/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3763590
>No they weren't

Yes they were

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/business/tax-bill-china.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-09/china-announces-29-billion-annual-tax-cut-for-small-companies

Our tax revenue to GDP ratio is over 25% higher than China's (26% vs 20%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

>Then we shouldn't be taxing our own companies with Tariffs for using Chinese or Canadian products.

Trump's tariffs are intended to be temporary and retaliatory, made in the interest of getting the tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers of other countries lowered; it's like you've never read about any of these subjects to put them in their proper context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

Many countries dump goods into the US while purchasing little in kind because their tariffs make it difficult for goods from the US to be viable in that market-our country does that as well for certain things. Strategic tariffs combined with weak currencies in places like China and Mexico led to the egress of our manufacturing base and became one of the major reasons the US has been quickly reduced to a do-you-want-fries-with-that economy, while China has become an economic powerhouse with an exponentially increasing standard of living during the exact same time period.

>There are so many corporate loopholes that the effective tax rate for the biggest corporations is less than 0%.

I doubt that blanket statement is correct, though I wouldn't be surprised if it applies to some specific companies. A lot of times you see people butthurt about a company that has a gross profit of over 100 billion receiving a subsidy of a few billion dollars paid out over a few years. The idea of taxation being inherently good when we're talking about an organization with as poor of a track record as the federal government is certainly a novel concept in either case.