this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
177 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18957 readers
3944 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 30 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

The tariff is paid by the car dealer and passed onto the consumer. As one example.

Consumers pay it, not the overseas manufacturer.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 hours ago

So let me say, I agree entirely that the tariffs raise consumer prices. Trumps tarrifs plan is indeed insane, and his claims about it being paid by China or whoever are entirely ludicrous.

However, as a technical point, all taxes have a "tax incidence" that you can measure. The tax incidence is the percent of the tax on a corporation, good, service etc that is borne by an entity. It is not always 100% on a consumer except in the most trivial, "consumers pay for everything" kind of way. For competitive or reputational reasons a firm with substantial revenue might decide to absorb some cost, rather than pass it on. In those cases, the tax incidence is not 100% on the consumer, but shared by the business out of their revenue.

I promise though, Trump has the mind of a decomposing tangerine and absolutely could not speak about or understand the subtleties here.

Anyway, politically speaking, I'll never bring this up again. Please keep hammering Trump however you like and I'll keep my corrections to myself, lol.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Correct. So in the car example, it really only works if the US puts a tariff on imports, and then they do some kind of government credit for domestic cars. This would raise the price of imported cars while making domestic cars more affordable to Americans.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Only kinda, that assumes enough people still buy the imports otherwise there's no money to transfer over.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 5 hours ago

A tariff isn't a money making tool, it's about making a good not as great a deal against another, typically a domestically made good.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Even domestic cars are assembly in America but the parts come from other countries so no you still going be effected by that.

Also keep in mind there a reason shit not made here. We can't compete with their cheap labor prices. So even if you tried to move some of those jobs back here it would still cost the consumer a shit ton more money on said goods.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This assumes the thing with the tariff is even available. I can't buy a Hilux because of the Chicken Tax.

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

And how the fuck am I even to make a decent technical without a Hilux?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

There's a Second Amendment argument to be made here

Honestly? This would work on this court.