shrave10

gatorguy said:

I think Trump's originally stated goal was to use tariffs as a revenue source to allow US income taxes to be rolled back, a consumption tax in effect. Those are generally considered regressive taxes, a type of taxation that has a disproportionate effect on low and middle-income families. That's why it's favored by the wealthier who don't need to spend the bulk of their income on food and shelter, medical, and various daily needs. 

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?

avon b7 said:

Apple has choice. Comply or leave are two simple options. If it wants to drag its feet on compliance (in spite of extensive direct communication with the EU) it will simply run into higher fines along the way for 'malicious' compliance. 

Stabitha_Christie said:

It is really difficult to tell if you are simply being disingenuous or are demonstrating a stunning level of ignorance.  Laws and regulations rarely are so detailed as to define every instance in which they are applicable. In part because it would take forever to do so and because their authors cannot predict the future and in what instances they will need to be applied. And while your inclination may be to invoke the supernatural when you don’t understand something that isn’t what happens with laws/regulations and we also don't require everyone to read between the lines. We have clearly defined groups of people (with expertise) and a clearly defined process for doing this. Interpreting the intent of law is the role of the judiciary. Have you never seen, heard or read about court ruling?  This is why Apple is afforded due process and the right to appeal when they think the law/regulation has been misapplied. Nothing preposterous about it. 

sirdir 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.  

Does Epic get a cut for each game Apple sells? See the difference? It’s ok for Apple to charge a fee on their store, but they have to leave their greedy fingers off everyone else or they hopefully get fined until they learn.

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.  

I feel like a lot of people don’t understand how tariffs work. They are a government tax on goods being imported into this country. The US importers pay the tax. Then, either they eat that cost, or add it to the price of the goods as they are sold to US consumers. 

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. 

That's a short term view.  The reason EU manufacturing wants tariffs down is because of the longer term implications.  For ex. cars manufactured in EU will drop in marketshare > raises costs on their cars due to loss of economies of scale > negative feedback loop.  

 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.

It's not a "short view." I'm calling out the nonsensical idea of the US collecting a tariff to "recover" the EU fines. Collecting a tax from US consumers in order to pay a fine to the EU does nothing to effect the EU's position on the fine, other than perhaps to provoke them to increase the fine, which will then also either be paid by Apple or as you propose, by the US consumer.

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.