Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[Agent 00Soul]

13 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

Hawai'i did before it was stolen by the US.

It couldn’t now. It gets everything imported from the mainland.  All the natural resources that made it self-sufficient were stripped to make plantations in the early 20th century. 

 

They do have the nuttiest flag of any US state. It’s a colorful version of the stripes from the American flag with a Union Jack in the field above.  I had a Hawaiian friend and he said it’s basically because the king of Hawaii didn’t want to offend either of the colonial powers, the UK and USA, who kept claiming it. That’s not exactly true according to Wiki, but almost. What a nice history we have. 
 

Wikipedia: Flag of Hawaii

 

 

[Agent 00Soul]

2 hours ago, JoeEvans said:

There's a software company called MicroStrategy that now just buys Bitcoin as it's business model, and its shares are somehow worth vastly more than the actual value of the Bitcoins it owns, the difference being made up with pure unicorn farts. 

Their C-suite has some pretty out there characters. Crypto-bros at their most religious zeal. I never thought that these kinds of guys would ever get so much political power or be held up by the young as aspirational. 

[Buddster]

It's not a world I'm familiar with. 

What does the C stand for? 

[Obrienp]

9 minutes ago, Buddster said:

It's not a world I'm familiar with. 

What does the C stand for? 

It’s American speak for Directors : Chief, as in Chief Technical Officer, Chief Executive, etc. it’s widely adopted in the UK now. You rarely hear of a Managing Director, Technical Director, etc, in a Tech, or IT company.

Edited February 15 by Obrienp

[Jack]

On 04/02/2025 at 07:26, Skybone said:

I do wonder why he uses a permanent marker to sign his executive orders.

It's partly because his eyes are pretty bad these days, and partly because he likes his signature to be a massive Hancockian affair. He has custom made sharpies in all black with his signature inlaid in gold foil like some tacky freebie you'd get at a trade show. 

 

 

I think I've just outed myself as a pen nerd. 

Edited February 15 by Jack

[Buddster]

18 minutes ago, Obrienp said:

It’s American speak for Directors : Chief, as in Chief Technical Officer, Chief Executive, etc. it’s widely adopted in the UK now. You rarely hear of a Managing Director, Technical Director, etc, in a Tech, or IT company.

Cool, thanks. 

Not what I thought then. 

[Obrienp]

19 minutes ago, Buddster said:

Cool, thanks. 

Not what I thought then. 

What you thought is probably nearer the mark for a lot of them.

[tauzero]

4 hours ago, Al Krow said:

A tariff is a targeted sales tax applying only to imports, paid by US consumers where the US levies additional tariffs. It is actually another means of revenue raising by the US government.

 

"US consumers" also encompasses US manufacturers, when the manufacturers are buying in (for example) steel or aluminium. And it is not just a means of revenue raising, it is also intended to discourage imports in order to change the balance of payments.

[tauzero]

3 hours ago, prowla said:

I agree - they should just call it sales tax.

(My intended point was that shoes aren't luxuries.)

 

We're not exactly gender balanced on BC, which is maybe why women's sanitary products have been overlooked. That was briefly a the Brexit benefit, as the UK made sanitary products zero rated before the EU changed the regulations (and even then it wasn't to zero rate them but to allow individual countries to zero rate them).

[TimR]

6 hours ago, Steve Browning said:

I suspect the value added refers to the fact that the net effect of VAT is to add tax to the 'profit' that a business achieves when it sells to another business. The cost VAT would be expected to be recovered. It's a poor title for sure. 

 

The value added refers to the fact that the raw materials/original product have had something done to them that adds value. Whatever that process is. 

 

I have no idea why the previous posters are confusing that simple fact with how it is calculated and recovered, paid or not paid. That's a by the by. 

 

And I'm not sure why people are coming up with examples of things they don't consider luxuries. VAT IS a luxury Tax, dont shoot the messenger, complain to the government if you don't agree that they are. 🤣

[Steve Browning]

16 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

The value added refers to the fact that the raw materials/original product have had something done to them that adds value. Whatever that process is. 

I'm afraid that can't be so as goods can pass through many hands in the same state. Manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer. 

 

Wikipedia isn't always your friend. 

Edited February 15 by Steve Browning

[prowla]

2 hours ago, TimR said:

 

The value added refers to the fact that the raw materials/original product have had something done to them that adds value. Whatever that process is. 

 

I have no idea why the previous posters are confusing that simple fact with how it is calculated and recovered, paid or not paid. That's a by the by. 

 

And I'm not sure why people are coming up with examples of things they don't consider luxuries. VAT IS a luxury Tax, dont shoot the messenger, complain to the government if you don't agree that they are. 🤣

 

It isn't a luxury tax - it's a sales tax; it replaced the preceding Purchase Tax in 1973.

The confusion is that at a point in the 70s a higher rate of 25% was introduced for non-essential luxury goods, but then the Thatcher conservative government normalised all to 15% so essentials and luxury goods were taxed at the same rate.

Subsequernt governments have increased it to 17.5% and then to 20%.

At no point was VAT solely a luxury goods tax.

[Steve Browning]

It was a requirement of EEC membership, to match taxation in the rest of the Community. 

[Jack]

9 hours ago, Buddster said:

It's not a world I'm familiar with. 

What does the C stand for? 

Corporate. It's the corporate suite. Office people who ruin the place.

 

Edit, that Freudian typo should be 'run'.

Edited February 15 by Jack

[JoeEvans]

Value added tax is a tax on the value added by a company. So if a retailer buys at £5 per item and sells at £10, they have added £5 to the value of the item. It makes no difference whether they processed it in some way or just took it out of the wholesaler's box, value was added during their ownership.

 

[prowla]

1 minute ago, JoeEvans said:

Value added tax is a tax on the value added by a company. So if a retailer buys at £5 per item and sells at £10, they have added £5 to the value of the item. It makes no difference whether they processed it in some way or just took it out of the wholesaler's box, value was added during their ownership.

 

Thats a pretty good description and hence why companies costs are VAT-free. 

[PaulWarning]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

Thats a pretty good description and hence why companies costs are VAT-free. 

err no, they pay 20% of the £5 profit, companies claim back the VAT they paid then pay 20% of the sell on price

[Downunderwonder]

1 minute ago, PaulWarning said:

err no, they pay 20% of the £5 profit, companies claim back the VAT they paid then pay 20% of the sell on price

If VAT is 20% then it is 1/6th of the sake price.

[Bagman]

4 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

If VAT is 20% then it is 1/6th of the sake price.

Sake price up 

[Buddster]

Meanwhile, Trump has moved on from tariffs and is now jabbing at European buttons over Ukraine, starting his own talks with Putin and selling Europe and Ukraine up the swanie. Plus throwing a little hand grenade called Vance into the mixer. 

Captin Chaos 

[Steve Browning]

7 hours ago, JoeEvans said:

Value added tax is a tax on the value added by a company. So if a retailer buys at £5 per item and sells at £10, they have added £5 to the value of the item. It makes no difference whether they processed it in some way or just took it out of the wholesaler's box, value was added during their ownership.

 

Ah, so no VAT if they sell at a loss? Not so. 

 

VAT is levied on a taxable supply of any value. I doubt there's a simple clear definition. I'll review the 6th Directive - 2006/112/EC if you want to check for yourself. 

 

The principal VAT Directive describes it as a turnover tax. It doesn't define the value added bit, so no definition exists. 

 

 

[prowla]

8 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

err no, they pay 20% of the £5 profit, companies claim back the VAT they paid then pay 20% of the sell on price

...which they charge to their customers and then pass on to HMRC.

[tegs07]

2 hours ago, Buddster said:

Meanwhile, Trump has moved on from tariffs and is now jabbing at European buttons over Ukraine, starting his own talks with Putin and selling Europe and Ukraine up the swanie. Plus throwing a little hand grenade called Vance into the mixer. 

Captin Chaos 

It’s all shaping up to be as much of a cock up as I feared. Geopolitically making China and Russia stronger. Domestically creating the conditions for an uptick in inflation. Globally creating turbulence amongst allies and trading partners.

 

The sad reality is change is urgently needed. The level of debt in the USA (and most other nations tbh) and the deficit is unsustainable. However simply doing a Johnson and acting like a spoiled toddler in a sweet shop is not going to turn the tide. A credible plan and a systematic approach would avoid the inevitable train crash. 

 

Perhaps if billionaires were not taking more of the wealth and paying less and less back into the pot more revenue could be generated. Giving them the power to scrape the pot even further might not work. It’s even more concerning when they are using this power to interfere in other democracies.

 

There is are those that don’t want political discussion. What is happening in the world now for me transcends party politics. Vote for whoever you like based on your own personal beliefs but surely there needs to be some discussion when those running for office are preaching hate, discrimination and meddling in the democratic process?

Edited February 16 by tegs07

[prowla]

20 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

It’s all shaping up to be as much of a cock up as I feared. Geopolitically making China and Russia stronger. Domestically creating the conditions for an uptick in inflation. Globally creating turbulence amongst allies and trading partners.

 

The sad reality is change is urgently needed. The level of debt in the USA (and most other nations tbh) and the deficit is unsustainable. However simply doing a Johnson and acting like a spoiled toddler in a sweet shop is not going to turn the tide. A credible plan and a systematic approach would avoid the inevitable train crash. 

 

Perhaps if billionaires were not taking more of the wealth and paying less and less back into the pot more revenue could be generated. Giving them the power to scrape the pot even further might not work. It’s even more concerning when they are using this power to interfere in other democracies.

 

There is are those that don’t want political discussion. What is happening in the world now for me transcends party politics. Vote for whoever you like based on your own personal beliefs but surely there needs to be some discussion when those running for office are preaching hate, discrimination and meddling in the democratic process.

 

It is interesting - the US has been bankrolling Europe's defence for a few decades and it's not really sustainable; in some ways the EU is a bit like the adolescent child who starts telling their parents what to do and the realisation comes that it's time to suggest that perhaps they're ready go and find their own way.

[tegs07]

25 minutes ago, prowla said:

 

It is interesting - the US has been bankrolling Europe's defence for a few decades and it's not really sustainable; in some ways the EU is a bit like the adolescent child who starts telling their parents what to do and the realisation comes that it's time to suggest that perhaps they're ready go and find their own way.

Macron has been saying the same thing for years. I don’t disagree with Europe upping its defence spend. I do think it’s a strange negotiating tactic to grant massive concessions before the negotiations even begin and do a total reversal of the previous administration’s objectives.