If Netanyahu goes nuclear like he desperately wants it not on Trump is it?
The Tarriff Hype.
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Will check sometime this summer . I think the Terminal started serving at 9 am back in the day . A glass and six in a bag to go . Those were the days .
Multiple studies have shown that businesses and consumers in the U.S. have overwhelmingly footed the bill for Trump’s tariffs.
The tariff hikes that continue to be in place will mostly affect metals, vehicles and electronics. But that tax burden could be lightened on apparel and food products now that IEEPA tariffs are no longer in place.
With the IEEPA tariffs struck down, consumers will face an overall average effective tariff rate of 9.1%, the Yale Budget Lab calculated, compared to a 16.9% rate had the court sided with the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to President Donald Trump on Friday, ruling that the sweeping global tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, but it left the question of refunds open. It’s unclear if companies will be granted tariff refunds as of now, but how those payments are issued would be up to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would likely be a messy and drawn-out legal process.
apple.news
“The logistics of refunds are expected to be a nightmare and require an enormous amount of documentation,” Diane Swonk, KPMG’s Chief Economist, said in a note to clients. “Small firms are not likely to fare as well as large firms due to the paperwork, time and potential for additional legal challenges by the Trump administration on refunds,” Swonk added.
Scott Lincicome, the vice president of general economics at CATO, told MS NOW last month that the refunds process “will be very hard and highly inequitable” as large corporations will likely have more resources to battle the federal government on refunds.
“That is fine for a company like Costco, they can wait, but for the little guy it’s a death sentence,” Lincicome said.
“If you pay $20,000 in tariffs and you are owed that and you did nothing wrong, you are going to have to spend $30,000 on lawyers and run your business,” he added. “Either you go on with your business and not fight to get back what you are owed or you go out of business.”
apple.news
The tariff hikes that continue to be in place will mostly affect metals, vehicles and electronics. But that tax burden could be lightened on apparel and food products now that IEEPA tariffs are no longer in place.
With the IEEPA tariffs struck down, consumers will face an overall average effective tariff rate of 9.1%, the Yale Budget Lab calculated, compared to a 16.9% rate had the court sided with the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to President Donald Trump on Friday, ruling that the sweeping global tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, but it left the question of refunds open. It’s unclear if companies will be granted tariff refunds as of now, but how those payments are issued would be up to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would likely be a messy and drawn-out legal process.
What the Supreme Court tariffs ruling means for consumers and businesses — MS NOW
Although the stock market rallied and trade partners cheered, the ruling’s ramifications for American consumers and businesses aren’t straightforward.
Scott Lincicome, the vice president of general economics at CATO, told MS NOW last month that the refunds process “will be very hard and highly inequitable” as large corporations will likely have more resources to battle the federal government on refunds.
“That is fine for a company like Costco, they can wait, but for the little guy it’s a death sentence,” Lincicome said.
“If you pay $20,000 in tariffs and you are owed that and you did nothing wrong, you are going to have to spend $30,000 on lawyers and run your business,” he added. “Either you go on with your business and not fight to get back what you are owed or you go out of business.”
Distributors, retailers risk missing out on Trump tariff refunds — Reuters
Distributors and retailers that lack legal status as importers could miss out on as much as $175 billion in tariff refunds that may follow a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision.
It is only a short walk to the pub , a little longer to eagles nest . Good ole Uke .
#donaldtrump #tariffs #supremecourt #trade #whitehouse #comedy
Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
The Commission, which negotiates trade policy on behalf of the 27 EU member states, said Washington must provide "full clarity" on the steps it intends to take following the court ruling.
After the court struck down Trump's global tariffs on Friday, the U.S. president announced temporary, across-the-board tariffs of 10%, which he then hiked to 15% a day later.
"The current situation is not conducive to delivering 'fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial' transatlantic trade and investment, as agreed to by both sides" in the joint statement setting out the terms of last year's trade agreement, the Commission said. "A deal is a deal."
EU says it will accept no increase in US tariffs after Supreme Court ruling: 'a deal is a deal' — Reuters
The European Commission demanded on Sunday that the United States stick to the terms of an EU-U.S. trade deal reached last year, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's global tariffs and he responded with new levies across the board.
Yikes , really , I thought they did good business . Hit a nice Keno ticket in the Eagles Nest once upon a time .
"Any Country that wants to 'play games' with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have 'Ripped Off' the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to. BUYER BEWARE!!!" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post???
apple.news
apple.news
Trump warns of higher tariffs for countries that 'play games' after court ruling — Reuters
President Donald Trump on Monday said any countries that wanted to "play games" after a key U.S. Supreme Court tariff ruling that they would face much higher tariffs.
Trump pushes weird Supreme Court conspiracy theory that only he can see — MS NOW
Remember when Trump said it should be “illegal” to criticize judges? That was two years ago — before he started targeting justices in personal terms.
E.U. Freezes U.S. Trade Deal Approval — TIME
The E.U. is seeking more information from the Trump Administration over its new plans regarding tariffs.
Morning Bid: Trump fumes against the world as his tariffs come up short — Reuters
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Gregor Stuart Hunter
Hours after the Supreme Court invalidated the emergency tariffs that he imposed last year, Trump on Friday invoked a 1974 law to announce a new 10 percent global import tax, later raising it to 15 percent. The president cited a provision known as Section 122 that authorizes temporary restrictions on imports to deal with “fundamental international payments problems.”
In an official proclamation, the president said the nation’s “balance of payments,” a comprehensive account of Americans’ financial transactions with foreigners, was suffering “a large and serious deficit.” And he listed a number of metrics reflecting a deteriorating U.S. financial posture.
The law does not define “balance-of-payments deficit,” and economists disagree about what should be included in the term. But several critics, including the International Monetary Fund’s former chief economist and a prominent conservative legal commentator, disputed the president’s claim. Trump wrongly conflated an alleged payments deficit with the merchandise trade deficit that he targeted last year with his first set of comprehensive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), they said.
Judges might be reluctant to “second guess” the president’s judgment on whether a balance-of-payments problem exists, said John Veroneau, a lawyer who served as deputy U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush.
Still, the Trump administration’s newfound reliance upon Section 122 reverses the legal arguments it made last year. Defending the president’s emergency tariffs, Justice Department attorneys told an appeals court that Section 122 did not apply to Trump’s trade deficit concerns, which were “conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”
Trump’s newest tariffs could face legal challenge, though time is short — The Washington Post
President Donald Trump’s new tariffs may face a legal challenge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Do what we say or we'll TARIFF you! And keep your bridge closed!
And if that doesn't bring you to your knees, we'll lose interest and wander off!
And if that doesn't bring you to your knees, we'll lose interest and wander off!
Just like that Canada certifies Gulfstream aircraft. Add airplane mechanic to Trump's resume.
Over the past two weeks both the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court have pushed back hard against tariffs on Canada. The Supreme Court ruled the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, tariffs illegal without offering any fig leaves to the U.S. administration. A week earlier the House of Representatives voted to end the international economic emergency that formed the basis for the fentanyl tariffs against Canada. The U.S. judicial and legislative branches have begun to reassert their authority to rein in the executive.
Indeed, U.S. President Donald Trump, stung by the Supreme Court’s rejection of his tariffs, doubled down in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. But consider where we are today.
The mood swing is not limited to U.S. institutions. Americans have soured on the tariffs, too. Recent research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that around 90 per cent of tariff costs are borne by U.S. companies and consumers. A new poll by the New York City-headquartered think tank Council on Foreign Relations found more than 65 per cent of about 2,200 respondents across party lines said tariffs had made everyday items less affordable. Ahead of the midterms, the political capital for Trump’s tariff agenda is dwindling. Some commentators argue that we are past the “peak.”
Mr. Trump’s defence of tariffs Tuesday night, plus the replacement duties announced by the administration after the Supreme Court decision, also reveal a weakened hand. The tariffs imposed based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 are low (capped by law to 15 per cent), time-limited (they can only be in place for 150 days) and less easily subject to arbitrary changes. The era of late-night, tariff-threats-by-X is largely over.
Moreover, the new Section 122 tariffs continue to unilaterally allow tariff-free access for goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. This is a continued admission by the U.S. that the administration, despite all the bluster, wants a special and preferential trading relationship with Canada and Mexico, the U.S.’s largest trading partners.
Finally, the new tariffs contain 76 pages of exempted products, which the U.S. cannot produce or grow in sufficient quantities. Importantly, trading partners over the past year had to bargain hard to win such exemptions. Now, with the cost-of-living crisis in full swing, the U.S. offers those concessions up for free. That benefits Canadian exporters such as coffee roasters that have been unable to claim USMCA-compliant status.
In short, we have reached a turning point that will not only strengthen Canada’s position in the upcoming USMCA review. It will also shift the tone of the talks from threating huffs and puffs to more traditional bargaining over specific issues.
First, the U.S. maintains a list of trade irritants with Canada. The U.S. trade representative has said he is preparing new Section 301 tariff investigations against major trading partners. These country-specific tariffs seek to tackle specific unfair trade practices, as deemed by the U.S. If they decide or threaten to launch such an investigation against Canada, these trade irritants will take centre stage. That is a good thing because it will focus the negotiation. While Section 301 tariffs give some discretion to the administration in setting levels, we are unlikely to experience last year’s mission creep where drugs, bridges and adverts became intermingled with tariff threats.
apple.news
So, does that mean that sanity is finally prevailing again? Well, President Trump’s senior trade and manufacturing counselor, Peter Navarro, has a “Plan B” to slap more tariffs on trading partners in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to do away with the illegally used “emergency tariffs.”
In an interview with “Pod Force One,” Navarro said that the high court didn’t mention any use of tariffs under different executive authorities, including Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.
“All the different powers that the President has have been delegated by Congress and can use — and we will be using,” he told The Post’s Miranda Devine on the latest episode, out Wednesday. Oh well.
apple.news
Indeed, U.S. President Donald Trump, stung by the Supreme Court’s rejection of his tariffs, doubled down in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. But consider where we are today.
The mood swing is not limited to U.S. institutions. Americans have soured on the tariffs, too. Recent research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that around 90 per cent of tariff costs are borne by U.S. companies and consumers. A new poll by the New York City-headquartered think tank Council on Foreign Relations found more than 65 per cent of about 2,200 respondents across party lines said tariffs had made everyday items less affordable. Ahead of the midterms, the political capital for Trump’s tariff agenda is dwindling. Some commentators argue that we are past the “peak.”
Mr. Trump’s defence of tariffs Tuesday night, plus the replacement duties announced by the administration after the Supreme Court decision, also reveal a weakened hand. The tariffs imposed based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 are low (capped by law to 15 per cent), time-limited (they can only be in place for 150 days) and less easily subject to arbitrary changes. The era of late-night, tariff-threats-by-X is largely over.
Moreover, the new Section 122 tariffs continue to unilaterally allow tariff-free access for goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. This is a continued admission by the U.S. that the administration, despite all the bluster, wants a special and preferential trading relationship with Canada and Mexico, the U.S.’s largest trading partners.
Finally, the new tariffs contain 76 pages of exempted products, which the U.S. cannot produce or grow in sufficient quantities. Importantly, trading partners over the past year had to bargain hard to win such exemptions. Now, with the cost-of-living crisis in full swing, the U.S. offers those concessions up for free. That benefits Canadian exporters such as coffee roasters that have been unable to claim USMCA-compliant status.
In short, we have reached a turning point that will not only strengthen Canada’s position in the upcoming USMCA review. It will also shift the tone of the talks from threating huffs and puffs to more traditional bargaining over specific issues.
First, the U.S. maintains a list of trade irritants with Canada. The U.S. trade representative has said he is preparing new Section 301 tariff investigations against major trading partners. These country-specific tariffs seek to tackle specific unfair trade practices, as deemed by the U.S. If they decide or threaten to launch such an investigation against Canada, these trade irritants will take centre stage. That is a good thing because it will focus the negotiation. While Section 301 tariffs give some discretion to the administration in setting levels, we are unlikely to experience last year’s mission creep where drugs, bridges and adverts became intermingled with tariff threats.
Opinion: Trump’s tariff defence at the State of the Union shows a weak hand and an era ending — The Globe and Mail
Canada should focus on sector specifics and be prepared for tradeoffs
In an interview with “Pod Force One,” Navarro said that the high court didn’t mention any use of tariffs under different executive authorities, including Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.
“All the different powers that the President has have been delegated by Congress and can use — and we will be using,” he told The Post’s Miranda Devine on the latest episode, out Wednesday. Oh well.
Trump's trade czar reveals why Supreme Court is likely to back WH in next big tariff challenge in 'Pod Force One' interview — New York Post
President Trump's senior trade and manufacturing counselor, Peter Navarro, has a "Plan B" to slap more tariffs on trading partners in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to do away with "emergency tariffs."
L'Oreal, Dyson, Bausch + Lomb become the latest to sue for Trump tariff refunds — Reuters
French beauty group L'Oreal (OREP.PA), British vacuum manufacturer Dyson and contact lens maker Bausch + Lomb (BLCO.TO) became the latest corporations to sue for refunds of tariffs paid under President Donald Trump’s emergency trade measures, days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the duties...
New York calls for $13.5 billion tariff refund from Trump administration — Reuters
New York Governor Kathy Hochul on Tuesday called on the Trump administration to issue $13.5 billion in tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the issue of tariff refunds would be addressed by the lower courts.Business leaders on Friday called on the administration to quickly set up a process to process refunds, but Trump indicated that there “may be”more litigation before any money is paid out. “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years,” Trump said during his press conference.
Where’s your Trump tariff refund? | About That
Andrew Chang explains who is most likely to receive tariff refunds — if they ever receive them at all — after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald T...
www.youtube.com
Donald Trump on potential tariff refunds worth $175 billion
President Donald Trump commented potential tariff refunds worth $175 billion following the Supreme Court's decision saying Trump exceeded his authority when ...
www.youtube.com
the countries/companies that are owed money are going to have a long wait.
L'Oreal, Dyson, Bausch + Lomb become the latest to sue for Trump tariff refunds — Reuters
French beauty group L'Oreal (OREP.PA), British vacuum manufacturer Dyson and contact lens maker Bausch + Lomb (BLCO.TO) became the latest corporations to sue for refunds of tariffs paid under President Donald Trump’s emergency trade measures, days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the duties...Reuters reported last week that Penn Wharton Budget Model economists estimated more than $175 billion in U.S. tariff collections are subject to potential refunds.
New York calls for $13.5 billion tariff refund from Trump administration — Reuters
New York Governor Kathy Hochul on Tuesday called on the Trump administration to issue $13.5 billion in tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the issue of tariff refunds would be addressed by the lower courts.
(YouTube & Where’s your Trump tariff refund? | About That)Where’s your Trump tariff refund? | About That
Andrew Chang explains who is most likely to receive tariff refunds — if they ever receive them at all — after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald T...
(YouTube & Donald Trump on potential tariff refunds worth $175 billion)Donald Trump on potential tariff refunds worth $175 billion
President Donald Trump commented potential tariff refunds worth $175 billion following the Supreme Court's decision saying Trump exceeded his authority when ...
