they operate like a sales tax on anything purchased. An increase on tariffs would function -in this scenario- very similarly to an increase in income tax. You would be targeting a taxable source that is already being used to drive the economy.
So, where's the line, how's that going to affect millions of retirement savings accounts. My extra money (over the years) was saved and or invested in different places. Are you telling me the money that those investments have earned are going to be taxed before I even get to retirement or are at the point of needing it?
Additionally, it's my understanding that the earnings of those retirement accounts isn't just sitting there, it's utilized in the investment opportunities and companies one invested in. There are very few things in life that are no risk. Personally, I see the plan you seem to be endorsing as just another attempt to take more money from those who earned it and put into the government's coffers. It's painfully obvious, the government is horrible at taking care of "our" money. How about we simply reduce the cost of government by making it more efficient and cutting give away programs. Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-04-2025).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: An example: Taxing long-term unrealized capital gains on equity grants from publicly traded companies vs. taxing income.
What the hell is an equity grant ? Equity is earned. What the hell are unrealized capital gains ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-05-2025).]
I am not citing Canadian law. I know from information gleened on this forum that shipping into Canada costs more (for some reason). Perhaps it is called duties.
Shipping into Canada costs more because you are paying for 2 different shipping labels, one US label from seller to a central customs center, one Canadian label from customs to you, some couriers can take it the whole way on one label, but they still charge you significantly more than a simple US to US label. Also we have to pay sales tax (which in my province is 15%) if it is shipped to Canada, that usually is paid at checkout, if I purchase something in the US and bring it into Canada, I have to pay that at the border, there are duties for certain things made in certain countries, like China, so if I buy something in the US (anything) over $100, that's made in China, then at the border I pay my 15% tax and I think a 10% duty, made in US doesn't have a duty.
Couriers also have hidden fees and "duties" so if you don't pay the Canadian sales tax at checkout, and it is shipped to Canada, then at customs the courier has to pay the sales tax, and then they get to charge you a lot before you get the package, because they did your job to pay taxes, so now you reimburse them for the taxes, their time, etc. etc. ends up being quite the bill sometimes.
so if I buy something in the US (anything) over $100, that's made in China, then at the border I pay my 15% tax and I think a 10% duty, made in US doesn't have a duty.
When I used to cross the border to bring back online stuff that I bought in the States and had shipped to a US address, it was standard practice for the Canadian border agents out here to just waive people through the crossing with no taxes/duty if the total dollar amount was below two hundred dollars. Otherwise, I suppose the paperwork at this very busy border crossing would've been prohibitive for the staff there. This reminds me of a thread Here from twelve years ago where dipsh!t banned member Furgal accused me of lying, cheating and smuggling. Geez that guy was a total dick.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-04-2025).]
When I used to cross the border to bring back online stuff that I bought in the States and had shipped to a US address, it was standard practice for the Canadian border agents out here to just waive people through the crossing with no taxes/duty if the total dollar amount was below two hundred dollars. Otherwise, I suppose the paperwork at this very busy border crossing would've been prohibitive for the staff there. This reminds me of a thread Here from twelve years ago where dipsh!t banned member Furgal accused me of lying, cheating and smuggling. Geez that guy was a total dick.
Well, based on your own description, he may have been right. Knowingly taking advantage of a busy border crossing.............. Not an accusation just going on what you posted. I wasn't there so, I wouldn't know.
Cut the crap, Ron. If you were crossing an international border, and the border agent tells you to continue on your way... are you suggesting that you'd pull over, against the border agent's explicit instructions, and go inside and insist on paying taxes and duties when you were clearly instructed not to do so? You're either full of sh!t, or a full blown retard... or both.
Cut the crap, Ron. If you were crossing an international border, and the border agent tells you to continue on your way... are you suggesting that you'd pull over, against the border agent's explicit instructions, and go inside and insist on paying taxes and duties when you were clearly instructed not to do so? You're either full of sh!t, or a full blown retard... or both.
Patrick, Don't try to throw your guilt my direction. We all make our own decisions. I can honestly say, that situation has never been an issue for me. Then again, I wasn't trying to use a busy border crossing to do whatever.
I once transported a Fiero to somewhere in N. Dakota (I think) headed to a Canadian buyer. In that I didn't know the seller nor the buyer, I only agreed to get it to the border because, I didn't know what else might be hidden in the car. I did do an inspection of the car but, I'm not equipped or qualified to look for illegal contraband. One never knows until that dog alerts. As it turned out, the car was apparently clean but, I wasn't willing to take the chance. You see, I respect and follow the law.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-04-2025).]
. We had energy independence when Trump left office. Gas prices were about a buck eighty a gallon. Why on day one did Biden cancel the Keystone pipeline (which Obama would not allow to be built) ? Why isn't all federal land and offshore territory available for drilling ? Certain ones I can understand.
