Kamala Harris woos middle class with pledge to give business a break

[diamenz]

The Democratic nominee has promised tax relief for small companies as she seeks to wrest the economic agenda from Trump

Kamala Harris set out her economic vision on Wednesday, promising to lower capital gains tax and offer breaks to small businesses as the Democrats sought to win over middle-class voters.

The vice-president, speaking at a campaign event in North Hampton, New Hampshire, proposed a smaller increase in the top rate of capital gains than the almost 40 per cent that President Biden had planned.

She said she believed a more modest rate increase could better encourage investment in entrepreneurship and access to capital for small businesses.

Harris said: “As president, one of my highest priorities will be to strengthen America’s small businesses.” On average it cost $40,000 to start a new business, which she said was “a great financial barrier for a lot of folks”.

She said she would expand the start-up expense deduction for small businesses from $5,000 to $50,000 and set a goal of 25 million new small business applications in the first term of her potential administration — up from a record 19 million so far under Biden.

Harris has taken a friendlier approach to the business community in the hope of blunting Donald Trump’s advantage as the candidate seen as most able to boost the economy. However, last month she called for new housing subsidies and higher taxes on the wealthy and big businesses. Policy experts say the deductions could cost Americans as much as $20 billion over the next ten years.

The Harris campaign did not outline how it would cover the cost, but she has already said that she would increase the corporate tax rate to 28 per cent, up from the 21 per cent rate set by Trump’s tax cut law in 2017. That would raise about $1 trillion over the next decade. Harris’s tax increase would raise about $5 trillion.

Trump has called for the corporate tax rate to be cut to 15 per cent. “Kamala Harris has proven she puts the middle class last. She has had three and a half years and done nothing but cause problems for American families. In fact, the average middle-class household has lost $33,000 in real wealth under Kamala,” the Trump campaign said on Wednesday.



https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/kamala-harris-economic-policies-taxes-z9bmzpndn

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2024-08-16/kamala-harris-lays-out-economic-agenda-focused-on-the-middle-class

kamala taking a populist approach here? thoughts?

[ILLsmak]

https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/kamala-harris-economic-policies-taxes-z9bmzpndn

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2024-08-16/kamala-harris-lays-out-economic-agenda-focused-on-the-middle-class

kamala taking a populist approach here? thoughts?

She wants to get elected and she sees her prospects dimming.


I absolutely support the policy though.


-Smak

[j3lademaster]

How the hell is Trump selling corporate tax cuts being good to Americans who aren't at least c-suite/executive levels? Corporate cuts are devastating to inflation, national debt, small businesses and increasing the wealth gap.

And Kamala is onto something here, but unless we do something to blunt the online footprint of large corporations, that policy is all fluff. The reason small businesses are dying is because modern consumers check for goods on Amazon before buying something. I don't mean to single them out, but last I heard they were closing in on 10 million sqr footage for their data centers alone(this was a few years ago so they might have surpassed that already); that's impossible for all but like 5 conglomerates in the world to compete with... so we basically have an oligarchy with Amazon all but monopolizing the web service industry. How is giving them more tax breaks suppose to help? Jobs? If we had small businesses back won't the small businesses provide the jobs? If not straight up jobs then entrepreneurship opportunity. I'm all in favor for having more millionaires at the cost of less billionaires.

And this isn't a republican or dem thing. I've often said JFK is one of the most harmful presidents ever when he originated the original modern corporate tax cuts and Reagan's admin for furthering it and normalizing stock buybacks. We need to halt the increasing wealth gap and close wealth transfer tax loopholes if we don't want to kill meritocracy, or else in a few generations our top talents will leave just like how the brightest chinese, indian and taiwanese students leave their countries to come to the US right now.

[ZenMaster]

How the hell is Trump selling corporate tax cuts being good to Americans who aren't at least c-suite/executive levels? Corporate cuts are devastating to inflation, national debt, small businesses and increasing the wealth gap.

And Kamala is onto something here, but unless we do something to blunt the online footprint of large corporations, that policy is all fluff. The reason small businesses are dying is because modern consumers check for goods on Amazon before buying something. I don't mean to single them out, but last I heard they were closing in on 10 million sqr footage for their data centers alone(this was a few years ago so they might have surpassed that already); that's impossible for all but like 5 conglomerates in the world to compete with... so we basically have an oligarchy with Amazon all but monopolizing the web service industry. How is giving them more tax breaks suppose to help? Jobs? If we had small businesses back won't the small businesses provide the jobs? If not straight up jobs then entrepreneurship opportunity. I'm all in favor for having more millionaires at the cost of less billionaires.

And this isn't a republican or dem thing. I've often said JFK is one of the most harmful presidents ever when he originated the original modern corporate tax cuts and Reagan's admin for furthering it and normalizing stock buybacks. We need to halt the increasing wealth gap and close wealth transfer tax loopholes if we don't want to kill meritocracy, or else in a few generations our top talents will leave just like how the brightest chinese, indian and taiwanese students leave their countries to come to the US right now.

15% of profits from a company investing into America and paying US workers every year for production is better for the American people than 22% of nothing from a company investing into Mexico and paying Mexican workers.

China is fixing to take a huge future chunk of the US car industry through Mexico, earlier this year Biden and Harris made a big deal out of new tarrifs on Chinese EV imports, but those Chinese companies were already in the process of setting up shop in Mexico instead, along with many US companies looking for the same benefits.


Mexico attracted more than $106 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) announcements during the first nine months of 2023, according to the Mexican government. More than 40% of the FDI investments ($42 billion) originated from U.S.-based companies opening facilities in Mexico.

“From January through November, the private sector made 363 investment announcements in our country, creating 226,792 new jobs, 42% of which are associated with the automotive industry,” Mexico’s Ministry of Economy posted on Facebook.


Market Analysis recorded the arrival of 42 new companies in Mexico under the concept of nearshoring. These companies did not have any type of production or logistics process established within the national territory.

According to the quarterly records of the leading market intelligence company, throughout these three semesters of 2023, new companies in Mexico generated a gross absorption of 4.72 million square feet concentrated mainly in the industrial markets of Monterrey, Querétaro, Tijuana and La Laguna.

Regarding the country of origin of the companies, 28 came from China, eight from the United States and two from Taiwan; while the remaining four companies came from Korea, Mexico, Germany, and Italy.

[j3lademaster]

15% of profits from a company investing into America and paying US workers every year for production is better for the American people than 22% of nothing from a company investing into Mexico and paying Mexican workers.

China is fixing to take a huge future chunk of the US car industry through Mexico, earlier this year Biden and Harris made a big deal out of new tarrifs on Chinese EV imports, but those Chinese companies were already in the process of setting up shop in Mexico instead, along with many US companies looking for the same benefits.

I don't get why you always argue with yourself. I'm making the argument that lowering corporate tax rates worsens the standard of living for the average American, and you're arguing that Mexico is enjoying an increase in foreign investment. So what are you saying, that standards in Mexico are improving due to this influx of business so mexican people are no longer trying to come to America? Does Mexico need to build a wall to keep us out?

The second part is that Mexico has a 30% corporate tax rate, much higher than our current 21%; so it's not even the tax rate that's attracting these companies.

So what was your argument again?

[RRR3]

I don't get why you always argue with yourself. I'm making the argument that lowering corporate tax rates worsens the standard of living for the average American, and you're arguing that Mexico is enjoying an increase in foreign investment. So what are you saying, that standards in Mexico are improving due to this influx of business so mexican people are no longer trying to come to America? Does Mexico need to build a wall to keep us out?

The second part is that Mexico has a 30% corporate tax rate, much higher than our current 21%; so it's not even the tax rate that's attracting these companies.

So what was your argument again?
:roll: :roll: :roll:

ZenDisaster at it again :lol

[highwhey]

I don't get why you always argue with yourself. I'm making the argument that lowering corporate tax rates worsens the standard of living for the average American, and you're arguing that Mexico is enjoying an increase in foreign investment. So what are you saying, that standards in Mexico are improving due to this influx of business so mexican people are no longer trying to come to America? Does Mexico need to build a wall to keep us out?

The second part is that Mexico has a 30% corporate tax rate, much higher than our current 21%; so it's not even the tax rate that's attracting these companies.

So what was your argument again?

zen getting rekt

[bladefd]

15% of profits from a company investing into America and paying US workers every year for production is better for the American people than 22% of nothing from a company investing into Mexico and paying Mexican workers.

China is fixing to take a huge future chunk of the US car industry through Mexico, earlier this year Biden and Harris made a big deal out of new tarrifs on Chinese EV imports, but those Chinese companies were already in the process of setting up shop in Mexico instead, along with many US companies looking for the same benefits.

Instead, what will happen is corporations will take the 15% tax rate and still continue doing business in developing countries w/ slave labor. The 7% they save will go back to stock buybacks and executive bonuses. That's what happened after the last corporate tax cut and also the bush tax cut. It's a pattern.

[Patrick Chewing]

The more you tax businesses, the more they take their business elsewhere. Simple economics.

[ZenMaster]

I don't get why you always argue with yourself. I'm making the argument that lowering corporate tax rates worsens the standard of living for the average American, and you're arguing that Mexico is enjoying an increase in foreign investment. So what are you saying, that standards in Mexico are improving due to this influx of business so mexican people are no longer trying to come to America? Does Mexico need to build a wall to keep us out?

The second part is that Mexico has a 30% corporate tax rate, much higher than our current 21%; so it's not even the tax rate that's attracting these companies.

So what was your argument again?

Point is that jobs for Americans are more important than the coorporate tax rate and foreign companies who wants a piece of US consumers should be investing in the US to do so, not Mexico.

Public companies have an obligation to its investors in pursuing the most profitable way to do business, if that is nearshoring production to Mexico and importing from there to the US because the US govt allows this, it's what they're going to pursue.
Lowering the corporate tax rate and setting up the right tariffs on imports from Mexico and other countries will make it more profitable for companies to produce in the US instead, providing Americans with more middle class jobs which improves the standard of living for the average American.

[j3lademaster]

The more you tax businesses, the more they take their business elsewhere. Simple economics.Isn't that what you said in regards of NYC refusing to subsidize the new Amazon corporate office there? And what happened next? Oh, Amazon built in NYC anyway.

[highwhey]

reminds me of all the tax cuts trump gave to intel because they promised to keep and create more jobs in america.,


https://i.postimg.cc/MHYCcshh/Screenshot-2024-09-06-112033.png

just recently announced they are cutting 15,000 jobs.


Intel is undergoing one of the most challenging periods in its history, announcing 15,000 job cuts, which represents over 15% of its workforce. These layoffs are part of a $10 billion spending reduction plan for 2025,

coincidentially, trump was able to save intel $7 billion in taxes. so they basically got a free factory out of the deal. great business model donald! they scammed you for $7 billy :applause:

[BigKobeFan]

Isn't that what you said in regards of NYC refusing to subsidize the new Amazon corporate office there? And what happened next? Oh, Amazon built in NYC anyway.
wrong again

https://goodjobsfirst.org/amazon-tracker/?state=New+York

[Charlie Sheen]

Point is that jobs for Americans are more important than the coorporate tax rate and foreign companies who wants a piece of US consumers should be investing in the US to do so, not Mexico.

Public companies have an obligation to its investors in pursuing the most profitable way to do business, if that is nearshoring production to Mexico and importing from there to the US because the US govt allows this, it's what they're going to pursue.
Lowering the corporate tax rate and setting up the right tariffs on imports from Mexico and other countries will make it more profitable for companies to produce in the US instead, providing Americans with more middle class jobs which improves the standard of living for the average American.

Corporate tax rate is a narrow way to look at the tax code.

Credits, exemptions and subsidies are lowering the effective tax rate of the major players while they strengthen the stranglehold they already have on the us market.

Lower corporate tax rates benefits shareholders through dividends, stock buybacks and sitting on profits to pump the value of the stock. Labor is not the majority holder of stock. The middle and lower class are not winning squat.

[BigKobeFan]

Corporate tax rate is a narrow way to look at the tax code.

Credits, exemptions and subsidies are lowering the effective tax rate of the major players while they strengthen the stranglehold they already have on the us market.

Lower corporate tax rates benefits shareholders through dividends, stock buybacks and sitting on profits to pump the value of the stock. Labor is not the majority holder of stock. The middle and lower class are not winning squat.

The middle class has significant shares in their 401ks in these stocks. Dont know what you are talking about how it doesnt benefit them

[Patrick Chewing]

Isn't that what you said in regards of NYC refusing to subsidize the new Amazon corporate office there? And what happened next? Oh, Amazon built in NYC anyway.

It's Amazon. They can build an office on the Moon and on Mars if they wanted to.

[Charlie Sheen]

The middle class has significant shares in their 401ks in these stocks. Dont know what you are talking about how it doesnt benefit them

If I am distributing 3 sets of 100,00 gold coins

Group 1 has 200 members and receives 500 gold coins.
Group 2 has 10,000 members and receives 10 gold coins.
Group 3 has 100k members and receives 1 gold coin

Members of group 3 receive one gold coin but they are even further behind the other 2 groups than they were before the distribution occurred. Was that gold coin really to their benefit?

[BigKobeFan]

If I am distributing 3 sets of 100,00 gold coins

Group 1 has 200 members and receives 500 gold coins.
Group 2 has 10,000 members and receives 10 gold coins.
Group 3 has 100k members and receives 1 gold coin

Members of group 3 receive one gold coin but they are even further behind the other 2 groups than they were before the distribution occurred. Was that gold coin really to their benefit?

This is by far the worst hypothetical gotcha bull shit i read.

How much was jeff bezo worth before amazon took off? Just answer that question. How did he get there. Why shouldnt he reap the benefits of success when he took all the risk?

In other words, early investors get the worm

[Charlie Sheen]

This is by far the worst hypothetical gotcha bull shit i read.

How much was jeff bezo worth before amazon took off? Just answer that question. How did he get there. Why shouldnt he reap the benefits of success when he took all the risk?

In other words, early investors get the worm

You said the middle class benefits from corporate tax cuts, and I was illustrating how the middle class loses big time... proportionally.

I am not suggesting the middle class deserves an equal share to bezos. I am suggesting that corporate tax cuts should not be a path to increasing wealth inequality.

What is hypothetical about this? The TCJA is not new legislation.

On the side of individual income tax did the middle class benefit there too? They shaved off $500 compared to $40k for top earners tax bill.

Who is getting by far the largest share of QBI tax breaks?

[j3lademaster]

wrong again

https://goodjobsfirst.org/amazon-tracker/?state=New+YorkI'm specifically talking about when NYC didn't give Amazon the $3 billion subsidy to build their second headquarters there in 2019 and Amazon threatened to pull out and go to some shithole like Kentucky instead. Despite not receiving the subsidy Amazon still built in nyc proving corporate behavior in the real world goes beyond simply tax rates and subsidies.


This is by far the worst hypothetical gotcha bull shit i read.

How much was jeff bezo worth before amazon took off? Just answer that question. How did he get there. Why shouldnt he reap the benefits of success when he took all the risk?

In other words, early investors get the wormWhat does Bezos have to do with anything? No one in here implied Bezos doesn't deserve to be rich, so no need to come to his rescue.

However, the top 10% owns 93% of the stock market while only owning 80% of the overall wealth. What does this 13% disparity mean? It means more of the top 10%'s wealth can go to investments in stocks and futures because a very small proportion of their overall net wealth goes into their other assets like houses and cars. But for the average american a large proportion of their net worth is their house. Of the 7% of the market the top 10% doesn't own, only 1% is owned by the bottom 50% of americans, that's 165million people. So you tell me if what Charlie Sheen said was stupid. Do you get why a bull market is disproportionately transfering wealth to the top?

[BigKobeFan]

You said the middle class benefits from corporate tax cuts, and I was illustrating how the middle class loses big time... proportionally.

I am not suggesting the middle class deserves an equal share to bezos. I am suggesting that corporate tax cuts should not be a path to increasing wealth inequality.

What is hypothetical about this? The TCJA is not new legislation.

On the side of individual income tax did the middle class benefit there too? They shaved off $500 compared to $40k for top earners tax bill.

Who is getting by far the largest share of QBI tax breaks?

Imagine not even being able to invest in a 401k plan because blue chip stocks didn't exist. Idiots like you will never realize a 5% ROI.

[BigKobeFan]

I'm specifically talking about when NYC didn't give Amazon the $3 billion subsidy to build their second headquarters there in 2019 and Amazon threatened to pull out and go to some shithole like Kentucky instead. Despite not receiving the subsidy Amazon still built in nyc proving corporate behavior in the real world goes beyond simply tax rates and subsidies.

What does Bezos have to do with anything? No one in here implied Bezos doesn't deserve to be rich, so no need to come to his rescue.

However, the top 10% owns 93% of the stock market while only owning 80% of the overall wealth. What does this 13% disparity mean? It means more of the top 10%'s wealth can go to investments in stocks and futures because a very small proportion of their overall net wealth goes into their other assets like houses and cars. But for the average american a large proportion of their net worth is their house. Of the 7% of the market the top 10% doesn't own, only 1% is owned by the bottom 50% of americans, that's 165million people. So you tell me if what Charlie Sheen said was stupid. Do you get why a bull market is disproportionately transfering wealth to the top?

Jeff bezos has everything to do with it. The guy complains that the wealthy 1% gets all the benefits and the middle and poor get nothing when the stock prices goes up or down.

The 1% took all the risks to get into that position in the first place. Think for a bit. trace the history and you will know why its like this. Don't try to equalize the current situation without thinking into the past. Thats why idiots like you like to burn down the past.

Did you not see all the other subsidies amazon got from NY? You said Amazon built a new building despite receiving absolutely no subsidies from 2020 to the present after the AOC fiasco. Proved you wrong immediately.

[Charlie Sheen]

Imagine not even being able to invest in a 401k plan because blue chip stocks didn't exist. Idiots like you will never realize a 5% ROI.

You are quick to call someone else an idiot when I am not sure you understand the topic.

Corporate tax cuts are redistributed federal revenues that are in theory supposed to stimulate economic growth. It is the alternative to public investment.

Yet here you are here arguing that Jeff Bezos deserves to absorb an even greater share of the overall wealth than he already has because of how much he was worth before amazon started? What the hell does this have to do with the topic?

[BigKobeFan]

You are quick to call someone else an idiot when I am not sure you understand the topic.

Corporate tax cuts are redistributed federal revenues that are in theory supposed to stimulate economic growth. It is the alternative to public investment.

Yet here you are here arguing that Jeff Bezos deserves to absorb an even greater share of the overall wealth than he already has because of how much he was worth before amazon started? What the hell does this have to do with the topic?

Why does he not get to reap the benefits of government subsidies and tax cuts? Just because you didnt get in on it sooner than him?

So the lower class who took no risk and works for the boss gets to cash in on someone elses success....typical democrat philosophy

You should have been the first so it would be you controlling the market. Learn how real life works

Lets go look at your stupid coin example. I will assume the 100k members are later investors as compared to the other two. So why do later investors get the same exact benefit as the other two groups who invested sooner at the onset of the company vs. Buying in a compnay when its virtually safe from risks?

[Charlie Sheen]

Why does he not get to reap the benefits of government subsidies and tax cuts? Just because you didnt get in on it sooner than him?

So the lower class who took no risk and works for the boss gets to cash in on someone elses success....typical democrat philosophy

You should have been the first so it would be you controlling the market. Learn how real life works

Lets go look at your stupid coin example. I will assume the 100k members are later investors as compared to the other two. So why do later investors get the same exact benefit as the other two groups who invested sooner at the onset of the company vs. Buying in a compnay when its virtually safe from risks?

Nobody said the bold. What I have said to you for the third time now is the top earners should not reap all the benefits while everyone else ends up a worse position than before the TCJA. It has nothing to do with early or late investing.

I will repeat myself again... the bargain for reducing the corporate tax burden has always been that a portion of the tax savings would be put back into the company to benefit the worker.

j3lademaster touched on this earlier with Amazon... The most recent tax cuts did not spur investment, Industries have become so concentrated economists suggest capital investment is now driven by demand. What does that mean? The TCJA was designed to transfer an even greater share of wealth to the top 10%. It is working as intended. There is almost no risk for Amazon to forego investment. They have no competition. Amazon is raking it in on the strength of their market power. Good for them.

This is a discussion about tax policy. Why do you want to shift money away from public investment to the top 10%? Can you explain to me how they earned these transfers of federal revenue?

[ZenMaster]

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen;14941626]Nobody said the bold. What I have said to you for the third time now is the top earners should not reap all the benefits while everyone else ends up a worse position than before the TCJA. It has nothing to do with early or late investing.

I will repeat myself again... the bargain for reducing the corporate tax burden has always been that a portion of the tax savings would be put back into the company to benefit the worker.

j3lademaster touched on this earlier with Amazon... The most recent tax cuts did not spur investment, Industries have become so concentrated economists suggest capital investment is now driven by demand. What does that mean? The TCJA was designed to transfer an even greater share of wealth to the top 10%. It is working as intended. There is almost no risk for Amazon to forego investment. They have no competition. Amazon is raking it in on the strength of their market power. Good for them.

This is a discussion about tax policy. Why do you want to shift money away from public investment to the top 10%? Can you explain to me how they earned these transfers of federal revenue?[/QUOTE

Times change, the bargain now for lower corporate tax is to keep jobs in the US nearshoring to Mexico. Not sure if I agree, but I definitely do on tariffs.

Teemu is competitor to Amazon and showing strong growth btw.

[Charlie Sheen]

Times change, the bargain now for lower corporate tax is to keep jobs in the US nearshoring to Mexico. Not sure if I agree, but I definitely do on tariffs.

Teemu is competitor to Amazon and showing strong growth btw.


You do realize that tariffs are not one way? American jobs are lost when tariffs work the other way and US goods are no longer able to compete in foreign markets.

Congratulations your economic policy would put people out of work and raise prices in the US.

[bladefd]

You do realize that tariffs are not one way? American jobs are lost when tariffs work the other way and US goods are no longer able to compete in foreign markets.

Congratulations your economic policy would put people out of work and raise prices in the US.

He is a Russian bot. That's exactly what Russia wants and why they want Trump as president

[Lakers Legend#32]

Did you see Trump trying to woo the New York Economic Club?

Trump: "Childcare is childcare."

[ZenMaster]

You do realize that tariffs are not one way? American jobs are lost when tariffs work the other way and US goods are no longer able to compete in foreign markets.

Congratulations your economic policy would put people out of work and raise prices in the US.

This is an argument from economic bookss publushed with federal funding while Bill and George were pushing NAFTA, the US currently has heavy deficits within main trade partners and all the leverage in the world to impose tarrifs while setting up internal supply chain production. It'll suck a bit in the beginning, but will be worth it in the end.


He is a Russian bot. That's exactly what Russia wants and why they want Trump as president

Does your aunt come downstairs and wipe the drool off the floor for you after these comments?

[Charlie Sheen]

This is an argument from economic bookss publushed with federal funding while Bill and George were pushing NAFTA, the US currently has heavy deficits within main trade partners and all the leverage in the world to impose tarrifs while setting up internal supply chain production. It'll suck a bit in the beginning, but will be worth it in the end.


Protectionist tariff surprises reduce US foreign trade and domestic investment strongly, in aggre-
gate and across most sectors. Greater uncertainty about US trade policy has also negative effects.
It weighs particularly on imports. Both first and second moment trade policy shocks improve the
trade balance, but this comes at the cost of a domestic demand compression and persistent GDP
lossess

source: Boer, Lukas, and Malte Rieth, 2024. “The Macroeconomic Consequences of
Import Tariffs and Trade Policy Uncertainty,” IMF Working Paper 24/13

[Jasper]

The more you tax businesses, the more they take their business elsewhere. Simple economics.

that's why all top 10 (1%) giant businesses call USA home.

[ZenMaster]

source: Boer, Lukas, and Malte Rieth, 2024. “The Macroeconomic Consequences of
Import Tariffs and Trade Policy Uncertainty,” IMF Working Paper 24/13


For the 10 industries with the highest value of imports covered by
section 301 tariffs, the models estimate that the value of U.S. production rose between 1.2
percent and 7.5 percent in 2021 as a result of section 301 tariffs


Some effects of section 301 tariffs would likely be delayed. It may take time for importers to change
their supply chain to import from other sources or find domestic producers. Investment in additional
domestic production, if necessary, would take time to come online but would eventually increase
domestic production and reduce the price of the domestic good. These effects would all increase the
longer-run impact of section 301 tariffs, particularly if importers and domestic producers anticipated the
tariffs remaining in place long enough to make these costly changes worthwhile.
The effects of section 301 tariffs may be influenced by the perceived uncertainty regarding the tariffs.
For example, if importers and exporters believe that the tariffs may be temporary, their response to
these tariffs may be muted. The uncertainty would delay the effects of tariffs because the importers and
exporters would wait to see if the tariffs remain, increase, or decrease in the future.

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub5405.pdf


During the Biden Administration, Senators Brown and Casey have fiercely advocated for keeping tariffs in place to protect Americans workers. In 2021, Brown and Casey applauded the Administration for an agreement with the European Union on steel and aluminum tariffs. Earlier this year, Brown and Casey urged President Biden to rescind the suspension of market-balancing tariffs on Chinese solar product importers in four southeast Asian countries to level the playing field for American manufacturers and workers.


Dear President Biden:

As your Administration concludes the interagency review on Section 301 tariffs, we write to share our serious concerns about reductions in the tariffs that will enable China and other global competitors to resume their anti-competitive activities without consequences. While not the subject of interagency review, we share similar concerns about reductions in 232 tariffs, as well as related actions that would undermine American steel and aluminum producers as a result of negotiations with the European Union on the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum.

These tariffs are essential to level the playing field for American workers to compete and counter unfair trade practices by China, which seeks to circumvent our trade laws, steal American technology, and cheat and bully its way to global economic dominance. We urge the Administration to maintain the Section 301 and Section 232 tariff regimes as we continue our work with partners and allies to forge a sustainable approach to trade policy that supports American workers and fair global economic competitiveness.

In 2018, following an investigation by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Section 301 tariffs were imposed on goods imported from China in response to its policies and practices regarding technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The investigation concluded that the Chinese government’s trade policies were unreasonable, discriminatory, and created trade barriers for United States commerce. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum were also imposed in 2018 following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce on national security grounds. A 2022 report from USTR on China’s compliance with the World Trade Organization only underscores that the underlying economic reasons and market conditions for why the tariffs were imposed have not changed.

According to a March 2023 report from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Section 301 and 232 tariffs led to significant increases in domestic production in the tariffed industries that were analyzed. In addition, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, the imposition of Section 232 tariffs incentivized new capital spending by domestic steel makers, with announced investments of nearly $22 billion in new, expanded, or restarted production since March 2018.

The United States should be taking control of its future by investing in American workers and communities, revitalizing domestic manufacturing and industry, and combatting the growing threat posed by China and other nonmarket economies. The Chinese government has undermined U.S. industrial markets by expanding subsidies for steel, aluminum, semiconductors, solar panels, transportation, and other critical infrastructure. From forced labor to currency manipulation and dumping and circumvention, the Chinese government does not play by global rules-based order. The U.S. should consider the Chinese government’s long-standing practice of using economic coercion and supply chain retaliation as a geopolitical weapon when taking action that could undermine efforts to shore up our domestic manufacturing and supply chains.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to working with you to protect workers and communities, revitalize domestic manufacturing and industry, safeguard our national and economic security, and confront the threat posed by the Chinese government and other nonmarket economies.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Casey

Senator Sherrod Brown

[Media Moderator]

Of course she's trying to woo them. They've been solid Republican since almost forever, but the Democrats are the enemy of small businesses. Small business HATES the Democrats.

[Charlie Sheen]

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub5405.pdf

Have you considered there might have been unique conditions in the 2020-2021 us economy that would have driven demand upwards to support the rise in production value? Maybe several rounds of stimulus injected into the economy. Something like that?

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/gdp2q24-2nd-chart-01.png

[ZenMaster]

The US is a debtor nation, there isn't enough production of needed goods because it's imported instead for higher corporate profit margins. The interest payment on the federal debt was 1 trillion last year and if things stay the same it'll be 2 trillion in around 6 years. 2 trillion is 40% of the current budget and it's completely unsustainable.
You can fix this by reducing government spending and creating an environment for more business to produce on US soil, increasing the average wage. There's more to that equation, but tariffs is part of it given the current situation.
There are also other ways, but those aren't good options as they come with dystopian consequences.

The European Union imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs earlier this year, took around three months for the various Chinese EV makers to announce openings of factories within the EU, creating jobs there which would otherwise be in China. They'd do the same in the US if it wasn't more profitable to open those plants in Mexico.