Trump announces 25% tariff on all imported vehicles!

[Bluesurf]

I read today that Trump will not Tariff any UK cars. I has heard about this when At Notre-Dame Cathedral William gave a message from King Charles. The message was UK's dire economy. For respect to the dead Queen, no tariffs. They will work out the trade imbalance in another way. T.B.A. Watch it play out.

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-03-26/trump-announces-25-tariffs-on-all-cars-built-outside-of-us

 

[Tazzieman]

For respect to the dead Queen, no tariffs.

We know Dump was a big fan of Jackson and the Village People; he had a very soft spot for Queen after seeing her in 1985 at Live Aid.

 

[LC0013]

We know Dump was a big fan of Jackson and the Village People; he had a very soft spot for Queen after seeing her in 1985 at Live Aid.View attachment 7891273

It may difficult to unsee that.

 

[Xrford]

Reading through some of these post I see some people cherry picking certain stats and saying one country or another is “subsidizing” the other or because another country has tariffs on another that they need to implement reciprocal tariffs. With out analyzing the entire trade agreement with that country it is misleading to say that country “A” is taking advantage of country “B”. Like any fair deal there are certain areas where one country wins and another loses and certain areas where both win, but as a whole it evens out. I would like to present a simple example that, has simple math that I hope everyone can grasp to get my point across.

Let’s take two neighbours. Neighbour “A” has an apple tree he sells 100 apples to neighbour “B” for $10. Neighbour “B” takes those 100 apples and makes 20 apple pies which he intern sells in the neighbourhood for 5$ each (total 5x20=$100). Neighbour “A” also buys one of those pies for $5. Neighbour “A” also has a tariff on Apple pies of $2 to protect his mom, who bakes 1 pie a month for the family and to prevent his wife from buying to many pies from neighbour “B”.

Now using Trump logic, I may look at the trade deficit and say neighbour “A” is ripping off neighbour “B” and neighbour “A” is being subsidized by neighbour “B” by $5. This clearly is not the case, neighbour “B” is clearly making more from this arrangement than neighbour “A”. Also using trumps reciprocal tariff logic, neighbour “B”, might say your tariff on my apple pies is so un fair I am going to punish you by tariffing your apples by 25%. This so short sited as the arrangement/trade deal is already heavily in favour of neighbour “B” and the tariff on apples is only going ruin your apple pie industry and sour a lucrative trade deal. The point is just looking at, cherry picked data, one can easily make this lucrative trade agreement look like it is so “unfair”. That is why trade agreements are hammered out by a comity of people who grasp the full economic picture of both countries and not one person who is spoon fed, cherry picked data points, by people to afraid to contradict him.

I will leave you with this quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson, that I think speaks volumes about the people involved with these tariffs in the USA.

“One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong”

 

[Shopkeep]

Reading through some of these post I see some people cherry picking certain stats and saying one country or another is “subsidizing” the other or because another country has tariffs on another that they need to implement reciprocal tariffs. With out analyzing the entire trade agreement with that country it is misleading to say that country “A” is taking advantage of country “B”. Like any fair deal there are certain areas where one country wins and another loses and certain areas where both win, but as a whole it evens out. I would like to present a simple example that, has simple math that I hope everyone can grasp to get my point across.

Let’s take two neighbours. Neighbour “A” has an apple tree he sells 100 apples to neighbour “B” for $10. Neighbour “B” takes those 100 apples and makes 20 apple pies which he intern sells in the neighbourhood for 5$ each (total 5x20=$100). Neighbour “A” also buys one of those pies for $5. Neighbour “A” also has a tariff on Apple pies of $2 to protect his mom, who bakes 1 pie a month for the family and to prevent his wife from buying to many pies from neighbour “B”.

Now using Trump logic, I may look at the trade deficit and say neighbour “A” is ripping off neighbour “B” and neighbour “A” is being subsidized by neighbour “B” by $5. This clearly is not the case, neighbour “B” is clearly making more from this arrangement than neighbour “A”. Also using trumps reciprocal tariff logic, neighbour “B”, might say your tariff on my apple pies is so un fair I am going to punish you by tariffing your apples by 25%. This so short sited as the arrangement/trade deal is already heavily in favour of neighbour “B” and the tariff on apples is only going ruin your apple pie industry and sour a lucrative trade deal. The point is just looking at, cherry picked data, one can easily make this lucrative trade agreement look like it is so “unfair”. That is why trade agreements are hammered out by a comity of people who grasp the full economic picture of both countries and not one person who is spoon fed, cherry picked data points, by people to afraid to contradict him.

I will leave you with this quote by Neil degrade Tyson, that I think speaks volumes about the people involved with these tariffs in the USA.

“One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong”

I think neighbour B’s Dad has decided he don’t like apple pies no more and wants cherry instead.

Meanwhile neighbours D to Z have started to find neighbour C’s lychee pie tastes a lot better than they remember, it’s always been good value but now it is baked just as well as the others. Even the strudel makers at neighbour G are coming around to it.

 

[LC0013]

Reading through some of these post I see some people cherry picking certain stats and saying one country or another is “subsidizing” the other or because another country has tariffs on another that they need to implement reciprocal tariffs. With out analyzing the entire trade agreement with that country it is misleading to say that country “A” is taking advantage of country “B”. Like any fair deal there are certain areas where one country wins and another loses and certain areas where both win, but as a whole it evens out. I would like to present a simple example that, has simple math that I hope everyone can grasp to get my point across.

Let’s take two neighbours. Neighbour “A” has an apple tree he sells 100 apples to neighbour “B” for $10. Neighbour “B” takes those 100 apples and makes 20 apple pies which he intern sells in the neighbourhood for 5$ each (total 5x20=$100). Neighbour “A” also buys one of those pies for $5. Neighbour “A” also has a tariff on Apple pies of $2 to protect his mom, who bakes 1 pie a month for the family and to prevent his wife from buying to many pies from neighbour “B”.

Now using Trump logic, I may look at the trade deficit and say neighbour “A” is ripping off neighbour “B” and neighbour “A” is being subsidized by neighbour “B” by $5. This clearly is not the case, neighbour “B” is clearly making more from this arrangement than neighbour “A”. Also using trumps reciprocal tariff logic, neighbour “B”, might say your tariff on my apple pies is so un fair I am going to punish you by tariffing your apples by 25%. This so short sited as the arrangement/trade deal is already heavily in favour of neighbour “B” and the tariff on apples is only going ruin your apple pie industry and sour a lucrative trade deal. The point is just looking at, cherry picked data, one can easily make this lucrative trade agreement look like it is so “unfair”. That is why trade agreements are hammered out by a comity of people who grasp the full economic picture of both countries and not one person who is spoon fed, cherry picked data points, by people to afraid to contradict him.

I will leave you with this quote by Neil degrade Tyson, that I think speaks volumes about the people involved with these tariffs in the USA.

“One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong”

Geez, you have no idea as to what Trump's logic is or not. Go back to drinking Maple Syrup. And quit assuming you know what Trump thinks or feels as assuming makes an ass of you.

 

[Gaffer]

I hope to say this in the most non-partisan way possible: There are excellent reasons no place else in the world has adopted our electoral college or medical coverage/insurance systems.

The electoral college is one of the checks and balances. This particular check reinforces the sovereignty of states against the federal government by overweighting the powers of the smaller states.

The United States is a republic, not a majoritarian democracy. In other words, our governing structure preserves individual liberties, directly and by limiting the power of the federal government over the states who are closer to the people.

Awfully far from car talk but I thought your comment warranted a reply.

 

[Roadking01]

The United States was brought to life by the greatest set of minds ever assembled at any point in time. They thought about the future and did a great job of trying to anticipate every angle. However, the EU taxes the US with 10 % on imports, the US charges 2.5% (chicken tax is something specific to that size of imported truck, so different). Trump is concerned about Americans and will level the playing field.

However, at the Grenadier dealership today and they said that the price of the Quartermaster will be lowered by $11,000.00 to balance out the tax.

 

[LC0013]

$11,000 is a good discount!

 

[DrahthHunter]

Lynn Calder had already anticipated this in the existing pricing - see previous media releases. Plus commercial trucks already have the chicken tax which was accounted for prior to US pricing decisions so it’s no different. IMO this is a non event for Ineos sales in the USA.

Haha whatever that woman is not the proper choice for leading a an automobile company. She has ZERO accomplishments for the brand.

 

[AngusMacG]

US Tariff history

Working for a Canadian company this issue hits close to home. My employer buys US products and sells finished goods into the US. Pres. Trump was very upfront with his requirements with Canada to avoid the tariffs. Canadian politicians ignored the requirements and Even after extending the deadline those same politicians have not met the requirements.

I may lose my job should the tariffs go into effect this week but I do support the imposition of the tariffs if Canada continues to ignore the requirements set forth. All the arguments and banter about tariffs are just noise and a distraction from the solid economic plan of this administration. All the naysayers are just looking at the trees not the forest.

 

[Bluesurf]

US Tariff history

Working for a Canadian company this issue hits close to home. My employer buys US products and sells finished goods into the US. Pres. Trump was very upfront with his requirements with Canada to avoid the tariffs. Canadian politicians ignored the requirements and Even after extending the deadline those same politicians have not met the requirements.

I may lose my job should the tariffs go into effect this week but I do support the imposition of the tariffs if Canada continues to ignore the requirements set forth. All the arguments and banter about tariffs are just noise and a distraction from the solid economic plan of this administration. All the naysayers are just looking at the trees not the forest.

Is it fair that your Country extracts from the United States 1 TRILLION dollars every 5 years. Why? The EU as well almost as bad. Brazil is horrible, It is extortion on the US Economy. What kind of US President sits there while this happens under his watch? All of them for the last 100 years, except now.

 

[landmannnn]

Is it fair that your Country extracts from the United States 1 TRILLION dollars every 5 years. Why? The EU as well almost as bad. Brazil is horrible, It is extortion on the US Economy. What kind of US President sits there while this happens under his watch? All of them for the last 100 years, except now.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) saw 25% duty on imported goods to the US. You need to check your facts.

 

[Shopkeep]

Is it fair that your Country extracts from the United States 1 TRILLION dollars every 5 years. Why? The EU as well almost as bad. Brazil is horrible, It is extortion on the US Economy. What kind of US President sits there while this happens under his watch? All of them for the last 100 years, except now.

 

[CRH]

The problem with this is we are all in different countries with different political systems (and what I am about to say is not aimed at Donald Trump or any other of the world politicians, so don't assume i am attacking anyone's political beliefs)
Politicians are in it for money, fame and a legacy, most/all have no real idea on how things work in the real world and if they stick to 'their principles' it doesn't work as others don't have the same beliefs. We have politicians in charge of departments that have never had anything to do with in either education or work yet they know best on what to do because of their political belief. Politics is based on a belief system and sometimes one works better than the other and vice versa. We have a leader who says something and the opposition will disagree even if it's the right thing and then when in power they change their tune. For true polics to work it would depend on everyone being honest, decent and acceptable to compromise. Whilst we have countries like Russia China and other dictatorships decency cannot work.
None of us truly know what the US President truly thinks or is aiming to achieve, we only have our own beliefs. Things seem to be thrown out to confuse and distract in the same way as we have 'leaks' in government as away of gauging a response without enacting any policy.
If you want to truly understand politics you have to listen to every side with an open mind then you can make the unbiased conclusion,
THEY ARE ALL CLUELESS AND IN IT FOR THEMSELVES.

 

[Webecinya]

However, at the Grenadier dealership today and they said that the price of the Quartermaster will be lowered by $11,000.00 to balance out the tax.

So basically price still increases but not by another 25% if I’m following this logic.

 

[Roadking01]

So basically price still increases but not by another 25% if I’m following this logic.

The way I took it was if a Quartermaster is priced at 99k with options which includes the tax, a discount of 11k will be offered to make the price 88k. That gets the price more in line with the wagon.

 

[holdmybeer]

I would like to present a simple example that, has simple math that I hope everyone can grasp to get my point across. ...

Countryman, I must stop you right there. It is unacceptable to think critically. Reason and math have no place in faith. You must not question Great Leader when in the presence of Trump Devotional Syndrome. Great Leader has plans and his plans are beyond analysis. When you attempt to understand the plans of Great Leader you display a lack of faith and devotion. History tells us that free thinking and critical analysis is not in a dictator's best interest. Thus, your attempts to analyze and predict must stop. Great Leader has plans that transcend math.

We'll never become the 51st state if we keep thinking critically! And that's a good thing. Thank you for your explanation. Elbows up and pass the Maple Syrup.

 

[Reducs]

The electoral college is one of the checks and balances. This particular check reinforces the sovereignty of states against the federal government by overweighting the powers of the smaller states.

The United States is a republic, not a majoritarian democracy. In other words, our governing structure preserves individual liberties, directly and by limiting the power of the federal government over the states who are closer to the people.

Awfully far from car talk but I thought your comment warranted a reply.

A check and balance that I feel has long outlived it usefulness. I don't think the founders anticipated candidates spending hundreds of millions of dollars chasing 10,000 votes in Wisconsin. At a minimum, I wish every state would adopt the Nebraska and Maine model apportioning per congressional district, but gerrymandering...

Anyway, tariffs! I don't think they'll stick for long, but worse case scenario? Our resale values go up. Admittedly the silver lining of a very black cloud.

 

[Jiman01]