Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#71

Post by burfog »

logfromblammo wrote: post #60
Leary wrote: post #11

The most recent tweets by Trump regarding this: "The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier)…

The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers. The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual p…

Taxes on transactions, such as tariffs, are almost never paid only by one side. The side with less flexibility is going to pay most of it, adjusting prices as needed to make this so.

China has less flexibility. Idled factories are a huge problem, and there is no other buyer as large as the US. It is relatively easier for the US to buy elsewhere, both abroad and domestic.

About 83% of the tariff burden is getting paid by China. (analysis by European financial firm)

Even the part we do pay isn't all bad. It reduces the need for other taxes. It supports American workers, reducing income inequality.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#72

Post by CharlesColeman »

logfromblammo wrote: post #60
Leary wrote: post #11

The most recent tweets by Trump regarding this: "The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier)…

The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers. The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual p…

> The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation.

While that's technically true, the tariffs have the effect of increasing the price of goods, so the exporter may need to lower their price and drop their profit margin to remain competitive.

> The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual property.

That's an interesting idea, but doesn't the US Constitution ban export taxes?

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42780.pdf

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#73

Post by martythemaniak »

zaroth wrote: post #37
martythemaniak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you can understand it better if you ask yourself if he and his administration is actually capable of achieving anything. Did his tweetbluster and love for Kim denuclearize the Korean Peninsula? Did his wall or child caging stop immigration? Did his repeal of parts of the ACA give people "the best health coverage"? Did his Muslim travel ban stop terrorism and make America safer? Did Jared bring peace to the mi…

Please try not to flamebait, particularly with political topics, on HN. Aside from the actual topic at hand — China — the big pillars of Economic growth, immigration, healthcare, North Korea, the Middle East, national security, ISIS, and NATO are all massive issues that US continues to struggle with and has for decades (well, ISIS is a recent spinoff of an older problem). Trump has set a great direction in Iraq/Afgha…

[flagged]

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#74

Post by burfog »

scarface74 wrote: post #69
burfog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Months ago, I saw an analysis done by a European financial firm. The burden of the tariffs is 83% paid by China. This is very well aligned with his example. The burden we do pay isn't so bad. It can substitute for other taxes. We used to do this in a big way, funding the country without an income tax. The local employment is pretty good too. Those industrial jobs, for example steelworkers, are reducing income inequal…

So we are creating those jobs at a cost of $900K per job. Tariffs are hardly ever a good way to create jobs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/07/trumps-st...

If that supposed $900K comes from Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, I'm OK with it. In that case, he alone is worth a hundred thousand jobs. I can see why his newspaper might be complaining.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#75

Post by paganel »

logfromblammo wrote: post #60
Leary wrote: post #11

The most recent tweets by Trump regarding this: "The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier)…

The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers. The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual p…

> US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers.

And a regressive tax at that, as it will affect poor people more compared to the better off.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#76

Post by zaroth »

martythemaniak wrote: post #73
zaroth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please try not to flamebait, particularly with political topics, on HN. Aside from the actual topic at hand — China — the big pillars of Economic growth, immigration, healthcare, North Korea, the Middle East, national security, ISIS, and NATO are all massive issues that US continues to struggle with and has for decades (well, ISIS is a recent spinoff of an older problem). Trump has set a great direction in Iraq/Afgha…

[flagged]

I think the underlying question is whether you’re trying to score points or engage in honest intellectual inquiry and debate. The pile on of many massive long-standing world problems and the notion a person is going to “solve” them seems to indicate it’s more a post meant to provoke than to invite civil discussion.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#77

Post by simonh »

scarface74 wrote: post #59
HillaryBriss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are some narrow interests that favor Trump tariffs. e.g. the United Steelworkers Union: "China ... dumps its excess aluminum and steel on the world market at super-discounted prices. The United States, in conjunction with European allies and others, has repeatedly over the past decade negotiated with China to stop defying the rules it agreed to abide by when it gained entrance to the World Trade Organization in…

“Trump’s steel tariffs cost U.S. consumers $900,000 for every job created, experts say“ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/07/trumps-st...

Very similar story with the Obama tire tariff. $926,000 cost to consumers per job saved, plus the loss of 3 retail jobs due to consumers spending more on tires and less on other stuff.

http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-con...

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#78

Post by logfromblammo »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #72
logfromblammo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers. The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual p…

> The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. While that's technically true, the tariffs have the effect of increasing the price of goods, so the exporter may need to lower their price and drop their profit margin to remain competitive. > The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals…

It bans taxes on "articles exported". Banknotes, shares of stocks, bonds, title to real property--these are arguably not "articles".

You couldn't tax a crate of polypropylene combs going from Chicago to Shenzhen. You might be able to tax the sale of 100 shares of stock in Acme Unbreakable Combs, Inc. to Chan Jingwei of Shenzhen on the Nasdaq exchange. Maybe tax the transfer of technical plans and patent rights for a comb-making machine from AUC Inc. to Acme Shenzhen Manufacturing, a Chinese corporation. And you might be able to tax the sale of a Seattle 4000-sqft 5-bedroom house to Mr. Chan.

In all those cases, you're not moving goods, you're moving ownership.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#79

Post by [deleted] »

logfromblammo wrote: post #60
Leary wrote: post #11

The most recent tweets by Trump regarding this: "The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier)…

The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers. The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual p…

[deleted]

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#80

Post by CharlesColeman »

logfromblammo wrote: post #78
CharlesColeman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation. While that's technically true, the tariffs have the effect of increasing the price of goods, so the exporter may need to lower their price and drop their profit margin to remain competitive. > The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals…

It bans taxes on "articles exported". Banknotes, shares of stocks, bonds, title to real property--these are arguably not "articles". You couldn't tax a crate of polypropylene combs going from Chicago to Shenzhen. You might be able to tax the sale of 100 shares of stock in Acme Unbreakable Combs, Inc. to Chan Jingwei of Shenzhen on the Nasdaq exchange. Maybe tax the transfer of technical plans and patent rights for a…

Is there any caselaw that takes that view?
Post reply on HN