Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Companies Scrambling To Respond To Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ Tariff Hikes

Published

11 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Adam Pack

Companies are scrambling to respond to President-elect Donald Trump’s “beautiful” tariff proposals that his administration may seek to enact early in his second term.

Proactive steps that companies are taking to evade anticipated price increases include stockpiling inventory in U.S. warehouses and weighing whether they need to completely eliminate China from their supply chains and raise the price of imported goods affected by tariff hikes, whose costs will be passed onto consumers.

Free-trade skeptics are touting companies’ anticipatory actions as delivering a clear sign that Trump’s proposed tariff hikes are already achieving their intended effect of pressuring retailers to eliminate China from their supply chains. However, some policy experts are warning that higher tariffs will be a regressive tax for America’s lower and middle-income families and make inflation worse, according to retailers and economists who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

On the campaign trail, Trump proposed a universal tariff of up to 20% on all imports coming into the U.S. and a 60% or higher tariff on all imports from China. Trump is considering Robert Lighthizer, the former U.S. trade representative during his administration’s first term who is well-known for favoring high tariffs, to serve as his second administration’s trade czar, the Wall Street Journal first reported.

‘Mitigation Strategies To Lessen The Impact’

Companies are taking preemptive measures, such as stockpiling goods in U.S. warehouses, to work proactively against anticipated price increases that higher tariffs would inflict, Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chains and customs policy for the National Retail Federation, told the DCNF during an interview.

“They’re looking at different mitigation strategies to lessen the impact that they might feel from the tariffs,” Gold told the DCNF. “One of those strategies is to start looking at potentially bringing in cargo, bringing products earlier to get ahead of potential tariffs that Trump might put in place.”

Importing goods into the U.S. ahead of schedule leads to additional costs for retailers that will likely be passed onto consumers, but waiting to import goods from China after a 60% or higher tariff on Chinese imports goes into effect would be substantially more expensive, according to Gold.

A recent NRF study projected that Trump’s proposed tariff hikes on consumer products would cost American consumers an additional $46 billion to $78 billion a year.

“A tariff is a tax paid by the U.S. importer, not a foreign country or the exporter,” Gold said in a press release accompanying the study. “This tax ultimately comes out of consumers’ pockets through higher prices.”

Decoupling From China

Part of the rationale behind Trump’s tariff proposals is to force manufacturing jobs to return to the United States and pressure companies to completely eliminate China from their supply chains, according to Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass.

“I hope in addition to stockpiling, they’re also looking at actually moving their supply chains out of China and ideally back to the United States,” DiPlacido told the DCNF.

“For a long time, the framing has been what is best for just increasing trade flows, regardless of the direction those flows are going. What that’s resulted in for the last 25 years is a flow of manufacturing, a flow of factories and a flow of jobs, especially solid middle class jobs out of the United States and across the world,” DiPlacido added.

But completely shifting production outside of China is not feasible for some retailers even if companies have taken further steps to diversify their supply chain for the past decade, according to Gold.

“It takes a while to make those shifts and not everyone is able to do that, Gold acknowledged. “Nobody has the [production] capacity that China does. Trying to find that within multiple countries is a challenge. And it’s not just the capacity, but the skilled workforce as well.”

In addition, companies who move production out of China to avoid a 60% tariff on imported goods from the nation could still get hit by a 20% across the board tariff if they move their supply chain to countries other than the United States, Gold and several economists told the DCNF.

“They’re talking about tariffs on imports for which there’s not a domestic producer to switch to,” Clark Packard, a research fellow on trade policy at the CATO institute, told the DCNF in an interview. “For example, we don’t make coffee in the United States, so why are we going to impose a tariff on coffee?”

“Who are we trying to protect?” he added.

Some economists are also pessimistic that the president-elect’s planned tariff hikes will ultimately bring jobs that moved overseas to cheaper labor markets back to the United States.

“What we actually saw from the 2018-2019 trade war was a decrease in manufacturing output and employment because of the tariffs,” Erica York, senior economist and research director of the Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy, told the DCNF in an interview. “It played out just like every economist predicted: higher costs for U.S. consumers, reduced output, reduced incomes for American workers, foreign retaliation that’s harmful.”

The president-elect’s proposed tariff hikes could also eliminate more jobs than those saved or created as a result of protecting domestic industries, such as the U.S. steel or solar manufacturing industries, that may benefit from higher tariffs on foreign competitors, Packard told the DCNF.

“It’s disproportionate — the cost that is passed onto the broader economy to protect a very small slice of U.S. employment,” Packard said. Trump’s 25% tariff on imported steel enacted during his first administration slightly increased employment in the U.S. steel industry, but each job that was maintained or created came at a cost of roughly $650,000 that likely killed jobs in other sectors forced to buy more expensive steel, according to Packard.

‘Bipartisan Recognition’

Despite tariffs’ potential to force companies to raise the price of goods they import into the United States, DiPlacido defended Trump’s proposed tariff hikes as essential to eliminating U.S. dependence on China for a variety of strategic goods and consumer products.

“We need to be able to manufacture a broad range of goods in the United States. And we need the job security and the economic security that a strong manufacturing industrial base provides,” DiPlacido said. “That’s going to be important to any future conflict or emergency that the United States may have with China or with anyone else.”

DiPlacido, citing Trump’s dominant electoral performance, also believes Trump has the “mandate” to carry out the tariff proposals he floated during the campaign.

“There’s a sort of a bipartisan recognition of the problem. Even the Biden administration kept almost all of Trump’s tariffs in place,” DiPlacido told the DCNF. “I think he has the political mandate, and that’s often a harder thing to get.”

However, some economists are questioning whether the thousands of dollars of projected costs that American families would be forced to pay as a result of these tariff hikes could create political backlash that has so far failed to materialize against Trump and Biden’s relatively similar trade policies.

“Voters were rightly pretty upset about price increases and inflation,” Packard told the DCNF. “We’re talking about utilizing a tool in tariffs that will increase relative prices.”

“Tariffs as a whole are a regressive tax,” Gold told the DCNF. “They certainly hit low and middle income consumers the hardest.”

Retailers are forecasting a decrease in demand for consumer products as a result of Trump’s tariff proposals, according to Gold.

The incoming Senate Republican leader has also notably criticized Trump’s proposed tariff hikes.

“I get concerned when I hear we just want to uniformly impose a 10% or 20% tariff on everything that comes into the United States,” Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Senate GOP leader, said in August during a panel on agriculture policy in his home state. “Generally, that’s a recipe for increased inflation.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

B.C. Credit Downgrade Signals Deepening Fiscal Trouble

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight   Dan Knight

Spending is up, debt is exploding, and taxpayers are footing the bill—how David Eby’s reckless economics just pushed British Columbia one step closer to the brink.

So here’s something they’re not going to explain on CBC—British Columbia just got slapped with yet another credit downgrade. Actually, two. On April 2nd, both S&P Global and Moody’s—two of the most powerful financial watchdogs on the planet—downgraded B.C.’s credit rating. And not by accident. This wasn’t a glitch in the system or some market hiccup. This was a direct consequence of political recklessness.

Let’s talk numbers. S&P cut B.C.’s rating from ‘AA-’ to ‘A+’. Moody’s dropped it from ‘aa1’ to ‘aa2’. That’s the fourth downgrade in four years. Four. This is a province that used to hold AAA status—the financial gold standard. That means British Columbia was once considered one of the most fiscally stable jurisdictions not just in Canada, but globally. Not anymore.

Even more alarming? S&P didn’t just hit their long-term rating—they downgraded the short-term rating too, from ‘A-1+’ to ‘A-1’. Why? Because even in the short term, B.C. is starting to look like a risk. A liquidity risk. That means the money might not be there when it’s needed. That’s a red flag for anyone with a calculator and a memory longer than five minutes.

This is not some vague bureaucratic move. This is a direct indictment of the NDP’s economic policies in British Columbia. This is what happens when you treat taxpayers like an ATM machine and the economy like a social experiment. And now, international financial institutions are officially saying what a lot of people have been screaming for years: B.C. is in serious fiscal trouble.

Causes: Spending, Deficits, and Revenue Pressure

The core driver behind the downgrades is the ballooning of operating and capital deficits, coupled with aggressive government spending. According to B.C.’s 2025 budget, unveiled by Finance Minister Brenda Bailey on March 4, the provincial deficit is projected to hit $10.9 billion in 2025–26—up from $9.1 billion the previous year. Moody’s projects an even higher shortfall of $14.3 billion, raising red flags about B.C.’s ability to fund programs without unsustainable borrowing.

S&P cited the impact of reduced immigration levels and ongoing trade uncertainty as key headwinds, limiting economic growth and shrinking the province’s revenue base. Moody’s pointed to persistent budgetary gaps and limited progress on deficit reduction, highlighting the growing gap between revenue and expenditure.

Additionally, spending growth has significantly outpaced both population and inflation. Data from the Fraser Institute shows that between 2019/20 and 2024/25, program spending increased by 51.6%, whereas only 29.2% was needed to keep pace with demographic and price trends. This excess has pushed real per-capita expenditures to historic highs, without a corresponding rise in revenue.

Opposition Blames NDP Mismanagement for Downgrade

But what does that actually mean for real people—not bureaucrats, not lobbyists—but the mom on a fixed income buying groceries? So I reached out to John Rustad, leader of the Official Opposition in B.C., to ask exactly that.

“Two downgrades! Absolute disaster,” he told me. “Under David Eby, we’ve gone from a AAA status to a single A with a negative outlook. This government’s reckless spending and irresponsible management will have a devastating effect—not just today, but for generations to come.”

He’s not exaggerating. According to Rustad, by the end of this fiscal period, B.C.’s debt will have nearly tripled since the NDP took power. Let that sink in—tripled. And no, this isn’t just some abstract macroeconomic trend. This hits you. Directly.

Rustad laid it out. These downgrades mean higher borrowing costs for the province. That’s code for more taxpayer money getting funneled into interest payments instead of hospitals, schools, or—God forbid—tax relief.

“By the end of this fiscal plan, even before the downgrade and before the loss of billions in carbon tax revenue, interest payments were projected to hit $7 billion annually,” Rustad said. “That’s about 30% of personal income tax revenue—just to pay the interest.”

That’s money you send to Victoria every month—just lighting it on fire.

And with the downgrade? Expect to pay another $1 billion more in interest. That’s around $200 per person, per year. Not for roads. Not for services. Just to keep the debt monster fed.

Meanwhile, Premier David Eby—well, he’s had months to plan for replacing the carbon tax, and guess what? Still no plan. Rustad told me he expected Eby to raise industrial taxes to make up the difference, but even that hasn’t happened yet. For now, the hole is just growing—a $2 billion loss in carbon tax revenue on top of an $11 billion deficit.

So What Does This Mean for the Average Mom?

In response to a direct question about what this credit downgrade means for a mother living on a fixed income, Opposition Leader John Rustad laid out the long-term consequences in no uncertain terms:

“The average person will not notice this immediately. But what it does mean is higher borrowing costs, So with the massive deficit and debt, more money will need to be spent on interest payments. By the end of this fiscal, before loss of billions in carbon tax revenue and before the debt downgrades, interest payments would increase to about $7 billion by the end of the fiscal plan. To put that in perspective, that would be the equivalent of 30% or more of personal income taxes just to pay interest.”

He continued:

“The debt downgrades mean the province will have to pay more in interest—likely 1/4 to 1/2% more. On $220+ billion, that could mean $1 billion more in interest. That could be about $200 per man, woman and child annually in more interest by 2027.”

And with no plan to rein in spending, Rustad issued a stark warning:

“The compounding problem is: will this mean service cuts, more taxes, or yet more debt to be paid by our children?”

Final Thoughts

So here’s a question no one on CBC is going to ask: What actually happens when a progressive government can’t manage a budget? I’ll tell you. You get poorer. That’s what happens. You, the person who gets up every day and works a real job, pays the price while the people in charge keep living large off your labour.

Let’s walk through it. First, you pay provincial income tax—a tax just for working. Imagine that. You go out, earn a living, and the government takes a cut just because you dared to be productive. Then there’s the PST—you buy something, anything, and you get taxed again. Why? Because you had the audacity to participate in the economy.

And then there’s the carbon tax, the holy grail of progressive grifts. This wasn’t about saving the planet—it was about propping up the very same government that couldn’t manage a piggy bank, let alone a provincial budget. That tax was floating David Eby’s spending addiction. Now it’s gone, and surprise—there’s no plan to replace it. Just more debt, more interest, and more economic chaos.

But wait—here’s the part that really insults your intelligence. After taxing you into the ground, they turn around and say, “Don’t worry, we’ll give you a rebate.” A rebate? You mean you’re going to give me back a tiny fraction of the money you stole from me and act like you’re doing me a favour? Please. That’s not generosity—it’s gaslighting. It’s economic abuse wrapped in a government cheque.

And that’s why I keep saying it: fiscal responsibility matters. Because I’d rather have that money in my wallet, feeding my kids, paying my bills, building my future—than watching David Eby burn it on pet projects, political theatre, and bloated bureaucracy.

But here’s the thing—there is hope. It’s not all doom and despair. In the last election, something incredible happened. The BC Conservatives, a party written off by the elites and ignored by the media, pulled off a political miracle. They surged from obscurity to contention—why? Because regular people are waking up. Because the voters who pay the bills, raise the kids, and still believe in common sense are done being treated like ATMs for a government that doesn’t even pretend to respect them.

And maybe—just maybe—after a little more pain, after a little more David Eby-style financial recklessness, the voters of this province will finally realize why fiscal responsibility matters. Not because it sounds good in a press release, but because without it, your future vanishes. Your freedom shrinks. And the people in charge? They just keep spending.

So next time, when the ballots are counted and the smoke clears, maybe British Columbia will finally remember who this province belongs to—not to bureaucrats, not to activists, not to the political class in Victoria—but to you.

And that day can’t come soon enough.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline

Published on

From The Center Square

By

California legislators have unveiled a bill to follow through with the governor’s plan of more than doubling the state’s film and TV production tax credits to $750 million.

The state’s own analysis warns it’s likely the refundable production credits generate only 20 to 50 cents of state revenue for every dollar the state spends, and the increase could stoke a “race to the bottom” among the 38 states that now have such programs.

Industry insiders say the state’s high production costs are to blame for much of the exodus, and experts say the cost of housing is responsible for a significant share of the higher costs.

The bill creates a special carve-out for shooting in Los Angeles, where productions would be able to claim refundable credits for 35% of the cost of production.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his proposal last year and highlighted his goal of expanding the program at an industry event last week.

“California is the entertainment capital of the world – and we’re committed to ensuring we stay that way,” said Newsom. “Fashion and film go hand in hand, helping to express characters, capture eras in time and reflect cultural movements.”

With most states now offering production credits, economic analysis suggests these programs now produce state revenue well below the cost of the credits themselves.

“A recent study from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation found that each $1 of Program 2.0 credit results in $1.07 in new state and local government revenue. This finding, however, is significantly overstated due to the study’s use of implausible assumptions,” wrote the state’s analysts in a 2023 report. “Most importantly, the study assumes that no productions receiving tax credits would have filmed here in the absence of the credit.”

“This is out of line with economic research discussed above which suggests tax credits influence location decisions of only a portion of recipients,” continued the state analysis. “Two studies that better reflect this research finding suggest that each $1 of film credit results in $0.20 to $0.50 of state revenues.”

“Parks and Recreation” stars Rob Lowe and Adam Scott recently shared on Lowe’s podcast how costs are so high their show likely would have been shot in Europe instead.

“It’s cheaper to bring 100 American people to Ireland than to walk across the lot at Fox past the sound stages and do it and do it there,” said Lowe.

“Do you think if we shot ‘Parks’ right now, we would be in Budapest?” asked Scott, who now stars in “Severance.”

“100%,” replied Lowe. “All those other places are offering 40% — forty percent — and then on top of that there’s other stuff that they do, and then that’s not even talking about the union stuff. That’s just tax economics of it all.”

“It’s criminal what California and LA have let happen. It’s criminal,” continued Lowe. “Everybody should be fired.”

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, housing is the single largest expense for California households.

“Across the income spectrum, 35–44% of household expenditures go to covering rent, mortgages, utilities and home maintenance,” wrote PPIC.

The cost of housing due to supply constraints now makes it nearly impossible for creatives to get their start in LA, said M. Nolan Gray, legislative director at housing regulatory reform organization California YIMBY.

“Hollywood depends on Los Angeles being the place where anybody can show up, take a big risk, and pursue their dreams, and that only works if you have a lot of affordable apartments,” said Gray to The Center Square. “We’ve built a Los Angeles where you have to be fabulously wealthy to have stable and decent housing, and as a result a lot of folks either are not coming, or those who are coming need to paid quite a bit higher to make it worth it, and it’s destroying one of California’s most important industries.”

“Anybody who arrived in Hollywood before the 2010s, their story is always, ‘Yeah, I showed up in LA, and I lived in a really, really  dirt-cheap apartment with like $10 in my pocket.’ That just doesn’t exist anymore,” continued Gray. “Does the Walt Disney of 2025 not take the train from Kansas City to LA? Almost certainly not. If he goes anywhere, he goes to Atlanta.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X