gatorguy
About
- Username
- gatorguy
- Joined
- Visits
- 574
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 18,919
- Badges
- 3
- Posts
- 24,772
Reactions
-
Amazon denies it had plans to be clear about consumer tariff costs
Toortog said:Let make a deal keep these tarrifs but eliminate all federal income taxes. Tariffs is how the country used to make the money they ran the country on, then around 1910 they decided to start the federal income tax program to generate the money to fund the country. So federal income tax is now a total mess with the rich and big corporations play little to no taxes and the middle class playing. So tariffs instead of income tax sounds good to me.
Tariffs have be screwing this country since it's earliest days when in the hands of greedy politicians. They love tariffs because the money just goes into a general funds that just kind of gets used up with little info on where. -
US will not tolerate EU fine against Apple, says White House
avon b7 said:red oak said:avon b7 said:red oak said:krawall said:I think it's time for the gloves to come off. honestly... this is a disgrace. How long are you guys across the pond (westwards, to be clear) watching this disaster unfolding?
Yes the US are very important for the whole world's economy, but there's limits to everything. We should stop this appeasing and just call out things what they are. The US government decided that diplomacy is no longer "in", so the rest of the world should not be trying to uphold principles towards the US that are not reciprocated.
Go ahead and “take your gloves off” LoL
There is an EU document out there from the pandemic period analysing strategic dependencies between the EU and other countries/trading blocs.
The US was dependent on the EU for over 260 products.
The EU was dependent on the US for 15.
Areas where the EU was ahead included Advanced manufacturing, IoT, security, advanced materials, photonics and active ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry.
Most of that happens to involve 'technology'.
The EU is a leader in NONE of those examples you give. NONE. You really think the EU leads the US in advanced materials? What are you smoking. I’m surprised you did not list Spotify as your leading tech company -
US will not tolerate EU fine against Apple, says White House
anonymouse said:gatorguy said:AppleZulu said:shrave10 said:AppleZulu said:shrave10 said:Whitehouse is right here IMO. Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.
It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing. Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.
So what you’re proposing here seems to be that the federal government should collect $570 million in taxes from US consumers who buy EU-made goods and then give those tax dollars to Apple so they can pay the $570 million fine to the EU.That ought to show ‘em.
Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.
So yes, tariffs may be paid by US importers. But in the long run, it leads to reorienting of supply chains and jobs that go with it.
As for your pivot to extolling the protectionist virtues of tariffs, that's irrelevant to this case as well. $570 million is six one-hundredths of a percent of the value of EU goods imported into the US last year. Increasing tariffs to "recover" Apple's $570 million fine would have no perceptible protectionist impact on US goods competing with EU goods. Increasing tariffs to the point that it could have the effect you describe still means that the US consumer pays for it. They will either pay more for the imported item, or pay more for a "protected" US-made item. Alternatively, as will be the case for many things, US consumer will be unable to purchase many items at any price, because prohibitively high tariffs are already causing many US importers and retailers to simply cancel import orders entirely, even as there are no US-made alternatives to replace them, and no viable way to start making them here at any point in the near to mid-term future.
From my view, the tariffs will be left in place for every country wanting to deal with us, just at a lower rate than the punishment level currently being threatened. In no scenario will the middle class benefit as much as the top 10% among us. It's not designed to, and overall it won't lead to better paying jobs for the 90% either. It's really not about jobs, it's about wealth, which always seems to bubble up faster than trickle down. Fortunately, it isn't as easy to foist on everyone as the Project writers had presumed. If only the world would cooperate and let the US run everything, right?
That's at least two in the past couple of weeks. We must be getting old. -
US will not tolerate EU fine against Apple, says White House
AppleZulu said:shrave10 said:AppleZulu said:shrave10 said:Whitehouse is right here IMO. Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.
It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing. Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.
So what you’re proposing here seems to be that the federal government should collect $570 million in taxes from US consumers who buy EU-made goods and then give those tax dollars to Apple so they can pay the $570 million fine to the EU.That ought to show ‘em.
Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.
So yes, tariffs may be paid by US importers. But in the long run, it leads to reorienting of supply chains and jobs that go with it.
As for your pivot to extolling the protectionist virtues of tariffs, that's irrelevant to this case as well. $570 million is six one-hundredths of a percent of the value of EU goods imported into the US last year. Increasing tariffs to "recover" Apple's $570 million fine would have no perceptible protectionist impact on US goods competing with EU goods. Increasing tariffs to the point that it could have the effect you describe still means that the US consumer pays for it. They will either pay more for the imported item, or pay more for a "protected" US-made item. Alternatively, as will be the case for many things, US consumer will be unable to purchase many items at any price, because prohibitively high tariffs are already causing many US importers and retailers to simply cancel import orders entirely, even as there are no US-made alternatives to replace them, and no viable way to start making them here at any point in the near to mid-term future.
From my view, the tariffs will be left in place for every country wanting to deal with us, just at a lower rate than the punishment level currently being threatened. In no scenario will the middle class benefit as much as the top 10% among us. It's not designed to, and overall it won't lead to better paying jobs for the 90% either. It's really not about jobs, it's about wealth, which always seems to bubble up faster than trickle down. Fortunately, it isn't as easy to foist on everyone as the Project writers had presumed. If only the world would cooperate and let the US run everything, right? -
EU puts Apple fine on hold while US trade talks continue
Those US trade negotiation demands are going to be very tough for the EU to swallow, and I'll be surprised if they do. The big sticking point is not "free trade" and removing market barriers, but giving up the freedom of EU countries to decide who they will trade with and under what terms. The US insists that any agreement must include a commitment to abide by US trade policies towards other countries, with China being the current focus. In essense, they want every country in the world to agree on crowning the US the sole country to decide who is on Santa's good list and who will be punished. That's not free trade.
As always things are not as simple as they are portrayed. I don't see a positive outcome for any of the parties if the EU and US stay on this path.