Border Adjustment Tax Is Worthy of Support

[toomuchtime_]

And the reality is:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved • AEI

According to our calculations, explained in this policy brief, the total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011. The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year (see table above).

There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.

There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

 

[busybee01]

A border adjustment tax is a stupid idea. It is another name for a tariff. It will invite retaliation. In addition, it will increase costs for consumers and consumers will have fewer choices. Taxes are paid by consumers not corporations so the idea that consumers will not suffer is ridiculous. Businesses cannot operate at a loss no matter what kind of curve you use.

You don't understand, it's not a zero sum game. As a result Trump can reduce other taxes.

Why bother? Kudlow who is a Trump supporter says we should concentrate on a pro-growth tax policy rather than managed trade.

You don't understand. Why bother doing all that re-adjusting?

 

[busybee01]

And the reality is:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved • AEI

According to our calculations, explained in this policy brief, the total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011. The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year (see table above).

There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.

There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

The American people can do that right now. Consumers vote with their dollars when they choose what to buy. Tariffs punish people for making the decision politicians don't like. This is big government at work.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And the reality is:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved • AEI

According to our calculations, explained in this policy brief, the total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011. The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year (see table above).

There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.

There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

The American people can do that right now. Consumers vote with their dollars when they choose what to buy. Tariffs punish people for making the decision politicians don't like. This is big government at work.

So you are saying when you buy a Chinese of Mexican product because it is a few dollars cheaper than an American made product you are voting for your neighbor to lose his job and his house and politicians shouldn't interfere because you believe being a good American means you have the right to screw your neighbor.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A border adjustment tax is a stupid idea. It is another name for a tariff. It will invite retaliation. In addition, it will increase costs for consumers and consumers will have fewer choices. Taxes are paid by consumers not corporations so the idea that consumers will not suffer is ridiculous. Businesses cannot operate at a loss no matter what kind of curve you use.

You don't understand, it's not a zero sum game. As a result Trump can reduce other taxes.

Why bother? Kudlow who is a Trump supporter says we should concentrate on a pro-growth tax policy rather than managed trade.

You don't understand. Why bother doing all that re-adjusting?

Both will contribute to keeping Americans jobs here. Both will give us a more favorable balance of payments.

 

[busybee01]

And the reality is:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved • AEI

According to our calculations, explained in this policy brief, the total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011. The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year (see table above).

There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.

There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

The American people can do that right now. Consumers vote with their dollars when they choose what to buy. Tariffs punish people for making the decision politicians don't like. This is big government at work.

So you are saying when you buy a Chinese of Mexican product because it is a few dollars cheaper than an American made product you are voting for your neighbor to lose his job and his house and politicians shouldn't interfere because you believe being a good American means you have the right to screw your neighbor.

If Americans want American made products then they can buy products made in America. Americans have the right to make a decision without being punished for doing it.

 

[busybee01]

A border adjustment tax is a stupid idea. It is another name for a tariff. It will invite retaliation. In addition, it will increase costs for consumers and consumers will have fewer choices. Taxes are paid by consumers not corporations so the idea that consumers will not suffer is ridiculous. Businesses cannot operate at a loss no matter what kind of curve you use.

You don't understand, it's not a zero sum game. As a result Trump can reduce other taxes.

Why bother? Kudlow who is a Trump supporter says we should concentrate on a pro-growth tax policy rather than managed trade.

You don't understand. Why bother doing all that re-adjusting?

Both will contribute to keeping Americans jobs here. Both will give us a more favorable balance of payments.

Both are attacks on the American consumer. Sad that liberals like you want to punish Americans.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.

There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

The American people can do that right now. Consumers vote with their dollars when they choose what to buy. Tariffs punish people for making the decision politicians don't like. This is big government at work.

So you are saying when you buy a Chinese of Mexican product because it is a few dollars cheaper than an American made product you are voting for your neighbor to lose his job and his house and politicians shouldn't interfere because you believe being a good American means you have the right to screw your neighbor.

If Americans want American made products then they can buy products made in America. Americans have the right to make a decision without being punished for doing it.

The tariff doesn't take away your right to buy Chinese products, but it will help protect your neighbor's job.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A border adjustment tax is a stupid idea. It is another name for a tariff. It will invite retaliation. In addition, it will increase costs for consumers and consumers will have fewer choices. Taxes are paid by consumers not corporations so the idea that consumers will not suffer is ridiculous. Businesses cannot operate at a loss no matter what kind of curve you use.

You don't understand, it's not a zero sum game. As a result Trump can reduce other taxes.

Why bother? Kudlow who is a Trump supporter says we should concentrate on a pro-growth tax policy rather than managed trade.

You don't understand. Why bother doing all that re-adjusting?

Both will contribute to keeping Americans jobs here. Both will give us a more favorable balance of payments.

Both are attacks on the American consumer. Sad that liberals like you want to punish Americans.

Neither is an attack on consumers and how crazy do you have to be to think I am a liberal?

 

[protectionist]

It was not refuted in the OP. The OP was a bunch of garbage. You also need to look at the demand curve. When you raise prices, that means that demand goes down. When demand goes down, that means jobs are lost. The fact is that Larry Kudlow calls this voodoo economics. I would rather be taught by Kudlow.

The fact is that businesses are not in business to provide Americans jobs. They produce goods and services and the consumer decides. Take your idiotic comments and go to HELL!!

You are just babbling - you know nothing about economics. Firms can't raise prices above their market price. That's why they HAVE a market price, airhead.

 

[protectionist]

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

I'n not commenting on whether tariffs worked in the past or not, but, >> The word "never" applies to situations of the past, not necessarily related to the present. In the past, we didn't have a huge loss of manufacturing due to outsourcing. Back to the drawing board for you.

 

[protectionist]

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

They won't pay a dime more.

 

[task0778]

My research indicates quite a bit of confusion and some complexity with this issue, starting exactly with what this border adjustment tax is and who is affected and who isn't. Does it apply only to US companies who shift operations abroad and then bring the product back here to sell it to us at a reduced price due to lower labor costs? Or does it apply to every product that is imported into the US regardless of where it came from or who built it? IOW, will foreign companies have to pay that BAT too? And, will a BAT be struck down by the WTO (World Trade Organization)? And, what will the repercussions be from those countries that are negatively affected? Also, I suspect some US businesses would be adversely affected too, like retailers that sell shoes and clothing and electronics that are made much more cheaply elsewhere and sold here. Obviously our standard of living declines if we have to pay significantly more for stuff like that if there's a big BAT tax tacked onto the cost.

Basic economics says that when the cost of supply (production) goes up, so does the price. And correspondingly the demand drops, that's ECON 101. So IMHO it boils down to winners and losers some industries and business sectors will do well but others will not. Supporters of the BAT will tout the winners and the opposition will decry the losers, with neither side telling you about the flip side. My general impression is that when prices go up due to gov't intervention (which is what a BAT is), the consumer generally comes out a loser, especially those at the lower end of the income ladder. Cuz your dollars won't go as far, simple as that. Some say that won't happen if the BAT results in a stronger dollar; personally I'm a bit skeptical about that.

 

[protectionist]

My research indicates quite a bit of confusion and some complexity with this issue, starting exactly with what this border adjustment tax is and who is affected and who isn't. Does it apply only to US companies who shift operations abroad and then bring the product back here to sell it to us at a reduced price due to lower labor costs? Or does it apply to every product that is imported into the US regardless of where it came from or who built it? IOW, will foreign companies have to pay that BAT too? And, will a BAT be struck down by the WTO (World Trade Organization)? And, what will the repercussions be from those countries that are negatively affected? Also, I suspect some US businesses would be adversely affected too, like retailers that sell shoes and clothing and electronics that are made much more cheaply elsewhere and sold here. Obviously our standard of living declines if we have to pay significantly more for stuff like that if there's a big BAT tax tacked onto the cost.

Basic economics say that when the cost or supply (production) goes up, so does the price. And correspondingly the demand drops, that's ECON 101. So IMHO it boils down to winners and losers some industries and business sectors will do well but others will not. Supporters of the BAT will tout the winners and the opposition will decry the losers, with neither side telling you about the flip side. My general impression is that when prices go up due to gov't intervention (which is what a BAT is), the consumer generally comes out a loser, especially those at the lower end of the income ladder. Cuz your dollars won't go as far, simple as that. Some say that won't happen if the BAT results in a stronger dollar; personally I'm a bit skeptical about that.

There is no BAT tax tacked onto the cost. - read the OP.

 

[forkup]

For a former professor you seem to not want to really explain yourself further. So I'll explain your position in a nutshell, if I get it wrong feel free to correct me.
Companies will not hike prices because prices are set at the maximum level people can afford.
If that's your position I have news for you. They will hike prices and people will be able to afford it. How, you may ask? Simple by the same means people in America succeed now in living beyond their means. They call it credit. What is you think the more likely scenario. Companies swallowing their loss of revenue or a massive credit program?

The fallacy of your post is the word "afford" It's not a matter of affording. It is simply what people WILL pay based on what they perceive to be a correct price.

If you go above your market price, your sales fall - like a lead ball.

The perceived correct price changes. Talk to Grandpa,he will think the price of every item is unreasonably high. He remembers the days when you payed cent's not dollars for a hotdog for instance. He will still pay to get an hotdog, because he doesn't have a choice. Companies always put increased production costs on the consumer. Give me any example of companies swallowing increased production costs and you might have a point. Sorry I didn't reply I haven't checked this post in a while.

 

[g5000]

President Trump’s support in getting elected POTUS, in part, came from the proposal to slap outsource companies overseas, with tariffs on their imports. The idea being to make it uneconomical for those companies to operate outside the US.

You seem to be unaware that Donald Trump is opposed to the Border Adjustment Tax.

 

[g5000]

I went into the nitty gritty of the border adjustment tax here: Lowering Corporate Tax Rates The Coward’s Way

 

[Brain357]

And the reality is:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved • AEI

According to our calculations, explained in this policy brief, the total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011. The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year (see table above).

There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.

There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

Of course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.

They work as a tax yes. But give me an example where they ever saved jobs or increased wages. Steel tariffs saved few steel jobs at the cost of many more jobs in manufacturing.

 

[Brain357]

We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.

I'n not commenting on whether tariffs worked in the past or not, but, >> The word "never" applies to situations of the past, not necessarily related to the present. In the past, we didn't have a huge loss of manufacturing due to outsourcing. Back to the drawing board for you.

So you want to ignore what actually happens with tariffs? My tire and steel examples are recent examples.

 

[task0778]

My research indicates quite a bit of confusion and some complexity with this issue, starting exactly with what this border adjustment tax is and who is affected and who isn't. Does it apply only to US companies who shift operations abroad and then bring the product back here to sell it to us at a reduced price due to lower labor costs? Or does it apply to every product that is imported into the US regardless of where it came from or who built it? IOW, will foreign companies have to pay that BAT too? And, will a BAT be struck down by the WTO (World Trade Organization)? And, what will the repercussions be from those countries that are negatively affected? Also, I suspect some US businesses would be adversely affected too, like retailers that sell shoes and clothing and electronics that are made much more cheaply elsewhere and sold here. Obviously our standard of living declines if we have to pay significantly more for stuff like that if there's a big BAT tax tacked onto the cost.

Basic economics say that when the cost or supply (production) goes up, so does the price. And correspondingly the demand drops, that's ECON 101. So IMHO it boils down to winners and losers some industries and business sectors will do well but others will not. Supporters of the BAT will tout the winners and the opposition will decry the losers, with neither side telling you about the flip side. My general impression is that when prices go up due to gov't intervention (which is what a BAT is), the consumer generally comes out a loser, especially those at the lower end of the income ladder. Cuz your dollars won't go as far, simple as that. Some say that won't happen if the BAT results in a stronger dollar; personally I'm a bit skeptical about that.

There is no BAT tax tacked onto the cost. - read the OP.

I read your OP, it's nonsense. To suggest that consumers won't have to pay for a significant BAT that IS tacked onto the cost (price) is ridiculous. I have never understood the fantasy by some on the the Left that they can raise taxes on something without raising the cost of producing a product or service.