4 ms·
What you're missing would be obvious if you looked at where the money ended up, and didn't play the sleight of hand with pretending that there was just one gove
by jsnell 2y ago
What you're missing would be obvious if you looked at where the money ended up, and didn't play the sleight of hand with pretending that there was just one government involved.
In the second case, a EU government has $2k, the steel producer has $4k, and the EU-based car producer has $4k.
In the first case, a EU government has $2k, the steel producer has $4k, the US-based car producer has $3k, and the US government has $1k.
It was the US government that took the money from the US-based company! That's not at all like a tariff imposed by the EU. If you don't like the US taxing US companies, the entity that can fix it is the US government. Not the EU.
- gotoeleven 2y agoSorry Im not trying to play sleight of hand. As far as tariffs and business competitiveness are concerned, the things that matter are the price to the consumer and the profit to the company. You seem to be saying that it is self-evidently fair that the EU end up with 2k in taxes in both cases, where in the case where it was imported there was far less happening in the EU. Why do they deserve 2k in tax revenue when the steel was rolled in the US ?
- jsnell 2y agoThe VAT is a consumption tax, not a production tax. It's totally agnostic to where the production happened. If you want to sell something to a EU-based consumer, that money has to be paid no matter where you're from. What could be more fair than that? Again: the difference is coming purely from the US government choosing to tax a US company. Just why is that a problem that should be solved by the EU?