Tariffs

[Superman]

Please refer me to the part of the Constitution that states the President must use direct human signing for pardons then get back to me on who is being a dumbass because “dear leader said so!”.

iT aINt jUsT pArDUnz, CaPTin DipSHit

 

[Steeltime]

Unless we're willing to seriously make adjustments to social security, Medicare and Medicaid while reducing our military presence around the world, everything else is just noise.

Medicaid is not Medicare. And 100%, reduce the United States' military presence around the world.

Social Security and Medicare are programs Americans have paid into for decades before being eligible for a dime. The aging population is putting pressure on those systems.

Oh, and the fact the Fed spent the tens of trillions put into those programs by citizens. That too.

But the undeniable fact is that Fed spending can be reduced by 25% without reducing payouts that are in fact return of money already paid by taxpayers.

The career politicians won't touch the entitlements as it would be career suicide and they won't raise taxes to any meaningful degree for the same reasons, so the deficit and debt will just continue to swell going forward.

See above.

We've gotten away with it for a long time, but the interest payments are now approaching 20% of the budget.

So fix it.

Me? I say reduce every program that does not directly benefit American citizens by 100%, a.k.a., eliminate that spending. Reduce Fed salaries and retirement by 5%. Eliminate DOE. Develop American energy, creating a boon for businesses and citizens in terms of lower energy costs, and a slew of tax revenues.

Time to take out the trash.

 

[Troglodyte]

iT aINt jUsT pArDUnz, CaPTin DipSHit

And? Step outside of your social media news source. You’re the only one who seems to understand Dear Leader’s point. Dipshit.

 

[JMM]

Are you saying that Trog is just as dumb on this topic? Lol

Who? I'll leave that up to others to make up their own conclusions.

 

[Superman]

And? Step outside of your social media news source. You’re the only one who seems to understand Dear Leader’s point. Dipshit.

iT wErU thE 162 ExEktUve OrDurRs He Did be SigGN

 

[Steelmann]

I suppose it's just easier to blame and punish poorer countries for accepting the business of US corporations, who chose to outsource to maximize return to shareholders, not because they had to in order to maintain profitability.

Money,Money,Money Punxs. It’s all about the Money. I totally agree with your comment above. Funny how some of these huge Corporations didn’t get absolutely raked over the coals for doing what they did. Oh wait,it didn’t matter. They were making their shareholders millions upon millions.
To use for example Apple. An iconic American brand…..obviously humongous success story. Without China would they have been a success story? They chose to go there. And India. And Vietnam. No protests…..people bought and bought and bought. Shareholders made money.
Not one iPhone made in the States. Not one iPad made in the USA. Not one watch. A couple components but over 90% of components made in Asia. Those little fingers working hard.

It shall be interesting to see what effects the Tariffs will have on Apple. There 500 billion promises of investment's in the US are of course encouraging. Until you read the article below………..



Wall Street’s number crunchers are giving Apple’s eye-popping $500 billion U.S. investment plan the digital equivalent of the “thinking face” emoji. Financial analysts have serious doubts about whether the tech giant can actually deliver on what would be its most ambitious spending spree ever – even as the announcement scored an immediate all-caps “THANK YOU TIM COOK AND APPLE!!!” from President Donald Trump on Truth Social.


This isn’t Apple’s first headline-grabbing investment announcement. In January 2018, during Trump’s first term, Apple announced a $350 billion contribution to the U.S. economy over five years. That included plans to create 20,000 jobs — the same job creation figure in last week’s announcement. In April 2021, during the Biden administration, Apple announced an “acceleration” of its U.S. investments, with plans to spend more than $430 billion over five years.

The company’s pattern of recycling key commitments while increasing the headline dollar figure raises questions about how much of these investments represent truly new economic activity — as opposed to just repackaging existing business plans.

The timing and scale of Apple’s announcement appear strategically aligned with the political landscape. Trump himself acknowledged the connection between Apple’s plan and his trade policies, telling governors that Apple had “stopped two plants in Mexico” to boost its U.S. presence. “They don’t want to be in the tariffs,” Trump said.


This follows a pattern that began during Trump’s first term, when Cook built goodwill with the president through personal meetings and successfully lobbied for tariff exemptions in 2019. The relationship appears to be continuing, with Cook attending Trump’s inauguration and potentially shielding Apple from the full impact of new tariffs on Chinese imports that could significantly affect its business model. As Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives noted, “Cook continues to prove that he is 10% politician and 90% CEO.”

UBS analyst David Vogt was more blunt in his assessment, calling the $500 billion figure “completely unrealistic mechanically” in comments to Fortune. He questioned where the additional money would come from, noting that Apple only generates about $100 billion a year in free cash flow, with $90 billion already allocated to share buybacks. “It’s unclear where the cash flow comes [from] to try to even remotely attempt this,” Vogt said, adding that Apple’s current $10 billion in annual capital expenditures represents just a fraction of the annual $125 billion the new investment would require.
As Apple promotes its investment plans, there are questions about existing commitments. Last June, Apple paused development on its promised $552 million campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and asked state officials to suspend the project for four years.

This pause came after Apple had committed in 2021 to build the campus by 2031 as part of a deal that could provide up to $845 million in payroll tax benefits. While Apple has added about 600 positions in the Raleigh area since the 2021 announcement, construction on the campus has not begun.


But even if Apple intends to dramatically increase its U.S. investment, the company will likely face the same infrastructure and workforce challenges plaguing other tech giants rushing to build AI capabilities. According to recent reports from commercial real estate firm CBRE, data center construction activity has increased by 25% year-over-year to record highs, creating significant bottlenecks in the development pipeline.

Construction timelines that once ranged from one to three years now commonly stretch to four years or more, primarily due to power availability constraints. Procuring transformers for new electricity substations, upgrading transmission lines, and even acquiring backup generators — which can take up to 90 weeks to procure according to CBRE — have become major obstacles for tech companies building new facilities.

Labor shortages present another significant hurdle. As Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has discovered with its $65 billion Arizona chip plant, transplanting manufacturing expertise from overseas to the U.S. comes with unexpected challenges. TSMC has faced cultural clashes between Taiwanese management and American workers, and has struggled to recruit enough skilled labor in the Phoenix area, where it competes with other tech companies like Intel for talent.


The timing of Apple’s massive infrastructure commitment also comes amid conflicting signals about future data center needs. Just last week, Microsoft reportedly canceled data center leases worth “a couple of hundred megawatts” of capacity with at least two private operators in the U.S., potentially signaling an oversupply of AI infrastructure.

While Microsoft maintains it’s still on track to spend more than $80 billion on AI infrastructure this fiscal year, these cancellations suggest tech giants are reassessing their immediate capacity requirements as the AI landscape rapidly evolves. For Apple, which has been more cautious about its AI investments than competitors, this uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to its ability to deliver on headline-grabbing commitments.

Should Apple’s investment plans include significant manufacturing or data center components — particularly for its new AI initiatives — the company may find itself confronting similar roadblocks, regardless of how much money it commits on paper.

 

[Punxsutawney]

Medicaid is not Medicare. And 100%, reduce the United States' military presence around the world.

Social Security and Medicare are programs Americans have paid into for decades before being eligible for a dime. The aging population is putting pressure on those systems.

Oh, and the fact the Fed spent the tens of trillions put into those programs by citizens. That too.

But the undeniable fact is that Fed spending can be reduced by 25% without reducing payouts that are in fact return of money already paid by taxpayers.



See above.



So fix it.

Me? I say reduce every program that does not directly benefit American citizens by 100%, a.k.a., eliminate that spending. Reduce Fed salaries and retirement by 5%. Eliminate DOE. Develop American energy, creating a boon for businesses and citizens in terms of lower energy costs, and a slew of tax revenues.

Time to take out the trash.

I'm aware that Medicaid and Medicare are different programs, but unless you think it's fine for the millions of people who need medicine but cannot afford it to die off in a gutter somewhere, Medicaid is kind of a mandatory program in a developed society.

Social security and Medicare are programs that Americans pay into, but that doesn't make the programs immune to the unsustainably rising costs of aging demographics and health care inflation. That's still where most of the growth in the budget and deficit are coming from.

Even if we cut all other spending by 25% as you suggests, we'd still be running a fiscal deficit well north of a trillion dollars, even assuming the spending cuts didn't adversely affect economic growth and tax revenues, which they almost certainly would.

Investing those savings in energy production and public infrastructure would be worthwhile endeavor, but is probably "pie in the sky" as far as Washington is concerned.

 

[Confluence]

Medicaid is not Medicare. And 100%, reduce the United States' military presence around the world.

This will drop the dollar precipitously, ruining the USD hegemony that has defined global economics and trade for 5+ decades (Nixon & Kissinger); the global effects would be profound and would make China, Iran and North Korea very, very happy.

 

[Punxsutawney]

Money,Money,Money Punxs. It’s all about the Money. I totally agree with your comment above. Funny how some of these huge Corporations didn’t get absolutely raked over the coals for doing what they did. Oh wait,it didn’t matter. They were making their shareholders millions upon millions.
To use for example Apple. An iconic American brand…..obviously humongous success story. Without China would they have been a success story? They chose to go there. And India. And Vietnam. No protests…..people bought and bought and bought. Shareholders made money.
Not one iPhone made in the States. Not one iPad made in the USA. Not one watch. A couple components but over 90% of components made in Asia. Those little fingers working hard.

It shall be interesting to see what effects the Tariffs will have on Apple. There 500 billion promises of investment's in the US are of course encouraging. Until you read the article below………..



Wall Street’s number crunchers are giving Apple’s eye-popping $500 billion U.S. investment plan the digital equivalent of the “thinking face” emoji. Financial analysts have serious doubts about whether the tech giant can actually deliver on what would be its most ambitious spending spree ever – even as the announcement scored an immediate all-caps “THANK YOU TIM COOK AND APPLE!!!” from President Donald Trump on Truth Social.


This isn’t Apple’s first headline-grabbing investment announcement. In January 2018, during Trump’s first term, Apple announced a $350 billion contribution to the U.S. economy over five years. That included plans to create 20,000 jobs — the same job creation figure in last week’s announcement. In April 2021, during the Biden administration, Apple announced an “acceleration” of its U.S. investments, with plans to spend more than $430 billion over five years.

The company’s pattern of recycling key commitments while increasing the headline dollar figure raises questions about how much of these investments represent truly new economic activity — as opposed to just repackaging existing business plans.

The timing and scale of Apple’s announcement appear strategically aligned with the political landscape. Trump himself acknowledged the connection between Apple’s plan and his trade policies, telling governors that Apple had “stopped two plants in Mexico” to boost its U.S. presence. “They don’t want to be in the tariffs,” Trump said.


This follows a pattern that began during Trump’s first term, when Cook built goodwill with the president through personal meetings and successfully lobbied for tariff exemptions in 2019. The relationship appears to be continuing, with Cook attending Trump’s inauguration and potentially shielding Apple from the full impact of new tariffs on Chinese imports that could significantly affect its business model. As Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives noted, “Cook continues to prove that he is 10% politician and 90% CEO.”

UBS analyst David Vogt was more blunt in his assessment, calling the $500 billion figure “completely unrealistic mechanically” in comments to Fortune. He questioned where the additional money would come from, noting that Apple only generates about $100 billion a year in free cash flow, with $90 billion already allocated to share buybacks. “It’s unclear where the cash flow comes [from] to try to even remotely attempt this,” Vogt said, adding that Apple’s current $10 billion in annual capital expenditures represents just a fraction of the annual $125 billion the new investment would require.
As Apple promotes its investment plans, there are questions about existing commitments. Last June, Apple paused development on its promised $552 million campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and asked state officials to suspend the project for four years.

This pause came after Apple had committed in 2021 to build the campus by 2031 as part of a deal that could provide up to $845 million in payroll tax benefits. While Apple has added about 600 positions in the Raleigh area since the 2021 announcement, construction on the campus has not begun.


But even if Apple intends to dramatically increase its U.S. investment, the company will likely face the same infrastructure and workforce challenges plaguing other tech giants rushing to build AI capabilities. According to recent reports from commercial real estate firm CBRE, data center construction activity has increased by 25% year-over-year to record highs, creating significant bottlenecks in the development pipeline.

Construction timelines that once ranged from one to three years now commonly stretch to four years or more, primarily due to power availability constraints. Procuring transformers for new electricity substations, upgrading transmission lines, and even acquiring backup generators — which can take up to 90 weeks to procure according to CBRE — have become major obstacles for tech companies building new facilities.

Labor shortages present another significant hurdle. As Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has discovered with its $65 billion Arizona chip plant, transplanting manufacturing expertise from overseas to the U.S. comes with unexpected challenges. TSMC has faced cultural clashes between Taiwanese management and American workers, and has struggled to recruit enough skilled labor in the Phoenix area, where it competes with other tech companies like Intel for talent.


The timing of Apple’s massive infrastructure commitment also comes amid conflicting signals about future data center needs. Just last week, Microsoft reportedly canceled data center leases worth “a couple of hundred megawatts” of capacity with at least two private operators in the U.S., potentially signaling an oversupply of AI infrastructure.

While Microsoft maintains it’s still on track to spend more than $80 billion on AI infrastructure this fiscal year, these cancellations suggest tech giants are reassessing their immediate capacity requirements as the AI landscape rapidly evolves. For Apple, which has been more cautious about its AI investments than competitors, this uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to its ability to deliver on headline-grabbing commitments.

Should Apple’s investment plans include significant manufacturing or data center components — particularly for its new AI initiatives — the company may find itself confronting similar roadblocks, regardless of how much money it commits on paper.

Most of Apple's products and supply chains have been exempted from the tariffs after their stock cratered about 20% within a week.

There wasn't a huge uproar when the outsourcing accelerated in the 1990s because the internet boom increased productivity in the economy for awhile and the real estate boom did the same.

Once all that **** blew up, the downside of outsourcing became apparent, but had been going on for too long to reverse course without sinking the economy for longer than most Americans would be willing to accept.

Even if one accepts that Trump is well- intentioned with what he is trying to do with the tariffs, the country lacks the patience to endure the transition.

Only his most devoted supporters would stick by him after losing their jobs and/or seeing their retirement accounts completely implode.

It's why he backed off on a large part of what he threatened on April 2.

 

[Steelmann]

Most of Apple's products and supply chains have been exempted from the tariffs after their stock cratered about 20% within a week.

There wasn't a huge uproar when the outsourcing accelerated in the 1990s because the internet boom increased productivity in the economy for awhile and the real estate boom did the same.

Once all that **** blew up, the downside of outsourcing became apparent, but had been going on for too long to reverse course without sinking the economy for longer than most Americans would be willing to accept.

Even if one accepts that Trump is well- intentioned with what he is trying to do with the tariffs, the country lacks the patience to endure the transition.

Only his most devoted supporters would stick by him after losing their jobs and/or seeing their retirement accounts completely implode.

It's why he backed off on a large part of what he threatened on April 2.

I meant to ask you Punxs…….if you don’t mind me asking,what do you or did you do for work? Of course none of my business,just curious.

 

[Punxsutawney]

I meant to ask you Punxs…….if you don’t mind me asking,what do you or did you do for work? Of course none of my business,just curious.

I've been an electrician for nearly 30 years now. I went to school for business, but prefer working with my hands

 

[Steelmann]

:

I've been an electrician for nearly 30 years now. I went to school for business, but prefer working with my hands

A fellow Tradesman I am a Brick/Stone Mason. My Dad threw me in there in summers to help out when I was 12. Climbing up scaffolding and roofs with heavy materials take a toll on the old body, so after 40 years I am semi retired.only Take on jobs where I can make great money now. And preferably decent weather!

 

[Troglodyte]

iT wErU thE 162 ExEktUve OrDurRs He Did be SigGN

Everyone shook their heads at our embarrassment of a President and shrugged this off weeks ago, where have you been?

 

[madinsomniac]

What if companies were forced to leave tax havens like Belize, Bermuda, Ireland, Caymans, etc. and simply pay tax at home?

Rates could be lower because of the broader tax base and the smaller companies would have the same tax cost as the larger ones who can afford to "structure" their companies to avoid taxes.

Delaware, a Democratic blue state, succeeds by ensuring its corporate state taxes are the lowest in the country, encouraging corporations to base their operations there... turns out a lot of a little isn't always as good as a little of a lot... especially since advantages places like New York used to have by proximity to other business headquarters evaporated with the internet


I read a piece out of europe not long ago where tge french billionaires all were threatening to move to the US if France raised taxes to the absurd levels they were talking about and the US cut them...

The high taxes should all be on moving money abd wealth out of the US... not operating here then putting the money back into communities here...

 

[MT~Forged]

I doubt that, but your pessimism is noted.

Different people having different opinions is not a problem in my world.

A billion people or not, China has a GDP per capita comparable to Iraq.

Expecting them to buy as much from us as we do from them is not an obtainable or even desirable goal at the present time.

The primary advantage China has is that their industries are largely state sponsored and financed.

Short of the CCP collapsing (which could actually be part of Trump's goal), China is not going to stop being a quasi-communist country. No matter how much pressure we try to apply on them.

When it comes to China, the focus should be on restricting our tech trade with them, as it is as much a matter of national security as it is economic prosperity.

It sucks for shareholders of companies like Apple and Nvidia, but tough titties.

I am all for working towards collapsing the CHINESE economy. This is really the only way that have any way of seeing the CCP lose their complete control. Same way that an economic collapse in America eliminates complete control by the elites through their paid for politicians. A collapse on either front will be catastrophic for that faction, but it just might be the best in the long run.

Unless Congress addresses entitlement costs, everything else is just picking at the fringes of the budget.

Healthcare in particular is now around 20% of GDP compared to around 5% in the early 1990s. It's not sustainable.

The big money elites have no desire to see anything FIXED, as that means they would get less going forward

Higher corporate tax rates, obviously.

I know that is blasphemy from your perspective, but they were over 50% in the middle of the last century and we had a pretty strong economy in the 1950s and 60s.

The effective rates have been steadily going down since the 1980s while factories have been outsourced by the thousands.

I'm all for offering lower rates to companies that invest more in the US.

My one and only reason for eliminating ALL corporate taxes is that they are strictly a cost of doing business and ALWAYS get passed on to the consumers as a hidden “additional” tax. The same argument is being made against tariffs. While tariffs have additional benefits, if your willing to truly understand how they can work, I can not see any benefit to Corporate Taxes.

We'll see how it plays out, but it is not really clear what Trump's aiming for here.

It's a matter of benefits vs costs.

If he simply wants other countries to drop their tariffs on US production, there is limited upside to it, as many of these countries simply don't have the means to buy much more from us than they already do, even the larger ones like China.

If he wants to bring significant amounts of capital back to the US, it will work only if he keeps the tariffs in place indefinitely, which will severely slow and disrupt the economy during the transition.

I truly don’t know what his intentions are here, I have my opinion, but we all are going to have to see how it works out.

I think the "financialization" of housing in recent decades has been the greatest issue.

Viewing shelter more as an investment than an essential durable good has created a huge conflict of interests in the economy where since the 2008 crisis, keeping inventory tight and prices up has taken priority over construction financing and affordability.

It's a pretty ominous sign when interest rates go up as much as they have in recent years while home prices continue to increase.

I don’t think there is going to be a magic solution here.
Over supply is really the only way for home prices and rent to come down. We need to have enough new housing options to bring prices down and low enough interest rates to make it affordable. But, when that happens investment returns decrease creating pressure against owning a home. The solution has to be targeted at the problem without allowing big money investors to reap another windfall.

It is refreshing to actually read thought out responses to posts instead of those that use media propaganda as their response because they can’t respond themselves

 

[MT~Forged]

Are you kidding me? Punish the producers and take half of their EARNED profit? F right the F off with that commie bullshit.

But you really aren’t taking ANY of producers earned profits, it is just an added cost of doing business that is passed on to the consumers.

 

[MT~Forged]

What if companies were forced to leave tax havens like Belize, Bermuda, Ireland, Caymans, etc. and simply pay tax at home?

Rates could be lower because of the broader tax base and the smaller companies would have the same tax cost as the larger ones who can afford to "structure" their companies to avoid taxes.

By eliminating Corporate taxes altogether, there would be no reason to offshore any profits, nor figure out how to not pay them.

What needs to be done is switch to a completely consumptive tax. This way only those with discretionary money pay the taxes. Corporations can then do what they like with the profits, reinvest (tax free), disbursed to employees as higher wages or bonuses, share holder dividends, donate to charities, etc. until the money is spent it is really worthless unless you are trying to die with the most money ever saved.

 

[Steeltime]

But you really aren’t taking ANY of producers earned profits, it is just an added cost of doing business that is passed on to the consumers.

Microeconomics shows that producers can pass on a lot of the increased costs but not all. The reason for that is a lot of products have fairly elastic demand curves, particularly extravagances and items that are not required for day-to-day living. Those products include new or upgraded appliances, televisions, computers, cars, boats, sporting goods, and most clothing. Consumers will simply not buy with a certain price increase so businesses can try and pass on some but not all of the increased cost.

The way to handle increased costs due to tariffs is to reduce other costs, particularly energy and taxes, and by reducing inflation. Other transactional improvements, such as speeding up government approvals for construction or licensing, will also reduce costs.

 

[MT~Forged]

Leave those alone but get rid of pretty much everything else including Obamacare and all aid to foreign countries.

That isn’t going to be nearly enough to make any meaningful changes. Entailments are going to HAVE TO BE CUT. Now that doesn’t mean legitimate recipients need to be cut though. SS payments can still be paid to help families WITH CHILDREN from accounts funded by deceased parents. Think of it as Government “child support” based on previous earnings. When the child is 18 it ends, period, end of story. It should not be enough that the remaing parent doesn’t have to work. Retired Seniors should not be targeted at all, they did their time.

 

[MT~Forged]

You trust them with drug safety after the covid shot? lmao. Most things can be handled at the State level.

As they should be

 

[MT~Forged]

This will drop the dollar precipitously, ruining the USD hegemony that has defined global economics and trade for 5+ decades (Nixon & Kissinger); the global effects would be profound and would make China, Iran and North Korea very, very happy.

Just another “Sky is Falling” statement. It is strictly an opinion as it never happens so there is no proof to it’s validity

 

[MT~Forged]

Microeconomics shows that producers can pass on a lot of the increased costs but not all. The reason for that is a lot of products have fairly elastic demand curves, particularly extravagances and items that are not required for day-to-day living. Those products include new or upgraded appliances, televisions, computers, cars, boats, sporting goods, and most clothing. Consumers will simply not buy with a certain price increase so businesses can try and pass on some but not all of the increased cost.

You make my point for me. ALL the Corporate Taxes will be passed on if they can do it.

The way to handle increased costs due to tariffs is to reduce other costs, particularly energy and taxes, and by reducing inflation. Other transactional improvements, such as speeding up government approvals for construction or licensing, will also reduce costs.

This is just reducing other costs to keep prices static, they never reduce them

 

[Confluence]

What needs to be done is switch to a completely consumptive tax.

Some of us said this 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago and then 15 years ago on this very forum.

Their is a whole section of economic study and theory dedicated to this simplification.

 

[MT~Forged]

Some of us said this 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago and then 15 years ago on this very forum.

Their is a whole section of economic study and theory dedicated to this simplification.

Your right some of us did. The issue is that those with money know they will be paying many times more, so they bribe politicians to see that it doesn’t happen.

I’m all for billionaires not paying a single dollar in taxes. All they have to do is save every single penny beyond basic living expenses (say $50,000 a year). They can just keep on racking up those savings.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

By eliminating Corporate taxes altogether, there would be no reason to offshore any profits, nor figure out how to not pay them.

For Democrats, somehow increasing corporate income tax (which will increase prices) is good while tariffs (a tax that will increase prices) are bad.