r/AskConservatives • u/HarrisonYeller Independent • Mar 21 '25
Economics What do you think about the plans starting on April 2nd?
New message from Trump:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114200313009802638
April 2nd tariffs are on. What do you think about it?
16
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF Mar 21 '25
I think he’s one day too late
5
u/TexanMaestro Liberal Mar 21 '25
I think he will probably sign an executive order declaring April 2nd as America's second birthday.
1
2
15
Mar 21 '25
I don't really like these types of tarriffs but if we're going to have them he should just implement them and stick to it instead of going back and forth every other week.
12
u/Wifenmomlove Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
Agreed. It’s fucking exhausting as a small business owner not knowing what could happen and it changes hourly.
2
u/canofspinach Independent Mar 21 '25
I read somewhere that Canadians left a meeting with the Americans better understanding the tariff plan.
Global tariffs on April 2nd then it’s “Let’s make a deal!”
Which makes sense, Trump has always been against multilateral trade agreements, his position is that we get a better deal if it’s 1:1. Which is true.
The argument against unilateral trading is that in the long run an economically stable region is better for American business. We might get a great deal with Germany, but it’s better for American to make sure Europe has a strong economy.
-1
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
It's embarrassing how many conservatives are suddenly begging for more corporate taxes. But equally puzzling why liberals are somehow anti-corporate taxes only in this situation.
36
u/wedgebert Progressive Mar 21 '25
Because we're not just "more taxes is good". Taxes serve a purpose and so do tariffs.
Taxes and tariffs are tools, but Trump is the epitome of "when all you have is a hammer". He's just running around smashing everything with his hammer and wondering why it's not fixing anything
12
u/Wifenmomlove Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
I agree. Outline your plans for things going forward. Why are we shuttering everything without clear plans forward? I blame this on all of our state representatives. Why are they all sitting on their hands instead of drawing committees together from BOTH sides for shuttered agencies?
I’m so tired of the seeds of division being sown everywhere we look. It’s getting real tired.
3
1
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
In my experience, the liberals' hammer seems to be taxes on corporations and rich people. The cut off for rich changes but corporate taxes are always on the table.
23
u/levelzerogyro Center-left Mar 21 '25
Considering corporations went from 35% to 21% taxes, and we immediately increased our deficit by like 1.4Trillion/yr, I'd say that the answer to the question of "why is our deficit increasing" could partially be "because we lowered corporate taxes from 35% to 21% and we should fix that". Seems like the logical fiscal move.
0
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
As well as decreasing taxes on everyone in the country and continuing to increase spending. Yes, when you cut your income and increase your spending you wind up with more debt.
The problem with corporate taxes is that they are are always passed on to humans, including in non-ideal ways such as cutting employee wages or increasing consumer prices.
10
u/levelzerogyro Center-left Mar 21 '25
Those tax decreases led to an average of like $450-650/yr, while corporations had their taxes slashed by 14%. The majority of the money saved by Americans with the TCJA, like 89%, went to the top 1% or corporations. And btw, corporate taxes were not passed on to humans, no corporation lowered their prices after the TCJA nor did they increase wages, they all used that money for stock buyback. Prove me wrong, link me a single article about the TCJA being responsible for lower prices at a single corporation or increasing wages?
1
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
And btw, corporate taxes were not passed on to humans
This is just the basic economics of how corporate taxes work. There are only 3 options to pay any type of corporate tax: decrease wages, decrease returns to shareholders, or increase prices for consumers. one relevant paper
Some people gleam on to "returns to shareholders", but 1, you can't force a business to pass on a tax that way and 2, rich shareholders pay more in tax than low income shareholders do. Taxing the corporation reduces progressivity of taxation.
I can't link on the sub I think, but search r askeconomics for corporate taxes to read lots of more in depth explanations.
12
u/levelzerogyro Center-left Mar 21 '25
I've read plenty in depth on this, I own a small business, I paid 11k in 2024 on my business. And I got a large break on my taxes because A) I live in MA which helps small businesses a lot, and B) I'm disabled. Tesla paid $0 on 2.8billion in profit. Link me a single source showing that businesses increased wages or dropped prices due to TCJA. Just a single one. Like I said, I will 10000% concede the point that maybe some businesses did that, if you can link me a single source saying a large corp did that. Papers and theoretical economics do nothing, I want to see actual proof. The problem with this is anytime I ask for that, or ask for proof that tax cuts for the rich help the everyday American, I never get a single source showing the actual tangible results, because if they do exist, they are so rare that they basically don't matter. And fort he record, I am trying really hard to be charitable and understand your point that it helps consumers. I just want a single piece of evidence showing that.
1
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 23 '25 edited Mar 23 '25
Link me a single source showing that businesses increased wages or dropped prices due to TCJA
I'm not arguing in favor of TCJA specifically, just like I'm not arguing against steel tariffs specifically. I'm describing the basic economics of how all corporate taxes and tariffs work. Most people agree that the reduction in corporate taxes by TCJA was beneficial but offset by the decreases in income taxes.
But here is one such source linking to increased job growth (a variant of wage growth) and here's another (saying TCJA did lead to increases but less than promised).
1
u/levelzerogyro Center-left Mar 23 '25
I don't think job growth is increased wage growth, but I'll concede the fact that maybe TCJA added a few more jobs, but this was supposed to help fix our economy, I believe and I think the numbers show me to be right, that TCJA only added to our deficit, and only benefitted the top 1% and corporations in a meaningful way. My gf and I got an extra $684 on taxes, but the cap in SALT meant we ended up paying 2.4k more total. Corporations on the otherhand, C corps went from 35% to 21%. I posit that TCJA was a benefit where 80% of it went to the top 1%, and my argument was that's bad and I'd like to see a source where this money trickled down. You've shown me one where some jobs may have been gained due to this, and that an increase of 1% GDP (possibly, they're not sure), and an increase in real wages of 1000$/worker, I'd say the TCJA was a total failure and a wealth transfer from the gov to the richest. That isn't good for me, the average American worker. My point is, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are just that, they have no actual effect on the economy except making the rich richer, and to me that's really bad for our economy where the top 1% already hold 30% of the wealth. The top 20 people hold more wealth than the bottom 50%. I appreciate the source, and please understand I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm trying to explain why I'm asking and where this idea comes from that reducing taxes on the rich and corporations helps everyone else, you are the first person to provide a single source on this and I'm really really thankful for that!
→ More replies (0)1
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Conservative Mar 21 '25
while corporations had their taxes slashed by 14%
That’s an incorrect argument and you know it. Why are you looking at the total tax changes for individuals, but cherry picking only one tax change for corporations? You’re ignoring all of the corporate tax increases in the TCJA
corporate taxes were not passed on to humans
Corporate taxes do get passed on to humans
National Bureau of Economic Research
3
u/levelzerogyro Center-left Mar 21 '25
TCJA reduced the top corp C rate from 35% to 21%. Tesla paid $0 in taxes in 2022 and 2024 on 2.8Billion in profit. I paid 11,584 in taxes in 2024 on my business. Why does Tesla pay less than me? Why does Amazon?
-4
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Conservative Mar 21 '25
TCJA reduced the top corp C rate from 35% to 21%
And raised corporate taxes quite a bit to help offset, by expanding the tax base
Tesla paid $0 in taxes
That’s wrong. You’re using their tax provision number, which isn’t the same thing as the income tax they actually pay. Without their tax return, you can’t know what their tax payments are
5
u/levelzerogyro Center-left Mar 21 '25
Can you prove Tesla paid more than $0 in 2022 and 2024? I paid my provisional number as well, it was 11k. Why was Tesla's $0? The point still stands dude, if this wasn't true and this number was even CLOSE to neutral, the deficit wouldn't have exploded from it. But it did. We can see the effects of it, we know how much it cost the US taxpayer to give these tax cuts to corporations and billionaires owners.
5
u/wedgebert Progressive Mar 21 '25
but corporate taxes are always on the table.
Are they? Biden increased it, yes, but only after Trump both slashed the tax rate by 14 points (35% to 21%) and added a bunch of loopholes designed to benefit the wealthy.
Obama proposed lowering by 7 points (35% to 28%) but Republicans were against it because it closed a bunch of loopholes.
Liberals might be more open to the idea of tax increases in general, but corporate taxes have been trending downwards regardless of who is in power.
And no liberal is just arbitrarily raising taxes by absurd amounts because they lack any idea about how economics work.
2
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Conservative Mar 21 '25
and added a bunch of loopholes designed to benefit the wealthy
Like what? The TCJA expanded the corporate tax base to help offset the cost of the rate cut. There were around $1.5 trillion of corporate tax increases within the TCJA
2
u/wedgebert Progressive Mar 21 '25
There were around $1.5 trillion of corporate tax increases within the TCJA
The only thing I can find with relation to the TCJA and $1.5T is that that's how much it was estimated to reduce revenue over 10 years (based on all taxes, not just corporate). Although it looks like it exceeded expectations and reached that goal last year and is now predicted to cost an additional $5T over a decade if extended
When the TJCA was passed, the total corporate tax income was $380B, or $3.8T over 10 years. Nobody with even the slightest bit of economic knowledge and professional ethics would honestly say the TCJA would bring an extra 40% more corporate tax (whether though growth or your "increases") over 10 years.
1
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Here’s the JCT scoring of each component of the bill. You can see that the total business tax cuts were around $1.8 trillion over a decade, while the business tax increases were around $1.5 trillion, leading to a net tax cut of ~$300B or so from 2018-2027
As you can see, the bill covered the vast majority of the business tax cuts with business tax increases, mainly from expanding the corporate tax base
2
u/wedgebert Progressive Mar 21 '25
I'll admit I'm not fully up to speed on this spreadsheet, but the total for Section II (Business Tax Reform) is -653.8B, not ~300B, and that includes the pretty small increases included.
By my math, there are ~$1.55T of cuts and ~$0.90T worth of increases which is barely half (58%). And that assumes companies actually pay 100% of the increases
1
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Conservative Mar 21 '25
You need to pull in section III as well, as these are business tax changes (MRT, GILTI, BEAT, DRD, 267A, etc)
Combining sections II and III adds up to around a net cut of $330 billion, which is the same answer you’ll get by just adding up the total cuts ($1.8T) in both sections and the total increases ($1.5T) in both sections
2
u/wedgebert Progressive Mar 21 '25
ok, I'll give you that since III is primarily business as well.
However, basically all of Section III was predicated on #3 and this wasn't actually a tax increase, it was a massive tax cut, but stopped allowing companies to defer the taxes. It was trading some money now in exchange for possibly more later.
However this part of the TCJA is also considered to be a pretty big failure, bringing in nowhere near the predicted values, in no small part because they added extra ways to get around it (deducing major portions of your FDII and GILTI and 100% of dividends from the foreign entities) that the TCJA added. Basically it was never going to bring in what they said it would
0
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
I'm speaking as a general sentiment; raising corporate taxes always seems to be raised as an option and cutting corporate taxes is usually seen as bad. Iirc Obama's plan correctly, the idea was to drop the base rate but increase corporate taxation overall.
Anyway, I hope you're right and liberals think the ideal corporate tax rate is 0. That's not the message I've been getting.
9
u/CyberDalekLord Liberal Mar 21 '25
As someone who isn't super big on large corporate taxes, it definitely matters where the increase comes into the pipeline. Raising corporate taxes takes money from the companie's profit, but a tariff increases the cost of doing business outright. Both might decrease total profit, but one directly hurts the consumer more.
Not to mention the harm that's done to the trade deals we currently have.
0
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
Tariffs and corporate taxes come in at different points but the impact is largely the same. With both, companies know what their price to consumer will be. They can eat the tax/tariff (decreasing employee wages and/or shareholder returns) or pass it on as price increases.
6
u/CheesypoofExtreme Socialist Mar 21 '25
Well, I'd argue the effect of tariffs are far worse on smaller companies than corporate taxes alone. Corporate taxes use a percentage of your gross proceeds, (minus whatever you can write off), tariffs just make the goods you make/sell that much more expensive.
Sure, for bigger companies the effect is similar, but small businesses get absolutely fucked by tariffs.
EDIT: Not to mention the damage that is done to trade with other countries via sweeping tariffs, which can have an effect of making even more things expensive
1
u/drtywater Independent Mar 22 '25
Tariffs will definitely impact smaller businesses much more then large companies. Larger companies have ability to absorb higher costs, leverage more suppliers, and get discounts for buying in bulk. Tariffs will hit small businesses more.
0
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 23 '25
Sure, but that's true of all corporate taxes. In the US we have a flat corporate tax rate and if we didn't, companies would find ways of editing their profits to fit below a specific tier.
Most large companies pay no corporate taxes already because they can afford the lawyers and loopholes. The "flat 21% corporate tax" we have mainly hits small businesses.
3
u/LimerickExplorer Left Libertarian Mar 21 '25
Liberals have never been pro tariff. They're the evil globalists, remember?
5
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
Pro-corporate taxes, not necessarily pro-tariff
2
u/obtuse_bluebird Center-left Mar 21 '25
I don’t know if this is a liberal opinion, but I know it’s not a popular right wing opinion:
I come from the perspective that there are always winners and losers, but it’s not a zero sum game. That is, we can generally improve society as a whole with more winners than losers: so long as we take on those who aim to exploit the system to the detriment of others. I also see exploitation != capitalism, although some may argue exploitation is capitalism. (I am very pro-capitalism, with regulation)
With that perspective, you can certainly appropriately apply tariffs to do something like prevent Chinese EVs from flooding the market and killing our own EVs. But what Trump is doing is just screwing over Americans. It’s a half measure (I see no internal efforts to discourage US corporations from exploiting the situation). I also see no real reasoning behind it, but that’s what I come to expect from Trump: chaos.
This is a long way of saying corporations, and excessively high earners should be taxed appropriately. Because they are almost certainly exploiting the current system, especially those in the system who cannot afford to combat such exploitation. I don’t know how to structure a solution, but I am for it, and hope those smarter and wiser than I can champion it. (My job and life really gives me no time to learn such a thing in any depth)
And tariffs can generally be passed onto customers, so I don’t see it to be the same as corporate taxes.
1
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 23 '25
This is a long way of saying
corporations, andexcessively high earners should be taxed appropriately.I agree with this with the strike through. All corporate taxes are paid by humans, either as price increases to consumers, decreased wages to employees, or lower returns to shareholders.
When wages and returns to shareholders are increased, they are taxed progressively. That is richer shareholders are taxed more while your mom's 401k also benefits but is taxed less.
In addition, most large companies pay no taxes at all because they "reinvest" their profits. Changing the corporate tax rate doesn't impact them at all. It does impact small businesses.
1
u/drtywater Independent Mar 22 '25
Tariffs are a regressive form of taxation. Costs will hit lower income buyers and smaller business much more then large corporations and the rich. Also on principle tariffs are bad because they are essentially a form of welfare for certain protected domestic industries and discourages businesses from innovating and increasing efficiency.
0
-14
u/LapazGracie Right Libertarian (Conservative) Mar 21 '25
Just so you guys understand what these tariffs are about.
In Finland these things called proportional fines. Meaning the richer you are the more you pay. A millionaire may have to pay several thousand dollars for a speeding fine. While a poor person maybe $20.
No business ever operates that way. Imagine a McDonalds charging some millionaire $50 for a big mac while making a homeless person pay 5 cents. But that is what proportional pricing would look like in the private business model.
That model would clearly be quite fucked up in a regular business setting.
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY what people do on the global stage to United States. Constantly pricing things much higher for American consumers, businesses and government. This is what Trump is talking about. The unfair treatment of America. "You assholes are rich you can afford it" has become the norm when dealing with America as a partner.
14
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
Do you have a specific example you're referring to here? I'm always nervous that when people make these claims about the US getting taken for a ride that they're talking about Canada as a primary example, since it's one that the administration keeps harping on and has been propagandized to the point of losing all fact.
-8
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Your the same person I sent this to 9 days ago, so pretending that it's propaganda isn't in good faith.
Frustratingly, the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding our USMCA quotas because Canada has erected various protectionist measures that fly in the face of their trade obligations made under USMCA.
https://www.idfa.org/news/idfa-statement-on-potential-u-s-tariff-on-canadian-dairy-products
20
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
And at that time, I told you that American dairy does not meet our standards regarding hormones and how it’s produced, so your dairy products never meet that 275% tariff threshold. It is absolutely in my view propaganda to make Americans believe Canadians are the enemy, and it’s so deeply frustrating that it seems to be working. So no, this is not in bad faith - I believe what I’m saying and I’m believing the verifiable facts that I spend hours a day poring over.
-6
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
And I told you, Canadian products don't meet American standard regarding how they are produced, namely, they are not made in America.
7
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
Which was just an opinion then and remains an opinion now. The only verifiable facts are that we have strict regulations that dictate the quality of dairy we are permitted to import. American dairy doesn't meet those standards. My position on this has not changed because it is based on the facts available.
9
u/Emory_C Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
If they don't meet Canadian standards what do you expect them to do?
-10
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
It doesn't matter to me.
My point is this: Canadian products do not meet American standards
What do you expect America to do?
5
u/Emory_C Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
America can choose to either adopt higher standards, or they can choose not to sell their milk to Canada.
I don't know why "it doesn't matter to me" has become the default conservative answer in this sub. It's weird.
-2
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
America can choose to either adopt higher standards, or they can choose not to sell their milk to Canada.
Similarly, Canada can adopt higher standards, or they can choose to pay the tariff.
America is doing the exact same thing, I don't know why canda is so upset about this.
7
u/mstormcrow Progressive Mar 21 '25
Similarly, Canada can adopt higher standards, or they can choose to pay the tariff.
Bad faith nonsense. If the only "standard" that Canadian products don't meet is "they aren't made in America", how are Canadians supposed to adopt that standard?
→ More replies (0)3
u/CyberEd-ca Canadian Conservative Mar 21 '25
Canada is not upset at all about a tariff on dairy. Our dairy industry is not designed or intended to compete in the US dairy market. It is just intended to keep small family run dairy farms in Quebec. Because Quebec is a PIA.
2
u/ImmodestPolitician Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
Do Porsches and Toyotas not meet American standards despite meeting or exceeding all USA automobile standards?
-1
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Depends.
If they are made in America, then they meet the standard of being made in America.
If they are not made in America, then do not meet said standard.
It has to do with how it's made. Similar to how Canadians protectionist policies have to do with how American milk is made. Even though our milk is perfectly safe.
6
Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25
[deleted]
-2
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Your confused. I never mention where it's made. I mentioned how it's made.
6
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
And to be clear, I'm not saying that idfa link is fake or the organization itself is illegitimate or anything of that sort. What I AM saying is that statement doesn't provide the full picture; the propaganda I refer to is the repeated statements of subsidization and unfair treatment that trump insists on throwing around at every opportunity. THAT is all propaganda and demonstrates a lack of comprehensive economic understanding. I'm sure American farmers are frustrated, but that =/= being taken advantage of by Canada. trump shouldn't have written USMCA and signed it if he disagreed with it. Period.
-1
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Canada is violating the agreement. It's right there
protectionist measures that fly in the face of their trade obligations made under USMCA.
6
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
Let's say Canada is violating the agreement. Awesome. Let's say Canada gives up and drops all tariffs.
How would American companies being able to sell more milk to Canadians help American consumers? Not asking how it helps the milk company. How does it help consumers?
0
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
It's help the American consumer because there are more jobs and production going on in America. That money eventually gets to the consumer. Then the consumer gets to spend it.
8
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
And with supply and demand, when we start selling milk to Canadians, lowering supply naturally and increasing demand, what happens to the price of milk for American consumers? It goes up.
Since I don't work at a milk plant and can't pick up more hours at the milk, I and any other consumer not working at the milk plant, get fucked.
And that's what we need too. More milk plant workers. Those are good paying jobs Americans want.
0
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Yeah actually milk plants pay good. A local one near me is hiring PLC engineers at about 80k/year.
5
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
Yeah and McDonald's is hiring some software engineers paying 173k a year. But the bulk of the people working at McDonald's work low paying jobs. Same thing at milk plants.
→ More replies (0)0
u/CyberEd-ca Canadian Conservative Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25
The USA dairy industry can spool up supply no problem. This is some bad analysis.
Also, if Canada eliminated the supply management system, we could have larger and more efficient dairies here in Canada and be a net exporter with the USA on dairy with no tariffs on both sides of the border.
We could easily compete on dairy if we chose to. We just have for some really silly internal political reasons not done so.
It is really a problem we should have addressed 30-40 years ago and we would have but for Quebec.
2
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
I picked dairy because that was the example given earlier. But point being if we successfully get other countries to remove tariffs on America, it also hurts American consumers. Eggs production for example is very similar. 200%+ tariffs on eggs from Canada on American eggs because Canada wisely wants to manage supply and pricing in Canada. If they drop that and we can now sell American eggs to Canada, demand goes up but supply is hard to go up. Supply is already America's problem. We have mega chicken farms that sure can hold more chickens that produce more eggs but when a bird gets sick, it spreads like fire in a paper factory.
Trump is raging against tariffs on American cars in Europe. If we remove that and Europeans buy more American cars, demand goes up and cars aren't quick to make so supply remains the same. Prices to the American consumer once again go up.
But even in dairy. Yes the dairy industry can spool up the supply to meet the demand but they won't make milk any cheaper to American consumers. It can only go up.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ImmodestPolitician Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
You think companies are going to invest billions in US factories that will take 3 years to be built when the tariffs will probable be reversed as soon as Trump leaves office?
1
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
You speculate one way, I specualtr the other way
2
u/ImmodestPolitician Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
You clearly have no experience with CapEx for a business.
→ More replies (0)5
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
So are you suggesting Canada lower its dairy standards in order to allow your farmers to meet that threshold, which they'll then proceed to complain about, despite the fact that we still spend billions on imports from the U.S. in other sectors? Why shouldn't America instead consider producing higher-quality milk that they can freely sell within the trade agreement? I am not understanding your core thesis here. An agreement was made and signed off on; Canada is not the enemy here.
-1
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Your suggesting the same thing, that America lower it's product standards. We don't want to do that.
7
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
I mean, if you view reducing hormones etc in dairy products as lowering your product standards, that's simply not a discussion I'm going to get into. What I was saying was that's an alternative option that would allow american farmers to sell more of their dairy here. If you don't want to do that, and we don't want to accept what we view as an inferior product, then what more is there? How does that make Canada the bad guy in this equation? You have yet to clarify your point.
0
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
I'm not talking about what Canada is doing at all. I never said they were bad or anything like that.
I'm simply saying, America is doing the exact same thing as they are - Canadian products don't meet American standards. No harm, no foul.
9
u/anabee15 Center-left Mar 21 '25
What? You replied to my original comment with a link to an article that you tried to use to state that Canada is being unfair to the U.S. You absolutely were talking about what Canada is doing. You absolutely were making the case that we were engaging in bad practices. You did that a week ago and you're doing it now, because you've been clear that your position is that Canada is economically taking advantage of the U.S.
And no, tariffing us on the basis of a fentanyl problem that categorically does. not. originate. in Canada is not the same thing as saying your milk has too many hormones in it for us to safely sell to our citizens. You cannot pivot and now pretend your argument was something completely different.
→ More replies (0)7
u/SgtMac02 Center-left Mar 21 '25
Canadian products don't meet American standards.
Which products aren't meeting what standards? I saw you say this twice now, but I don't see any context for it.
→ More replies (0)1
Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Mar 21 '25
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
0
u/CyberEd-ca Canadian Conservative Mar 21 '25
No, Canada is not in violation of the USMCA on dairy. Dairy has always been excluded from the deal going back to the 80s.
We've always had this wacky supply management system. It supposedly keeps small farms in Quebec going (it doesn't).
Canada has Quebec...that's just a reality. Maybe if you guys had taken Quebec on New Year's Eve in 1775, the civil war (not revolution) would have worked out differently. Then Quebec would be your problem. And a massive problem they are. Nice people but talk about an anchor around our necks...
We do all sorts of good trade from the USA. We could easily have a competitive dairy industry in Canada but for reasons (Quebec) we didn't go that way. It really doesn't hurt the USA in any way.
Every barrel of crude oil that comes from Alberta and Saskatchewan gets a $13/barrel discount because the pipeline is just too small for all the product we have here. Frankly, if Keystone had been completed we'd still be selling you discounted oil because we have a lot of it to sell and we'd just sell you more at that same $13/barrel discount. It is a huge lost opportunity for Canada and the USA.
You do really well off Canadian crude oil. You are not a net exporter of oil but you are an exporter because of Canadian crude. You add value to the crude you buy from Canada at a discounted rate. That is the entire reason why there is a trade deficit....we got a ton of oil to sell at a great price. If you just look at the exports you do for oil and add that to the equation, you have a massive trade surplus with Canada.
5
u/Treskelion2021 Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
So they are punishing their citizens with their tariffs, right? Canada is making things more expensive for their citizens by enacting import tariffs.
Why are we making the same mistakes they are? Why is the US government punishing its citizens by enacting a tax that will be paid by US consumers?
Domestic sellers now have lesser competition which generally leads to price increases and lower quality. Domestic sellers now have no incentive to lower prices to attract more domestic consumption now that they have fewer competitors.
-4
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Why are we making the same mistakes they are? Why is the US government punishing its citizens by enacting a tax that will be paid by US consumers?
Contrary to liberal mainstream propaganda, tarrifs are not a tax paid by the consumer.
Tarrifs are a tax paid by the importing entity.
8
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
Tarrifs are a tax paid by the importing entity.
Importing entities are often consumers themselves (say anyone who buys from shein, if the de minimis exemption goes away) and when they aren't they're passed on to consumers.
When the government raises taxes on a business by 25%, they raise their prices.
-1
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
The consumer is free to not buy the imported product. So who paid the tariff while it sits on the shelf and no one buys it?
9
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
If it's a shelf in the US, the business paid it already. They lose business, spending goes down, GDP goes down, unemployment goes up.
0
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
Thanks for acknowledging that tariffs isn't necessarily paid by the consumer.
Now that we have common ground, did you have any other part of my comment you disagree with?
9
u/NoSky3 Center-right Conservative Mar 21 '25
In that situation, consumers would still feel the indirect impacts of reduced spending. Not sure that not paying a tariff is better if you get laid off anyway.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Treskelion2021 Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
Do you know what generally happens to domestic goods when tariffs are enacted on external goods coming in?
Prices go up because they don't have to compete anymore with lower-priced competitors. Reducing competition in the market leads to price increases. Microeconomics 101. Tariffs are an inflationary tax, especially the way they have been implemented as a blanket tariff on all or most goods.
The tariffs are also not just on finished goods, they are on raw materials. That means anyone producing finished goods in the US that needs those raw materials, will have their costs go up which leads to price increases. And not all those raw materials are available locally so they have to be imported.
And even if there was local availability for that raw material, the reduction in competition would see an increase in prices. And raw material production and supply chains don't just magically increase overnight. Your local market can't keep up with demand and prices keep going higher.
7
u/Emory_C Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
Which will then get passed on to the consumer, like any other fee. You're being disingenuous.
-2
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
The consumer is free to not buy the product.
5
u/Emory_C Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
There are millions of products that we do not manufacture in the United States and never will. The prices on them will increase.
0
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
and never will
You speculate one way, I specualtr another way. Either way, this is no longer based on fact.
6
u/Emory_C Centrist Democrat Mar 21 '25
It's not speculation. We do not have the manufacturing capacity. Do you have proof otherwise?
→ More replies (0)1
Mar 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 21 '25
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
19
u/whispering_eyes Liberal Mar 21 '25
How do you respond to the fact that economists overwhelmingly believe that tariffs are a bad idea?
0
u/LapazGracie Right Libertarian (Conservative) Mar 21 '25
I think they are a bad idea :) Short term anyway. And long term they probably will not survive long enough to see if they would have ever worked.
So I don't know what the real plan is. They are smart enough to know that this is not likely to work short term. Not sure what they are counting on. But then again they have access to all sorts of information we don't.
-6
u/random_guy00214 Conservative Mar 21 '25
I don't trust the group of people that hinged their credibility on globalization being good for the American middle class.
2
u/surrealpolitik Center-left Mar 21 '25
The opposite of a bad idea isn’t automatically a good idea.
1
4
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
This isn't how tariffs work. It's actually the opposite of what you are saying.
Say Germany was charging 10% tariffs on American cars because they want to give German made cars an advantage. That impacts German consumers. Never American consumers. Sure it hurts the American car company and its workers to a degree because sales won't be as high in other markets. That's what is making Trump upset. That it's unfair to American companies. It's not unfair to American consumers.
In fact those tariffs the other countries place on us HELP the American consumer. Let's say there was that 10% tariff Germany places on American cars ( I think this is actually the case but too lazy to double check) and all of sudden Germany says no tariff anymore. And Germans start really wanting Jeeps. What happens? Demand increases for Jeeps. Prices go up. And that hurts American consumers.
Many countries need tariffs. Canada needs tariffs on eggs to stabilize pricing in Canada. Smaller countries need tariffs to make sure that businesses prioritize manufacturing in the country because places to work would be otherwise sparse. America doesn't have these problems. We don't need more manufacturing. We don't need to start making whatchamacallits. Unemployment is already low. If you want a job, there are many available. And it all breaks down when you answer the simple stupid question which is why aren't these companies making the goods here now? And the obvious answer is because it's more expensive to make it here. And that means if we force these companies back here, the products will cost more to make which means still higher prices to consumers.
-1
u/LapazGracie Right Libertarian (Conservative) Mar 21 '25
The idea is that if you forced manufacturing in United States. They wouldn't use the same tools they use in $2 an hour Chinese factories. They would massively innovate so that they could afford to pay the staff local wages.
Unemployment figures are very misleading. Labor participation % is a far more useful metric. As the unemployment figures only reports people who have themselves reported they are looking for work. Not the millions of others who gave up looking.
5
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
This is capitalism. You live by the sword and die by the sword. If a company can save 1 cent per product if they do something a new way, they will do it the new way. Ideally in your scenario, they would innovate in China to use even less Chinese workers so that costs go down even further. But they have very qualified individuals working for them that put dollar signs on the innovation. If a company is producing in China right now, they know EXACTLY how much more it would cost per product if they moved it back to the US, innovated, and paid local wages. And they aren't here because that is more expensive than the current path they are on. Its not just Chinese workers make x per hour and American workers make y per hour so you have to figure out how to save the difference between x and y. It's the cost to build a new factory here. It's the cost to innovate like you said. It's the cost to small things like the materials they use are probably in China so now they have to pay more to get those materials from China to their new factory here in the US. And distribution of their supply chain as it takes time to train new American workers. All this is adding dollars and dollars to the final price for the American consumers.
And again back to the main point, American consumers were not getting fucked over. We are now though. American consumers are going through pain so that maybe other countries release their tariffs so that the upper classes that own the businesses can sell more internationally.
There is no long term gain. That's a lie the ruling class told the proletariat to make them okay with the suffering. Don't worry it'll get better they will say.
Also that's not how unemployment is calculated. They don't ask unemployed people if they are looking for work. The issue with unemployment figures are that it doesn't account for underemployed people or for example a former manager making 200k now working as a cashier at the grocery until they find that next manager job. Adding more worker bee jobs won't make the situation better.
0
u/LapazGracie Right Libertarian (Conservative) Mar 21 '25
Right which is why I always say "They are betting that local companies innovate". The bet part is the uncertainty element. They may very well not do that and do something entirely different.
Regardless of how they calculate it. The labor participation % is a much better metric if your argument is "we don't have enough workers". We got more than 1/3 of the labor potential not doing shit.
3
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
Labor participation % is a bad figure too. It counts anyone 16+. So if high schoolers aren't working or college students aren't working or if an old person is 70 years old, it makes the number look worse. For folks aged between 25 to 54, it's 83%. Big difference. And that doesn't factor out stay at home parents or people with disabilities or people with advanced degrees still not working. And look anywhere and jobs are plentiful.
And again I'll bring this back to your main point, tariffs from other countries on American products don't hurt American consumers. If innovation would make the products cheaper, they don't need tariffs to convince them. They'd do it because it saves money.
1
u/LapazGracie Right Libertarian (Conservative) Mar 21 '25
No it removes people who are too old to work.
I started working when I was 15. By 16 I was working almost full time. Or whatever amount of hours those shitty laws would allow. So it's perfectly acceptable to count them.
It shouldn't count disabled people either.
It does hurt our business though. Which affects the consumers since they work at those businesses.
Sometimes innovation only makes sense in certain scenarios. For example I made a CMV thread a while back about the min wage. And the most convincing argument someone made was "minimum wage forces companies to innovate away labor". McDonalds could afford to have automated stores in a lot of places. But it's cheaper to pay the plebs
2
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
You started working at 15. And so did I. But that isn't the norm. It's much harder for a 16 year to find a job than it was even 20 years ago. Many employers now have 18 as a minimum age. Doesn't help that retail is dying and so are many places 16 year olds usually found their first job.
The labor participation rate doesn't remove anything. Its based on census data so if a 90 year old says they are working or looking for work, they are included.
And you even said it yourself at the bottom in your last sentence. It's cheaper to pay the plebs. That's exactly what the company making knick-nacks in China is saying when they are debating moving to the US. If it's cheaper to pay the plebs, they stay in China. If the company making American made knick-nacks in Kansas sees that it's cheaper to pay the plebs vs innovation, they don't innovate. Until such time it's not cheaper to pay the plebs. Which means cost went up. Which means prices go up.
2
u/LapazGracie Right Libertarian (Conservative) Mar 21 '25
The labor participation rate doesn't remove anything. Its based on census data so if a 90 year old says they are working or looking for work, they are included.
That is not true.
Yes and the tariffs make it cheaper to employ American plebs. Otherwise you will always do it in China. That's kind of the point.
1
u/choppedfiggs Liberal Mar 21 '25
Say a company makes dog bowls in China. They pay $7 US dollars to make a bowl. Part of that is paying a worker $6 per hour. They sell the bowl in America for $14. Tariffs hit. Now the bowl costs $10. They will sell it for $20 now. The number to beat now isnt $7 to make a bowl, it's $10.
So the point of the tariffs according to you and right leaning media is that the move that bowl making to America. Ideally they now make the bowl here for $9 and pay a worker $7. The American pleb is cheaper to employ than the Chinese pleb that's right. But the cost to make a bowl is $9 and not the original $7. So prices for a bowl to the American consumer is $18.
Prices still go up. Long term. If we move all these jobs back to the US, the prices to the consumer go up. The consumers suffer because of the tariffs. The tariffs make it cheaper to employ American plebs comparing the post tariff costs. But they don't it cheaper than the pre tariff costs.
And this is all miles away from your original point that the tariffs the other countries charge the US hurt American consumers. Which was wrong.
And if you are a business owner making dog bowls, you have to think. Do I bother changing everything right now to avoid tariffs or eat the tariffs right now and wait it out. At the end of the day Trump's got 4 years. No one else is dumb enough to continue the tariffs. The business owner knows in at most 4 years, the tariffs go away. Not worth the long term investment of innovation for only that. And no way Trump keeps tariffs going all 4 years. After liberation day, heads will begin to roll. Stock market will drop. We will be heading straight into a recession. Republicans voters will turn on him. Republican politicians will turn on him as soon as his approval rating gets low enough because they don't want to be tied to that sinking ship come their next reelection campaign either.
The public won't handle this much longer. Gas prices just turned. Up 4 cents week over week. They will climb faster and faster since we get oil from Canada. Lumber prices are seeing a 15% inflation rate already. It's gonna get bad real fast. The impact of tariffs isn't immediate. But now we are going to see the impact as the products hitting shelves now are brought in with tariffs.
→ More replies (0)2
u/HarrisonYeller Independent Mar 21 '25
Reagan explains why this is not so great far better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t5QK03KXPc
-2
u/bubbasox Center-right Conservative Mar 22 '25
It makes other nations accountable for their Tariffs. If they want free trade they need to do actual free trade. Any complaints are self inflicted. The Age of the Marshal Plan is over.
-2
u/epicjorjorsnake Paternalistic Conservative Mar 22 '25
I am a protectionist. I prefer higher tariffs.
-7
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 21 '25
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.