Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Ben Chu: He has promised tariffs - a form of tax - of up to 20% on goods from other countries and 60% on all imports from China. He has even talked about a 200% tax on some imported cars.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

So a car imported to the US with a value of $50,000 (38,000) subject to a 10% tariff, would face a $5,000 charge.

The charge is physically paid by the domestic company that imports the goods, not the foreign company that exports them.

So, in that sense, it is a straightforward tax paid by domestic US firms to the US government.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"If the US importing firm passes on the cost of the tariff to the person buying the product in the US in the form of higher retail prices, it would be the US consumer that bears the economic burden."

'

"Let's use a concrete example.

Trump imposed a 50% tariff on imports of washing machines in 2018.

Researchers estimate the value of washing machines jumped by around 12% as a direct consequence, equivalent to $86 per unit, and that US consumers paid around $1.5bn extra a year in total for these products.

There is no reason to believe the results of even higher import tariffs from a future Trump administration would be any different in terms of where the economic burden would fall.

'

The non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated Trump's new proposed tariffs would lower the incomes of Americans, with the impact ranging from around 4% for the poorest fifth to around 2% for the wealthiest fifth.

A typical household in the middle of the US income distribution, the think tank estimates, would lose around $1,700 each year."

Thanks, Trumpers!

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-15 04:40 PM | Reply

A 20% sales tax?

Nah, why would that hurt the middle class?

Deporting millions of agricultural workers?

Why would that raise food and house prices?

50% tariff on washing machines? That'll lower prices right?

200% on John Deere farm equipment? No way that will hurt farmers.

Just remember as you're paying more federal taxes under project 2025 that it is for the good of the billionaires who will save hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-10-15 05:19 PM | Reply

Trump can run his mouth all he wants about washing machines but ------- with the ag community?

This is an opportunity for Harris, IMO.

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-15 05:22 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by eberly

We sold a good sized farm last year. Most of the soy grown in the U.S. ends up overseas.

If countries slap tariffs on U.S. ag products every farmer in America will be hurt by lower prices due to oversupply at home.

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-10-15 06:34 PM | Reply

How about the Biden taxes that kicked in in september? Are they bad too?

#5 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 01:41 PM | Reply

And NO tariffs are not taxes.
ps UK stop trying to meddle in my elections

#6 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 01:42 PM | Reply

And NO tariffs are not taxes.

#6 | Posted by commondolt

A tariff or duty (the words are used interchangeably) is a TAX levied by governments on the value including freight and insurance of imported products.

www.trade.gov(the,and%20insurance%20of%20imported%20products.

Who to believe, The International Trade Commission or commondolt?

How about The Tax Foundation:

Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods or services imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers.

taxfoundation.org

Maybe the Brookings Institute can help us here:
What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes that countries impose on imported goods when they cross the border.

www.brookings.edu

Gosh, I'm stumped, aren't you? /s

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 01:50 PM | Reply

BBC, a state-affiliated media of a foreign nation, is trying to affect US elections.
Doesn't that just burn you up?
What if they did yellow hitpieces on Kamala? THEN would it burn you up?

#8 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 01:51 PM | Reply

#8
Wow, talk about clueless.

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-10-16 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

U.S. Farmers Lost Billions to Trump-Era Retaliatory Tariffs
www.statista.com

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-10-16 01:56 PM | Reply

Speaking of the clueless....

www.youtube.com

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-16 01:56 PM | Reply

"Sep 19, 2024My opponent has a plan that I call the Trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month. "

It depends on what you mean by "tax".

1. Direct taxes, which must be apportioned among the states in proportion to their populations; 2. "Indirect taxes," specifically duties, imposts, and excises, which must be uniform throughout the country; ...

The TDS crew is trying to equate tariffs as a direct tax, when it isn't. Tariffs can offset direct taxes, if your government is not rapacious like ours is.

Now answer why it's NOT maligned when the current administration not only KEEPS the tariffs in place from the Trump admin., but they introduce NEW tariffs and ALSO they want to raise taxes, and this admin. ALSO made it a point to GO AFTER taxes on tips, before they plagiarised Trump's 'no tax on tips' act.

#12 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#12 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag: MAGAt Understanding of Economics & Taxes

#13 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-16 02:06 PM | Reply

Now let's address the fact that tariffs will bring back manufacturers.
Trade imbalance translates directly to debt, btw. The interest on that debt TAXES the hell out of us, now breaking 1T a year, which is a lot worse than an extra 20% on your plastic junk from Chy-na.

#14 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 02:06 PM | Reply

Now let's address the fact that tariffs will bring back manufacturers.
Trade imbalance translates directly to debt, btw. The interest on that debt TAXES the hell out of us, now breaking 1T a year, which is a lot worse than an extra 20% on your plastic junk from Chy-na.

#14 | Posted by commnotes

How worried about the debt were you when trump handed out trillions to billionaires?

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-16 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ALSO made it a point to GO AFTER taxes on tips,

Hey stunod, tips are taxable income not free gifted money. I disagree with Kamala on this and in no universe will Congress ever pass such legislation, especially the GOP contingent. Is there a single Republican anywhere in America running on removing income taxes on tips other than Trump and Vance?

And on tariffs, not a single person has said tariffs are bad or don't belong per se, but for you implicitly. The argument is the tariff structure that Trump is proposing will harm the US and global economy on top of spiking inflation because they don't do what he thinks that they do.

Again, maybe learn something before flying off at the mouth/fingers.

From the founding of the United States until 1914, when the federal income tax was introduced, tariffs were the main source of revenue to the federal government. After World War II, the U.S. joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) with 22 other countries, which aimed to promote international trade, and began decreasing tariffs. The downward trend in tariff rates continued until 2018, when the Trump administration raised tariffs on several products, especially those imported from China, igniting a trade war.

www.brookings.edu

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 02:11 PM | Reply

"The TDS crew..." -

#12 | Posted by commnotes

What a bizzarro group of people to be citing.

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-16 02:11 PM | Reply

And what did Biden just do again, taxed EV batteries for 50% and also wants to make EV mandatory.
That's convenient.
Biden Taxed solar cells 50%, and at the same time funds subsidies for solar conversions.
This is money laundering and graft. Sniff out the principals in these green power ventures and see the path your money takes. Biden's 'infrastructure' bill was actually a 'climate change' bill in disguise. The money will largely go to politically connected green energy ventures, which will kickback a political donation.
Our government is LOOTING us.

#18 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 02:13 PM | Reply

tariffs will bring back manufacturers.

Why? What's their incentive when American consumers are willing to pay more?

Did Labor suddenly become cheaper in America?

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-10-16 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by commnotes at 2024-10-16 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag: MAGAts post and re-post 100% BS because they believe that everyone is as gullible and stupid as they are

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-16 02:16 PM | Reply

Biden's 'infrastructure' bill was actually a 'climate change' bill in disguise.

#18 | Posted by commnotes

Oh no! You mean they were addressing a huge problem with a solution that would also create jobs and opportunities? That sounds like responsible mature leadership! Boooooo!

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-16 02:20 PM | Reply

The money will largely go to politically connected green energy ventures, which will kickback a political donation.

Like Elon Musk with Tesla and his space program? Who's receiving 'political donations' from those commondolt?

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 02:25 PM | Reply

You mean they were addressing a huge problem with a solution that would also create jobs and opportunities?

How did they address it?

It was a grift.
www.nytimes.com

CO2 in the US has been dropping before Act, and it's not dropping faster.
www.epa.gov


The money will largely go to politically connected green energy ventures, which will kickback a political donation.

Like Elon Musk with Tesla and his space program?

Tesla received no direct money from IRA, people who purchased a Tesla received a Tax Credit. This didn't change the price of a Tesla, in fact the prices dropped.

Biden cancelled $885 million in government funding to support broadband access in rural communities.

Who's receiving 'political donations' from those commondolt?

What else do you have? On the flip side you're just admitting that all green subsidies are political kickbacks.

#23 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-10-16 02:38 PM | Reply

Tesla received no direct money from IRA

I was not referring to the IRA, just government investment in green technology which was directly mentioned.

Whatever Musk's endgame, the public record clearly shows that Tesla, since its founding over two decades ago, has benefitted from government assistance, largely because of its role in moving the U.S. toward cleaner cars. Tesla's first major manufacturing facility, in Fremont, California, was developed with the help of a $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy, repaid three years later.

More recently, Tesla has reaped almost $9 billion since 2018 by selling what are known as "regulatory credits, opens new tab," securities filings show. The credits, awarded in the U.S. by the federal and state governments to manufacturers who surpass increasingly strict emissions rules, can be sold to other carmakers who are unable to comply.

"There was no Tesla without California's regulatory bodies," California Governor Gavin Newsom said at a 2022 conference, citing the importance of the state's credits to the carmaker's finances.

www.cnbc.com

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 02:48 PM | Reply

Biden cancelled $885 million in government funding to support broadband access in rural communities.

The Federal Communications Commission is standing by last year's decision to deny Starlink nearly $900 million in rural broadband subsidies.

The regulator issued its final denial Dec. 12, reaffirming that SpaceX's satellite broadband service failed to meet requirements for participating in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). "The FCC followed a careful legal, technical and policy review to determine that this applicant had failed to meet its burden to be entitled to" the funds," FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a news release.

SpaceX was provisionally awarded the subsidies in December 2020 after competing in an auction under the first phase of the RDOF process. The company was in line for $886 million over 10 years to deliver high-speed broadband to nearly 643,000 homes and businesses in 35 states, after winning one of the largest shares of the multi-billion-dollar fund.

However, the 180 auction winners had to show how they would deploy services that meet RDOF conditions, and this is where the FCC says SpaceX fell short. Terrestrial telco LTD Broadband was also denied $1.3 billion in provisionally awarded subsidies.

RDOF requirements include providing 100 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds.

According to the latest Ookla speed tests, Starlink median download performance in the United States was 64.54 Mbps in the third quarter of 2023, which the research firm said was a slight decline quarter-on-quarter but up 22% on the 53 Mbps recorded for the period in 2022.

spacenews.com

I just going to take it that you didn't know Starlink didn't meet the service standards for the subsidies. Maybe if they reach the threshold they can try again.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 02:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Biden didn't do anything regarding Starlink. The FCC pulled the plug due to Musk's Starlink not meeting the contracted standards. That's the only reason why, the same for another company not related to Musk.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 02:55 PM | Reply

Like Elon Musk with Tesla and his space program? Who's receiving 'political donations' from those commondolt?

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Republicans and Democrats. They donate to both.

#27 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-10-16 03:02 PM | Reply

Elon Musk really is the hero we deserve.

#28 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-10-16 03:03 PM | Reply

They donate to both.

I meant to singularly reference Musk, not his companies.

Musk gave $75 million to pro-Trump group, becoming a Republican mega donor

Elon Musk gave around $75 million to his pro-Donald Trump spending group in the span of three months, federal disclosures showed on Tuesday, underscoring how the billionaire has become crucial to the Republican candidate's efforts to win the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Musk, the CEO of electric car manufacturer Tesla, was the sole donor to the group in that period.
Musk, who has said he has voted for Democratic presidential candidates in the past, has taken a sharp turn to the right this election. He endorsed Trump in July and appeared with him at a rally in Pennsylvania earlier this month.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-16 03:14 PM | Reply

Trump repeatedly benefits from the ignorance, stupidity and tendency to short term memory of the American people. Trump's tariffs hurt American farmers so badly he was forced to give them billions of dollars to compensate them and to buy their votes in 2020:

Claire McCaskill
@clairecmc
Hoping farmers that were screaming at me about Trump's tariffs last time remember what happened. And the "fiscal conservatives" remember his very expensive taxpayer bailout for their tariff losses.

Tariff Aid To Farmers Cost More Than Nuclear Forces

The Trump administration gave more taxpayer dollars to farmers harmed by the administration's trade policies than the federal government spends each year building ships for the Navy or maintaining America's nuclear arsenal, according to a new report. A National Foundation for American Policy analysis concluded the spending on farmers was also higher than the annual budgets of several government agencies. "The amount of money raises questions about the strategy of imposing tariffs and permitting the use of taxpayer money to shield policymakers from the consequences of their actions," according to the analysis.

After a series of tariff increases on Chinese imports, the government of China retaliated against U.S. exporters, as predicted by trade analysts outside of the administration. As a result, U.S. exports, particularly of agricultural goods, dropped significantly. "Losing the world's most populous country as an export market has been a major blow to the [U.S.] agriculture industry," reported the New York Times in August 2019. "Total American agricultural exports to China were $24 billion in 2014 and fell to $9.1 billion last year, according to the American Farm Bureau." In 2018, U.S. farmers' soybean exports to China declined by 75%, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

To shore up political support from farmers, Donald Trump approved increasing amounts of government aid to farmers harmed by the trade policies that the Trump administration itself initiated. Trump was open about the purpose of the payments. "I sometimes see where these horrible dishonest reporters will say that oh jeez, the farmers are upset,'" he told attendees of an Illinois farmer show in August 2019. "Well, they can't be too upset, because I gave them $12 billion and I gave them $16 billion this year. . . . I hope you like me even better than you did in '16."

www.forbes.com

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-10-16 04:49 PM | Reply

CO2 in the US has been dropping before Act, and it's not dropping faster.
www.epa.gov

#23 | Posted by oneironaut

Do you know how long it takes to get shovels in the ground, yet alone see final benetifs from a massive infrastructure investment? Or should they just spew taxpayer money at any huckster who says they have a shovel like trump did with the PPP?

You know who demands unrealistic instant results? 4 year olds.

Your education is so lacking, your ability for basic reasoning so retarded, that you are literally whining that bridges don't magically appear in 3 years.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-16 04:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

From the above link:

Table 1: Taxpayer Cost of Trade-Related Aid to Farmers and Other Federal Programs

PROGRAM TAXPAYER COST

Trump Aid to Farmers $28 Billion
Department of State $26.3 Billion
Navy Ship Building (annual avg.) $22 Billion
Nuclear Forces $21.8 Billion
NASA $19.8 Billion
Children's Health Insurance $17.3 Billion
TANF $16.7 Billion
Department of Commerce $8.6 Billion
EPA $8.1 Billion
Judicial Branch $7.8 Billion
National Science Foundation $7.2 Billion
Legislative Branch $4.7 Billion
Food Safety and Inspection Service $1.3 Billion
Agricultural Research Service $1.1 Billion
Forest Service $0.4 Billion

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-10-16 04:55 PM | Reply

For tariffs to achieve Trump's goal of incentivizing companies to make more products here, they have to be onerous. Onerous to the point of causing trade in that product to essentially come to a halt. Even then, bringing manufacturing back on shore is a multi year project. What happens during the interim: tremendous inflation because stateside manufacturers of similar products are not likely to be able to meet the demand and will increase their prices because that's what capitalists do.

It's a little late but the tax code needs to change to remove the incentives for offshoring production. Also, provide tax incentives for onshoring production.

#33 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2024-10-16 05:43 PM | Reply

@#33 ... For tariffs to achieve Trump's goal of incentivizing companies to make more products here, they have to be onerous. Onerous to the point of causing trade in that product to essentially come to a halt. ...

The fiscal aspect of fmr Pres Trump's inane tariff proposal aside ...

Take a step back and ponder how long it would take for US companies to move all their manufacturing to the US.

Where will the manufacturing facilities be built?

How long will it take for those facilities to be built (especially when fmr Pres trump will be corralling and deporting the very workers that the construction industry has built its success upon)?

What will the price of goods do while everyone waits for those factories to be built?

I have more questions, but I'll go with those three for the nonce.


#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-16 06:41 PM | Reply

I posted earlier on how Trump's tariffs in the past cost the US taxpayer $28 billion dollars so he could compensate farmers for the finanical damage his tariffs while presidient did to them. Well, now data is coming out on how his propsed tariffs will hurt farmers if he gets re-elected:

Pennsylvania farmers could lose $111 million in soy exports, $50 million in corn exports, $22 million in beef exports and $20 million in wheat exports, according to the analysis from the University of Illinois Department of Agriculture and Consumer Economics.

"These new studies literally show that Trump's tariffs will put Pennsylvania farmers out of business," Chris Gibbs, an Ohio corn and soybean farmer and president of Rural Voices USA, said in a statement Tuesday. "Exports are vital for Pennsylvania farmers and they cannot absorb the sharp fall in exports and prices these studies foreshadow."

alabamareflector.com

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-10-16 09:23 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort