How does everyone see this?

[miamited]

I was reading today, and I would post the link, but it mentions political parties and such and I don't want this to be about politics. This is simply a question as to how everyone understands the collection of tariffs. So, I was reading today that our tariff collections are up some $15.4B. Where does that $15.4B come from? China sells a product to the U.S. Some guy at walmart thinks widgets are going to sell like hot cakes and buys 1,000 of them at .50 apiece. He sends a check to the Chinese manufacturer for $500. However, for the guy at Walmart to get them to his store, he has to pay a tariff to the government of the United States to bring those 1000 widgets off the boat. Well, let's say a 10% tariff. I don't want to be mean about this it's just an explanation. So the guy at Walmart has to write out another check for $50 to the U.S. Treasury. Then the retailer jacks up the price of each widget 10¢ to cover the cost of the tariff. So, a consumer comes along and says, "Oh, I need a widget." He carries the widget up to cashier and pays the price, which is 10¢ higher than it was last week.

Who paid the tariff?

 

[miamited]

If the American consumer pays the tariff, then isn't that $15.4B just extra taxes on us? I mean, I've still got to fill out my 1040 and pay my rightful taxes, right?

 

[Christ_empowered]

It’s more taxes on the masses so the billionaires can get their tax cuts.

 

[miamited]

Hey Christ_empowered

Well there is that way of looking at it. And what they do with all this extra revenue that we taxpayers are coughing into the coffers is another matter altogether. It would be nice if the powers that be would take all that tariff revenue and pay down some of our debt load. I mean, it's extra tax revenue that American taxpayers are paying into the general fund and it could be of some benefit to us, rather than just another burden of taxation to bear, if it was used to pay down the debt. Which, btw, was a platform of the recent winners agenda. Think there's any chance that'll happen?

 

[hawkman]

Who paid the tariff?

The guy at Walmart as you told us .

So the guy at Walmart has to write out another check for $50 to the U.S. Treasury.

Have you ever worked in retail sales miamited ? I have , it is a world of it's own .

 

[miamited]

Hey hawkman,

Have you ever worked in retail sales @miamited ? I have , it is a world of it's own .

Yes I have. I worked for Bell Telephone as a CSR (customer service rep.) and I sold keyboards, pianos and organs at a music retailer. I'm not sure what you mean, as to the point of this discussion about retail sales being a world of its own. Maybe you could expound on that a bit.

 

[Free]

Hey Christ_empowered

Well there is that way of looking at it. And what they do with all this extra revenue that we taxpayers are coughing into the coffers is another matter altogether. It would be nice if the powers that be would take all that tariff revenue and pay down some of our debt load. I mean, it's extra tax revenue that American taxpayers are paying into the general fund and it could be of some benefit to us, rather than just another burden of taxation to bear, if it was used to pay down the debt. Which, btw, was a platform of the recent winners agenda. Think there's any chance that'll happen?

I posted this video elsewhere, but I'll repost it here. I haven't finished it yet, but the first 28 minutes or so are worth watching. Tariffs are essentially a regressive tax, hitting the poorest the hardest, basically taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.

 

[miamited]

HI Free

Yep, that's the way I understand the workings of tariffs. I just wanted to know if I was seeing it the way most others were. Thanks for your acknowledgment.

 

[miamited]

So basically, at the moment, the American consumer is being double taxed. We are taxed on our income and we are taxed on the goods that we buy with what's left of that income.

 

[hawkman]

I sold keyboards, pianos and organs at a music retailer

Great ! So you understand the price the store pays for an item has very little to do with price they will sell it for . Did you get to see the wholesale price of the MI and see how the pricing structure was ?
It is all about what is the competition selling theirs for and matching or undercutting as necessary to keep the doors open . Most of the retailer can absorb the tariff if it is 10% or even 20% like you said on the China goods because the margin is so great to begin with but will they , who knows .

 

[miamited]

So you understand the price the store pays for an item has very little to do with price they will sell it for

Well, in my experience in retail the consumer's cost was generally the costs to the retailer plus a percentage mark up. Now, maybe where you live retailers just guess at the price and wave a wand and make up a retail price, but that's not how I learned it. There's a process whereby a retailer has a certain percentage of his costs to determine his retail price. So, I would strongly disagree with any idea that what a store pays for an item has very little to do with the price it is sold for.

Now, I know that it can, especially in the market of high end goods and popular items. Then a lot of times demand has some consideration in retail price. But generally speaking, if you walk in any retail store in your town you'll find that they use a basic percentage markup to determine retail.

BTW I'm trying to figure out what that point, whether it be true or not, has to do with this discussion on tariffs and who pays them.

It is all about what is the competition selling theirs for and matching or undercutting as necessary to keep the doors open . Most of the retailer can absorb the tariff if it is 10% or even 20% like you said on the China goods because the margin is so great to begin with but will they , who knows .

No he doesn't. Don't fool yourself with such fables. They've got families to feed and take care of and they're going to get their markup point. Why would people work for less money just because of tariffs? You really believe that some importer is going to eat 10% of his profit margin every month? Why would he do that? Some sort of flag wavin' patriotism or something? Now if he's a nice guy he might eat 1-2% of his margins for a short time, but 10%? No way.

And I didn't say anything special about the margin on the China goods. I said that all goods have a retail price that is generally the retailers cost plus a percentage mark up. It doesn't matter if it's a Parisian dress or Outback Boogie Board. Where did you find that I said the China goods margins are so great. They're just margins. The same margins that every other manufacturer and retailer uses.

 

[hawkman]

And I didn't say anything special about the margin on the China goods. I said that all goods have a retail price that is generally the retailers cost plus a percentage mark up. It doesn't matter if it's a Parisian dress or Outback Boogie Board. Where did you find that I said the China goods margins are so great. They're just margins. The same margins that every other manufacturer and retailer uses.

I have seen the cost difference it makes buying a half dozen and then buying the same items by the shipping container from China . You will wait on the goods a few months for a container .

 

[miamited]

I have seen the difference it makes buying a half dozen and then buying the same items by the shipping container from China . You will wait on the goods a few months for a container .

Oh, absolutely it can take longer to fill orders if you're trying to buy direct from China. It can take up to a month or two sometimes to get something. It's amazing when we think of the trillions of items that are shipped all over the globe everyday. I was just down at the Canal watching a ship pass through. Stacks and stacks of connex containers in rows 12 stories tall. We're getting all of that stuff by the ship loads every day. We are the only country with storage buildings on practically every other street corner. Americans are born and bred consumers. We buy and we buy and we buy. And when we have too much stuff that we bought to keep in the house we go rent a storage unit and put the stuff that we'll never use again, or at least very rarely.

 

[Milk-Drops]

There is also the issue where if the company is publicly traded the cost to the consumer would have to rise. Since material costs go up, it can effect growth, and to short term get growth up the company would either have to lay people off or increase the price of the items.

 

[RandyK]

Who paid the tariff?

I don't think anybody would dispute that the consumer costs would go up. The retail outfits are likely to pass on some of the increased tariff costs.

But I think the point here is a bit misleading. The big picture is not who pays the initial increase of costs. It is much more about the trade imbalance. Who do you think that hurts?

Well, if the overseas businesses are taking advantage of us, and if foreign countries are benefitting from bigger tariffs, then obviously money is being taken out of our country and US businesses are losing out.

It is a Democratic talking point to emphasize the temporary increase to consumers here in the US. It is intended to ignore the increase of tariff money that we gain by increasing their percentage. And it is intended to ignore the benefit American businesses will get as overseas business cannot compete, as well, with them.

Furthermore, Trump is trying to encourage moving overseas industries back to the US by giving them tax advantages, etc. Does this hurt the consumer? Not necessarily.

We may get less cheap goods from China, who sometimes uses slave labor, but we are putting more people to work here who then pay more taxes into our government. It advantages those who are unemployed in a *big way!* And things made at home do not have to include costs of transporting goods from overseas. Advantage: consumers.

Another Democratic tactic to avoid is the denial of any interest in "politics" in order to make a "political" statement with impunity.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

I was reading today, and I would post the link, but it mentions political parties and such and I don't want this to be about politics. This is simply a question as to how everyone understands the collection of tariffs. So, I was reading today that our tariff collections are up some $15.4B. Where does that $15.4B come from? China sells a product to the U.S. Some guy at walmart thinks widgets are going to sell like hot cakes and buys 1,000 of them at .50 apiece. He sends a check to the Chinese manufacturer for $500. However, for the guy at Walmart to get them to his store, he has to pay a tariff to the government of the United States to bring those 1000 widgets off the boat. Well, let's say a 10% tariff. I don't want to be mean about this it's just an explanation. So the guy at Walmart has to write out another check for $50 to the U.S. Treasury. Then the retailer jacks up the price of each widget 10¢ to cover the cost of the tariff. So, a consumer comes along and says, "Oh, I need a widget." He carries the widget up to cashier and pays the price, which is 10¢ higher than it was last week.

Who paid the tariff?

There is more to it than what you described. First, the consumer may decide that he would rather buy a lower priced item of better quality made in the USA. In that case, the consumer does not pay the tariff. Second, let's assume the Chineese are using slave labor. Who is subsidizing that practice? Third, let's assume China has tariffs on US products and other trade barriers (like currency manipulation) plus they steal US technology to create an advantage that suppresses US industry, US jobs, and US wages. Who pays for that? Fourth, let's assume that the US has 35% of worldwide GDP but has 80% of worldwide tariffs levied against it, creating a depressed economy in the US but bolstering the economies of the rest of the world. What would be wrong in leveling the playing field?

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

I don't think anybody would dispute that the consumer costs would go up. The retail outfits are likely to pass on some of the increased tariff costs.

But I think the point here is a bit misleading. The big picture is not who pays the initial increase of costs. It is much more about the trade imbalance. Who do you think that hurts?

Well, if the overseas businesses are taking advantage of us, and if foreign countries are benefitting from bigger tariffs, then obviously money is being taken out of our country and US businesses are losing out.

It is a Democratic talking point to emphasize the temporary increase to consumers here in the US. It is intended to ignore the increase of tariff money that we gain by increasing their percentage. And it is intended to ignore the benefit American businesses will get as overseas business cannot compete, as well, with them.

Furthermore, Trump is trying to encourage moving overseas industries back to the US by giving them tax advantages, etc. Does this hurt the consumer? Not necessarily.

We may get less cheap goods from China, who sometimes uses slave labor, but we are putting more people to work here who then pay more taxes into our government. It advantages those who are unemployed in a *big way!* And things made at home do not have to include costs of transporting goods from overseas. Advantage: consumers.

Another Democratic tactic to avoid is the denial of any interest in "politics" in order to make a "political" statement with impunity.

True. I also don't think higher tariffs on imported goods is the end in mind. I think the end-in-mind is a level playing field. I think all the countries involved see this as the main idea. They know that they have far more to lose than we do if they don't change their ways, and that is why they all are coming hat in hand to negotiate an alternaltive path forward.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't think anybody would dispute that the consumer costs would go up. The retail outfits are likely to pass on some of the increased tariff costs.

But I think the point here is a bit misleading. The big picture is not who pays the initial increase of costs. It is much more about the trade imbalance. Who do you think that hurts?

Well, if the overseas businesses are taking advantage of us, and if foreign countries are benefitting from bigger tariffs, then obviously money is being taken out of our country and US businesses are losing out.

It is a Democratic talking point to emphasize the temporary increase to consumers here in the US. It is intended to ignore the increase of tariff money that we gain by increasing their percentage. And it is intended to ignore the benefit American businesses will get as overseas business cannot compete, as well, with them.

Furthermore, Trump is trying to encourage moving overseas industries back to the US by giving them tax advantages, etc. Does this hurt the consumer? Not necessarily.

We may get less cheap goods from China, who sometimes uses slave labor, but we are putting more people to work here who then pay more taxes into our government. It advantages those who are unemployed in a *big way!* And things made at home do not have to include costs of transporting goods from overseas. Advantage: consumers.

Another Democratic tactic to avoid is the denial of any interest in "politics" in order to make a "political" statement with impunity.

The issue is way more.complicated than dem vs GOP. The larger issue is that businesses within the US chose to manufacture their products in China at a lower rate. The market boom this gave meant that consumer good could be kept at a low cost, but that means try8ng to establish a plant in the US to do large scale manufacturing would cost more due to labor power needs. Unless it's done through robots. The US government would want our trade to be where we can function
Some markets will naturally have a trade surplus because.of the poverty rate of the country or we have a specific resource that we trade for. Usually we recoup this through having a strong ally or through digital goods.

 

[RandyK]

The issue is way more.complicated than dem vs GOP. The larger issue is that businesses within the US chose to manufacture their products in China at a lower rate. The market boom this gave meant that consumer good could be kept at a low cost, but that means try8ng to establish a plant in the US to do large scale manufacturing would cost more due to labor power needs. Unless it's done through robots. The US government would want our trade to be where we can function
Some markets will naturally have a trade surplus because.of the poverty rate of the country or we have a specific resource that we trade for. Usually we recoup this through having a strong ally or through digital goods.

Right. As I said, Trump is wanting to *incentivize* industries, factories, and businesses to set up shop here in the US. That way, they will not simply *choose* to set up overseas. Trump does not want to limit the ability of business to do their business *in* other countries--he does this himself with the Trump Empire. But he doesn't want to contribute to the desire of businesses to move out of America to benefit from cheap or slave labor in oppressed or poor countries.

I agree and Trump has agreed to be willing to "help" disadvantaged countries. That's already on the record. I do think, however, the political ideology is important because Trump's plan has become the Republican plan, while the Democrat Party, if you listen to them, are throwing up roadblocks constantly.

In case you've missed it, Trump has been harassed, legally and politically, for at least 8 years. But his plan is currently what the people have voted for, and I think it will in the end benefit the consumer, if given the chance. I make this political only because of the mountain of propaganda designed to destroy Trump's effort. Not noble of the Democrats at all!

Let me just add this. I listened to a recording of Senator Blumenthal questioning Homeland Security Driector Kristi Noem on her current opperations--I did that this morning. Blumenthal was disgustingly insulting, constantly interrupting Noem's replies and calling her, flatly, a liar. This kind of government "cooperation" needs to be cleaned up or thrown out completely.

 

[WIP]

Tariffs are not income to individuals or businesses. Tariffs are assessed by governments.

Here's basically how they work. To illustrate I'll use the auto industry. For as long as I can remember, it has always been less costly to purchase an imported Toyota than a domestic brand such as a Chevy for example. This was particularly evident when our local manufacturers like GMC and Ford built the vehicles in the US.

Part of the cost difference comes from the difference in currency value between the Yen and the US$ on the world market. Many times the US dollar is more valuable than other currencies. For example, right now today, the US dollar is 39% more valuable than the Canadian dollar. What that means is, to buy a $1.00 item in the US, it takes $1.39 CAD despite the fact that the standard of living in Canada is generally lower than the US.

Another part of this cost difference comes from differences in standard or cost of living in Japan vs the US. It's a no-brainer that our US lifestyle costs a lot more than many, if not most, other countries worldwide. This means the cost of living is generally higher here so things cost more including labor.

So, because of the differences in currency values and labor costs and others, when Toyota exported their vehicles to the US market, they were considerably less costly to purchase than our own domestic brands, this may have changed a little over the years, and that created a strong competition that seriously cut into our domestic manufacturers' sales.

One way to compensate for these differences and make these low-cost imports more competitive on our domestic retail market is to impose tariffs on them when they arrive, thereby raising the retail price to a more competitive and fair level.

The problem is that when we would do this, the country of origin responded by adding tariffs to products we exported to them and so began the trade wars that have been going on for decades. This raised the cost of US imports even beyond the fact that our products sell at a higher price than theirs do in their own domestic markets anyway and the result is that our products become too costly in their country.

The next alternative to this was for manufacturers to move some or all of their processes into foreign markets and that way, they are not exporting US goods to those countries and therefore, not being tariffed by them. And this is partly why so much of our own manufacturing closed and moved to other countries. It's tough enough to compete in their markets without those countries imposing tariffs on our goods as well.

Manufacturing moving out of our country can be a serious problem in regard to national security too. Here's one example from recent memory. Remember when Covid hit the scene how we were hand tied because we didn't have the capacity to manufacture the face masks and respirators we needed and how it forced us to scramble?

Reducing the trade deficit has been a hot topic in politics by all parties for as long as I can remember. Literally every candidate has tried to use the trade deficit as part of their campaign but little ever gets done.