Report: Trump's Proposed Tariff Would Cost Families $1,500 Annually
A 10 percent tariff on all imports would trigger more inflation at the grocery store, particularly for products such as fresh fruit and coffee.

Former President Donald Trump's plan to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports to the United States would hike prices and cost the average American household $1,500 annually.
That's the sobering conclusion reached by a new economic analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP) Action Fund, a left-leaning think tank and advocacy organization. The proposed tariff, which would be applied on top of existing tariffs according to Trump's campaign, would translate into $1,500 in higher costs for the average American household. That includes "a $90 tax increase on food, a $90 tax increase on prescription drugs, and a $120 tax increase on oil and petroleum products," according to Brendan Duke and Ryan Mulholland, the two economists who authored the report.
The 10 percent tariff is one of the few policy proposals that Trump has outlined in any detail as he campaigns for a return to the White House. Though he originally mentioned it in an offhand way during an interview with Fox News in August, Trump's campaign website now promises more tariffs as a "linchpin of a new Strategic National Manufacturing Initiative that will rebalance the global trading system and dramatically strengthen America."
Anyone who needs to buy groceries might discover a different reality. A 10 percent tariff, the CAP Action Fund report notes, would have a direct impact on food prices—which have already climbed significantly in recent years due to inflation—because 60 percent of the fresh fruit consumed by Americans is imported, as is 99 percent of all coffee and more than 70 percent of seafood.
Advocates for more tariffs frequently argue that imposing higher taxes on imported goods will help spur domestic production of those same goods. The evidence for that is pretty thin—but even if it were true, it wouldn't make a difference for foods that can't be grown or caught within the United States. (Sorry, but there's just no way to grow bananas in East Atlanta).
Consumers would have to pay higher taxes to consume imported food or go without it. That's an unappetizing choice.
"Consumers would likely buy fewer imported goods to avoid the tax, but that itself is a form of paying the tax," wrote Duke and Mulholland. "A family that switches from imported fresh berries to frozen domestic berries in the winter may purchase an untaxed item, but they are not purchasing their preferred form of berry and would experience a decline in living standard."
To make matters worse, the tariff would also raise the cost of producing food in the United States. That's because American farmers would face higher costs to obtain fertilizer and farm equipment, much of which is imported.
The CAP Action Fund analysis on Trump's proposed tariff is in some ways colored by partisan politics. The report attempts, unconvincingly, to suggest that President Joe Biden's efforts to boost American manufacturing with billions of tax dollars have been more successful than Trump's tariffs, when in fact both have pretty dismal track records.
But there is nothing partisan about the idea that higher tariffs would have an inflationary effect on prices for American consumers. That's an economic fact backed up by the empirical experience of the past several years. For example, the U.S. International Trade Commission's recent analysis of the tariffs Trump implemented in 2018 found that "U.S. importers bore nearly the full cost of these tariffs because import prices increased at the same rate as the tariffs."
The CAP Action Fund report also reflects what other estimates of Trump's 10 percent tariff plan have found. An analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates that it would raise taxes on Americans by more than $300 billion. The higher prices created by the tariff would rebound throughout the economy, translating into higher costs for businesses and consumers, shrinking economic growth, and diminished exports. "Taken together, we find Trump's proposal of a 10 percent trade tax matched with in-kind retaliation would shrink the U.S. economy by 1.1 percent and threaten more than 825,000 U.S. jobs," Erica York, a senior economist at the foundation, wrote in that report.
Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a trade-focused think tank, told The Washington Post last year that a 10 percent tariff on all imports would likely raise America's inflation rate by more than two percentage points. In the same article, Casey B. Mulligan, who served as an economic adviser to the Trump administration, acknowledged that hiking tariffs would contribute to inflation.
In short, if you think grocery store prices should be even higher than they already are, Trump's tariff plan probably seems like a great idea. For everyone else, this should sound like a terrible idea.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump and his followers want to increase inflation. Ain’t that nice of them?
Sarc wants to continue to defend his new party, the democrats, for being far worse on every metric.
Sarc's just noting that the Democrats currently in power would never support tariffs, which is why it's important to stop Trump.
Also, threats of potential future tariffs are far worse than current tariffs.
I consistently oppose protective tariffs, regardless of which party is in charge.
You attack anyone who is critical of Trump’s protectionism, but refuse to praise Democrats for doing the same thing.
Which means you have no principles. Just hatred for Democrats and praise for Trump. Even when they do the same thing.
What is your stance on tariffs on goods produced by companies subsidized by foreign governments with the intent of destroying competition?
Do you consider allowing imports not produced under equivalent regulatory conditions (environmental, health and safety, non-slave labor...) to be essentially a reverse tariff?
What is your stance on tariffs on goods produced by companies subsidized by foreign governments with the intent of destroying competition?
I say screw the tariff and thank the foreign taxpayers for making stuff cheaper for us.
Do you consider allowing imports not produced under equivalent regulatory conditions (environmental, health and safety, non-slave labor…) to be essentially a reverse tariff?
Why should consumers be punished with taxes for buying stuff from places with less of a regulatory burden? Seems like they have a competitive advantage that allows them to produce stuff more cheaply. Which means we should buy it from them and focus on stuff where we have a competitive advantage.
Are you fucking aware that chinas anti market actions such as theft fuck American producers? Or you just don't care?
He doesn’t care. In his defense, he’s too drunk and stupid to really understand things anyway.
You actually defended tariffs in Argentina because you didn't know exports could also have tariffs. Lol.
Biden's greatest failure is that he kept most of Trump's tariffs in place.
I guess all the regulations Trump got rid of don’t matter.
They will never admit to the deregulation aspects under Trump. But will definitely accuse him of not being perfect regarding them. All while ignoring the democrats.
Charlie just wants democrat rule. Even if it destroys the country. Which is currently happening.
Yeah, 1,500 a year, meanwhile NYC is giving illegals 1,200 a month.
Typical Tax and Spend democrat.
Report: Biden's proposed $7.2 trillion budget would cost families $49,500 annually.
Trump's Proposed Tariff Would Cost Families $1,500 Annually
Sleepy Joe's fault of course.
It's like the oft-cited "Obama bank bailouts" signed by Dubya in Oct 2008. And the trillion dollar Bush deficits.
It just FEELS like we should blame Democrats. Polls show this.
Don’t forget that Bidenflation is caused in part by Trump's spending.
And nothing was spent afterwards. Continue the retardation lol.
Joe's regulatory costs dwarf the very costs you and shrike are bitching about. Yet never a complaint.
Oooooopsy:
Beware The “Surprise Fees” In Biden’s 200% Aluminum Tariffs
US lawmakers ask Biden administration to increase tariffs on Chinese-made drones
Biden Administration Explores Raising Tariffs on Chinese EVs
Biden Trade Chief Calls Tariffs ‘Important Defensive Tool’
The drunk and the pedophile are living cartoons.
You should be praising Biden, shouldn't you? After all, you attacked anyone who was critical of Trump's economic policies.
And by the way, fuck Biden for raising tariffs. Unlike you, I don't care about which party does it.
Same here. Trump is worse than Biden on tariffs but Biden is, in fact, awful on this issue.
I don’t know if he’s worse, policy-wise. But he brags about it, and his defenders attack anyone who questions it.
Poor baby.
Yes, pour Sarc.
No. They point out not all his tariffs were protectionist. They were done in reaction to anti free market actions which you constantly defend. They also point out democrats are far worse and you ignore that fact.
Try again.
Example. Sarc can never bring himself to criticize democrats. He will always point the finger at Trump instead.
I will say, no one has quoted Biden as saying "Ultimately that's what you want," he said. "You want a tariff free. You want no barriers. And you want no subsidies. Because you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries and that's not fair."
Pelosi's spending?
Doesn't the speaker of the house get credit where it is due?
Oh yeah. I forgot. When it’s a Republican president, blame the House. Unless Republicans hold the House too. Then it’s the previous or next Democratic administration’s fault. When it’s a Democratic president, blame the president. But always blame Democrats. Republican fart roses and piss wine.
Even with a veto proof bill, sarc can't criticize democrats. Not even Pelosi.
Or, and this is important because this is what most of us have said for fucking years now, Congress should get all of the blame. Every time.
Because, as I’m sure you know, the only people who ever try to do anything about the out of control spending are the Republicans. It’s not like Pelosi was like “we should cut spending President Trump.” even once during his administration (or Bush’s for that matter).
Most of us here blame congress for their stupidity no matter which party it is, you fucking drunk retarded liar.
Republicans are very much to blame for what happened in 2020. Not solely responsible, but quite so regardless.
How about since then? Spending has not reduced, yet the emergency, per Biden, is completely over. Why have Biden's budgets not been closer to budgets from 2019?
That’s (D)ifferent.
As Sarckles and Shrike love to point out (See immediately above), it doesn’t matter if the Democrats conceived, calculated, wrote, proposed, filed, nominated, lobbied for and voted in the unvetoable Covid spending bill. What matters is that Trump! signed it.
But don't you dare call Sarcasmic a Democrat.
As ML and JA love to point out, it doesn’t matter if Trump complained about checks not being big enough, wanted his name on them, and bragged for weeks about signing the COVID spending bill. What matters is that Democrats! had the majority in the House.
Thank you for your nonpartisan commentary.
Yes sarc. Democrats and congress are blameless due to good intentions.
Which is distinguishable from the usual Demshevik strategy of campaigning by buying votes how, exactly?
I like neither Xiden nor Trump. My position is that Trump got some half-decent stuff done in 2017-2018, but was nearly useless in 2019-2020 (his only real, tangible, beneficial accomplishment I can even think of from that period is the Remain in Mexico policy). However, Xiden and the Demsheviks have managed to follow up two years of garbage with three and a half years of raging globalist-communist dumpster fire. Often it’s literal fires… that they caused (see: forest arson).
Put another way: the act to follow was Donald f**ing Trump, and yet by every metric that affects AVERAGE WORKING PEOPLE, we are massively worse off than we were under the dopey orange baboon. And Xiden and the government spend every waking moment. Constantly. Making. It. WORSE.
I am almost certain Donald Trump will fix nothing and preserve few liberties, if any. I am absolutely, unequivocally convinced (and will NEVER be convinced otherwise) that neither Xiden, nor any Democrat – not even RFK – nor any Beltway establishmentarian regardless of the decorative letter next to their name, will represent anything other than the total annihilation of all basic human freedom, very probably forever.
It used to be “truth to power,” but now for these scum it’s “no truth but power.”
Edit: Also without Trump you’d have FOUR freaking anti-constitutional KJB traitors to America on the Supreme Court right now and no rights at all. Not that his picks were all that great (I’d say he got maybe 1.5 out of 3 right), but they certainly suck less than the DEI politics-from-the-bench hires the Demsheviks install.
Each family spends $15,000 a year on China crap?
Yeah, I call bullshit on the entire premise of this article.
China's not even mentioned. It says ALL imports.
The costs from US regulations continue to dwarf all estimated tariff costs.
https://nam.org/competing-to-win/cost-of-regulations/
Even the taxpayer costs for illegal immigration are 4-5 times higher in taxpayer spending.
Should the tariffs be passed? Not if protectionary. But can we focus on the big costs to consumers instead of what your HS econ paper focus is?
How long before the Reason article decrying DeSantis for hating on squatters?
Or is it because he's out of the race and no longer a threat to Biden that they don't want to cover him any more?
DeSantis was the second biggest threat to Haley after Trump. So the warmongers at Reason did what they could to remove that threat.
Did DeSanctimonious impose anti-liberty tariffs? Not that I'm aware of.
as is 99 percent of all coffee
Breaking America's addiction to caffeine would be a massive benefit, health wise.
Them's fightin words mister.
I doubt he’s worried. You’ll run and hide just like you did last year after you threatened to kick my ass.
Right, pussy?
And would result in a massive Massive MASSIVE drop in productivity!
My wife and I are practically the only non coffee drinkers we know.
You admitting you are unproductive?
He can’t get it up.
Consumers would likely buy fewer imported goods to avoid the tax, but that itself is a form of paying the tax
This is true of all taxes, regulations and laws.
Are we going to start arguing anarchcap?
Really. Seems like a proper market response. Whether it is perceived as good or bad by the person buying it is now their choice.
Actually the State is making the choice for them. It's not the consumer's choice to impose more taxes on themselves.
Sending less money to China is a good thing. We need to break the ChiComs.
How many people get their fruit and coffee from China?
>>hike prices and cost the average American household $1,500 annually.
it that on top of 1/7/21 --> today or what?
it that on top of 1/7/21 –> today or what?
You mean on top of the inflation resulting from spending that started with a bill signed on 3/27/20? Yes.
Biden's current budget proposal is $7.2 Trillion, sarc. $50k / federal income taxpayer.
You mean Trump's emergency spending created a new budget baseline? Considering the same thing happened after (Republican) emergency spending after the housing bubble, and after (Republican) emergency spending after 9/11, it should have been predictable that that emergency spending Trump signed into law would become the new baseline.
Either way it's a red herring with regards to Trump's intention to raise taxes by $1500/yr on American families. Which his defenders will no doubt defend with attacks on people who point it out while tossing red herrings with Biden painted on them.
No, I'm talking about the current, proposed, post-emergency budget.
Do you think a level of federal spending that equals $50k per taxpayer is sound fiscal strategy? That can also be divvied up to $22k per resident - man, woman child, pensioner, etc. Does that seem excessive?
Of course it does. What does it have to do with taxes we’ll have to pay for Trump’s protectionism?
Youre so fucking retarded.
Can you blame democrats for anything?
You’re a democrat shill. Case closed.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/27/1184027892/china-tariffs-biden-trump
Yeah no fucking shit Biden kept Trump's tariffs. And I've blasted him for it. Though curiously the folks who attacked critics (like me) of those tariffs when Trump was president are silent when, if they had any principles, they should be praising Biden for continuing the policies.
All Trump supporters are hopeless hypocrites. Give up.
They're not hypocrites. They're liars. Hypocrite would mean they're defending policies. But they're not, though they claim to be. No, they're defending a man. So in that they're very consistent. Criticize Trump and you'll be attacked. Policy shmolicy. They don't care.
Biden did bring back the regulations Trump got rid of, and he’s putting more in place every day.
But you don’t actually care, do you?
He does not.
Sarc... how does Congress or Trump have any role in a budget the Biden WH created. Neither were involved you fucking retard.
Huh. Is that so.
So Democrats want to have high spending because they view spending as the solution to every problem.
And now Republicans want to raise taxes because they want to "punish China" by taxing Americans.
Doesn't sound like either team has very sound economic policies. Maybe the solution is not to vote for either of them.
And now Republicans want to raise taxes because they want to “punish China” by taxing Americans.
Good luck getting any Trump defenders to admit that tariffs are actually taxes on Americans. They're always framed as "on China" as if China pays them.
The purpose of tariffs is actually to make it economically feasible for homegrown business to compete. Sometimes it makes sense based on national security concerns. Is it a good idea that we, as a nation, are almost entirely dependent on a non-friendly nation for things like antibiotics and their precursors?
Combine Trumpian tariffs and the Democrat anti-industry policies and yes, you get a whole lot of nothing but higher prices... or as you like to say, a tax on Americans. It's the end result of the pro-corporate Republican stance from the 70s to early 2000s (free trade), combined with the commie funded Democrat environmentalism (it's much better for the environment if coal is burned in China?).
The purpose of tariffs is actually to make it economically feasible for homegrown business to compete.
The purpose of tariffs is to negate comparative advantage and harm consumers for the benefit of politically connected producers.
Sometimes it makes sense based on national security concerns.
I suppose I wouldn't want our Navy ships built by a declared enemy. Yeah. But I don't really care where the steel is produced, as long as it's good quality.
It’s the end result of the pro-corporate Republican stance from the 70s to early 2000s (free trade), combined with the commie funded Democrat environmentalism (it’s much better for the environment if coal is burned in China?).
I don't see that connection at all.
Trump has offered to reduce tariffs to zero is anybody will reciprocate.
if you have to add 8 months to 38 to make a point you can have them.
Just saying that inflation is a delayed reaction to increasing the money supply, which didn't begin when Biden was inaugurated.
you're also implying if T was president the last three years we'd be in the same boat.
Historically, emergency spending becomes the new baseline. I can’t say for certain that Trump would have continued the historical trend anymore than you can say he wouldn’t have. But the way he bragged about the CARES Act makes me think he got the spending bug and would have continued. Except instead of Biden's
Inflation Reduction ActGreen New Deal it would have been Republican priorities.Trump is definitely a big spender, but allowing the Covid shutdowns started the inflation (more goods chasing FEWER PRDUCTS). Biden deliberately made it worse by attacking energy on day one. Energy is a component of every price you pay.
Other than that, I applaud the accuracy of your comment.
Interestingly, it seems to only becomes the baseline when Democrats have control of the House.
Show me major emergency spending in the last half century that didn’t turn into the new baseline. Doesn’t matter which party is in power. They’re all politicians looking forward no further than the next election, who get reelected by bringing home the bacon.
Here in Maine the bacon is Bath Iron Works where they build Navy destroyers, GE where they build jet engines for fighters, and I think there is other Military Industrial Complex action going on.
Republican Collins always brings home the bacon.
Both parties spend everything in front of them and then some.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I just think it’s worth pointing out that historically, the Democrats controlled the purse strings when that emergency spending got passed. So, you’re probably right about it not mattering if T was president. We would have had to get Pelosi out of the Speakership.
In my lifetime, the only thing that has remotely worked was a Republican Congress with a Democrat President, and even that wasn’t always great.
Even that only semi-worked for about... 1994-1996 (welfare reform, some economic liberalization). 2010-2016 were basically crap because the leviathan runs itself anyway. 2022-2024 is divided. And I don't think it has been D president and R Congress any other time in my life.
It *has* been R president with D Congress a lot, and that is always a debacle when the Surrender Caucus rolls over and caves to the globalists (to be fair, they manage to do this even when they have all the branches).
The sleepy Joe add on COL increase for his short administrative span is at $11,400 per annum now I believe.
I like how the usual suspects deflect away from the simple point that this is a really really stupid policy. Of course, to argue that other policies are more expensive, or even stupider, is to concede that this policy is indeed stupid.
But then we know that Trump knows fuck all about international trade, so it's not surprising.
But then we know that Trump knows fuck all about international trade
How many overseas buildings do you have?
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/buildings-real-estate-projects-outside-the-us-that-are-named-after-donald-trump.html
What a moronic response. Owning buildings abroad doesn't make one knowledgeable about international trade, you silly person.
A common assumption among Trump defenders is that knowledge of business equals knowledge of economics.
Said the guy who isn’t a billionaire.
Proving his point.
He's an idiot. Not even smart enough to be a court jester. I keep him on mute.
You’re a drunken retard. You showcase your stupidity here daily. Like a digital version of Otis the town drunk. But nasty, and much more pathetic.
Compared to lifelong elected officials who couldn't run a taco truck, I'm willing to bet on Trump's trade knowledge. Compared to you or I, outside the arena of real estate development, his only advantage is having been involved in negotiations involving larger sums of money that he cares about. If you happen to also be a billionaire in the international business world, I'm happy to assume you'd be better at it solely due to a better command of the English language. Your comments here versus DJTs tweets put you on solid footing there.
Thanks. Though I'll warn you, complimenting me isn't how you get popular in these comments. Quite the opposite.
The economics of international trade have little to do with the economics of building construction and management. And I am sure that the Federal government has economists who definitely know more about it than Trump does.
If they knew more about it --- they would not have jobs as government economists. They'd have, you know, useful jobs.
It's like the guy on the sidelines discussing how much the football coach sucks. Well, the dude is clearly not better as he is not coaching anywhere.
IT's a mistake to suppose that the good ones just go where the money is. Prestige counts - working for the Fed is more prestigious than working at a regional brokerage, for example.
Even in sport, football (soccer) coaches may earn more working in Saudi Arabia or China but they may still prefer to coach in the Premiership or Serie A.
How many overseas buildings do you have?
I really need to find that Remy clip of him playing guy outside his tent a CHAZ and/or homeless encampment wiping Cheetohs dust on his shirt saying “… and *that’s* how you run a global economy!”
Dude, you guys ran like 8 blocks that constituted a reasonable *and willing* tax base for like a week and turned it into a thoroughly profitless shit hole that killed 3 people before members of your own community started to tear it apart. I’m no fan the police or taxes, but holy shit did you guys do a great job of demonstrating exactly who *shouldn’t* be in charge and why.
I'm not in favor of protectionist policies, but couple this with a $1,500 increase to the standard deduction on income taxes (to offset the projected hidden tax costs), and I'd take it.
I’m not in favor of protectionist policies, but
And what about the effect on export-orientated companies when other countries impose retaliatory tariffs? Who pays for their losses?
On case of the farmers who permanently lost their export markets because of the retaliation, Trump just put them on the dole.
It was good polítics. Iowa is now a deep red state. Trump knows full well that anyone would rather take government welfare than work hsrd in an industry líke agriculture which isn't an easy one.
Nobody I hope. Sucks to be them, and also just one example of why I'm generally opposed to protectionism (company I work for exports a lot of manufactured product as well as importing raw materials).
Moral of my comment was that consumption taxes are "better" than income taxes.
Didn't we get enough of this with the steel tariff from Trump ?
Trump's steel tariffs were higher than the ones in the notorious Smoot Hawley law. Protecting an industry that deserves to die. It has been incompetently managed for generations. But even free trader Ronald Reagan felt he had to bail it out. We would be better off importing steel.
As long as you are friendly with those you import steel from.
No chance of not having access to your own causing issues down the road.
So, how much are Biden's tariffs costing us now?
How much are minimum wage laws costing us now?
How much are union fees and powers costing us now?
How much are environmental policies and regulations costing us now?
If we’re going to go all “I, pencil.”, “MUH GLOBAL EEKNOWMEE!”, then everything can’t just be “Trump’s going to destroy it all!”. The guy doesn’t actually produce anything or physically prevent the production of anything himself.
Case in point:
“I” ordered a somewhat exotic Li Ion battery new, from China, in Dec. It took 5 weeks to get here, was DOA, was outside the return window and was going to cost more than the original price to ship back. Did I just pay a tax to the Unionized Dock Workers (or just happen to forego it)? The Amazon delivery guy making a $20+/hr. minimum wage tax? The Chinese Tax? The domestic environmentalists who, by a couple of avenues have pushed the Li market into China tax?
Because, unlike in "I, pencil." where the pencil is just assumed rightly owned and used by it's consumer, I sure as hell didn’t get what I paid for and I’m pretty sure the market signal of not doing it again, if that’s even possible, is definitively silence falling on deaf ears. Especially when, despite retards saying "GLOBULL FREE TRAID!", it's really, as indicated, more about global environmental regulation, global labor regulation, global wage regulation, etc.
In other words, bitch about everything but Trump's proposed tariffs, the very subject of this article, because Thou Shalt Not Criticise The Leader.
Whataboutism on a political article? Who could've seen that coming?
Congratulations Mr Koch, you’ve just been nominated for CAP Action Fund’s John D Podesta Progressive Champion award:
https://www.americanprogress.org/projects/john-d-podesta-progressive-champion-award/
(Sorry, but there's just no way to grow bananas in East Atlanta).
Certainly we can grow them in Puerto Rico, Southern Florida, & Hawaii?
I'm not a big fan of tariffs, but there is an issue of fairness here. I have lived in/visited South Korea many times. I see nearly zero American cars on the roads there. But here in the US, I see so many South Korean made cars it's ridiculous. Wasn't the WTO supposed to put an end to that?
No, you can't grow bananas in those places. At least not well.
Also, my car is a Honda. And was built in the US!
Leading Republican contender, and nominee-for-sure, is arguing for a ten percent tax hike. Republicans cheer.
Where the fuck is the Republican Party and the conservatism I grew up with? What has happened to the party of Reagan? Robert Taft is spinning in his grave so fast he could power all of Minneapolis.
Gotta make sure we end up under China’s thumb, right comrade?
Tariffs WERE the Republican plan for years. Direct taxation was not.
We tried moving away from tariffs and, well, the budget has certainly fared poorly.
Gosh ONLY 10%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can anyone even imagine such a LOW Domestic Tax on production?