this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
181 points (95.9% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

7279 readers
816 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
  4. Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I think it comes down to 2 parts, one being that tarrifs is what were used prior to income tax in the U.S., the time when "robber barrons" thrived and could grow their wealth easily. So the heritage foundation is trying to drive down income taxes and reintroduce tarrifs so they can legally make as much money as possible while not having that money they pull in pay for America's well being. The second I believe is that the money starts in a separate pile, and ultimately goes to the treasury still, but previously since that "pile" had far less in it before it will look like the government is collecting a lot more money when directly comparing that pile to that pile over than last 50 years. So he can say he increased our revenue by bolognanumber% to show he is doing well, while ignoring that higher costs decreased purchases which in turn decrease states income from sales taxes. So states will make less, and be more dependent on the federal government. Which if the states don't fall in line, the federal government can/will disperse funds unevenly to states who don't lap the federal governments balls.

So it comes to a game of taking from the working class and states money/rights as much as possible to keep them fully dependent while growing insanely rich, but not pissed off enough to rebel, or if they do.. not have enough resources to be able too.