Not to disappoint, you are a lying sack of shit, as per usual. You dont pay that.
Using the crops as in the previous example.
I don't pay for increased food prices do to increased costs of production?
Or are you in the camp that Canadians pay the tariff on pot ash imports and the costs for US farmers buying fertilizer that used Canadian pot ash for production remained flat and that the increased on food prices are a figment of my imagination?
From the SCOTUS - LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
The power to impose tariffs is “very clear[ly] . . . a branch of the taxing power.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201 (1824). “A tariff,” after all, “is a tax levied on imported goods and services.” Congressional Research Service (CRS), C. Casey, U. S. Tariff Policy: Overview 1 (2025). And tariffs “raise[] revenue,” West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U. S. 186, 193 (1994)—the defining feature of a tax, United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, and n. 4 (1953); Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, 514 (1937). Indeed, the Framers expected that the Government would for “a long time depend . . . chiefly on” tariffs for revenue. The Federalist No. 12, at 93 (A. Hamilton). Little wonder, then, that the First Congress’s first exercise of its taxing power (and its second enacted law, right after the one providing for the new officials to take an oath) was a tariff law. See Act of July 4, 1789, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 24.
Recognizing the taxing power’s unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by “taxation without representation,” the Framers gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.”
WW
www.survivornet.com
