Trump's 'Reciprocal' Tariffs Could Be Largest Tax Increase Since World War II
The specifics are still vague, but the White House is reportedly claiming that new tariffs will generate $1 trillion annually.

President Donald Trump outlined plans on Thursday to overhaul America's entire system of tariffs in order to charge what he calls "reciprocal" taxes based on the country where goods are sourced.
If the White House's preliminary assessment is accurate, it would be the largest tax increase on Americans since World War II—and one that Trump would apparently seek to implement without congressional approval.
The specifics of Trump's reciprocal tariffs plan remain sparse. The executive order Trump signed Thursday instructed the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to develop new proposed tariff levels that take into account the tariffs charged by other countries to import American goods, as well as industrial subsidies, value-added taxes, and other economic policies that Trump views as unfair. It will take weeks (and perhaps longer) for the new tariffs to be calculated and rolled out, and the changes may be implemented on a country-by-country basis, according to Megan Cassella, a reporter for CNBC.
Regardless of how it shakes out, it seems like Americans will be facing a massive tax increase. "White House officials claim that the new policy could yield up to roughly $1 trillion in new annual revenue," the Washington Examiner reported.
That number seems a bit absurd. America imported about $3.3 trillion of goods last year, so achieving $1 trillion in new tariff revenue would require tariffs to be set so high that they would severely reduce imports—thus reducing the revenue from tariffs. Think of it as a reverse Laffer curve. That's one reason why tariffs are a poor way to generate revenue.
Still, if that's the figure the White House is going with, let's call it what it is: The largest tax increase since World War II, as a share of America's gross domestic product (GDP). Total American GDP was about $29 trillion last year, so a $1 trillion tax increase would consume about 3.4 percent of the economy, making it the largest tax increase since the Revenue Act of 1942.
If those numbers are true, then Trump's new tariffs would also dwarf the tax increases that Kamala Harris supported during last year's presidential campaign—her various proposals would have generated a paltry-by-comparison $1.7 trillion over 10 years, the Tax Foundation estimated.
The direct costs of taxes on so many imports would be only part of the problem. Trump's idea of charging different tariffs on every country's exports means the same product could be charged wildly different tax rates depending on where it was sourced. Those tariff rates would also be subject to constant fluctuation, as other countries shift their policies—as many will likely do in response to Trump's new tariffs. That's a recipe for not only higher taxes on American businesses that rely upon imports but also a constant state of uncertainty.
But for Trump, it all seems pretty straightforward.
"If you build your product in the United States, there are no tariffs," the president said during his remarks in the Oval Office.
That's simply not true. Many products manufactured in the United States depend on components and raw materials sourced from abroad. Even those that don't may raise their prices—thanks to the higher prices that competitors will be forced to charge due to any new tariffs.
It all points to an obvious conclusion: As with the rest of Trump's ill-considered trade policies, it is American businesses and consumers that will bear the cost of these higher tariffs.
The only silver lining to Thursday's proposal is that it will take a while to develop the specifics of the plan. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the new tariffs won't be implemented until at least April.
That means there is still time for Trump to change course and avoid a costly trade war that would hit Americans squarely in the wallet.
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
What do we want? Taxes! When do we want them? Now!
-true libertarians
Booze tariffs might actually save your life.
Aren't California wine producers excited by this tarrif?
I’m sure lots of businesses are excited about new taxes on their competitors. This means they can raise prices. And as we all know, taxes and higher prices are the path to prosperity. Only leftists disagree.
I’m surprised your head hasn’t exploded yet
Tariffs Dipsh*t.
Tariffs are taxes you fucking moron.
They are NOT taxes on domestic goods moron.
Yours and Boehm's BS deception narrative is as lit-up as a Christmas Tree.
They are nothing more than a tax on businesses that is passed along to the customer in the form of higher prices.
Funny how Republicans understand that raising taxes on businesses result in higher prices, unless Trump does it.
Fucking tribalist partisan morons.
specifically on IMPORTS (foreign goods).
...and you know it.
That is exactly why you refuse to acknowledge that fact
UR selling pure BS deception.
Everything sarc says is bullshit.
And will the cultists criticise the tariffs? Will they buggery. Instead, they will attack everyone who points out that the tariffs are a (stupid) mistake.
Economics is leftist.
Poor sarc.
Pour Sarc.
Do you know what retaliatory means? For some reason most of you only care about American tariffs. While you pretend to scream free markets.
If the other countries drop their tariffs in response and trade becomes more free, will you admit to being a retard?
Will the total cost of tariffs even be one tenth of Joe's regulatory growth.
I love you retard economists who think setting high regulatory costs, income taxes, and letting other countries commit anti market actions deserves no response. You dumbasses learned nothing during covid.
Comparative advantage is leftist.
Nothing says "comparative advantage" better than being tax-exempt.
Making our markets less free does nothing to make others freer. The idea that this is somehow "leverage" to enable one of Donnie's "big, beautiful" deals was always retarded, and proven false the first time around.
So stupid that it was the main revenue source for this country right up until the income tax was enacted. Fuck you're an ahistorical moron. Also, these tariffs are retaliation for tariffs the impacted country already levies on American goods, so we're already in a trade war with them, we just haven't fired back for decades. Exhibit no. 2 as to why we label you a leftist dipshit.
Tariffs were the major source of revenue for a much smaller government. Our current government spends way too much to be funded by tariffs. So talk of replacing income tax with tariffs, without major cuts in spending, is intellectually dishonest. Those who parade it as a viable idea are ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or sycophants who just don’t care.
You’re not stupid, ignorant or dishonest, so that leaves sycophant. Sad. Because you used to be a libertarian who understood economics.
Now you’re nothing but a tool.
Fuck you, cut spending?
Also, the reason tariffs were the major source of federal revenue is the same reason why many small countries with small governments use them: they are relatively easy to collect. Don’t need a big infrastructure like the IRS. Just collect duties when goods cross borders. So threatening nations that use tariffs for that reason is just dick waving and economically ignorant, which is a virtue if you’re a Trump defender.
Or maybe taxing the international market makes complete sense for funding the international "Union of States" government.
Did your check from the DNC clear? Last I heard they were having money problems.
The simple fact is that every tax paid in providing goods/services, is just added on to the price of the item. This includes the income, social security, and medicare taxes the people providing the goods/services pay, along with corporate income taxes, sales taxes, other taxes, and tariffs.
IMHO, it's a lot better for a country to collect tariffs rather than income taxes, because then people buying goods from other countries are the only ones paying taxes, while everyone else buys from people in the country, making the country more prosperous.
Reason is writing articles like this attacking Trump's tariffs, the threat of which has already caused other countries to lower their taxes on goods we export to them. So yeah, Trump's tariff threats are effective, especially given the size of the US economy. Meanwhile Trump has proposed something that should be on the cover of Reason: eliminating the income tax.
And I agree, the only way to get rid of the income tax is with huge spending cuts. And I'd also say phasing out Social Security and Medicare which are socialist programs that make us poorer.
Fuck off gray box known as drunky mcdrunkson. You're a pathetic, retarded piece of shit that no one cares what you say.
You just made Jesse hard.
Please mute me so I don't have to deal with your end stage alcohol induced dementia fuck off drunky.
If you have not guessed yet. I don't fucking care what you say anymore. So, from now on you're being ignored. Don't bother to respond because it is futile, as no one fucking cares and I stopped reading your retarded drivel ages ago.
You are by far one of the most disingenuous fuckfaces I've ever had the misfortune to discourse with, and you're only principles are Republicans Bad, me true libertarian, Trump bad. You're a fucking broken record, with no original thoughts of your own.
Nah, sarc has Ideas! just ask him.
How long ago was that? The global economies have changed, you economically illiterate buffoon.
Yes, the perfect response to the other guy punching himself in the dick is obviously to punch yourself in the dick. Lower trade barriers are a net gain for the US whether others reciprocate or not.
I agree lower trade barriers (i.e. tariffs) are a net gain for the US. Now can you prove that threatening increased tariffs on a country's imports won't incentivize them to lower their tariffs?
It costs money to ensure civility, which is why we have uncivil taxes for the police and courts. Tariffs are similar to crime, in that you're forced to pay more to government to buy imports, just like your foreign customers are forced to pay tariffs on their imports. The crime is countries implementing tariffs.
A temporary increase in tariffs for a country's imports can have a huge impact on their citizens' sales and prosperity, leading their citizens to demand their politicians do what's necessary to bring back their market and sales. And if that's lowering tariffs, that's good for them and the USA since we'll reciprocate under Trump.
Foreign leaders hate this, because it threatens their re-elections if they don't reduce their income from tariffs, and Trump is about to force them to take some of their own medicine.
Libertarians should support this for three reasons. First, Trump's objective is to get tariffs reduced world wide, even if that means temporary higher prices. The long term counts more. Second, because tariffs are optional taxes: you pay no tax if you buy only American produced goods/services. Third, because it'll help eliminate income taxes (Reason seems to be ignoring Trump's goal of eliminating income taxes - is this a libertarian magazine anymore?). Ignoring libertarian policies and proposals, from the President no less, suggests this isn't a libertarian magazine. If this rag was libertarian, they'd have an analysis on how to replace income taxes with tariffs and spending cuts given Trump's proposal.
Eric, you never disappoint.
It’s a strategic and reluctant disappointment.
Derrrrrrr, me name Eric. Me write libertary article and jackoff in sink. Reeeeeeeee!!!!!
Again. The US has the lowest tariff rates in the industrialized world.
And the biggest economy?
Should we be more like the more left-leaning EU nations with some planned economy?
I kind like what Milei is doing.
With battling runaway inflation one of Milei’s centerpiece priorities, ditching tariffs can be an easy way to bring prices down, at least temporarily. And the government is doing just that, cutting tariffs on 89 products key to the economy including tires, motorcycles and small household appliances. It’s also ditching a general 7.5% tax on all imports, although the country is still constrained by tariffs set by the broader Mercosur trade bloc of which it’s a member. Milei last month called the group—which also includes Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia—a prison.
https://quantfury.com/market-insights/tariffs/
Or, by threatening retaliation countries already tariffing US goods at far higher rates, end those rates, and the US economy grows. Just because you don't shoot back doesn't mean you're not at war.
That would be great, but I think Trump proved that's not his goal with his steel and aluminum order.
Also taking on the whole world at once in a trade war is probably not going to go great for us. Trump should take a lesson from Germany on what happens when a powerful nation starts a war with basically every other nation at once.
We didn't start this war, we just tried pretending it wasn't happening moron. As evidenced by the tariffs they already levy against American products. Also, steel and aluminum actually support rather than detract from my argument, since the reason they're so cheap to import is because of the huge subsiding by the producing companies.
What’s wrong with foreign nationals fleecing their taxpayers to make stuff cheaper for us? We should be saying thank you instead of raising taxes on Americans.
Because of course....
"Trumps Tax-Cuts = raising taxes on Americans..."/s LMAO, sarcasmic.
You do this to yourself ya know.
"We didn't start this war."
-Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1914.
And he was right then too. The Serb military was funding the blackhands, who assassinated the crown Prince of Austria, which even today is an act of war. Austria was completely in it's right to declare war on Serbia. Russia declared war on Germany first. Oh are you so stupid you think the Kaiser was in the same boat as a certain Austrian vegetarian painter? Say you know nothing about the First World War without saying you know nothing about the first world war, moron. Or are you still buying the lies and propaganda sold by the Limeys and Wilson to truck America into joining a war we had no reason to join?
Good points,
Russia declared war on Germany first. Oh are you so stupid you think the Kaiser was in the same boat as a certain Austrian vegetarian painter?
I love when some calls me stupid while saying something dead wrong. Germany declare war on Russia. They immediately invaded Belgium to get to France because their only hope of victory was to defeat the French before Russia mobilized. They tried to convince Britain to stay neutral, but that didn't work out.
What happened in Serbia would be an obscure footnote in history if Germany didn't miscalculate and declare war on Russia, Belgium and France.
Say you know nothing about the First World War without saying you know nothing about the first world war, moron.
Well, I know more than you apparently.
You're wrong again. Russia declared war on Austria, which was Germany's ally, which is why Germany declared war on Russia. Keep proving your stupidity.
Technically, Russia mobilized to defend Serbia, which is basically a declaration of war without the actual declaration. And the Kaiser actually asked them to stop their mobilization, which Russia refused. Which is also an overt hostile action. So, Russia was the aggressor, but Germany gets blamed because they made it official. So, technically Russia didn't actually send a letter saying we are at war, they just started hostile actions that the Kaiser actually begged them to stop to avoid the war. Once Russia (and France) mobilized, war couldn't be avoided. The mobilization was as good as a declaration of war.
^backpedal
You: Russia declared war on Germany first.
Me: Germany declare[d] war on Russia. They immediately invaded Belgium to get to France
You: You're wrong again. Russia declared war on Austria, which was Germany's ally, which is why Germany declared war on Russia. Keep proving your stupidity.
Is this really the standard you use to declare yourself correct? Really?
Not a backpedel at all. Because the act of mobilization was in all intents and purposes a declaration of war. Which the Kaiser had told the Tsar before he ordered it, and which the Tsar himself knew when he ordered it. So, yes Russia declared war first. Germany just made it official. But Russia had already conducted overtly hostile actions by mobilizing troops on the Austrian and German border with the specific goal of going to war against the Central Powers. That was a declaration of war. It's a difference without distinction. Mobilizing troops on another countries borders, with the express purpose of making war against them is a declaration of war. It just wasn't an actual written declaration of war. But for all intents and purposes it was a declaration of war. I'm sorry you can't understand that. Maybe it's to hard a concept for you to understand. Much like you can't understand that France had been hell bent since 1871 to get revenge on the Germans.
Since you are so caught up in the official declaration of war, rather than the fact that Russia had already committed an act of war by their mobilization of troops on the German and Austrian borders, yeah you are a pedantic moron. An act of war, e.g. mobilizing troops on your neighbors border for the express purpose of making war on them, is a declaration of war even if it wasn't an official letter. So, yes, by mobilizing troops on the Austrian and German border with the express purpose of making war on those two nations if Austria declared war on Serbia (which was their right) was a declaration of war. Japan didn't declare war either before they attacked Pearl Harbor, doesn't mean their actions weren't a declaration of war.
Ahh, I'll just come back tomorrow and hopefully you're done adjusting your story.
Was Russia'd mobilizing considered the same thing as a declaration of war, yes or no? If yes, as Germany warned them before they mobilized, then yes Russia declared war first by mobilizing. A declaration of war does not have to be an official diplomatic act, but an overtly hostile act. That is my point.
Was Russia'd mobilizing considered the same thing as a declaration of war, yes or no?
Russia was mobilizing to aid Serbia, not attack Germany. Germany was not obligated to help Austrian Hungary in their local fight. Austria Hungary only got Germany's blessing immediately before they declared war on Serbia. Germany held all the cards at this point. Here's where they miscalculated and started their 2 front war.
Germany had many off ramps to take to avoid all out war. They certainly didn't have to invade Belgium and France.
And Russia declared war on Austria because Austria rightly declared war on Serbia. Fuck, it was pretty much inevitable by that point and had very little to do with German actions other than living up to its treaties (which is also what Russia was doing).
I disagree strongly. A wiser ruler than Wilhelm could have and would have avoided war, especially with France and England. WWI wasn't inevitable until Germany entered Luxembourg and Belgium.
Basically, Russia's mobilization was an unofficial declaration of war. One that the Kaiser tried to talk them out of before they did it. The Russians knew full well that their mobilization was an unofficial declaration of war, crossing that red line, and they did it anyhow. So, yes, by their actions the Russians declared war first.
War had been inevitable since Moltke the Elder kicked Napoleon the third ass in 1871. France started looking for an excuse to go to war with Germany (even their alliance with Russia was exclusively an act to get revenge on Germany). France made alliances to surround Germany with hostile powers because they wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian War.
And if you truly knew your history, you would realize that the Kaiser was a weak leader, who was largely fucking irrelevant due to his weakness and indecisiveness. Largely like his cousin on the Russian Throne.
And other cousin on the British throne.
Also true. But for the most part, after Victoria kicked the bucket, the Brits stopped pretending that their monarchs actually meant anything other than a face on the pound, for the most part.
The Kaiser and Tsar, on the other hand, still hypothetically wielded power (as long as they didn't actually try and use it).
Indeed. A better leader wouldn't have swallowed Alfred von Schlieffen's Schlieffen plan and gone to war in that situation.
The myth of the Von Schlieffen plan, I see you believe that also.
I do.
But whether there was a plan or not, what is known as the Schlieffen plan is what happed in 1914. Whether this was von Schlieffen's rigid plan, one adapted by von Moltke, or it was all von Molke's plan is irrelevant. Germany launched a war on 2 major powers, invaded a neutral country allied with the time's superpower, Britain, and turned a local skirmish into 2 world war losses.
Germany didn't launch the war. Russia by mobilizing troops on the Austrian and German border with the express purpose of making war on those two countries was an overtly hostile act and an unofficial declaration of war.
One that the Kaiser tried to talk them out of. Once the Tsar refused and ordered the mobilization anyhow, Germany really had very little choice but to declare war on Russia, which triggered the Russian French Treaty, meaning France was treaty bound (as they wanted to be) to declare war on Germany. If you study the issue, the French bear far more guilt than they are usually assigned. The French started preparing and planning and building alliances as soon as the Treaty ending the Franco-Prussian war was signed in Versailles. If it wasn't Serbia, the French would have found another reason. As for Alsace-Lorraine, Louis the XIV illegally annexed them, breaking the Peace of Westphalia, which he was a guarantor of. The Accusations especially were culturally and linguistically mostly German. Had historically been part of the Holy Roman Empire back to its founding. We could also bring in Napoleon's German Confederation as a proximal cause. But France's actions after the Franco-Prussian war demonstrate that France wanted a war with Germany, and spent four decades preparing for it.
Schlieffen never actually proposed that, it was a staff exercise he had done. The German High Command, having no better plan, adopted it. Schlieffen never thought it would actually work. And it's apocryphal that he actually stated 'keep the right strong' on his death bed. Basically, it was Moltke the younger's plan.
Yeah, I agree with this.
The who and how of the Schlieffen plan is not relevant to whether or not Germany started the war. This plan, which historians call the "Schlieffen plan", however it was developed, started WWI.
Phew! We're way in the weeds here. I do enjoy a history discussion though.
I will concede Moltke the younger's plan was stupid. I think Germany would have been far better served to have fortified Alsace-Lorraine (which is actually great country for a defensive war as the US Army found out in 1944) and focused on Russia. As evidenced by the 1915 eastern offensive, Russia was a paper tiger that Germany, if they had concentrated on the Eastern Front, could have knocked Russia out of the war much earlier. Paired up with France's cult of the offensive, it could have turned out much differently. I think British would have found an excuse to declare war, even if Germany had not invaded the low countries, but it was a major strategic mistake. Despite that it came damn close to actually working, almost in a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War, and largely because for all their preparations for war France repeated the same mistakes they made in 1870 and 1871. Their mobilizing and logistics were almost as bad in 1914 as they were in 1870.*
*Another myth is that Moltke the Senior was some strategic genius. He actually wasn't that good a strategic thinker and in 1870 was largely conducting the war ad hoc. Originally, he was going to fight a defensive war, but France's poor mobilization and logistics allowed him to go on the offensive. His offensive was largely spur of the moment and once he reached the outskirts of Paris he had no idea what to do next.
Also, it's a myth that Germany, and especially Prussia were strategic thinkers, even Frederick II largely made it up on the go, but his ability to move his troops fast helped him to head off disaster more times than he should have. And during the Napoleonic Wars, Prussia basically had no strategy in any of the wars of coalition they participated in. Instead they relied on the supposed superiority of the Prussian infantry to make up for their lack of strategic thinking.
I agree with everything you wrote here.
Germany came damn close to taking out France then turning east. This is essentially what happened in WWII though, and they still lost once Britain, Russia and the US built up war machines. In 1914, the US was more isolationist; Russia was ready for revolution, leaving only Britain. Yeah, I think there's a reasonable chance if they took France, Germany would've won, and they were very close to taking out France.
Your complaint is that other nations sell us steel too cheap? And you call me a moron?
Lets see how cheap they are when they aren't tax-exempt.
Or else tax-exempt domestic as well.
No they sell us steel cheep because the government subsidizing it. Are you functionally illiterate, also? And you proved you're a moron with that ahistorical joke about the Kaiser, moron. In fact, by international law, we actually had more reason to declare war on England because of their illegal naval blockade than we did against Germany. I think the extent of your knowledge on the first world war you got from the first wonder woman movie.
No they sell us steel cheep because the government subsidizing it.
Oh no! They're paying for steel for us. How terrible.
And you proved you're a moron with that ahistorical joke about the Kaiser, moron...I think the extent of your knowledge on the first world war you got from the first wonder woman movie.
You should open a book before you become such a pompous ass on a public forum.
Do you know what a trade war is moron? Or do you think it's only when the US slaps on tariffs?
No. That’s how to start or amplify a trade war, though.
But if there already is a trade war, e.g. countries levying high tariffs on US goods and heavily subsidizing their industries to give them an advantage against US goods, then it's not an escalation but a perfectly sound response. Ignoring these actions doesn't benefit the US in the long run, and doesn't end the trade war. It's just pretending it isn't happening. Like how Germany, if they had ignored Russia's mobilization on their border with the express purpose of making war on Germany and Austria, wouldn't have stopped that war. Once Russia mobilized, they knew it meant war. And they did it anyhow. Which, while avoiding the niceties of sending an official declaration of war, was as good as an official declaration of war.
Oh and by read a book, do you mean like Nick Lloyd's PhD thesis on the Battle of Loo, which I'm currently reading?
Well...yeah, but we're talking about the 1st days of the war.
I said some things that are well known history and you call me a moron accuse and me of learning history from wonder woman while making some factually incorrect counter claims. So what's a person to think?
I will admit I misspoke. Germany did make the first official declaration of war (actually Austria did when they declared war on Serbia) but Russia knew that their mobilization was as good as a declaration of war.
OK. It was a fun discussion, it’s hard not to get heated up a little in a rapid fire point/counter point.
No hard feelings my side. I apologize for the "read a book comment." Clearly you're educated on the subject and we only disagree on some interpretation of events. I bet we'd get along just fine if we stuck to history and avoided politics.
biggest economy? ...or... the biggest DEBT?
And even then China continues to violate our tariff laws by breaking up shipments to be under 800. Fraud is cool when China does it.
Not for long.
one that Trump would apparently seek to implement without congressional approval
Congress should move to cut all sorts of domestic taxes in order to spite him. Better yet, really stick it to him and reduce the regulatory state and *then* reduce taxes. That will show him how wrong it is to use tariffs to tax American citizens!
Don't point out the flaws in their disingenuous arguments. That hurts their wittle feewings.
….without congressional approval
Because Congress has been doing such a great job?
I would settle for a mediocre or even bad job. They don't do any job, outside of the jobbing they've been giving us for about 30 years.
1) FDR and Democrats gave Trump this Power.
2) If you insist on [Na]tional "security for" So[zi]alists this is how it will get paid for.
SS Tax is just that... Tax. It was already STOLEN and spent by leftard Nazi's years ago. A local State/City/County welfare office should be the only thing in existence (if that). Precisely because State's can't legally counterfeit your $ like the Nazi-Empire can.
Don't like it. Lobby for the end of the UN-Constitutional "Security for Socialists" and Medicare.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Correction ... "You can't have your cake and vote for D.C. to eat it all too."
Well folks, there you have it. Economics is leftist and anyone who isn’t willfully ignorant of economics is a leftist.
True. Leftards make-up "New Deal" definitions of "economics" just like they make-up their own "New Deal" definitions of "charity".
What-ever definition it takes to allow them to "armed-theft" / entitle them by Gov - 'Gun' Force against those 'icky' productive people. Just like they made-up gender identify-as *entitled* and *special* people.
How many of the usual suspects that demand more taxes instead of tax cuts come back in here complaining about tariffs again?
^THIS +100000000000..
I believe the wording for them is, "Trumps Tax-Cuts ?COST? so much they piled up all the debt."
I don’t really have strong feelings one way or the other on tariffs. I see Jesse and TJJ’s points that if you have two companies and one is paying out the ass in domestic taxes and regulations are strangling it, it’s a tad disingenuous to look at the second one who is buy their stuff from someone literally using slave labor, and be like “this is totally okay and they should face no consequences for supporting them”. (Correct me if I’m wrong in my summary.)
On the other hand, fuck taxes.
But come on man, the fucking tittle and subtitle show that freaking out isn’t warranted yet.
And lol at the idea that they’ll generate 1Trillion in revenue.
Too reasonable...I bet you weren't even screaming at the screen when you wrote that.
Ha! Shows what you know.
j/k, I was just giving it a stern talking to.
What a bunch of moronic responses because TDS makes the Trumpistas afraid to admit basic truths.
* Tariffs are taxes on imports and while a few exporters and importers may absorb the cost temporarily, they can't for long, and they will pass the cost on to their customers and ultimately the American public.
* They don't do any good if they don't raise prices. The whole point of protective tariffs is to raise import prices enough that domestic producers can raise their prices and make a profit.
* The tit-for-tat tariffs could at least be marginally morally defensible if the revenue raised were used to pay the foreign import tariffs paid by American exporters, since that harm is the justification for raising import tariffs. But they don't. The revenue raised goes straight to government, giving it more money to spend. Whatever happened to CUT SPENDING?
* Raising taxes on Americans with import tariffs because foreign countries raise taxes on their citizens with their own import taxes is the moral equivalent of beating your kids because your neighbor is beating his kids.
* Libertarians do not support this kind of industrial policy, central planning, bureaucratic meddling in private transactions between consenting adults. My trades with foreigners are nobody's business but mine. Now if you want to declare war, go for it. But absent that, buzz off and get your nose out of my business, especially when all you've done is give the government more of my money to spend.
It's one sorry-ass general who doesn't know how his weapons work. It's a suicidal general who thinks his weapons work the reverse of reality. Only brain dead sycophants volunteer to lead the charge backwards for their suicidal general.
I just love all the people going on about how many good things, or bad things, will come from the reciprocal tariffs.
Since they are reciprocal, they will go up and down as other nations raise or lower their tariffs.
So we actually have no control over the amount or the effect of the tariffs, do we?
They may help, they may hurt, but no one can really know.
You are wrong about "we actually have no control over the amount of the tariffs", but let's suppose you are right. Are you proud of Trump having given foreign countries control over how much taxes Americans pay to the US government and how much the US government spends?
"If you build your product in the United States, there are no tariffs," the president said during his remarks in the Oval Office. That's simply not true. Many products manufactured in the United States depend on components and raw materials sourced from abroad.
They don't have to. And that's a major pillar of Trump's plan.
So, according to a rough search of the googles, America is incapable of producing the following: chromium, manganese, tantalum, cesium/rubidium, aluminum ore, tin, and high-grade nickel. We simply don't have the deposits on our soil. Here's who does:
Australia - a US ally.
South Africa - a US ally.
Canada - soon to be the 51st state.
That gets us six out of the seven. Tin, China's kinda got a stranglehold on. But we can probably work something out with Peru - maybe offer to let Peruvian flute bands wander the streets of major American cities in return for good trade deals on the tin.
Anything else, we can and should find, mine, and refine in America. I mean, name one reason we shouldn't.
That's simply not true. Many products manufactured in the United States depend on components and raw materials sourced from abroad.
"Also, you do *not* need a driver's license to buy groceries." - Boehm
You people would shoot yourselves in the dickhole if some fat orange drag queen told you to.
I don’t know what else I could have done. I told you the only political program of Republicans for your whole lives has been to raise taxes on the poor and working class and slash them to zero for the oligarchs. Theft. A heist. Regulatory capture writ cosmic.
They’re just doing it with particularly lawless abandon now. And they have that goth teen lesbian as a mascot.
Poor tony.
Tariffs can result in higher prices for goods or they can do the opposite as retaliatory if the other nation decides to rescind theirs.
Now do corporate income taxes.