32 ms·
US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says
- mraniki 8mo agoFED blog post: https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/ https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is...
- mraniki 8mo agopaywall: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.ft.com/content/c4f886a1-1633-418c-b6b5-16f700f8bb0d https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.ft.com/content/c4f886...
- brodouevencode 8mo agoThe public needs to understand that tariffs aren't meant to punish other countries (which is what is being sold) - they are meant to change domestic behavior.
- jqpabc123 8mo agoThey are meant to tax lower income people who spend a large percentage of their income on necessities. In other words, they are a regressive tax --- pure and simple.
- thijson 8mo agoThey are a little bit like a sales tax, except only for things not made in this country.
- g947o 8mo agoLike, at least 50% of the things you use every day, from phone and laptops to kitchen utensils.
- Alupis 8mo agoFor today, sure. People act like 365 days is long enough to change consumer spending habits, and onshore production facilities that took years to offshore. If tariffs are held strong, there will be two possible outcomes: 1) Domestic production will be increased (via American businesses as well as onshoring foreign businesses), providing jobs and ultimately lower-cost products 2) International tariffs will be decreased across the board - resulting in a more level field for American businesses to compete in foreign nations Few realize American goods have been tariffed internationally for decades, resulting in a difficult-or-impossible business climate for American businesses. The situation is akin to Wall Street's infamous short-term outcome favorability. Tariffs are a long-term game, and people have to be willing to trade some short-term outcomes for the long-term economic health of America and it's businesses (and jobs, wages, etc).
- Aloisius 8mo ago> ultimately lower-cost products When has reduced competition ever resulted in lower-cost products? Even for goods we already mass produce, companies respond to tariffs of their competitor's goods by hiking their own prices up.
- Alupis 8mo agoReduced competition is a near-term affect. Demand will remain constant (or increase) for goods, so businesses will open and compete over the long-term. In the future it will be cheaper to purchase domestically produced goods vs. import them from half a world away...
- brodouevencode 8mo agoNot sure why you are getting downvoted - nothing you have said is incorrect. Given the parent comments my guess is that it's because you're speaking in purely economic terms and not grounded in political ideology.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoSure, they work via changing domestic behavior. But the purpose of that change is what's important. They can be used to gently (as compared to sanctions) shift demand away from a particular country, or alternatively to apply pressure to a sector to bring it on shore.
- ivell 8mo ago> They can be used to gently (as compared to sanctions) shift demand away from a particular country That works when those countries are selectively tariffed while others are let off. Blindly applying tariffs to whatever satisfies the mood is not the way. > or alternatively to apply pressure to a sector to bring it on shore. For this to work, the cost of onshore production must be lower than the tariffed price. The inputs must be made cheaper and not tariffed. Again the US administration is not doing any of these strategically.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoAgreed. I wasn't meaning to imply anything one way or the other about the current US tariff regime. > The inputs must be made cheaper and not tariffed. Not necessarily. It's presumably not as efficient, but you'd still expect the entire chain to head in the desired direction eventually.
- vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago"Sure, they work via changing domestic behavior. But the purpose of that change is what's important. They can be used to gently (as compared to sanctions) shift demand away from a particular country, or alternatively to apply pressure to a sector to bring it on shore" I have talked to some purchasing people at my company and it seems it's going exactly the other way. The company is moving as much production as possible away from the US to serve the international market without paying for tariffs.
- brodouevencode 8mo ago> But the purpose of that change is what's important. Good point.
- wvenable 8mo agoThat's the real intent of tariffs "in general". Trump's tariffs in particular, though, are specifically meant to punish / shake down other countries.
- CamperBob2 8mo agoAnd the industry leaders in our own country.
- hackyhacky 8mo ago> they are meant to change domestic behavior. What domestic behavior specifically? If they're supposed to encourage industrial development at home, they've failed on that front. Building new factories requires years of commitment and billions of dollars, but the current administration has shown no interest in actually investing in that development. Meanwhile, the raw materials that would be necessary for a factory are more expensive precisely because of the tariffs, making new industry even less likely. Finally, the very dubious legal ground on which the tariffs are based means that no one is sure they'll be around to the end of this administration, much less into the next, so there's little interest in adapting long-term plans to a temporary state of affairs. If they're supposed to encourage consumers to buy domestic, they've failed on that count too. Many goods simply are not available manufactured in the US (see above). If the tariffs were applied gradually and incrementally, maybe people would adapt, but from the consumer's mount of view, everything just gets more expensive, so what are they supposed to do? Again, applying tariffs to raw materials means that it's impossible for American businesses to undercut foreign imports even if they wanted to. Like everything from this administration, the tariff are an impulsive decision based on poor economic understanding and incompetent execution.
- charcircuit 8mo ago>aren't meant to punish other countries The purpose of a thing is what is does. If a tariff can be used to stop a war, then tariffs are meant as a strategic bargaining chips.
- jqpabc123 8mo agoCongratulations Trump fans --- you voted for a big new tax --- on yourself. Stupid is as stupid does.
- baggachipz 8mo agoThe problem is, the rest of us who vehemently opposed him (and still do) get to pay the idiocy tax too.
- badhorseman 8mo ago"A big beautiful tax."
- ThinkBeat 8mo agoThe different between taxes (you -must- pay (unless X loopholes applies to you)) whereas tariffs are voluntary and even more so then sales tax. You may chose not to buy any products or goods that requires you to pay tariffs. Which is the primarily goal to begin with. Influence consumer behaviour. I realize that for some products and goods there may not be a an alternative choice of products or goods that do have tariffs. In theory, over time, these will be increasingly replaced by products and services that have the competitive advantage of not having to tariffs applied to them. Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that, domestic producers have expand capacity, have created jobs have caused supply chains shift and new production is based on the tariff based price structure This however takes time. And to what extent it happens is not easy to predict. Some may think that the next president will remove all tariffs the moment he or she takes office, so it is a short term problem. The problem with removing them all, is if the above has happened, and removing them will destroy American jobs.
- steveBK123 8mo agoIndustrial jobs are down since tariffs went in
- triceratops 8mo ago> Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that, domestic producers have expand capacity That's how tariffs would work if wielded for the right reasons. But now domestic producers have to pay tariffs on the very machines and inputs needed to expand capacity.
- brewcejener 8mo ago[dead]
- Arubis 8mo agoYes. This is what a tariff is.
- transcriptase 8mo agoExactly. You make it more attractive to do business with someone domestically by increasing the cost of doing business with nations that subsidize their exports or undercut your companies with slave labour or lax environmental regulations. Over the long term, domestic capacity either grows or emerges to take advantage of business models that were unprofitable due to impossibly cheap imports before.
- bootsmann 8mo ago> by increasing the cost of doing business with nations that subsidize their exports or undercut your companies with slave labour or lax environmental regulations This is why the ”overregulated” EU got hit with a 30% tariff?
- transcriptase 8mo agoThat was symbolic. Europe hasn’t produced anything except regulations, the fumes of mismanaged luxury brands, and cured meats for nearly 30 years. Nobody on either side was actually impacted.
- thoughtstheseus 8mo agoYou also lower the profits from the exporting country (China) through reduced volumes. China has been on a massive productivity growth agenda that is only sustained through open trade and exports.
- doom2 8mo agoThe problem is, as the end consumer, it doesn't _feel_ like the domestic options are suddenly the cheap or desirable option. I am just paying more for the thing I was already buying. Similar to, eg, custom PCBs I ordered from China that were more expensive due to the end of the de minimus exemption, where there really isn't a good domestic option. Will an American Shenzhen ever pop up to provide that capacity? I'm very doubtful. Also similar to the Chinese drone ban. Domestically produced drones are both more expensive and there are fewer options in the consumer market. Again, I'm extremely skeptical that we will see an emergence of a competitive domestic UAV industry oriented towards consumers. In short, it remains to be seen if tariffs have the desired effect in the long term. Their current implementation is merely a tax on consumers without driving them to domestic brands because they weren't introduced gradually but all at once.
- josefritzishere 8mo agoThere is only a debate on this topic because propaganda works. It's a regressive tax, which disproportionately hits consumers.
- steveBK123 8mo agoExactly, it is regressive. Lower income spends higher proportion of income, therefore higher percent of income is hit by tariffs.
- irishcoffee 8mo agoYou know what all the poor people are bitching about right now? Power bills.
- steveBK123 8mo agoWhich is why pushback against datacenter builds has begun..
- irishcoffee 8mo agoBetter stage a protest so the prices change. The pushback is real..
- ericmay 8mo agoWhether a policy decision creates effects that "harm" consumers isn't the only facet of international trade policy that has to be considered. In fact, it may be one of the least important depending on what exactly that harm is.
- ThinkBeat 8mo agoThose are exactly the groups that are meant to pay for the tariffs. A factor in this that is not mentioned is that companies selling goods to the US may have made an effort to lower prices, altering production to lessen tariffs or in other way tried to offset the extra amount US consumers have to pay. An estimate of that would be quite interesting.
- enaaem 8mo agoPrices go down when overall demand is lower, but it also goes down for the rest of the world.
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago> may have made an effort to lower prices, Isn't that the 10% in the article? That's the mechanism by which "China pays the tariffs".
- fc417fc802 8mo agoX "pays" the tariff by losing US business.
- varispeed 8mo agoMany carriers recoup the tariff from the shipper if recipient doesn't pay, rendering DAP Incoterm meaningless. So this 10% might also simply represent de facto theft from foreign business.
- SunshineTheCat 8mo agoEveryone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them. The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is. There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Average_Tariff_Rates_in_USA_(1821-2016).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Unit... "Fighting" China with tariffs is like fighting your neighbor who's dog keeps peeing in your yard by lighting your own couch on fire.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoSubsidies are also expensive for the tax payer. Warping the market costs money. (No comment on whether it's being warped in the "right" way right now.)
- mindslight 8mo agoHaving the world reserve currency is an independent source of revenue for the US Government, as it allows for an amount of monetary inflation without corresponding price inflation. Through a combination of Federal Reserve policy and the political martingale of "balanced budgets", most of this revenue has been simply given away to asset holders in the form of low-interest loans. This money could/should instead be spent to purposefully mitigate the damage to domestic industry that comes from having the world reserve currency.
- hammock 8mo agoWish this comment was higher up. A balanced, reasonable, non-partisan take
- amelius 8mo agoIt could work if you put the couch in your neighbor's yard first.
- pembrook 8mo agoThe US has needed to raise taxes for decades given the level of spending the federal government does and constant "relief" packages that everyone now expects the minute there's a downturn. The runaway deficit is a massive problem now given the age of 0 interest rates is over. So what's astonishing is, whether you like him or not, the Orange man actually got the American public to accept what is defacto the largest tax increase in decades. Unfortunately, they immediately spent that money too on the promise of persistently high growth in the world's richest economy. I find that unlikely over time, but time will tell. Seems every large Western country is currently hell bent on finding out what level of deficit spending results in societal collapse.
- estearum 8mo ago> What's astonishing is, whether you like him or not, the Orange man actually got the American public to accept what is defacto the largest tax increase in decades. What does it mean "got the public to accept it?" The public had no say and these are probably illegal. On top of that, he probably literally does not know that these are effectively taxes on consumers (i.e. he believe his own bullshit). No credit is due here whatsoever.
- pembrook 8mo agoThis was a huge part of the platform that the US overwhelmingly voted for in the last election. People wanted this. Yes, I'm sure he believes his own bullshit, but ironically, its bullshit that the US actually needed to pull (tax increases). Modern democracy has proven totally incapable of not stealing the future from its children.
- ohyoutravel 8mo ago“They wanted this” but the people who voted for this did not have the mental capacity to sort fact from fiction with respect to tariffs. So this falls flat.
- wvenable 8mo ago> its bullshit that the US actually needed to pull (tax increases). Did you forget that the Big Beautiful Bill included a massive tax cut?
- xnx 8mo agoTariffs are import taxes. The pre-Maga republican party used to be against taxes.
- sejje 8mo agoSimilarly, the people loudly protesting tariffs are traditionally for higher taxes.
- yoyohello13 8mo agoThose people are generally for higher taxes on the rich. Tariff are a flat tax that dis-proportionally affects the poor.
- jleyank 8mo agoWhich is why the current administration and their (very rich) backers prefer tariffs to income taxes...
- tastyfreeze 8mo agoEvery tax ever implemented by government has been initially sold as a tax on the rich. The people voting for it assume they will never be taxed because they aren't currently rich. But, there is never enough of other peoples money to spend. So, taxes expand and/or increase to include more people. The original income tax was sold as 1% on mid income and 2% on high income. At the time more than half the country was not going to pay any tax.
- nullocator 8mo agoMaybe because the rich consistently lobby and weasel their way out of paying their fair share so the burden on everyone else continues to rise?
- tastyfreeze 8mo agoOr, no amount of money is ever enough for government and taxing income is a dumb value to collect revenue. Southern states supported an income tax because they believed it would make it possible to collect revenue for indigent people. Exactly opposite of "taxes the rich".
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoRelated previously: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46680212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46680212
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoSource post: https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/ https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is...
- tracerbulletx 8mo agoI bought some 30 dollar beer glasses from Belgium. Got a 60 dollar tariff bill from FedEx after the fact. Edit: apparently fedex fees were most of this?
- Alupis 8mo agoFedEx has always charged a brokerage fee, that is and has always been ridiculous. The brokerage fee in some cases exceeds the actual taxes and duties. That is to say there is no 200% tariff on cups. [1] - https://www.fedex.com/en-us/ancillary-clearance-service.html https://www.fedex.com/en-us/ancillary-clearance-service.html
- mindslight 8mo agoSure, Fedex/UPS's brokerage fees are legendary for small shipments. The problem is better stated as the removal of the de minimis threshold. So in this case an American is still paying for the misguided close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-ran-out policy, just with most going directly to the corporate interests that helped install this corrupt administration. (but the joke is on them - Aliexpress Choice doesn't charge brokerage fees)
- Alupis 8mo agoBrokerage fees are a business decision. USPS only charges about $5 for dutiable international parcels - and with 15 years in logistics I can confidently say they often don't even charge that fee at all. Tariffs are designed to change consumer spending habits, and force international businesses to create on-shore operations. To that end, they are effective - but it takes longer than 365 days for those patterns to shift. > misguided close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-ran-out policy > helped install this corrupt administration I dare say your opinion, here, has nothing to do with the efficacy of tariffs. Tariffs have long been studied, and both major political parties have called for tariffs like we're seeing right now at various points in recent history. The only difference is nobody desired to rock the status quo, so the lopsided economic policies of the past persisted. Nearly every other nation tariffs American goods in some way. American businesses attempting to sell products into Brazil, the UK, Germany and more are - and have been - at a significant disadvantage for decades due to high import taxes and duties. For the first time those international businesses are feeling the same consequences as their own nation's weaponized economic policies. Perhaps that will put pressure on their governments, achieving the ultimate goal of the USA's policy - reduce and/or remove tariffs across the board. ie. Fair Trade vs. Free Trade.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- yanhangyhy 8mo agoI have a feeling we should blame English, the language Tariff can hardly to connected to tax In Chinese , tariff = 关 税 = port tax
- johanyc 8mo agoYeah it should just be called import tax.
- fuckyah 8mo ago[dead]
- ApolloFortyNine 8mo agoI think blanket tariffs are dumb don't get me wrong. But tariffs have been used in the car industry for decades. If you got rid of them completely within 5 years the American car companies would be closing plants. The whole reason Japanese auto manufacturers build plants in the US was to avoid tariffs. Shipping costs are actually incredibly minimal for a vehicle. So in my opinion, we've seen where they can work. If you value American jobs anyways. It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US.
- bootsmann 8mo ago> It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US. Not that hard to math out, the deadweight loss of tariffs is always non-zero. IIRC there was a pretty good paper that mathed out the impact of Obamas tire tariffs and concluded that it cost the economy significantly more jobs than it saved.
- ApolloFortyNine 8mo agoThat's pretty much impossible. If it costs a company 1% less to make a widget that takes 1000 hours of labor to make it overseas instead, the company is incentivized to move overseas. The thousand of hours labor, the material to source the widget, the real estate for the factory, the transportation now all occurs overseas. At the very least, you can't spew something like that then not even bother to link a source.
- bootsmann 8mo agohttps://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/2016/us-tire-tariffs-saving-few-jobs-high-cost https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/2016/us-tire... Ratio of 3 jobs lost per tire job saved. > The thousand of hours labor, the material to source the widget, the real estate for the factory, the transportation now all occurs overseas. This frees up massive amounts of capital that is more effectively spent playing to Americas strengths, this isn’t a zero sum game.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- AlgorithmicTime 8mo ago[dead]
- heratyian 8mo agoIf tariffs are bad, why does every country tariff US-made products so heavily?
- hackyhacky 8mo ago> If tariffs are bad, why does every country tariff US-made products so heavily? That's an easy question. The answer is "they don't." USMCA/NAFTA guaranteed free trade with Mexico and Canada. Pre-2025, there was no blanket tariff on US goods in Europe. They tariffed some agricultural goods at 11%. Industrial goods were in single digits. The tariff numbers that Trump purports (e.g. blanket 30% tariffs on Switzerland) are in no way proportional to their tariffs on US goods. It's just false. The lie that other countries had massive blanket tariffs on all US goods is being sold to the American public to justify massive so-called "reciprocal" tariffs that (a) violate existing trade agreements, (b) make things expense for the American consumer, (c) don't necessary encourage new businesses in the US.
- hypeatei 8mo ago> justify massive so-called "reciprocal" tariffs I just want to point out that this "reciprocal" nonsense was in no way calculated or strategic. The chart/table they showed was literally LLM-generated and no one could explain how they got those numbers. It's a complete circus and we're sitting here refuting bullshit everyday.
- donavanm 8mo ago> no one could explain how they got those numbers. Not quite. The big board percentages were effectively us (imports - exports) / imports * 0.5 ~ fuzzy adjustment based on feels. Your point remains theyre amateurish and bely a lack of any grounding to actual foreign import duties. But that is a direct way of representing a mercantilist world view where net imports bad, exports strong. https://www.investopedia.com/trade-experts-question-trump-team-method-for-calculating-tariffs-11708336 https://www.investopedia.com/trade-experts-question-trump-te...
- matwood 8mo ago
- jihadjihad 8mo agoThere are just so many misconceptions about how taxes, finance, economics, etc. works that it can be exhausting. And it's worse when people in positions of power make no effort, or even make an effort in the opposite direction, to educate people on how things work in reality. It might shock you to ask around your social circle and discover how many people would read a hypothetical headline like, "Tax Rate for Top Income Bracket Increases to 55%", and interpret it as, "Wow, so if my income was as high as that, more than half of what I made would go to the government. Crazy!"
- yadaeno 8mo agoUS consumer inflation in 2025 was 2.7%, so clearly the impact on consumers from tariffs was minimal.
- leptons 8mo agoAlmost no change in economic policy has immediate effect, including tariffs.
- yadaeno 8mo agoI'm skeptical. Tariffs affect the cost of business same-day. If we were going to see a change in consumer prices id expect to see an inkling of a change 12 months in. I'm open to being wrong but claims that tariffs are destroying the American consumer feel like gas lighting given the CPI data.
- leptons 8mo ago>Tariffs affect the cost of business same-day. How? The day the tariff goes into effect is after vast amounts of on-shore stock has already landed, purchased for a far lower price. The purchases done on the day the tariffs took effect and after are costing more, but have not landed yet. So no, it's practically never a "same-day" effect. >claims that tariffs are destroying the American consumer feel like gas lighting If you live in the US, and don't notice the price of everything has been steadily increasing last year, and continues to increase this year, then I don't know what to tell you but that you're arguing in bad faith.
- yadaeno 8mo ago> The day the tariff goes into effect is after vast amounts of on-shore stock has already landed Tariffs took effect in February 2025. We saw CPI go up 2.7% in 2025 and 2.5%/4 in Q1 2026 so I'm skeptical of the inventory lag theory. Maybe we're stressing some other part of the economy and gearing up for catastrophic failure, but I don't see that in the economic data. > If you live in the US I live in the US. Gas prices spiked in 2024 and prices went up, gas prices went down and CPI leveled off, tariffs started in 2025 and CPI remains stable. Maybe tariffs are cutting into some drop shipper's profits but I'm definitely not paying for it.
- raverbashing 8mo agoAny person minimally experienced in commerce (possibly in a less developed country) would know that they experienced this already
- varispeed 8mo agoMany carriers also effectively stopped honouring DAP Incoterm. If consumer doesn't pay the tariff within 2 months or so, they charge the shipper. See FedEx for instance: 14.6 Regardless of any payment instructions to the contrary, the Sender is ultimately responsible for payment of duties and taxes and all fees and surcharges related to FedEx’s disbursement of duties and taxes if payment is not received. If a Recipient or a third party from which reimbursement confirmation is required refuses to pay the duties and taxes upon request, FedEx may contact the Sender, for the same. If the Sender refuses to make satisfactory arrangements to reimburse FedEx, the Shipment may be returned to the Sender (in which case, Sender will be responsible both for original and return charges) or placed into a temporary storage, general order warehouse or a customs-bonded warehouse or considered undeliverable. If Transportation Charges for a Shipment are billed to a credit card, FedEx reserves the right to also settle uncollected duties and taxes charges associated with that Shipment to the credit card account.
- danesparza 8mo agoI just got a DHL shipment from the UK. They indicated I (the receiver) needed to pay the tariff or the shipment would be returned to the sender within 1 week. It sure sounds like they aren't going to charge the shipper. And I can't blame them for not wanting to be left empty-handed.
- Aloisius 8mo agoThis has been in FedEx's terms for at least two decades.
- varispeed 8mo agoNot exactly. The most significant change in the 2025 language is the explicit right for FedEx to automatically settle uncollected duties and taxes against the credit card used for the initial transportation charges. Previously, FedEx would typically issue a separate invoice for duties and taxes and attempt to collect it via standard billing cycles. In short, they now often release shipments without attempting to collect payment from the recipient and charge the shipper.
- vjvjvjvjghv 8mo agoThe tariffs are just another variation of the Republican dream of replacing income tax with sales tax and so reducing the tax burden of higher incomes. Nothing new here.
- ArchieScrivener 8mo ago[flagged]
- MBCook 8mo agoI’m honestly surprised it’s that low. I fully expected it to be over 100% as companies used it as a chance to line their pockets just a little more and blame it on someone else.
- Longlius 8mo agoGood. Secular declines in consumption from the US would be healthy.
- FpUser 8mo agoSo if that's the case and the tariffs are high enough then manufacturers should rejoice and go all local but if they can't then the economy may tank
- meroes 8mo agoDrop in quality, increase in prices across the board. Thanks Trump!
- thoughtstheseus 8mo agoGreat point. Many Americans would prefer to buy (given) a flying car vs. build a flying car. Personally I believe there is dignity in self determination. To each their own.
- bettercallsalad 8mo agoFT is a globalist mouthpiece. I don’t support tariff but it being used as a negotiating technique is the only choice here to reduce trade deficit. US can’t keep up the trade deficit it currently has. It requires endless fiscal deficit and sell paper money to others that sends their cheap stuff to US. With growing deficit, the interest payment now is soon to be higher than defence budget. Something has to give.
- edmundsauto 8mo agoWhen will we see the lower interest payments as a result of the tariffs, and how much lower will they be? The initial signals are in the opposite direction as your comment indicates. Maybe it’s a short term pain for long term gain: but when, and how much, and what is the evidence that will be true? Because it seems more likely to me that we have a greedy moron in charge who doesn’t mind his “business” (aka our society) loses trillions as long as his family and friends make billions.
- asacrowflies 8mo agoHow can you in good faith discuss the deficit and us spending when the current administration has ballooned it more than any president in history. While gutting and burning to the ground American industries and manufacturing....and using reckless unprecedented spending for obvious bribes and corruption for his own families benefit...
- bettercallsalad 8mo agoEvery administration has been ballooning it more than its predecessor. This has been the case since last decade. Nothing stops this train. The villain here is not the executive branch but Congress which approves the fiscal budget and spending limits, debt ceiling. President has no authority to increase debt ceiling.
- callamdelaney 8mo agoThe point of tariffs is that domestic products are more appealing isn't it? It's expected that foreign selelrs just add the tariff to the cost of their product so.. 1. 90% instead of 100% is pretty good 2. kind of irrelevant, a better question is how much more money went to domestic companies rather than foreign?
- mmooss 8mo agoWhether the money is coming out of US consumers and businesses or out of Chinese businesses, where is the money going? How is it being used?
- phainopepla2 8mo agoIt goes into the Treasury Department's general fund, where it's used as part of the federal government's overall budget
- mmooss 8mo agoI think that's more important than people realize: * The executive branch is doing its own appropriations, effectively - it's revenue they create and control, with little restriction (?). * It's a way of shifting revenue from progressive taxation to regressive forms (for example, sales tax is another way to do that).
- razodactyl 8mo agoLots of money. Yes men everywhere. Needs more science and less popularity contest. I place my blame in the voters.
- riidom 8mo agohttps://archive.ph/2J8P3 https://archive.ph/2J8P3
- anotherevan 8mo agoI'm surprised it's only 90%.