“President Donald Trump is considering imposing a 100 percent tariff on semiconductors to incentivize chipmakers to invest in domestic manufacturing, a move that would make it harder to build out American chip fabrication.
…
The Chamber of Commerce warns that a 1 percent increase in tariffs on chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment will increase the construction costs of all announced domestic semiconductor fabrication plants (valued at $540 billion) by as much as $3.5 billion. A 100 percent rate increase, then, could increase construction costs for these projects by $350 billion. Moreover, “additional costs will reduce demand for end market products [and] reduce investments in semiconductor R&D,” diminishing American semiconductor dominance instead of enhancing it.
…
Intel, “the only American company [that is] capable of producing leading-edge logic semiconductors,” warned that “Section 232 tariffs could increase U.S. manufacturing costs for essential materials and components.” The Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade association and lobbying group, said that “removing trade and other barriers to U.S. chips in overseas markets,” which account for 70 percent of revenue to the U.S. semiconductor industry, is key to making the expansion of domestic capacity economically viable. Right now, “the complete onshoring of all semiconductor supply chain elements is not feasible, much less in a short period of time,” because “supply chains have evolved over decades and cannot be rearranged overnight or even within a decade””
“While most Americans have not yet felt the tariffs’ full effects, businesses have started to. An August survey administered by the Dallas Federal Reserve found that 60 percent and 70 percent of Texas retailers and manufacturers, respectively, said that Trump’s tariffs were negatively affecting their businesses. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum have cost John Deere “$300 million so far, with nearly another $300 million expected by the end of the year.” The company has already laid off “238 employees across factories in Illinois and Iowa.” While anecdotal, John Deere’s struggles are reflected in the 48 percent lower growth in total nonfarm employment from January 2025 to August 2025 (598,000 jobs added) compared to those months last year (1.1 million jobs added).”
“Whether he is waging the drug war, imposing tariffs, deporting alleged gang members, or fighting crime, the president thinks he can do “anything I want to do.””
“if tariffs are linked to prosperity, it’s an inverse relationship, according to a recent report on America’s declining economic freedom for Canada’s Fraser Institute. The authors, Robert A. Lawson of Southern Methodist University and Fraser’s own Matthew D. Mitchell, write: “High-tariff countries are generally low-income countries while low-tariff countries are generally high-income countries. In the high-tariff countries, average GDP per capita is just $9,703 per year,” while “in low-tariff countries, it is $43,502 per year.”
In 2023, the U.S. had an average tariff rate of 3.3 percent, which put us in the company of such countries as Singapore and Hong Kong (zero percent each), Brunei (0.5 percent), Israel (1.3 percent), New Zealand (1.9 percent), Australia (2.4 percent), and Iceland (3.3 percent). This year’s tariff shift has been marked by wild fluctuations. But the average tariff rate on April 15 was 28 percent and is now around 19 percent. That puts the U.S. amongst the likes of Zimbabwe (18 percent), Chad (18.1 percent), Republic of the Congo (18.1 percent), Algeria (18.9 percent), and Egypt (19 percent).”
“When you look at the sectors of the economy that were supposed to benefit from Trump’s economic policies, however, the news gets significantly worse. The manufacturing sector lost 12,000 jobs during the month of August and 78,000 over the past year, according to the data released Thursday by the Department of Labor.
Over the past three months, during which Trump’s tariffs have been in full swing, the manufacturing sector is down 31,000 jobs. Other blue-collar sectors like construction and mining are down over that same period.
All three sectors figure to have been negatively affected by Trump’s tariffs, which (contrary to the administration’s claims) have hit American businesses with huge new taxes on parts, raw materials, equipment, and more. Like with any big tax increase, one way businesses can offset those costs is by hiring fewer people or postponing new investments and expansion. That’s exactly what manufacturing firms say they have been doing.”
“both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District have leaned on the “major questions” doctrine. Under that legal theory, the executive branch can only exercise powers that Congress has explicitly granted. The U.S. Supreme Court invoked that doctrine in other recent high-profile cases, including the 2023 ruling that struck down then-President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme.
There is no doubt that Congress has, in fact, granted huge tariff powers to the executive branch. But the narrow question before the Supreme Court is whether the law Trump has invoked to impose these tariffs—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—grants such broad authority. The law does not contain the word “tariff” and has never been used to impose tariffs before now.”
Trump has 33 tech leaders over, and they all suck his dick like he’s a vain dictator.
What’s the point to gaining that much power and wealth if they are just going to bend over for a vain, capricious, and rule-breaking ruler?
Jobs numbers aren’t good, indicating a weak economy. Especially young people are having trouble getting jobs, indicating companies aren’t ready to expand with inexperienced people given the economic and political uncertainty. Of course, the economic uncertainty is mostly driven by bad White House policy.
Manufacturing jobs are down. Manufacturing business leaders say tariffs are the cause of less manufacturing jobs. They can’t plan with the tariff created uncertainty. Trump’s tariffs are weakening manufacturing, not strengthening it.
Most job growth was in education, healthcare, and government, meaning sectors that often don’t reflect economic growth.
“It’s true that taxes distort behavior, and that America’s income-based taxes—especially the corporate tax—are among the most damaging varieties. Economists prefer consumption taxes, which leave income alone until it’s spent, sparing savings and investment from double (or triple) taxation.
Leaving aside their protectionist nature, if tariffs did that, it might make sense to think about substituting them for other, worse forms of taxation. But they don’t.
Take an actual consumption tax—the value-added-tax—which is applied uniformly to domestic and imported goods, rebated at the border for exports, and structured to avoid double-taxing investment. Tariffs, on the other hand, single out imports, which account for only about 15 percent of U.S. consumption. Different goods from different countries also face different rates. Thus, they are neither broad-based, nor neutral or transparent. They’re just an additional tax that tries to push buyers toward less-preferred products.
Worse, tariffs fall heavily on capital inputs like machines and other equipment. More than half of U.S. imports are raw materials, intermediate goods, or capital equipment—things we need to build other things. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Kyle Pomerleau notes, this makes tariffs more, not less, distortive than our current capital income taxes.
The latter allow firms to deduct investments in machinery and equipment, lowering the effective tax rate from what’s on paper. Tariffs provide no such deduction. That makes investing in U.S. capabilities—precisely what spurs productivity and wages—more expensive. Far from being a relatively tolerable consumption tax, tariffs are an inefficient, arbitrary surcharge on growth.
Tariffs fail another principle of good taxation: stability. A serious tax system is predictable, allowing businesses and households to plan ahead. Tariffs are imposed unilaterally under statutes like Section 301 or even emergency powers. As recent experience shows, they can be, and often are, reversed overnight without any assurance they won’t soon reappear. That’s not a reliable revenue source or incentive for businesses to proceed with confidence.
Finally, tariffs invite carveouts and favoritism. Politically connected firms routinely secure exemptions, exclusions, or special treatment, drastically narrowing the tax base. Since April’s “Liberation Day,” exclusions have sheltered goods worth more than $1 trillion while other goods got hammered. A tax code riddled with loopholes secured through Congress is bad enough; a tariff regime where lobbyists compete for carveouts so quickly and effectively is worse.
…
In the most recent fiscal year, the federal government collected about $2.4 trillion from the individual income tax. That’s 49 percent of federal tax revenue. The Tax Foundation’s calculation for 2021 shows that collections from those earning less than $200,000 amount to $737.5 billion annually. There’s also $430 billion brought in from the corporate income tax in fiscal year 2024.
Extrapolating from the Treasury Department’s duty collection for July, Trump’s sweeping new tariffs might bring in as much as $360 billion this year—significantly higher that the pre-Trump era collection of $80 billion. Grandiose plans to do away with most people’s income taxes would mean raising tariff rates far higher than even Trump wants, and without all the carveouts. Then, we’d need to hope for the impossible—namely, that the tariffs don’t kill off a ton of economic activity.
Tariffs are not a realistic tax base. They’re among the worst taxes imaginable—narrow, arbitrary, unstable, and regressive. They tax investment more than consumption. They reward lobbying over efficiency. And the revenue they raise is but a fraction of annual government spending.”