US Tariffs May Hit Apple, FitBit and Sonos

Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean Apple users will be asked to pay EVEN MORE for their devices. Gosh, if only Apple could afford to lower the cost of their devices and just make a little less money to make things easier on their customers. It is just too bad that they couldn't POSSIBLY afford to do that.
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70
Samsung will be laughing all the way to the bank, because that's where Apple will have to move back to to retain some of their ridiculous profit margins.
Also, thinking that you as a citizen will gain anything from a trade war is so much denial it should be a crime. You will pay 30%+fees more for everything, your employer will sell 30% less of stuff, plus the coverage on the fees on the other side. You, the employee is the first to pay for that by getting a pink slip. #TRE45ON
 


The tariff's wont last long, it's just a tactic to get China to stop abusing the U.S. The current trade deficits are unsustainable and this has been a long time coming, it's just that other president's didn't have the strength or interest in correcting the issue. This "trade war' is over 30 years in coming, I'm just glad it's not a weak politician leading the correction.

With the trade imbalance, China has a lot more to lose than we do. With Chinese made products being less cheap to produce, the odds are that companies will being moving manufacturing back to the U.S. or other, friendlier territories. China can negotiate for fair, free trade or bleed off jobs and profits.
 

stdragon

Commendable
Apr 5, 2018
1,551
1
1,660
196
China has been devaluing the Yuan in order to remain competitive. In other words, as paradoxical as it might seem, you really don't want a strong US dollar when competing for exporting goods (because you're too expensive to buy from).

Also, it takes a lot of time for businesses start to build new factories and hire from the US again. It's not something where you create a policy and immediately there's a return based on it. Good news, we're already seeing manufacturing brought back into the US, but again, that could take YEARS if not longer before any of it comes online to start making product for internal consumption and exportation.
 

f0xnewz

Honorable
Apr 26, 2012
8
0
10,510
0
@THEREALDUCKOFDEATH how exactly do you think the US go 20 Trillion in debt? Obama might have had a $20,000 "hot dog" party but it would take a lot of wieners to get to 20 Trillion. Maybe its been 40 years of trade deficits. US taking a loss while politicians take a bribe.

God emperor Trump has been talking about this for 20 years, you know back when Hollywood and the liberals were in love with him? Here is a liberal source you might trust. https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510680463/donald-trumps-been-saying-the-same-thing-for-30-years
 


Some companies are upgrading and reactivating factories that they shuttered when they moved to China(This is currently happening where I live, a glass plant closed over a decade ago, but it is being upgraded and should be reopening in a year. Creating 1,200 jobs). But yeah, it will still take some time. For those needing new factories, it will take much longer, but the benefits will still be there after the tariffs are gone. With international shipping costs no longer a factor and things like labor costs in better balance, moving some things back will still be a good idea.

The companies that will be hurt are ones that have business models specifically dependent on taking advantage of the trade imbalances.

Intel was pretty smart as they have their manufacturing spread out and not dependent on any one country.
 

mossberg

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2007
122
0
18,690
1


Tell that to the steel mill workers that are going back to work as a result of these tariffs. It will balance itself out, it will just take time. We have been taken advantage of for far too long.
 

phobicsq

Prominent
Sep 1, 2017
81
0
640
3
Apple needs to be hit. They already charge way more for their average products while using cheap labor and poor working conditions of foreign workers. And I'm sure their customers will be fine paying the extra cost by these tarrifs.
 
The comment sections on the recent news articles here on Tom's gives me hope for humanity. Hopefully this leads to better trade deals with all our trade partners, fair deals that benefit everyone involved, not deals that benefit one party at the extreme detriment of the other.
 
Can we limit this to the topic, fitbits and sonos, and leave out the trade deficit, steel mills, and the rest of the incident politics? Or we will have to change this to Tom's Republican vs. Democrat Forum.
 

njwhite

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2011
12
0
18,510
0
This article is a disgrace to "journalism." It cites only an article from another source, Reuters. No confirmation. No interviews. No background information. I won't waste my day refuting the points made. It's journalistic fluff, intended to create opposition to what Mr. Trump is doing on trade. That's all it is. Shame on you!
 


Without discussing the bigger picture, the whole conversation will be nothing more than: "Apple's overpriced products will likely be even more overpriced, unless Apple decides to let their insane profit margins take a small hit." Which there really isn't much more to say after that.

The biggest problem in today's America is the selective outrage. Some people only get upset when someone does something based on who is doing it and not so much what is being done.
 

alan_rave

Prominent
Dec 21, 2017
102
0
680
0
Apple will seek an opportunity to move business to another country with cheap foreign workers. Because the company "has a business model specifically dependent on taking advantage of the trade imbalances"..
 


I happen to agree, almost. Actually, everything seems to call for outrage; the one thing we can agree on as a country is that we can't agree on anything. But this is a technical forum, not a political or selective outrage forum. It's just about impossible to keep it civil if we go off into the underlying politics and opinions. There's actually a team, volunteers, tasked with keeping it civil and on-topic, and we appreciate the help and indulgence.
 


Agreed, that is why I try my best to keep rhetoric out of my posts. Sometimes it bleeds in, but I do try to control it. For a topic like this article, I tried to keep my comments based on the economic POV, but I will admit, it's impossible to keep some level of bias out of it.

I do appreciate the work mods usually do to keep things civil, I don't always agree, but I do respect the effort.
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70

1 trillion per year on military...? That adds up to a lot. Refusal to tax the rich? Like the 1 trillion "refund" the billionaires got in January. It's very easy to find where the US creates its own deficit. Trade is not one. Trade automatically balances itself or trade wouldn't exist. Trust me, I actually got an education in monies stuff.
 


With Trump's increases, the military budget is now $711 billion a year and it hasn't been a year yet. Before that is was much, much lower. But with the U.S.A.'s apparent role as the backbone of anything the U.N. or NATO do, how much choice do we have?
The biggest waste is from failed programs and fraud in the welfare and medicare systems.

The upper income levels are taxed at $37%, which IMO, is plenty as that is just Federal, add in state and some are paying over 50% between the two. I will never understand the desire to punish success. However, if the new tax reform bill was such a give away, why are some governors scrambling to create loop holes to help their wealthy donors pay less?

Back on topic, trade does not "balance itself", if it did, we wouldn't have been running deficits for the last 30+ years. All our POTUS's saw the problem, but none wanted to do anything about it...until now. These tariffs are temporary and a bargaining chip, nothing more. Yes, prices might go up a little for a short time, but the other countries will be affected more than we are as companies will be less likely to invest there. We are seeing this already.

Apple, Fitbit and Sonos, will likely pass on any extra cost to the customers, but, considering that the tariff is on certain parts, not on the completed item and there are millions being produced, we are talking pennies of an increase.
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70

The reason richer are generally taxed higher is because, firstly, they're able to afford it, secondly, they would not have had that riches had the nation not been at its current state of wealth. Most taxes are designed like that. Better roads has more fees, worse roads gets to "live on" lower tax rates. The removal of taxes for the 1% is all about mindless wealth hoarding with no actual purpose. "I'm rich so why should I care about anyone else?". The Scrooge McDuck mentality.
Trade does balance itself. The real fact you're deliberately ignoring is, trade has zero impact on a nation's debt levels as trade happens between two civilian parties. Your government isn't getting debt because buyer X is buying more than they can afford. That is not how money works. Your government relies on the taxes and fees off its citizen. You know, for instance the trillion dollars they gave away to those 1%'ers this winter.
 


Trade directly affects the debt. Yes, the government lives off taxes, but when companies are moving out of the U.S. to take advantage of the imbalances, that means fewer jobs and thus fewer people paying taxes and even more people living off welfare. By eliminating the imbalances, jobs, especially manufacturing, will be created here in greater numbers and some moved back to the U.S. This creates a greater tax paying base, even at lower rates, the government is collecting more in taxes.

As for the so called "1%ers", yes they can afford higher taxes, but no amount of taxes would even make a dent in the debt. Success should be rewarded not punished. Considering that the top 10% pays over 55% of all the taxes collected, I'd say that it's not as imbalanced as you think. The reason it seems the rich are getting the wealth of the break is because they pay the most. It's difficult to give large tax breaks to those that don't pay much to begin with. That's the funny thing about percentages, 20% of $1 million is a much greater number than 20% of $45,000, but yes, that 20% means more to the $45k earners, but there has to be some reward for success. France learned this the hard way. They raised the top end tax to 75% and all the rich people moved out of the country. If there are any left, they are probably retired and have no real income and have all their money already in the bank.

All parts of the economy are connected, like a giant circle, with the government sticking it's hand in everywhere. You can't separate any part of it to make a point as they are all deeply connected. It's no different than the fact that corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do. Tax liability is factored into the price or their good and/or services, so raising taxes on companies is really just raising taxes on the people.
 
"Considering that the top 10% pays over 55% of all the taxes collected, I'd say that it's not as imbalanced as you think." Well, from a quick search the top 10% get 50% of all income. So this looks "progressive," but only slightly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS