
U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U - sky_nox
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/us/politics/boeing-airbus-tariffs.html
======
Thorncorona
The irony of Boeing complaining about favorable treatment by the government is
palpable.

~~~
olliej
Other countries are going to start ignoring FAA safety rulings now, so meaning
that in exchange for a short term monetary gain a bunch of politicians and
executives will probably cause significant long term costs - although the
people who made those decisions and took those bribes won't have to pay for
those consequences, they've already got there's :-/

~~~
dmix
This is some weak logic. So a super-high capital business like an Airline is
going to flaunt aircraft safety rules, potentially risking hundreds of lives
of their customers and employees... to what exactly? Buy some cheaper
uncertified Chinese(?) aircrafts or fly other certified aircrafts
unsafely...to make a little extra money? And then run away when the lawsuits
and families of the dead come chasing you?

~~~
olliej
No, it was explicitly because Boeing wanted to be able to short circuit the
normal safety analysis in order to get a poorly designed product to market to
compete with the airbus a320neo.

The level of trust in the US aeronautic safety agencies can be summed up in
other countries explicitly requiring non-US investigators.

 _That_ is the long term impact I'm talking about - it seems entirely
plausible that this will become the norm rather than the exception it is now.

------
citilife
In 2016 the US imported $416B and exported $270B to the EU. Although $11B is a
large number, it's a 2.6% tax on the total. More interestingly, is what they
are taxing.

Personally, I'd rather have tariffs than income tax. At least then I can
choose what to buy.

~~~
arcticbull
Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are
disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The
administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly
misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.

~~~
kenneth
Good. Given a fair tax system would be proportional / flat, perhaps a little
imbalance in the other direction evens it all out towards flat / proportional
tax (everyone at the same percentage)

~~~
jorblumesea
So, the people with the most money pay the same tax as those with a low
income?

That...doesn't sound fair at all. It's equality but not equity.

~~~
throwawaysea
The parent comment talked about a flat percentage tax. So the people with more
money would not be paying the "same tax". They would still be paying a lot
more. A truly fair tax would have everyone paying the same flat fee for the
same public services rendered.

~~~
arcticbull
It isn’t, though, because of the marginal utility of money. Someone making
$10k/yr sees much more value from an extra $10k than someone making $10M. For
one it’s a lifeline and for one a rounding error. While a flat tax is fair in
numbers it’s not fair in marginal value or utility. IMO that’s a much bigger
deal. There are other macroeconomic advantages to giving the little guy the
extra, though I don’t want to repeat myself so I’ll keep that in my sister
reply.

FWIW we’ve already got regressive taxes in the form of payroll tax, which kick
in from $0 and cap out once you earn enough. So unless you’re unemployed,
you’ve paid taxes even if your marginal income tax rate is 0%.

~~~
throwawaysea
I feel you are reinventing definitions. The “same tax” would be very literally
giving up the same value. The only common definition of value in society is
currency - that is literally its role, to serve as a _common_ measure (and
storage) of utility. It does not confer net utility in and of itself (goods
and services do), and therefore this argument of marginality doesn’t apply to
it.

I understand that goods and services acquired with currency can experience
diminishing returns. But unless you think the rich and poor should be paying
different amounts for every good and service (for example a cup of coffee),
then I don’t think this is a consistent, principled argument.

And once again, let me point out that GP’s comment on a flat tax would STILL
mean the rich give up more value than the poor, and it would still not be a
truly ‘fair’ tax. And on a side note, ‘progressive’/‘regressive’ are made up
terms used to play rhetorical games by leveraging the negative connotation of
the term ‘regressive’. A better set of neutral terms would be ‘uniform’ or
‘fair’ or ‘flat’ versus ‘non-uniform’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘graduated’.

~~~
arcticbull
The rich already pay different amounts than the poor for goods and services in
pre-tax dollars. That's kind of the idea, IMO. If my average tax rate is 28%
and a poor person pays an average 5% then the same $5 SF coffee costs me $6.94
and them $5.26.

The dictionary definition is quite clear: A progressive tax is a tax in which
the average tax rate (taxes paid ÷ personal income) increases as the taxable
amount increases. [Google]

A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of
income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in
opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-
income earners. [Also Google]

As such, Medicare taxes are regressive because they are capped at some amount
of earned income, whereas the ordinary income tax rate is progressive because
your marginal rate increases as you earn more money.

You are correct that a flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive with
respect to dollars, but it is regressive with respect to marginal utility of
those dollars to the earner. "Fair" is a value judgement and colors the
conversation.

~~~
throwawaysea
And labels of ‘progressive’ and ‘regressive’ aren’t value judgments? IMO they
are subjective judgments much more so than calling a true flat tax “fair”.
Equal value contribution is fair, after all.

The dictionary definitions you are quoting are in existence simply due to
common use in modern times, but I am claiming they are nevertheless bad
definitions that were engineered to color the discourse on this topic.

~~~
kenneth
Exactly.

We're both kids. I have 12 marbles. You have 24 marbles. We need to give up
some marbles for the common good. We could debate whether us both giving 6
marble is fair, or wether you giving 8 and me giving 4 is fair. I can see both
arguments.

However… in no rational world is it fair for you to give 10 and me 2.

~~~
arcticbull
Marbles aren't a good analogy because they have equal marginal utility.

Let's replace marbles with hamburgers. You and your buddy Steve lay out your
food for the day. You have 2 hamburgers, exactly enough to meet your daily
caloric needs. Your buddy Steve has approximately 10 hamburgers. Dramatically
more hamburgers than he needs to live. More than he could eat if he tried.

Now, we need 1 hamburger for the common good. If you take that one hamburger
from the guy with 2, he's hungry, and if you keep doing it, he may die. Steve,
on the other hand, can't eat all his hamburgers one way or the other, so
taking one from him makes much less of a difference.

Now how does that change the equation? It's fair for Steve to donate 0.8
burgers and you to donate 0.2 -- this represents fair distribution on a
marginal value basis. So yes, 10:2 is completely fair. In fact, 10:0 is fair
if I'm making millions and someone else is making a handful of thousands per
year.

I'm personally in one of the top tax brackets and I think it should be higher.
We already pay 50%-ish marginally in California, so moving up to AOC's 70%
isn't really a big difference. I should be paying more, because we live in a
community and I want that community to be nice. I don't want to live in a
world where I have nice things and walk by people with nothing, on the ground,
doing heroin like I do on my way to work every morning here in SF. All because
it's not "fair" to take a burger from me, when I have more burgers than I know
what to do with.

------
munk-a
That's some particularly hilarious timing giving boeing's recent "unsafe to
fly our plans" headline news.

As someone in Canada it's been disappointing to watch the massive internal
subsidies given to Boeing (from the US government) help sink Bombardier -
though the company also did under-perform.

~~~
Rebelgecko
Doesn't every country do the same thing— albeit perhaps not at the same scale?
When Embraer complained about Bombardier's subsidies from the Canadian
government, the WTO decided that they were illegal. Then Bombardier complained
about Embraer's subsidies from the Brazilian government and the WTO decided
that those are illegal too.

~~~
munk-a
Yea, but the WTO hasn't gone after the blatant US protectionism - that's the
issue. Most other countries are kept relatively in check in terms of trade
fairness, but the US is riding their golden chariot.

~~~
Rebelgecko
I'm assuming the justification for the EU tariffs was the WTO's decision last
month that the state of Washington is giving Boeing an illegal subsidy in the
form of tax breaks.

------
h3throw
It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to
be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt
subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that
Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it
doesn't seem so deserved.

I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes
to Trump. Otherwise, we all end up justifying Trump's and other Alt-Righties'
claims of bias.

~~~
matt4077
Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains
(subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this
story.

The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph.

If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the
world order yet again" then that is something that happens _entirely in your
head_.

It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.

~~~
h3throw
It's all in my head?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960)
(now deleted)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995)

I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a
part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn
with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete.

When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not
everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not
include the _why_.

~~~
Thorncorona
I think you're contriving viewpoints that simply aren't there. Nobody is
talking about Trump, rather people are enjoying the irony of the US being one
of the countries that subsidizes the most yet complaining about other
countries.

On another note, I think your headline is fine. After all, surely the secret
service is capable of non-lethally incapacitating a man with a machete. But
even if not, it's false equivocation.

------
gumby
More subsidies to that callous killer Boeing, from a government of the
megacorps, by the people, for the megacorps.

~~~
PHGamer
you cant kill boeing. if shit hits the fan theyre pretty much our only airline
manufacturer. i mean what happens if the eu tells the us to fuck off. we don't
get any more airbuses and if boeing is dead no way to make our own planes.

~~~
gumby
They are hardly the only aircraft manufacturer, though decades of neglect of
antitrust has allowed them to become he only remaining US manufacturer of
civilian aircraft. But if they are allowed to let them die we can still get
large passenger aircraft from Airbus, smaller ones from Brazil or China. Not
to mention from new entrants that will start up when the big gorilla goes
away?

------
qilo
Wanted to read the article, but instead got this: "You're in private mode. Log
in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private
mode." So headed for page source and stumbled onto this wtf:

    
    
      <!--
      ---------- Forwarded message ---------
      From: Kingsbury, Katie <katie.kingsbury@nytimes.com>
      Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:30 PM
      Subject: Rollout
      To: Bennet, James <james.bennet@nytimes.com>
      
      
      James,
      
      Here’s a line up for the launch tomorrow, all of these will be online before Sunday:
      
        • A.G.’s publisher’s note about The Times
        • Manjoo on household items that track us
        • Wu on the history of privacy
        • Jeong on A.I. and insurance
        • Metzel on genetically engineered babies
        • Warzel on tech CEOs in their own words
        • Fr. Martin on privacy and faith
        • Emily Chang on privacy as a feminist issue
        • Douthat on our post-privacy order
        • Swisher on privacy regulation
        • Irby on what’s funny about all this.
    
      Plus, of course, your piece if you can actually get it done in time.
    
      Next week, we’ll drop the piece about how we turned a public camera in Manhattan into a facial recognition equipped surveillance machine and who we caught with it.
    
      The vanity URL is locked in as nytimes.com/privacy-project and the social team has spun up the @PrivacyProject account.
    
      Katie
      -->

~~~
tdhoot
Wow, how is this comment not getting more notice. This is a hilarious screw-
up. Seems like the NYT is launching a new privacy initiative tomorrow.

------
ulfw
(deleted)

~~~
munk-a
I mean, the current administration was elected on a platform of "America
First" so, what did you think would happen?

I think the US has been self-centered for quite some time, and there was a
hilarious thread in a different article that went into the idea that America
is the world-policeman that everyone wants but... yea, for equal treatment and
to avoid regulatory capture - one needs to avoid that dying empire.

~~~
gumby
The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United
States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"

~~~
m0zg

      >> works against the interests of the United States though
    

That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with
China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's
going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant
work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU.

FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end all
W.T.O.-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft,” Mr. Lighthizer said."

As a US citizen I don't see anything controversial about this stance.

~~~
munk-a
Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company that is producing
substandard products that have gotten people killed - I don't see how you
could mentally position yourself to be alright with this.

The general idea of protectionism is less controversial - I think it is
generally bad[1] due to the economic effects of it. But if you're in favor of
protectionism you can check any claim you have to free-market economics or de-
regulation for growth at the door, protectionism is basically the Ur-form of
regulatory capture and state-capitalism so being pro-Boeing subsidies and then
claiming that the US becoming "socialist" is terrible is just logically
inconsistent.

[1] I'd leave the notable exception of when it's used to specifically
stimulate economic sector growth - propping up a robotics company in TN to
create a labour pool that enables other companies to grow out of the labour
availability is a pretty good usage.

~~~
m0zg

      >> Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company
    

Didn't read any further. Boeing is not a "failing company".

------
jorblumesea
Sickening that we're cozying up to authoritarian Russia and China while
alienating Western democracies. When did the enemy become our friends?

~~~
alanpetrel
And when did your friends become your enemy?

------
marcrosoft
Good! In the past few years the E.U has passed absolutely ridiculous laws and
taxed U.S. based companies through these ridiculous laws because they want a
slice of the pie too.

Edit: They are getting tax through fines by said ridiculous laws not by direct
tax.

~~~
oneplane
Such as? As far as I know the EU has had a rather positive position regarding
the US for the last decades, and still does, even after the most recent
election.

According to this page: [https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-
east/europe...](https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-
east/europe/european-union) it's rather balanced. Whoever upsets that balance
might need to reconsider, but the US would definitely have a problem if less
stuff comes in from the EU. For the EU, however, it's less of an issue:
[http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_...](http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122530.pdf)

~~~
stale2002
Well, one recent example is that of article 13, which is a massive expansion
of copyright law.

Yeah, no thanks. I do not at all what expansive intellectual property laws to
be spreading all over the world, and hurting creators like that.

Creators benefit way more when it is easy to share and use and modify other
people's content.

~~~
oneplane
I don't think that has anything even remotely to do with tariffs or trade.

But if it did: those lows are for the EU, not the rest of the world. Same goes
for GDPR. Nobody is required to trade with the EU, or sell to the EU or buy
from the EU. But if you do, the rules of the agreements that are made apply.
This is nothing new, and works the same way for trade or interaction with
pretty much any country. Imagine trying to sell stuff to China with Taiwanese
flags...

~~~
stale2002
The original comment is referring to ridiculous laws that the EU has passed.

The law in question includes things like a link tax, which is pretty
ridiculous, IMO, as is the copyright fines that they have.

The rest of your comment is merely a "the law is the law!" kind of
justification.

Yes, the law is the law. And I gave reasons as for why these laws are
ridiculous, as per the original comment.

I can recognize that a law exists, and also call it a horrible law, that
deserves retaliation from the US.

I sincerely hope that the US and everyone else uses trade laws and tariffs to
cause economic damage to the EU, specifically because of these horrible laws.

Fair is fair, yo. US trade tariffs are _also_ the law, and are a good way
punishing bad laws passed by other countries.

~~~
MagnumOpus
> US trade tariffs are also the law

Except they aren't. WTO treaty obligations for equitable treatment of other
nations (MFN obligations) supersede local laws. Overriding arbitrary local
laws is the whole point of the WTO, and of every other trade treaty.

The only way these tariffs work is Trump pulling the "national security
emergency" card -- and obviously 'punishing' the EU for building better planes
isn't a national security issue worth dismantling the WTO over.

~~~
stale2002
> The only way these tariffs work is Trump pulling the "national security
> emergency" card

So it _is_ the law then. Too bad, so sad, but the law allows this.

It sounds like you just disagree with the law. But that's the law!

> worth dismantling the WTO over.

And nothing is worth dismantling the free and open internet with oppressive
copyright laws.

So, I can use that exact same argument against the EU's horrible laws.

