• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Trump's Tariff's - Updates

DEFCON Warning System said:
That actually is not true. Australia does charge the US on some goods, plus there is GST. So it isn't 0%.
Click to expand...
The GST replies to all sales in Australia other than food. I even had GST charged on my services as an Australian citizen. It is not a tax on just USA made products, it is applied to all sales of goods and services irrespective or origin. I pay it on power bills, phone bills, land rates, effectively almost everything except food so your agrument it is some form of tax exclusively against USA is effectively a load of bull excrement. It was originally introduced to replace an inefficient sales tax system by a simplified system with reduced administration costs.

If there was a tariff against US products than the GST would be on top op that but there is no tariff so US products are treated no differently to locally made products and services as indicated by the system. It is apparent that there is significant ignorance in the USA as to what the Australian GST actually is.
 
Dr Arthur said:
The GST replies to all sales in Australia other than food. I even had GST charged on my services as an Australian citizen. It is not a tax on just USA made products, it is applied to all sales of goods and services irrespective or origin. I pay it on power bills, phone bills, land rates, effectively almost everything except food so your agrument it is some form of tax exclusively against USA is effectively a load of bull excrement. It was originally introduced to replace an inefficient sales tax system by a simplified system with reduced administration costs.

If there was a tariff against US products than the GST would be on top op that but there is no tariff so US products are treated no differently to locally made products and services as indicated by the system. It is apparent that there is significant ignorance in the USA as to what the Australian GST actually is.
Click to expand...
So as I understand GST is a value added tax that has to be payed by the importer before release at the port. So in essence it a 10% valuation of imported goods to Australia. If it’s not paid it’s not released at port of entry. That’s pretty much an Australian sales or VAT tax applied to goods produced in the US.

So how about we just call the 10% US import tariff from an Australia an American GST at port of entry and call it even. It’s the same thing so can we untwist our shorts now
 
OReid said:
So as I understand GST is a value added tax that has to be payed by the importer before release at the port. So in essence it a 10% valuation of imported goods to Australia. If it’s not paid it’s not released at port of entry. That’s pretty much an Australian sales or VAT tax applied to goods produced in the US.

So how about we just call the 10% US import tariff from an Australia an American GST at port of entry and call it even. It’s the same thing so can we untwist our shorts now
Click to expand...
You are missing an important point. The GST is on sale of all goods and services irrespective of country of origin. The US made products are not treated any differently to locally made products. A GST is not an import tariff. It is a sales related tax not dissimilar to that which had existed in New York. It is not a specific measure only against products made in USA but locally and anywhere else. Your response indicates to me you do not understand what the GST is. According to you logic the GST should be considered a tariff on Australian made products by the Australian government. This is clearly absurb.

The way the GST is applied it is transferred with every sale. When I bought something essential for the product or service I provided I could have an exemption then pass it on to the entity using my service. Only the final end recipient had to eventually pay the GST. As for imports the importer would pay the GST then have it re-imbursed when passed onto the next level that utilised it. It is a little confusing in how the fee casscaded through the system and how frequently along the production change the GST cost could be claimed as a tax deduction or forwarded onto the consumer of the product or next stage producer. As I imported products from multiple countries I paid the GST on imported products and then claimed a tax credit on the GST when I made something including what was produced and on sold. The GST responsibility was then transferred to the next consumer level including an increase on the product sale price from my contribution to the value. This however could not be considered to be a tariff on my sales even though the 10% GST tax still applied. Though using your logic it would still be a tariff.
 
Last edited:
Dr Arthur said:
You are missing an important point. The GST is on sale of all goods and services irrespective of country of origin. The US made products are not treated any differently to locally made products. A GST is not an import tariff. It is a sales related tax not dissimilar to that which had existed in New York. It is not a specific measure only against products made in USA but locally and anywhere else. Your response indicates to me you do not understand what the GST is.
Click to expand...
I understand that and that’s fine and not necessarily objectionable. I understand that is your base revenue component.

My point to you is why can’t the US impose the same tax on Australian goods.

The US is imposing a different tax scheme on goods manufactured in the US. Producers are taxed on profit. The producers in US are paying tax by other measurements for the goods they produce here and seeking to export.

Australia is imposing GST to capture tax on goods manufactured by another nations natural resources and labor.

So why is it outrageous for the US to do the same thing at the same rate that Australia does. It’s exactly the same thing.

Your taxing our products and Labor and we’re taxing yours.
 
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick just exposed a method foreign countries have used for decades to cheat the United States in trade."Some countries have a value-added tax and they take that VAT tax of 20% and they use it to subsidize the production of their domestic industries. That's why we can't sell cars there because they give a rebate."And these countries have the gall to act shocked that the United States is finally acting.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1907876592510177464
Click to expand...
 
Lutnick’s spot-on. For decades, foreign VAT schemes have rigged trade against US industries. Take China: they slap a 20% VAT on imports but rebate it for exports, subsidizing their own while pricing out American goods.
Click to expand...
The Import Security and Fairness Act (H.R. 322) finally cracks down on this by blocking de minimis loopholes that let foreign adversaries flood our markets tax-free. It’s not just cars—steel, tech, agriculture all get undercut by these predatory tactics.
Click to expand...
The previous admin let this rot fester. Now, policies are shifting to penalize trade cheats and prioritize US manufacturing. Realignment’s overdue.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1907877176256451038
Click to expand...
 
OReid said:
I understand that and that’s fine and not necessarily objectionable. I understand that is your base revenue component.

My point to you is why can’t the US impose the same tax on Australian goods.

The US is imposing a different tax scheme on goods manufactured in the US. Producers are taxed on profit. The producers in US are paying tax by other measurements for the goods they produce here and seeking to export.

Australia is imposing GST to capture tax on goods manufactured by another nations natural resources and labor.

So why is it outrageous for the US to do the same thing at the same rate that Australia does. It’s exactly the same thing.

Your taxing our products and Labor and we’re taxing yours.
Click to expand...
I think the USA should impose a GST or Vat what ever you like to call it on all products and services except food as per the Australian model. It is actually more effective than a tariff if applied to all goods whether foreign or locally made. I have no problem with that as it would be able to target otherwise black economy as it has in Australia. It can then be used to reduce individual income tax and he who uses most pays most. The rich just cannot avoid it. Too bad the Australian government did not do that. I am not outraged by the tax on imports but the allegation that it is being selectively applied against the US and foreign products. It also applies to locally made products, ie item made in Australia also. It is a blanket application. I do however object to the GST being called a tariff when it is a sales tax and not an import tax.
 
Dr Arthur said:
I think the USA should impose a GST or Vat what ever you like to call it on all products and services except food as per the Australian model. It is actually more effective than a tariff if applied to all goods whether foreign or locally made. I have no problem with that as it would be able to target otherwise black economy as it has in Australia. It can then be used to reduce individual income tax and he who uses most pays most. The rich just cannot avoid it. Too bad the Australian government did not do that. I am not outraged by the tax on imports but the allegation that it is being selectively applied against the US and foreign products. It also applies to locally made products, ie item made in Australia also. It is a blanket application. I do however object to the GST being called a tariff when it is a sales tax and not an import tax.
Click to expand...
That’s something that could be discussed but in the end license. It is a government demanding payment for any number of reasons.
Beyond that it is just semantics.

The idea of reciprocal tariffs is to try and limit the amount of money that governments force collections on people just to exist and pursue a living.
 
Nancy Pelosi in 1996 speaking on tariffs and the trade deficit with China...It's almost like ALL Democrats are hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Well, this is the same woman who was against Covid vaccines when Trump was touting them but was for vaccines when Biden was touting them.
 
Start with the debt: $9.2T must be refinanced in 2025.If rolled into 10-yr bonds, every 1 basis point drop in rates saves approx $1B/year; so a 0.5% drop would save $500B over a decade. Lower yields free up fiscal room—without them, core spending gets crowded out.
Click to expand...
How to push yields down with sticky inflation and cautious Fed? Manufacture uncertainty. Sweep in with tariffs, spook the markets, trigger risk-off. Money exits stocks, floods into long-term Treasuries. A deliberate “detox” to cool the economy and cut refinancing costs.
Click to expand...
But cheap refinancing isn’t enough on its own. Even at lower rates, the debt remains enormous. That’s where the next lever comes in: cutting the deficit.
@elonmusk & @DOGE are cutting $4B per day. At that pace, they’d shave off $1 trillion by end of Sep 25 (if not May).
Click to expand...
With these savings, the big economic pillar to successfully deliver on @SecScottBessent's 3-3-3 plan is to get growth UP. Tariffs come in as a trigger for domestic industrial revival. The thinking is: by making imports expensive, you create room for U.S. producers to step in.
Click to expand...
But here’s the problem: American factories can’t scale up overnight. So, in the short term, consumers will face higher prices. The administration knows this. That’s why they’re front-loading the pain now, betting that by 2026, the benefits will be visible.
Click to expand...
In the meantime, they’re offering some near-term relief. Tax cuts have already been floated to help offset the cost burden on households. And while risky, currency devaluation may follow later to make imports cheaper without lifting tariffs.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget: tariffs also bring in revenue. Estimates suggest they could raise over $700 million within the first year. That’s not a game-changer on its own, but it gives the Treasury a bit more room to maneuver—especially if paired with deficit cuts.
Click to expand...
Still, this approach isn’t without risks. If domestic supply chains can’t catch up, or if global retaliation kicks in, inflation could rise again. And if that happens, the Fed may be forced to raise rates—which would blow a hole in the low-yield plan. That’s the tightrope.
Click to expand...
A common critique is: why impose tariffs before building out the capacity to replace imports? But that assumes tariffs are the end goal. They’re not. They’re the starting gun—a way to force movement both inside the U.S. and around the world.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to geopolitics. Before tariffs, Trump’s team signaled a global order reset: pulling back from NATO, cooling EU ties, and opening diplomatic space with Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Tariffs now serve as leverage to renegotiate terms based on America-First policy.
Click to expand...
Expect a lot of bilateral deals in the coming months. Tariffs will be lowered for countries that offer strategic concessions—on trade, security, or industrial policy. Those that resist? They'll pay higher costs until they decide to come to the table.
Click to expand...
Observers have long argued: China isn’t a poor country. It’s a wealthy, high-capacity state that floods markets with exports its currency artificially low. Tariffs could be used to force big moves like currency appreciation by China.
Click to expand...
Lines will be redrawn with other allies too. Europe may be pushed to cut exposure to China or negotiate on Ukraine. India may be forced to cut tariffs and move closer to U.S. alignment. Mexico and Canada could face demands to crack down on fentanyl trafficking routes.
Click to expand...
In the US economy there will be clear winners and losers. Steel, autos, and textiles are likely to benefit—industries that form Trump’s political base. But tech, retail, and construction—sectors more reliant on imports—could take a hit, especially in swing states.
Click to expand...
That’s the political gamble. If jobs return fast enough in key states, and inflation remains under control, the tariffs may look like a bold but effective move. But if prices spike and job creation lags, the strategy could backfire by November 2026.
Click to expand...
The Wisconsin seat loss was a warning. Less than 18 months to show results for midterms. Voters don’t respond to stratagems—they respond to prices, jobs and narratives. FDR had fireside chats, Reagan had Morning in America. Trump needs a similar consistent messaging to Americans.
Click to expand...
So, here’s the big picture: → Lower yields ease the debt wall → Spending cuts restore fiscal discipline → Tariffs jumpstart domestic growth → And geopolitics gets rewritten in America’s favor. It’s disruption by design—with enormous stakes.
Click to expand...
If it works, it’s a defining success: → Debt under control → Manufacturing reborn → Global leverage restored → Trumpism vindicated in 2026. If it fails: → Inflation → Retaliation → Lost midterms → Strategic drift. 18 months to find out if the gamble pays off.
Click to expand...
 
Socom7 said:
It's a brazen lie. Which kind of makes it a bad thing, yes.

America raises about $3 trillion each year from income taxes. The United States also happens to import around $3 trillion worth of goods annually. So that means tariffs would have to be at least 100% on all imported goods for tariffs to replace income taxes.

But replacing all that tax revenue is not even as simple as doubling the price of everything that comes into America: If you remember your Econ 101 class, as prices rise, demand trails off. Just ask Walmart, which said Thursday morning it expects sales growth to slow this year because of Americans’ concerns about high prices and tariffs. Given higher prices result in lower sales, it may require as much as 200% tariffs on all imported goods for the total tariff revenue to replace income taxes.
Click to expand...
Oh no! I won't be able to afford russian caviar or french champaign anymore. :ROFLMAO: Here's a novel idea. Buy products made in America. No tariffs.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1907497485725323737
Click to expand...
 
Donald Trump has declared a trade war on approximately 185 countries, including the Heard Island and McDonald Islands. The only problem is that their population consists entirely of penguins, which, as you might expect, don't trade with the United States.

www.theguardian.com

Trump imposes tariffs on uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands near Antarctica

Australian prime minister surprised after remote external territories – including islands home to penguins – targeted by US president
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 

Does Canada really have tariffs above 200% on US dairy products?​

Click to expand...
(NewsNation) — President Donald Trump has said that Canada has tariffs in place at above 200% on dairy products imported from the United States. While this is accurate, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Trump’s post on social media read, in part, “Canada is cheating the United States Farmers on USMCA. In 2024, Canada retained Tariffs on various U.S. Goods, particularly in protected sectors like Dairy that are operated under a supply management system. Some examples of Canadian Tariffs on U.S. Dairy outside the limited quota include: Milk: Up to 243% …. Butter: Up to 298% …. Cheese: Up to 245%.”
Click to expand...
However, those Canadian tariffs on U.S. dairy imports apply only after the country hits a level of tariff-free sales. This is from a deal Trump negotiated in 2018 during his first term in office.
Click to expand...
According to the International Dairy Foods Association, the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding the dairy quotas in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Why would we when we're facing over 200% tariffs!

Becky Rasdall Vargas, senior vice president of trade and workforce policy at IDFA, said: “Frustratingly, the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding our USMCA quotas because Canada has erected various protectionist measures that fly in the face of their trade obligations made under USMCA.”
Click to expand...
Vargas thanked the Trump administration for its “efforts to hold Canada accountable on these protectionist measures.” She did, however, say that “a prolonged tariff war with our top trading partners will continue to create uncertainty and additional costs for American dairy farmers, processors, and our rural communities.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom