When speaking before a multitude of supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Kamala Harris casually asserted that former President Donald Trump had been in cahoots with America’s wealthiest, exclusively defending their interests. She dared to insinuate that Trump ignored the middle class in favor of himself and his affluent peers. However, it’s pertinent we remember that perspectives are wide and varied on this issue, and this viewpoint is not a universal consensus.
The former VP aimed her criticism, conveniently, at one of Trump’s potential policy plans — imposing increased tariffs on goods imported into the US. Trump proposed this as an effective way of stimulating the American economy, encouraging local production, and ultimately fostering national development – a move most would argue is in the best interest of the people. However, this was misrepresented as a negative action by Harris, branding it a ‘Trump tax’.
She continued her verbal attack by claiming this would translates to a burden of close to $4,000 annually for the average Joe. Parsing the narrative properly, one must divulge that she was actually referencing the proposed tariffs as she mentioned ‘a national sales tax’. The effects of tariffs, while passed to consumers to a certain degree, are not quite the same as taxes, but Harris chose to associate the two.
Indeed, one could argue that tariffs are merely another form of taxation. However, opponents of this view would highlight that only a small share of consumer spending is dedicated to imports, hence tariffs wouldn’t equally impact all purchases. An umbrella rating the potential effect of the suggested tariff policy changes on middle-income families is not straightforward and is indeed a topic of debate among experts.
To put things into perspective, the American Action Forum, a highly regarded center-right think tank, crunched the numbers and estimated an annual additional cost per household ranging between $1,700 and $2,350 for the 10% tariff. When factoring in an additional $1,950 if a 60% tariff on China was implemented, the impact rises to between $3,650 and $4,300. These estimates support Harris’ depiction but it’s important to note such scenarios paint only one side of the coin.
The renowned Washington D.C.-based think tank, the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, took a different angle. Their analysis suggested that the 10% and 60% tariffs would indeed impact average after-tax incomes of US households, but by approximately $1,800. This figure, significantly lower than Harris’ estimate, allows us to see the polarity of views within the expert community.
On the more liberal side of the spectrum, the Center for American Progress Action came up with an estimate that more closely represented Harris’ assertion. They predicted a $3,900 annual impact on households. However, they projected this figure using a 20% tariff – realistically, Trump had only spoken of a ’10 and 20%’ across-the-board tariff in extreme cases, a point forgotten or simply ignored by Harris.
Another player in this study, the Peterson Institute of International Economics which is also based in Washington, D.C., initially argued that the 10% and 60% tariffs would result in an extra burden of about $1,700 for an average-income household each year. They reworked their calculation applying a 20% tariff and came out with $2,600 – still considerably lower than Harris’ stated figures.
It seems that Harris also didn’t account for the fact that market competition may encourage consumers to buy less from imports, potentially avoiding some tariff impacts. American suppliers might up their prices when competition decreases, but one would also consider the potential advantages, such as employment boosts and increased domestic production.
Yes, Trump has consistently proposed the idea of implementing wide-ranging tariffs on imported commodities. This policy, while controversial, was aimed at fostering demographic economic growth and productivity. While the effects of tariffs might resonate with consumers similarly to tax, the literal financial impact remains variable. The intention, vilified by Harris, was acting towards the superior good of the people – emphasizing the promotion of domestic production and American jobs.
However, even without acknowledging the different reasons behind these figures, one can clearly see a range of opinions about the financial impact on households from the tariffs. Some do align with Harris’ $4,000 figure, while others point towards a lesser, albeit significant, impact. This diversity of findings reflects the natural complexity and uncertainty inherent in economic forecasting.
In retorting the accusations brought forth by Harris, it’s undeniably evident that various factors contribute to the conclusion of the matter. Trump may have proposed imposing tariffs on foreign goods, but attributing it as a negative action simplistically fails to take into account the full scope of potential impacts. Besides, the specific economic impact on consumers varies depending on holistic considerations which are notably absent in Harris’s assertions.
Therefore, the assertion that tariffs are primarily harmful and are a ‘Trump tax’ is only partially creditable at best. As always, it’s crucial to delve beyond surface-level assertions to understand the intricacies of economic policies and their potential impacts. Only then can one make an informed judgement.
Trump’s Vision for Economic Prosperity Correctly Prioritizes American Jobs appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
