- Nov 21, 2022
- 498
- 191
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Canada will face a 35% tariff. Retaliatory Tariffs will be added to the 35%
- Thread starter Canuckster
- Start date
- Sep 29, 2015
- 22,632
- 19,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Canada doesn't and never did have any tariffs on US goods, of course?
Upvote
0
- Jun 25, 2008
- 16,794
- 4,204
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
In other words, Trump is placing a tax on American consumers, if they buy products from Canada, because Canada almost cut all fentanyl flowing across its border with America.
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 25,841
- 28,450
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Why does he still insist in describing it as a charge on the exporter? A tariff on Canadian products is paid by American consumers.
The only people Trump lies to are the ones who still believe him.
Upvote
0
Richard T
Well-Known Member
- Mar 25, 2018
- 3,005
- 1,918
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Sorry i do not see how tariffs are related to Fentanyl. I guess they are just a punishment and so we now have a trade war. Canada will tolerate this for a time, then they will raise tariffs too if no better agreement is reached. Trump getting involved in Canada likely cost the conservatives in Canada the election. 'Trump effect' may cost Conservatives victory in Canadian election But hey (aye) it is America first. A policy I might add that will hurt America because these tariffs are far too extreme. Here is a list of products. US Most Valuable Imports & Exports with Canada
The list includes some very practical stuff. So prices and lower economic growth (or even decline) will reflect these tariffs soon if the countries do not make amends.
The list includes some very practical stuff. So prices and lower economic growth (or even decline) will reflect these tariffs soon if the countries do not make amends.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2022
- 498
- 191
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
No way Trump liked what he saw on July 7, where he saw Premier of Ontario Doug Ford with Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta, celebrating the signing of an inter-provincial energy, infrastructure and trade deal to make Canada more independent of the US and, for the first time, removing inter-provincial trade barriers and opening up their resources to overseas markets. Trump saw Doug Ford blaming him by saying “There’s one person that’s causing the problem right now and that’s president Trump”.
So Ford is saying that the problem that Trump is causing right now is forcing Canada to become more independent and learn how to trade with each other and sell to overseas markets while, in the same breath, he’s celebrating the signing of an agreement, also caused by Trump, that will make Canada more independent, learn how to trade with each other and sell to overseas markets, all of which is something they’ve should have done decades ago but their globalists’ controlled provincial and federal governments did not permit them to do so and forced them to be dependent primarily upon trade with the US.
I’ve said this on this forum from the beginning:
“I have the impression that fentanyl & trade imbalances are just a cover being used for much deeper issues Trump has with Canada and their weak globalist controlled leadership that he believes is a threat to US national security.”
The globalists’ agenda is to take down western civilization (especially Canada and the US) through increased taxes, increased regulation, phony environmentalism, increased borrowing, increased debt, national bankruptcy, forfeiture of all national assets, and then everything rented back to a reduced, traumatized, enslaved and begging population.
Trump is thwarting those plans. In other words, Canada can be taken down by the globalists into slavery where they’ll “own nothing and be happy”, or they can be taken down by America into freedom where they’ll be more wealthy than they’ve ever been before. My choice is obvious.
So Ford is saying that the problem that Trump is causing right now is forcing Canada to become more independent and learn how to trade with each other and sell to overseas markets while, in the same breath, he’s celebrating the signing of an agreement, also caused by Trump, that will make Canada more independent, learn how to trade with each other and sell to overseas markets, all of which is something they’ve should have done decades ago but their globalists’ controlled provincial and federal governments did not permit them to do so and forced them to be dependent primarily upon trade with the US.
I’ve said this on this forum from the beginning:
“I have the impression that fentanyl & trade imbalances are just a cover being used for much deeper issues Trump has with Canada and their weak globalist controlled leadership that he believes is a threat to US national security.”
The globalists’ agenda is to take down western civilization (especially Canada and the US) through increased taxes, increased regulation, phony environmentalism, increased borrowing, increased debt, national bankruptcy, forfeiture of all national assets, and then everything rented back to a reduced, traumatized, enslaved and begging population.
Trump is thwarting those plans. In other words, Canada can be taken down by the globalists into slavery where they’ll “own nothing and be happy”, or they can be taken down by America into freedom where they’ll be more wealthy than they’ve ever been before. My choice is obvious.
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 24,747
- 20,852
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Ah yes, the "globalist agenda".
"Canada can be taken down by the globalists into slavery where they’ll “own nothing and be happy”, or they can be taken down by America into freedom where they’ll be more wealthy than they’ve ever been before. My choice is obvious."
..so why not immigrate to the US? I'm sure your visa would be promptly approved after Marco's state deparment reads your social media posting.
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 24,747
- 20,852
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States under U.S. law.
Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation on Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, which takes effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 9, 2025, the United States is suspending or limiting entry and visa issuance to nationals of certain countries. Applicants who are subject to this Presidential Proclamation may still submit visa applications and attend scheduled interviews, but they may be ineligible for visa issuance or admission to the United States. For additional details, visit travel.state.gov .
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,896
- 16,873
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
One interesting aspect of this conversation about tariffs in general that I've observed, is that there seems to be some "talking out of both sides of the mouth" when it comes to the impact on pricing via supply-side cost increases.
For instance, if there's a conversation about just regular old domestic regulatory measures or tax increases on businesses, it's typically the more conservative side that will highlight the fact that "that'll just make them pass the costs along to us, so it's best not to do that", and the more progressive side will usually dismiss those arguments.
However, when the conversation is about tariffs, it's the more progressive people saying "it'll just make them pass those costs on to us, so it's best not to do it", and the more conservative side shooting the argument down.
I think people need to realize that businesses' desire to keep profits right where they're at doesn't change with fluidity based on the nature or the source of the operation cost increase.
If XYZ Corp is happy with making $500M profit per year, and then end up with an additional $3 million worth of overhead, they're passing that on to the customer no matter what, doesn't matter if that $3 million overhead is in the form of a traditional tax increase aimed at funding safety nets, or if that $3 million overhead is in the form of a guy with a spray tan having a petty tit-for-tat battle with the neighbors.
For instance, if there's a conversation about just regular old domestic regulatory measures or tax increases on businesses, it's typically the more conservative side that will highlight the fact that "that'll just make them pass the costs along to us, so it's best not to do that", and the more progressive side will usually dismiss those arguments.
However, when the conversation is about tariffs, it's the more progressive people saying "it'll just make them pass those costs on to us, so it's best not to do it", and the more conservative side shooting the argument down.
I think people need to realize that businesses' desire to keep profits right where they're at doesn't change with fluidity based on the nature or the source of the operation cost increase.
If XYZ Corp is happy with making $500M profit per year, and then end up with an additional $3 million worth of overhead, they're passing that on to the customer no matter what, doesn't matter if that $3 million overhead is in the form of a traditional tax increase aimed at funding safety nets, or if that $3 million overhead is in the form of a guy with a spray tan having a petty tit-for-tat battle with the neighbors.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,065
- 9,786
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The clear distinction between these two scenarios is that tariffs on products apply at a 1:1 ratio to goods sold. A 35% tariff on a product that was $100 before means that it now costs $135. If I buy a product from Canada and have it shipped to me in the US, I'm the one who pays that tariff, not the seller in Canada.
The "more progressive side" tends to downplay the impact of regulatory measures or tax increases on businesses not because they don't exist, but rather because the actual effects on costs are not nearly what they're made out to be. For example, complaints about increasing the minimum wage drastically overrepresented the effect on fast food prices. Doubling the minimum wage would cause the price of a burger to rise, but only by a few cents - maybe a dollar at most. It would not double the cost of the burger, which is how it was frequently presented.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,394
- 2,760
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The real damage minimum wage increases cause is an increase of people making minimum wage, with little eventual impact on the purchasing power of those making minimum wage.
As for tariffs, they do have an impact on sellers even if they are paid by consumers because there is only so much tolerance for costs on the demand side. So while it may not come out of the seller's pockets per item, it is an impediment because it reduces the total number of items sold.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2022
- 498
- 191
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
"My choice" is not for me, it's for the Canadian kids that will be able to afford a large home on one income and raise a large family, something the leftists death cult who love filling kids with hormone blockers and cutting off their breasts and penises with out parental consent, hate.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,896
- 16,873
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
In terms of corporate taxes compared to tariffs, the difference in impact isn't as strong as the comparison between minimum wage increase and tariffs.
How corporate taxes impact consumers
Do consumers pay the corporate tax? This study shows how tax policies that increase effective corporate tax rates increase consumer prices.
www.accounting-for-transparency.de
For example, the European Central Bank and the Germans have done some studies on corporate taxes and pass-thru rates.
The lower end estimate is that for every 10% in the corporate tax rate, it's a 4% increase to the product prices (obviously there's some varying by sector)
On the higher end estimates, consumers bear 64% of the brunt of corporate taxes companies have to pay.
So, for instance, when Bernie and AOC have angled for a 35% corporate tax, that would equate to making consumers pay an extra 14% to 22% for goods and services.
So, as you've said, it's not a 1:1 - but it's not light years apart either, -- I think fiscal factors aren't the only thing shaping the differing opinions on these matters.
I think the perceptions about "who is this measure sticking it to" is driving some of it.
"sticking it to those corporate fat cats" resonates with one crowd
"sticking it to those Canadians who don't want to in-line with the Trump agenda" resonates with the other crowd
When in reality, no matter what the underlying motivations are, the only ones actually getting "stuck" by either are "we, the consumers"
Upvote
0
Similar threads
