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 ------------, 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 | Funny: 1

"I looked at what total tariff expense for previous years was"

You, uh, don't know that tariffs went way the ---- up?
???

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-03 10:04 PM | Reply

Bill is a ------- idiot that wishes he could go back to sucking dicks.

#19 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-07-03 10:06 PM | Reply

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

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

Thanks for the reply.

OK, so, the tariff expense, a.k.a. revenue for the US that US citizens have to pay, is $82 billion.

So, how does that $82 billion offset the $3 trillion that the tax bill creates?

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 11:32 PM | Reply

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

OK, taking a step back from whether the Yale estimate or the JP Morgan estimate is more apropos ...

Let's go, for the nonce, with the Yale estimate, as it seems to be more beneficial to your viewpoint ...

OK, let's say that there is a $300 billion revenue increase because of tariffs.

Going back to your #3 comment ...

... 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, allow me to ask once again, in the realm of facts, not fear .... how do you reconcile the numbers you cite with the $3 trillion estimate of the debt credits by Pres Trump's tax bill?


thx.


#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-03 11:40 PM | Reply

Lamp,

The increase in tariff revenue wasn't intended to offset a $3 trillion projection over 10 years.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-04 01:16 AM | Reply

@#22 ... The increase in tariff revenue wasn't intended to offset a $3 trillion projection over 10 years. ...

Trump's tariffs could cut deficit by $2.8 trillion over next decade - with caveats (June 4, 2025)
wbhm.org

... Congressional forecasters say President Trump's tariffs could raise trillions of dollars over the next decade " if they remain in place " more than offsetting the additional red ink that's projected to flow from a sweeping budget bill passed by the House last month.

Since taking office in January, Trump has imposed taxes of 10 to 50% on nearly everything the U.S. imports. Those taxes have already raised tens of billions of dollars in revenue.

If the tariffs become permanent, they're expected to reduce the federal deficit by $2.8 trillion by 2035, according to a letter released Wednesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. ...



#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-04 01:54 AM | Reply

" Trump's tariffs could cut deficit by $2.8 trillion over next decade - with caveats"

The caveat being 100% of those tariffs are taxes, and 100% are paid by Americans.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-07-04 02:15 AM | Reply

"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."

Several things.

First, manufacturing is NOT coming back to the US, barring some sort of global catastrophe (like WWIII) that somehow leaves the US as the last remaining industrial economy on the planet (like what happened in WWII).

Second, the value of the dollar has dropped by 12% since 01 March 2025. I've seen projections that it will likely decline by an additional 5% before the year is out.

Wanna know why? Trump. He's a reality TV star. All drama is good drama.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-07-04 06:34 AM | Reply

Mad,

You guys understand the new budget better than me.

My original post was about historical tariffs numbers I've found, just about this year, since January.

I'm more of "historical" numbers kind of person, than "projected" numbers that I take with a grain of salt.

#26 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-07-04 09:08 AM | 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