Industry News: Trump Raises Tariffs on All Mexican Goods

[ccap41]

Just now, surreal1272 said:

And the Trump Foundation is under investigation for even more questionable practices. 

I'm not doubting that.

 

2 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Context is your friend here. I suggest reading it again but you’re the only that said you only had “one choice” when you didn’t. 

Sorry, I should know you aren't as familiar with my state as I am. That's my fault.

What I meant is that in my state(Illinois) there was one outcome regardless of who I voted for because Chicago has been voting very strongly for the democratic parties for a very long time now, since 1992.

 

Yes, there were literally more than one person to vote for but there was one outcome predicted years in advance.

I hope this clarifies my wording error. 

[oldshurst442]

Quote

And the Trump Foundation is under investigation for even more questionable practices. 

Quote

I'm not doubting that.

 

And THIS is why its important for him to... ReLeAsE  HiS TaxEs...as you sarcastically wrote it...

So the voting public knows what they are up against...

[ccap41]

3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

And THIS is why its important for him to... ReLeAsE  HiS TaxEs...as you sarcastically wrote it...

So the voting public knows what they are up against...

 

That would be under the corporate or foundation taxes filed, not his personal taxes. 

[balthazar]

4 hours ago, dfelt said:

I doubt he is a billionaire other than on paper as another reason he doesn't want to release his tax returns.

Tax returns do not report net worth.

[dwightlooi]

13 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Those are all fine and dandy scenarios but you chose to ignore one big number. 

 

$1.23 Trillion

Thats the amount is US debt OWNED by China.

 

You also skipped this number:

$12 Trillion

That is China’s economy whose growth and GDP, for the record, has and continues to outpace the US economy and GDP and has for the last thirty years. To pretend like this is small potatoes is just ignorant to the facts.

Besides, everything you just stated contradicts your “The US could do it all ourselves” statement you made earlier. You can’t sit on both sides of the fence where that is concerned. Yes, we know China has bent some rules but guess what? So have we! This is not news nor will it change a damn thing by implementing tariffs, which is the original subject of the thread to begin with. History has shown tariffs and protectionism policies to be a huge failures. See the 1930s if you have any doubts about that because Trump is reading from that outdated playbook. All the number shell games you just played do not change that fact. 

And remember folks. All this “buy America” propaganda was typed and posted on devices NOT made in the US. 

Which is ALL THE MORE REASON we shouldn't buy from China. You do not pay off debts by running a deficit. In any case, whether you trade with China or not, the treasury bonds which China owns has a set due date and a repayment schedule. They cannot collect on them on their terms.

Actually, Protectionism has ALWAYS worked even if the Fake News and the Globalist Liberals may have been telling you otherwise for decades. Free Trade -- in its purest form with no barriers on any side -- does only one thing. It favors developing and poor countries at the expense of developed and rich countries. In other words, Free Trade is a global wealth diffusion and redistribution mechanism which does not favor countries which already owns a concentration of wealth. It doesn't matter if US workers are 50% better at the job their are doing and better than ANY other worker if there are plenty of 3rd worlders who will do the job at one tenth or one 20th the wage. You CANNOT reconcile a desire for a good wage for your workers, benefit entitlements and environmental ideals on the one hand, and allow Free Trade on the other. Think about it. Let's say your city has a $50 minimum wage and mandates a $1000 a month healthcare package for its workers. The one next door allows people to work for 50 cents with no health benefits. Without barriers, any company making anything will do it in the city next door and sell the products to your city. All the money from your city will go to the city next door. Even ideologically, you can either have free trade or you can have wage and labor laws. You cannot have both. In order for Free Trade to work, you MUST allow American companies to hire anyone, pay them as little as they like, give them no benefits and no worker protection. You must also have open borders and free movement of labor. If you DO NOT, Free Trade will ALWAYS lead to unending deficits and outflow of wealth until the USA is no longer richer than the rest of the world. The Globalist don't care about that, they only seek to profit from facilitating that wealth transfer process. I am an American NATIONALIST, I care about that.

What we have is not even Free Trade. What we have is UNEQUAL TRADE where other countries erect barriers and we unilaterally keep very low barriers. Our Trade Treaties are the kind countries typically sign when ENEMY TROOPS are on the CAPITOL LAWN. But we have been willingly signing it for decades because the Washington Swamp has not been on our side for decades.

At the end of WWII the USA is the world's #1 manufacturer, #1 shipbuilder and #1 creditor. Today, everything is made elsewhere, US commercial shipbuilding is practically non-existent and we are the world's #1 debtor. That is the result of Free Trade. Now, let's look at where cars are made -- Germany, Japan and Korea. Where Ships are built  -- Italy, France, Sweden, Germany Japan, Korea and China. Why do you think that is the case? BECAUSE these are ALL very protected or very subsidized industries (or both) by these countries. How the hell did you think Airbus got off the ground? Subsidies. How the hell do you think Japanese or French Shipbuilding exist today (wages are not really lower than US yards)? Subsidies. Why does the EU have a trade surplus? Why does the UK have a trade surplus? Tariffs and import prohibitions. PROTECTIONISM HAS ALWAYS WORKED.

Trade is Business. Deficits are losses. Surplus are profit. No country or empire in the history of mankind has not been on the ascendancy when they have persistent surpluses. No country or empire in the history of mankind has not been in decline when they have persistent deficits. Mercantilism is Common Sense; it is not rocket science.

You may be resigned to managing the decline and ordinarification of America. I am commited to Making America Great Again. That is why I am an AMERICAN NATIONALIST.

Edited June 5, 2019 by dwightlooi

[surreal1272]

45 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not doubting that.

 

Sorry, I should know you aren't as familiar with my state as I am. That's my fault.

What I meant is that in my state(Illinois) there was one outcome regardless of who I voted for because Chicago has been voting very strongly for the democratic parties for a very long time now, since 1992.

 

Yes, there were literally more than one person to vote for but there was one outcome predicted years in advance.

I hope this clarifies my wording error. 

The Trump Foundation was shut down. Knowing that, why would they have to be shut down if they did nothing wrong?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-foundation-shutdown-lawsuit

@dwightlooi—Please read this before saying that protectionism in a capitalist economy works. 

https://hbr.org/1987/05/why-protectionism-doesnt-pay

33 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

That would be under the corporate or foundation taxes filed, not his personal taxes. 

In this case, both are relevant since one in inseparable from the other. 

[surreal1272]

49 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not doubting that.

 

Sorry, I should know you aren't as familiar with my state as I am. That's my fault.

What I meant is that in my state(Illinois) there was one outcome regardless of who I voted for because Chicago has been voting very strongly for the democratic parties for a very long time now, since 1992.

 

Yes, there were literally more than one person to vote for but there was one outcome predicted years in advance.

I hope this clarifies my wording error. 

My wife is from Illinois and my uncle lived there for over twenty years. I am very familiar with their political leanings. Here’s the thing. I live in red state Arizona and was born in redder state North Carolina. Neither of those states political leanings had any affect on my voting habits. That’s just being complicit without seeing a need for change IMO. 

[balthazar]

8 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

In this case, both are relevant since one in inseparable from the other. 

Familiar with an LLC?

[ccap41]

12 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

The Trump Foundation was shut down. Knowing that, why would they have to be shut down if they did nothing wrong?

I said, "I'm not doubting that." I wasn't disputing you. 

8 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

My wife is from Illinois and my uncle lived there for over twenty years. I am very familiar with their political leanings. Here’s the thing. I live in red state Arizona and was born in redder state North Carolina. Neither of those states political leanings had any affect on my voting habits. That’s just being complicit without seeing a need for change IMO. 

Nor did they on mine.

What is difficult to understand about that?

I already told you my personal voting has had no outside influence from my state's views, as a whole. I was just stating that my votes were irrelevant because the entirety of the state. 

[ccap41]

18 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

In this case, both are relevant since one in inseparable from the other.

They are absolutely treated differently.

The Walton's personal taxes are not going to be anything like Wal*mart's. Personal and corporate are wildly different. Maybe I'm missing something here and why they would possibly be inseparable from each other. 

[riviera74]

1 hour ago, dwightlooi said:

Which is ALL THE MORE REASON we shouldn't buy from China. You do not pay off debts by running a deficit. In any case, whether you trade with China or not, the treasury bonds which China owns has a set due date and a repayment schedule. They cannot collect on them on their terms.

Actually, Protectionism has ALWAYS worked even if the Fake News and the Globalist Liberals may have been telling you otherwise for decades. Free Trade -- in its purest form with no barriers on any side -- does only one thing. It favors developing and poor countries at the expense of developed and rich countries. In other words, Free Trade is a global wealth diffusion and redistribution mechanism which does not favor countries which already owns a concentration of wealth. It doesn't matter if US workers are 50% better at the job their are doing and better than ANY other worker if there are plenty of 3rd worlders who will do the job at one tenth or one 20th the wage. You CANNOT reconcile a desire for a good wage for your workers, benefit entitlements and environmental ideals on the one hand, and allow Free Trade on the other. Think about it. Let's say your city has a $50 minimum wage and mandates a $1000 a month healthcare package for its workers. The one next door allows people to work for 50 cents with no health benefits. Without barriers, any company making anything will do it in the city next door and sell the products to your city. All the money from your city will go to the city next door. Even ideologically, you can either have free trade or you can have wage and labor laws. You cannot have both. In order for Free Trade to work, you MUST allow American companies to hire anyone, pay them as little as they like, give them no benefits and no worker protection. You must also have open borders and free movement of labor. If you DO NOT, Free Trade will ALWAYS lead to unending deficits and outflow of wealth until the USA is no longer richer than the rest of the world. The Globalist don't care about that, they only seek to profit from facilitating that wealth transfer process. I am an American NATIONALIST, I care about that.

What we have is not even Free Trade. What we have is UNEQUAL TRADE where other countries erect barriers and we unilaterally keep very low barriers. Our Trade Treaties are the kind countries typically sign when ENEMY TROOPS are on the CAPITOL LAWN. But we have been willingly signing it for decades because the Washington Swamp has not been on our side for decades.

At the end of WWII the USA is the world's #1 manufacturer, #1 shipbuilder and #1 creditor. Today, everything is made elsewhere, US commercial shipbuilding is practically non-existent and we are the world's #1 debtor. That is the result of Free Trade. Now, let's look at where cars are made -- Germany, Japan and Korea. Where Ships are built  -- Italy, France, Sweden, Germany Japan, Korea and China. Why do you think that is the case? BECAUSE these are ALL very protected or very subsidized industries (or both) by these countries. How the hell did you think Airbus got off the ground? Subsidies. How the hell do you think Japanese or French Shipbuilding exist today (wages are not really lower than US yards)? Subsidies. Why does the EU have a trade surplus? Why does the UK have a trade surplus? Tariffs and import prohibitions. PROTECTIONISM HAS ALWAYS WORKED.

Trade is Business. Deficits are losses. Surplus are profit. No country or empire in the history of mankind has not been on the ascendancy when they have persistent surpluses. No country or empire in the history of mankind has not been in decline when they have persistent deficits. Mercantilism is Common Sense; it is not rocket science.

You may be resigned to managing the decline and ordinarification of America. I am commited to Making America Great Again. That is why I am an AMERICAN NATIONALIST.

Are your recommending the Smoot-Hawley tariff (1930) as our trade lodestar? Or will correcting our trade deficits require a ban on all Chinese-made goods, placing the USA on the road to autarky?

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

They are absolutely treated differently.

The Walton's personal taxes are not going to be anything like Wal*mart's. Personal and corporate are wildly different. Maybe I'm missing something here and why they would possibly be inseparable from each other. 

Except Trumps business finances have absolutely been inseparable from his personal finances unlike Sam Walton. They both merit a thorough review as a result. This is all became relevant once he became a public servant. He personal and business dealings around the world make it necessary to review both. That’s the point here. 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Familiar with an LLC?

See my above response. LLC does not factor here. 

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

The Trump Foundation was shut down. Knowing that, why would they have to be shut down if they did nothing wrong?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-foundation-shutdown-lawsuit

@dwightlooi—Please read this before saying that protectionism in a capitalist economy works. 

https://hbr.org/1987/05/why-protectionism-doesnt-pay

In this case, both are relevant since one in inseparable from the other. 

You clearly have ZERO understanding of business entities like LLCs or Corporations.

Regardless of how much money the COMPANY is losing or earning, the personal tax returns of ANY of its shareholders will not reflect any of it. The owners' tax returns will only show an income if the COMPANY provided a dividend or if any of the shares were sold at a profit. Let me give you an example. I own 1442 shares of Boeing at $348 a share and they had a ~$12 billion profit on ~$101 billion in revenues. They did business with over 13,000 entities. My tax return has nothing whatsoever on any of that. I bought those shares in 2016 at about $150 a share and more than doubled my money. My tax return has nothing whatsoever on any of that, because I haven't sold the shares. Boeing did pay a dividend of $2.055 a share so I have $2963 of taxable income in my return for the dividend. That is all.

Anyone's tax returns will not provide any reasonable assessment of that person's net worth, what he owns or who he does business with. It will most definitely not show any corrupt or illicit activity since not even an idiot will report those if it exists. It will only show the taxable income for that year (if any) reported to the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board. Whether the return is truthful is for the IRS to audit or determine (if they desire). It is nobody else's business or right to know and the IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing it (even to congress) -- that is the Law.

If you don't know these you really need to go back to grade school.

Edited June 5, 2019 by dwightlooi

[surreal1272]

5 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

You clearly have ZERO understanding of business entities like LLCs or Corporations.

Regardless of how much money the COMPANY is losing or earning, the personal tax returns of ANY of its shareholders will not reflect any of it. The owners' tax returns will only show an income if the COMPANY provided a dividend or if any of the shares were sold at a profit. Let me give you an example. I own 1442 shares of Boeing at $348 a share and they had a ~$12 billion profit on ~$101 billion in revenues. They did business with over 13,000 entities. My tax return has nothing whatsoever on any of that. I bought those shares in 2016 at about $150 a share and more than doubled my money. My tax return has nothing whatsoever on any of that, because I haven't sold the shares. Boeing did pay a dividend of $2.055 a share so I have a $2963 of taxable income in my return for the dividend.

Anyone's tax returns will not provide any reasonable assessment of that person's net worth, what he owns or who he does business with. It will most definitely not show any corrupt or illicit activity since not even an idiot will report those if it exists. It will only show the taxable income for that year (if any) reported to the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board. Whether the return is truthful is for the IRS to audit or determine (if they desire). It is nobody else's business or right to know and the IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing it (even to congress) -- that is the Law.

You clearly have ZERO understanding of what happens when someone decides to become a public servant much less the president of the United States. Besides it seems to me that you would be taking a different view on this had Clinton become president. Your bias is clearly obvious here. Let me say this for you one more time. His net worth is not the issue here. How he got it is. The man has business dealings with just about every country we are trying to “negotiate” with regarding trade, war, and everything else that matter. That makes how he got his money 100% open to public scrutiny. To pretend otherwise is walking around with your eyes closed. Your efforts to move the bar regarding this is ridiculously biased in nature. What do you not understand about that?

Edited June 5, 2019 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

Surreal doesn't understand business and taxes.

He should run for President next. 

[dwightlooi]

16 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

You clearly have ZERO understanding of what happens when someone decides to become a public servant much less the president of the United States. Besides it seems to me that you would be taking a different view on this had Clinton become president. Your bias is clearly obvious here. Let me say this for you one more time. His net worth is not the issue here. How he got it is. What do you not understand about that?

(1) Actually, I completely understand; you on the other hand do not. There is no legal and constitutional requirement. Donald J Trump is not legally or constitutionally required to disclose his income tax returns, period. The IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing private information to anyone including congress. This including any citizen's tax return, period.

(2) A person's tax returns does not show where he got is money from, what he owns or any of that. Donald J Trump's tax return may, for instance, show that he made $1 billion from the Trump Organization by selling a certain % stake in the company for more than he invested in those shares. Or, that a dividend of $123 million was paid to him as an Owner of that organization. Or, that a salary was paid to him for services rendered. It will not show how, when or from whom the Trump Organization made any of its money, or with whom it did business with. Anyone including the ice cream man pushing his cart around ought to know this. If you don't understand it, please revisit K12 education.

(3) If you don't like the fact Trump is not disclosing his returns you do not have to vote for him. That's your ONLY say in the matter.

Edited June 5, 2019 by dwightlooi

[ccap41]

*watches frustration build as ccap insulted him yet he also insulted Trump*

[balthazar]

12 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

His net worth is not the issue here. How he got it is. The man has business dealings with just about every country we are trying to “negotiate” with regarding trade, war, and everything else that matter. That makes how he got his money 100% open to public scrutiny.

People have specifically challenged / questioned his net worth, then advocated for tax returns as if that would answer that question. I've read such in forums and I've seen talking heads on TV express it. I didn't realize so many people have never done their own taxes before.

OK, so specifically talking about where his past wealth came from- I have some issue with that as it occurred as a private citizen before he took public office. Anything since should be on the table, or perhaps as far back as his official announcement of candidacy, but prior to shouldn't be pertinent. This country has recently gone down the path that any nefarious event that happened in any point of a private persons life, even decades & decades earlier, should 'rightfully' prevent that person from earning a living in the present or future. Too commonly; it amounts to a vindictive overreach. Or 'vigilante social media vengeance', if you like.

surreal : What specifically would -in an ideal situation- you expect to learn from his personal tax return? As dwight alluded to; you're not going to see -for example- a 1099 from the Kremlin. There's just not much information on them as to sources of income. And dwight is correct; if it was illicit, you're not going to see it at all.

But dwight- they don't teach tax code in K-12, bud.

Until personal tax report release becomes a legal condition of the office, as opposed to voluntary as it is now, I would defer to the decision of the candidate. That said, if he clearly said he would release them (which he did, but only did what- 1 year?), then he should uphold that 'promise'…. but I never hold my breath waiting.

Interesting accounting of the Trump Organization; it is bewilderingly multifaceted : 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization

[dwightlooi]

32 minutes ago, balthazar said:

But dwight- they don't teach tax code in K-12, bud.
 

Then K12 public education is a total failure. Anyone, leaving school is going to file their taxes for the first time. If they don't even have the slightest understanding of a tax return and they don't know the very basic separations between human vs business entities, then 13 years of bullsh!t education has produced only morons unfit to even have a hotdog stand.

Edited June 5, 2019 by dwightlooi

[surreal1272]

Be careful @ocnblu. Might want to save all those negative votes you just threw out while claiming to have no interest in the subject. 

 

#whostherealsnowflakehere

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, dwightlooi said:

(1) Actually, I completely understand; you on the other hand do not. There is no legal and constitutional requirement. Donald J Trump is not legally or constitutionally required to disclose his income tax returns, period. The IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing private information to anyone including congress. This including any citizen's tax return, period.

(2) A person's tax returns does not show where he got is money from, what he owns or any of that. Donald J Trump's tax return may, for instance, show that he made $1 billion from the Trump Organization by selling a certain % stake in the company for more than he invested in those shares. Or, that a dividend of $123 million was paid to him as an Owner of that organization. Or, that a salary was paid to him for services rendered. It will not show how, when or from whom the Trump Organization made any of its money, or with whom it did business with. Anyone including the ice cream man pushing his cart around ought to know this. If you don't understand it, please revisit K12 education.

(3) If you don't like the fact Trump is not disclosing his returns you do not have to vote for him. That's your ONLY say in the matter.

A detailed tax statement most certainly does detail where his money was coming from unless you’re under the guise that he doesn’t have to provide the sources of his income when he files them. It is simply asinine to assume that it doesn’t because many folks have been busted for those same types of crimes using IRS tax statements and documents. You have also sidestepped two things:

1.-Trump himself promised he’d release them after getting elected. His claims of being under audit don’t hold any legal water and this is easily verifiable. That’s makes him a liar which to most reasonable folks means he has something to hide. 

 

2.-No other president in our history has had so many dealings and debt held with so many different countries, the same countries we are “negotiating” with. Not sure how or why that simple concept escapes you. This makes his finances and taxes fair game, end of story. 

 

And for for the record, while I’m obviously not a tax expert, I have been doing my own since I was 16 (thirty years to the day) so I am not ignorant to the principles of reported income and such so you can just keep your little K-12 insult because clearly it’s you that needs to re-educate yourself while you make excuses for Trump not doing what every other candidate has done for the last forty years. 

 

From the actual tax experts:

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2019/04/10/trump-tax-returns

 

Long story short, if you or I refused to provide IRS documents to the government, we’d be in prison.

@balthazar—See my above response as to why it matters in Trumps case more so than some others in the past. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

*watches frustration build as ccap insulted him yet he also insulted Trump*

Nope. Just don’t care and it’s 100% irrelevant since I’m not the one running for president much less am the president. You can keep the snideness to yourself next time junior. 

@dwightlooi—The hell there is isn’t a legal obligation. 

 

Section 6301(f)(1) of the tax code stipulates that upon official written request, the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.”

Edited June 5, 2019 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

There has been some confusion regarding my stance on Trumps taxes so let me clarify myself. While his personal taxes probably don’t matter (because they really won’t reveal much in the grand scheme of things), his corporate taxes are very important to know, ie the hundreds of LLCs and shell companies he owns. This article here sums up why very nicely and that is all I’m going to say about it because while two people have now insulted my “education” or knowledge of this, they have failed themselves failed to prove how they know any better. Here you go. Time for me to sit in the pool and relax for a while. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1258781001

 

 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

6 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

And the Trump Foundation is under investigation for even more questionable practices. 

The Trump foundation was forced to disband because it was found out to be using funds to buy portraits of trump for his golf courses, and is still under investigation by the Southern District of New York. 

[surreal1272]

32 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The Trump foundation was forced to disband because it was found out to be using funds to buy portraits of trump for his golf courses, and is still under investigation by the Southern District of New York. 

Which I do believe is also requesting to see his finances. Maybe they can talk to his ex-judge sister who was/is also under investigation for tax fraud. ?

 

I’m sure the resident tax experts here have an explanation (deflection) for this as well since they like to portray themselves as “educated” while us simpletons know nothing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/maryanne-trump-barry-misconduct-inquiry.amp.html

Edited June 6, 2019 by surreal1272

[ocnblu]

8 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

while us simpletons know nothing

*hug* proud of you.  First step toward recovery is admitting the problem.

[ccap41]

13 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Nope. Just don’t care and it’s 100% irrelevant since I’m not the one running for president much less am the president. You can keep the snideness to yourself next time junior. 

It was just a joke. Calm down buddy(or don't calm down because you dislike it when people tell you what to do). 

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

*hug* proud of you.  First step toward recovery is admitting the problem.

So then you will be admitting that the EV has a place in society and should be embraced and supported.

To Quote: The administration currently has 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. Tariffs on an additional $300 billion would cover virtually all imports to the U.S. Trump has said the increases were to pressure China to reaffirm pledges it made in previous trade negotiations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/trump-administration-advances-plan-for-300-billion-in-new-china-tariffs

Seems having a 25% tariff on everything from China will make things crazy expensive here.

Interesting read on the $300 Billion in additional Tariff's.

https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/International-Trade/USA/Arent-Fox-LLP/Additional-duties-proposed-on-another-300-billion-worth-of-Chinese-products

[ccap41]

Seemed relevant.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27702580/car-prices-us-tariffs-mexican-imports/

Here are the 39 new cars and trucks currently built in Mexico and exported to the U.S. (all plant and production data sourced from Automotive News?

1. Audi Q5
2. BMW 3-series
3. Chevrolet Blazer
4. Chevrolet Cruze
5. Chevrolet Equinox
6. Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab
7. Chevrolet Trax
8. Dodge Journey
9. Fiat 500
10. Ford Fusion
11. Ford Transit Connect
12. GMC Sierra 1500 Crew Cab
13. GMC Terrain (certain models)
14. Honda Fit
15. Honda HR-V
16. Hyundai Accent
17. Infiniti QX50
18. Jeep Compass
19. Kia Forte
20. Kia Rio
21. Lincoln MKZ
22. Mazda 3
23. Mercedes-Benz A-class
24. Nissan Frontier (certain models)
25. Nissan Kicks
26. Nissan Sentra
27. Nissan Versa
28. Nissan Versa Note
29. Nissan NV200 Cargo
30. Ram 1500 Regular Cab
31. Ram 2500/3500/4500/5500
32. Ram ProMaster
33. Toyota Tacoma
34. Toyota Yaris
35. Volkswagen Beetle
36. Volkswagen Golf
37. Volkswagen Golf SportWagen
38. Volkswagen Jetta
39. Volkswagen Tiguan

[G. David Felt]

5 days till Mexico Tariffs hit the US. Yes this goes in effect on the 10th of June and Tech companies are going to be hit hard as many vendors have Server assembly  and subassembly built in Mexico.

This is going to hurt everyone big time as US bound products are built in Mexico.

Hurting our trade friends and consumers here in the US.

[surreal1272]

4 hours ago, ocnblu said:

*hug* proud of you.  First step toward recovery is admitting the problem.

And your first step is acknowledging sarcasm because you haven’t shown you’ve know jack squat since you jumped on a thread you said you were done with three days ago. 

59 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It was just a joke. Calm down buddy(or don't calm down because you dislike it when people tell you what to do). 

No. You were clearly trolling as evidenced by your senseless follow remark awaiting a reply. I just don’t have time for the senseless crap. 

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

5 days till Mexico Tariffs hit the US. Yes this goes in effect on the 10th of June and Tech companies are going to be hit hard as many vendors have Server assembly  and subassembly built in Mexico.

This is going to hurt everyone big time as US bound products are built in Mexico.

Hurting our trade friends and consumers here in the US.

But that is okay for Trump supporters as they always buy American and never have to worry about the impact of an economically impotent president negatively impacting their lives. 

 

Sarcasm 101 for the sarcasm impaired out there. 

[surreal1272]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

So then you will be admitting that the EV has a place in society and should be embraced and supported.

To Quote: The administration currently has 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. Tariffs on an additional $300 billion would cover virtually all imports to the U.S. Trump has said the increases were to pressure China to reaffirm pledges it made in previous trade negotiations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/trump-administration-advances-plan-for-300-billion-in-new-china-tariffs

Seems having a 25% tariff on everything from China will make things crazy expensive here.

Interesting read on the $300 Billion in additional Tariff's.

https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/International-Trade/USA/Arent-Fox-LLP/Additional-duties-proposed-on-another-300-billion-worth-of-Chinese-products

Good luck with that lol. Somewhere there is a therapist in his area with a doll that shows where the bad EV touched him. 

34 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Seemed relevant.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27702580/car-prices-us-tariffs-mexican-imports/

Here are the 39 new cars and trucks currently built in Mexico and exported to the U.S. (all plant and production data sourced from Automotive News?

1. Audi Q5
2. BMW 3-series
3. Chevrolet Blazer
4. Chevrolet Cruze
5. Chevrolet Equinox
6. Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab
7. Chevrolet Trax
8. Dodge Journey
9. Fiat 500
10. Ford Fusion
11. Ford Transit Connect
12. GMC Sierra 1500 Crew Cab
13. GMC Terrain (certain models)
14. Honda Fit
15. Honda HR-V
16. Hyundai Accent
17. Infiniti QX50
18. Jeep Compass
19. Kia Forte
20. Kia Rio
21. Lincoln MKZ
22. Mazda 3
23. Mercedes-Benz A-class
24. Nissan Frontier (certain models)
25. Nissan Kicks
26. Nissan Sentra
27. Nissan Versa
28. Nissan Versa Note
29. Nissan NV200 Cargo
30. Ram 1500 Regular Cab
31. Ram 2500/3500/4500/5500
32. Ram ProMaster
33. Toyota Tacoma
34. Toyota Yaris
35. Volkswagen Beetle
36. Volkswagen Golf
37. Volkswagen Golf SportWagen
38. Volkswagen Jetta
39. Volkswagen Tiguan

And that’s a lot of cars whose respective brands will see a sizable decline in sales if this is allowed to happen over a prolonged period. 

 

But hey, as long as Trumps ego is satisfied, it’s great for America right?

 

And I’m assuming that all of Donald and Ivankas China and Mexico made goods will be subject to these tariffs too? Fair is fair right? Walk the walk if you’re going to talk the talk. 

[riviera74]

The truly sad part about all of this is that the president seems to think that supply chains can be easily relocated to the United States at no cost to the supplier and/or automaker.  He seems to think that companies who make their products in China can easily relocate everything to another country (especially the USA) at no cost to them.  All of those relocation costs will be paid for by consumers period.  I do not care what everyone else says about this new policy because higher prices are a result that neither the president nor anyone else who believes in mercantilism can bypass whatsoever.  Do they want the 1970s all over again?  Do they want the 1930s again?

[surreal1272]

Oh that’s right. Clothing gets spared tariffs even though our textile industry, an industry I worked for four year during the 90s, took the biggest hit from cheap China made goods after the implementation of NAFTA. Guess who gets all of their clothing made there? Hint* it rhymes with Itanka and Ronald.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b42a597e4b09e4a8b2e72c3/amp

 

3 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

The truly sad part about all of this is that the president seems to think that supply chains can be easily relocated to the United States at no cost to the supplier and/or automaker.  He seems to think that companies who make their products in China can easily relocate everything to another country (especially the USA) at no cost to them.  All of those relocation costs will be paid for by consumers period.  I do not care what everyone else says about this new policy because higher prices are a result that neither the president nor anyone else who believes in mercantilism can bypass whatsoever.  Do they want the 1970s all over again?  Do they want the 1930s again?

Funny. You are the only other person to bring up the horror show that was the 1930s. I wish some other folks would open their eyes to the parallels of today and that era and see what a disaster truly looks like. 

Edited June 6, 2019 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

33 minutes ago, dfelt said:

5 days till Mexico Tariffs hit the US. Yes this goes in effect on the 10th of June and Tech companies are going to be hit hard as many vendors have Server assembly  and subassembly built in Mexico.

This is going to hurt everyone big time as US bound products are built in Mexico.

Hurting our trade friends and consumers here in the US.

I don't have an issue with the tariffs being put in place but if the goal is to bring production back to the US I feel like there should have been a 1 year heads-up so the companies actually CAN bring production back if they choose to. They don't have the time in one month(of less whenever it was first announced) to either buy a plant or build a plant.

That would be my biggest gripe about the whole situation is the time frame from announcement to enactment. 

If all of the auto companies were like, " okay, we will bring production back to the US." They would still be stuck paying the tariffs even if they were 100% on board with bringing production back to the US as quick as possible. 

37 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

No. You were clearly trolling as evidenced by your senseless follow remark awaiting a reply. I just don’t have time for the senseless crap. 

C'mon man, it was a joke. I took two soft shots.. 

[ccap41]

Will there be higher prices? Isn't the Envision built in China with their dirt cheap labor? Is that not still priced like its competition? they're just pocketing more cash. 

We all assume prices will skyrocket because either a tariff or production will be here with higher labor costs yet GM has proved they still sell their Envision, built in China, at class competitive prices. 

I'm not trying to say prices won't jump, just throwing out a differing point of view. 

[Drew Dowdell]

It's not just the cars that have final assembly in Mexico that will be affected... ALL cars will be affected. 

[G. David Felt]

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't have an issue with the tariffs being put in place but if the goal is to bring production back to the US I feel like there should have been a 1 year heads-up so the companies actually CAN bring production back if they choose to. They don't have the time in one month(of less whenever it was first announced) to either buy a plant or build a plant.

That would be my biggest gripe about the whole situation is the time frame from announcement to enactment. 

Very true, I heard this morning that it will take 180 to 360 days to move sub assembly to other manufacturing plants either in the US or other countries where we have no Tariff war for computer parts. Whole assembled computers with are many companies that build them in Mexico are looking at 18 months to 2 years to move. So guess what, Monday is coming and all prices across the board go up 5% ON TOP of existing Tariffs and then they change to 10% on July 1st, 15% on August 1st, 20% Sept 1st and 25% Oct 1st.

Many do not realize we already do have tariffs on existing products from manufactured goods to food such as Avocado's. Get ready for your costs to jump big time this month and the rest of the year.

Those interested in the tariff schedule: MEX_Tariff_Sched.pdf

[surreal1272]

22 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't have an issue with the tariffs being put in place but if the goal is to bring production back to the US I feel like there should have been a 1 year heads-up so the companies actually CAN bring production back if they choose to. They don't have the time in one month(of less whenever it was first announced) to either buy a plant or build a plant.

That would be my biggest gripe about the whole situation is the time frame from announcement to enactment. 

If all of the auto companies were like, " okay, we will bring production back to the US." They would still be stuck paying the tariffs even if they were 100% on board with bringing production back to the US as quick as possible. 

C'mon man, it was a joke. I took two soft shots.. 

It was trolling and I’m not going to argue with you over it. Moving on. 

 

And these tariffs will will not bring back jobs for reasons dfelt already covered. Besides Trumps reasoning for the Mexico tariffs was because of immigration. His jobs remark was secondary and useless since if you take jobs away from Mexico, then logic would dictate that more of their people will try to come here, directly contradicting the point of the tariff in the first place. 

Edited June 6, 2019 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Will there be higher prices? Isn't the Envision built in China with their dirt cheap labor? Is that not still priced like its competition? they're just pocketing more cash. 

We all assume prices will skyrocket because either a tariff or production will be here with higher labor costs yet GM has proved they still sell their Envision, built in China, at class competitive prices. 

I'm not trying to say prices won't jump, just throwing out a differing point of view. 

That’s a fair point but maybe someone can confirm the profit margin on the Envision. Bear in mind that Buick sells far more in China than here so the margins probably aren’t the issue as much as it just makes sense to have them made where they are in the highest demand. 

Edited June 6, 2019 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

14 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Very true, I heard this morning that it will take 180 to 360 days to move sub assembly to other manufacturing plants either in the US or other countries where we have no Tariff war for computer parts. Whole assembled computers with are many companies that build them in Mexico are looking at 18 months to 2 years to move. So guess what, Monday is coming and all prices across the board go up 5% ON TOP of existing Tariffs and then they change to 10% on July 1st, 15% on August 1st, 20% Sept 1st and 25% Oct 1st.

YUP. THAT'S my biggest concern. The companies the tariffs are going at the most are of course the largest and they have too high of production to just flip a switch in a week, month, or even six months to be able to bring production back here, even if they wanted to. 

I believe there should have been a warning of 12 months. Make it official(otherwise companies will not take it serious) and enforce it next June. That gives them time to either decide to keep production in Mexico or to get a plan set and in motion to move back to the US. 

[surreal1272]

It’s funny how a nation that prides itself on free markets and capitalism has people wanting to set the exact opposite policies and laws, forgetting that it’s a world economy now. 

[G. David Felt]

28 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

YUP. THAT'S my biggest concern. The companies the tariffs are going at the most are of course the largest and they have too high of production to just flip a switch in a week, month, or even six months to be able to bring production back here, even if they wanted to. 

I believe there should have been a warning of 12 months. Make it official(otherwise companies will not take it serious) and enforce it next June. That gives them time to either decide to keep production in Mexico or to get a plan set and in motion to move back to the US. 

I understand what you are saying but in reality, I doubt much if any of the jobs will come back to the US versus going to another country that has low labor costs and no tariff war with the US.

Perfect example of this is I can see much of the computer assembly work being done in Mexico going to 3rd world Asian countries like Malaysia. 

[Drew Dowdell]

The jobs will end up in India, Vietnam, or some other technologically developed country with cheap labor.... Not the US. 

[G. David Felt]

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The jobs will end up in India, Vietnam, or some other technologically developed country with cheap labor.... Not the US. 

Agreed, the Tariffs will not change the immigration of people attempting to come to the US for a better life.

It will also not bring back those jobs already moved offshore.

[ccap41]

And that takes jobs out of Mexico, that's the whole point of this. He wants to hurt Mexico if they aren't willing to help with border protection. 

[G. David Felt]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

And that takes jobs out of Mexico, that's the whole point of this. He wants to hurt Mexico if they aren't willing to help with border protection. 

That is the error in his logic as it will not hurt americans except in the pocket book and it will not stop people from attempting to come to America for a better life.

Also Mexicans make up a minority of people attempting to come into our country.

Good read here on this subject as 2007 was our highest rate as 12.2 million illegals and yet Nafta has helped to reduce that amount to 10.7 million by 2016.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

This is additional good info on the subject of illegals: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

NPR also backs that Mexico is no longer the lions share of illegals. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/25/525563818/mexicans-no-longer-make-up-majority-of-immigrants-in-u-s-illegally

 

[ccap41]

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

That is the error in his logic as it will not hurt americans except in the pocket book and it will not stop people from attempting to come to America for a better life.

It isn't intended to hurt Americans.

It isn't after the individuals who are trying to flee here. It will hurt the corrupt government in the only place you can hurt them, their pockets. After going after the cash in their pockets because companies are fleeing manufacturing in your country and going elsewhere, they will realize they need to help us with the border protection to keep companies in their own country. That is the intent. I believe. 

[G. David Felt]

8 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It isn't intended to hurt Americans.

It isn't after the individuals who are trying to flee here. It will hurt the corrupt government in the only place you can hurt them, their pockets. After going after the cash in their pockets because companies are fleeing manufacturing in your country and going elsewhere, they will realize they need to help us with the border protection to keep companies in their own country. That is the intent. I believe. 

Yet it does hurt the Americans in their pocket book.

The gov is another mess all together and I just do not see this changing anything versus getting an agreement to send advisors to work with their military on the southern border.

We have tried the Bully with a big stick approach before and look what it got us in Panama. A General becomes dictator and biggest drug lord that then has to be removed by us after we put him in there.

End result is the Tariffs are the wrong approach I believe.

[balthazar]

I can’t help to note the unspoken parallel here: most of the tariff fallout worry centers around price increases , yet almost no one talks about the same issue in discussions about electric cars, which START at 25% higher and go to 100% more.