Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 03, 2025

A JPMorganChase Institute has found that a critical group of U.S. employers would face a direct cost of $82.3 billion from President Donald Trump's current tariff plans ...

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

At U.S. department store chains including Macy's, Nordstrom, and Dillard's, the evidence of more sticker price inflation is starting to show up across more items.

[image or embed]

-- CNBC (@cnbc.com) Jul 2, 2025 at 3:00 PM

Comments

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

"Had the initial April 2 tariffs stayed in place, the companies in the JPMorganChase Institute analysis would've faced additional direct costs of $187.6 billion.

Under the current rates, the $82.3 billion would be equivalent on average to $2,080 per employee, or 3.1% of the average annual payroll. Those averages include firms that don't import goods and those that do."

;;
The Fart of the Deal!

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-07-02 03:20 PM | Reply

"Suck it, America, I got a kingdom to run"

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-07-02 03:59 PM | Reply

Corky,

"U.S. employers would face a direct cost of $82.3 billion from President Donald Trump's current tariff plans."

Let's talk facts, not fear.

Since January this year, the US has brought in estimated $75 to $95 billion in additional tariff revenue. Meanwhile, estimates of the additional tariff cost vary from Yale's liberal think tank claims over $300 billion (yeah right), while JP Morgan, a bit more grounded, puts it at around $82 billion.

So...per Trump's own plan, the tariffs are largely offsetting. That's how they were designed to work and what he was saying he wanted from the beginning.

And Trump's tariffs are targeted, not random. They're aimed at pressuring specific industries to reshore production and rebuild US manufacturing.

That strategy is showing results.

Seems it's working as planned so far.

#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 05:13 PM | Reply

" Since January this year, the US has brought in estimated $75 to $95 billion in additional tariff revenue."

100% of it from Americans, and 100% of which are taxes.

Tariffs are taxes, and Americans are paying them. That ~$85 Billion could've been spent goosing local economies.

And if you pick up a history book, you'll learn the income tax was enacted in 1913 due to too many tariffs paid by the lower classes, to the point it was choking off the economy.

We're repeating our historical ignorance.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-07-03 06:21 PM | Reply

@#3 ... So...per Trump's own plan, the tariffs are largely offsetting. ....

Two questions...

1) How are tariffs "largely offsetting? Even the number you present, $300 billion, is less than a tenth of the estimated deficit caused by the tax bill.

2) Tariffs are paid by Americans, not the exporting country. Are tariffs a regressive tax on consumers?


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 06:39 PM | Reply

@#3 ... And Trump's tariffs are targeted, not random. They're aimed at pressuring specific industries to reshore production and rebuild US manufacturing.

That strategy is showing results. ...

Wait, what?

If that reshoring strategy is working, then the tariffs will eventually not be "largely offsetting" as you have stated.

So, which is it?

Are the tariffs a permanent thing that will be "largely offsetting" to the $3trillion deficit that Pres trump is dumping upon future generations?

Or are the tariffs a transient thing that will go away once manufacturing is reshored?

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 06:42 PM | Reply

These firms will take it like a prison b!tch"painful, and without complaint, because no one will be listening ...

#7 | Posted by catdog at 2025-07-03 06:47 PM | Reply

Lamp,

"tariffs a transient thing that will go away once manufacturing is reshored?"

I guess.

#8 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 07:34 PM | Reply

Lamp,

300 is Yale's est of additional tariff cost for this year. That think tank of liberals is way higher than jp Morgan est of 82..

When you look back at est tariffs cost over last few years, the 82 is more believable.

#9 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 07:39 PM | Reply

Lamp,

Of course Yale will estimate high. Of course. Why stop at 300b..why not say 600b?

#10 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 07:41 PM | Reply

Lamp,

82 expense offsets the estimated 75 to 95 range in revenue

#11 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 07:43 PM | Reply

@#8 ... "tariffs a transient thing that will go away once manufacturing is reshored?"

I guess. ...

OK, lemme explain ....

Tariffs are paid by Americans upon imported goods.

If Pres Trump moves manufacturing to America, as you have said is occurring (I may disagree to the extent of that, but that's a different thread), then there are no imported goods. No imported goods = no tariffs.


So, I'll ask once again ... are the tariffs a transient thing that will go away once manufacturing is reshored?

If Pres Trump's reshoring is as successful as you assert, wouldn't that reduce or eliminate the revenue from tariffs in the future?


#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 07:49 PM | Reply

"82 expense offsets the estimated 75 to 95 range in revenue"

LOL!!!

"@#3 ... And Trump's tariffs are targeted, not random. They're aimed at pressuring specific industries to reshore production and rebuild US manufacturing."

Oh I see.

You Republicans now favor a Centrally Planned Economy.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-03 07:52 PM | Reply

@#9 ... 300 is Yale's est of additional tariff cost for this year. That think tank of liberals is way higher than jp Morgan est of 82..

When you look back at est tariffs cost over last few years, the 82 is more believable. ...

So, JP Morgan's estimate of $82 billion in tariff revenue is significantly less than Yale's estimate of $300 billion.

So, take a step back ...

If $300 billion was not "largely offsetting" of the $3 trillion deficit of Pres Trump's tax bill, doesn't only $82 billion look to be even less "offsetting?"

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 07:55 PM | Reply

@#11 ... 82 expense offsets the estimated 75 to 95 range in revenue ...

What is the "82 expense?"

Please explain.

thx.

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 07:56 PM | Reply

Jp Morgan estimated additional tariff expense since Jan this year 82 billion.

Yale est 300b additional tariff exp which is ridiculous for same period.

Same period estimated additional tariff revenue 75 to 95 billion

#16 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 08:42 PM | Reply

Lamp,

I looked at what total tariff expense for previous years was and Yales estimate for this year doesn't appear "reasonable"

#17 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-03 08:45 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

Drudge Retort