rscheffler wrote:
When I go to the US, especially in certain regions, I disproportionately see US brand vehicles. Therefore it would appear most in the US are loyal to their own brands. (This ignores the fact that many import brands manufacture vehicles in the US.)
So what's the difference then? Yet the Japanese, Koreans, Germans, etc. should be punished for being loyal to their domestic brands?
The difference I see in the US is that in more cosmopolitan areas, with a higher percentage of high incomes and higher education levels, the diversity of vehicle types/brands increases. And like people with money everywhere in the world, they like to show it off with luxury brands. What US car brands are considered luxury? Cadillac? Lincoln? Definitely not the same category as the foreign luxury vehicle brands.
Those at the lower income range look for bang for the buck and brand loyalty is not a high priority. This is what gave many of the imports a foot in the door decades ago and exploited it to the detriment of the uncompetitive domestic brands. That would seem to be a real example of capitalism in action.
bwcolor wrote:
I’m retired and certainly not rich, but my federal tax savings with the latest bill, will greatly exceed any additional costs that result from these tariffs. So, it isn’t as simple as give money to billionaires and burden everyone else.
1bwana1 wrote:
I applaud your more holistic view to the current processes.
Sure, because the recent legislation specifically carved out additional tax relief for those who are lower income and 65+, I'm guessing pretty much as a vote-buying measure (this tax relief expires in 2028 unless extended). That's not to say low income seniors shouldn't get some relief due to fixed incomes in a period of higher inflation...
It's also easy to take a holistic view when in a high income bracket, which the tax cuts are disproportionately skewed to benefit, I guess as a reward for the hard work achieving such success.
Those in lower incomes will likely see their token tax savings wiped out by cost increases in other areas. I get the feeling the message for the majority at the lower end is: work harder than ever before and try to dig yourself out of your unfortunate position in society, because it really is on you with fewer safety net resources. I mean, fundamentally, that isn't a bad thing. It's just that not everyone will be successful. So perhaps it's an admission that poverty is a necessary evil in a meritocracy.
You might disagree with my opinion, but it seems likely that with the recent changes of the last six months that upward wage pressures and increased availability of jobs for the very people you consider most adversely affected will make for a most positive result. Should I be wrong, the midterm elections will be a complete disaster for Republicans. This is increasing possible with Musk’s new party and lots of money tossed into the mid-cycle elections which are typically less costly. Musk can strongly push his observation that the present administration is just another group of politicians that spend far too much money. An observation that is difficult to dispute.
rscheffler wrote:
When I go to the US, especially in certain regions, I disproportionately see US brand vehicles. Therefore it would appear most in the US are loyal to their own brands. (This ignores the fact that many import brands manufacture vehicles in the US.)
So what's the difference then? Yet the Japanese, Koreans, Germans, etc. should be punished for being loyal to their domestic brands?
The difference I see in the US is that in more cosmopolitan areas, with a higher percentage of high incomes and higher education levels, the diversity of vehicle types/brands increases. And like people with money everywhere in the world, they like to show it off with luxury brands. What US car brands are considered luxury? Cadillac? Lincoln? Definitely not the same category as the foreign luxury vehicle brands.
Those at the lower income range look for bang for the buck and brand loyalty is not a high priority. This is what gave many of the imports a foot in the door decades ago and exploited it to the detriment of the uncompetitive domestic brands. That would seem to be a real example of capitalism in action.
bwcolor wrote:
I’m retired and certainly not rich, but my federal tax savings with the latest bill, will greatly exceed any additional costs that result from these tariffs. So, it isn’t as simple as give money to billionaires and burden everyone else.
1bwana1 wrote:
I applaud your more holistic view to the current processes.
Sure, because the recent legislation specifically carved out additional tax relief for those who are lower income and 65+, I'm guessing pretty much as a vote-buying measure (this tax relief expires in 2028 unless extended). That's not to say low income seniors shouldn't get some relief due to fixed incomes in a period of higher inflation...
It's also easy to take a holistic view when in a high income bracket, which the tax cuts are disproportionately skewed to benefit, I guess as a reward for the hard work achieving such success.
Those in lower incomes will likely see their token tax savings wiped out by cost increases in other areas. I get the feeling the message for the majority at the lower end is: work harder than ever before and try to dig yourself out of your unfortunate position in society, because it really is on you with fewer safety net resources. I mean, fundamentally, that isn't a bad thing. It's just that not everyone will be successful. So perhaps it's an admission that poverty is a necessary evil in a meritocracy.
You might disagree with my opinion, but it seems likely that with the recent changes of the last six months that upward wage pressures and increased availability of jobs for the very people you consider most adversely affected will make for a most positive result. Should I be wrong, the midterm elections will be a complete disaster for Republicans. This is increasing possible with Musk’s new party and lots of money tossed into the mid-cycle elections which are typically less costly.
Jul 08, 2025 at 10:41 AM
Previous versions of bwcolor's message #16847450 « 25% Tariffs on Japan »
