"The legal tool to implement it, that might change, but the policy hasn't changed. The Supreme Court struck down Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which no president had used to implement tariffs before. But these tariffs only accounted for about half of all the import taxes the government had been collecting."
"The administration's made it very clear that they are not turning away from tariffs. By Saturday, Trump said he was using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement worldwide tariffs of 15%, after initially saying he would impose them at 10%. He claimed in a social media post that this tariff level was fully allowed, and legally tested."
"For a consumer, it doesn't really matter what authority that the president calls on to impose the tariff. Price stickiness is a concept explaining why shoppers won't see price reductions anytime soon, as businesses do not immediately adjust prices downward despite changes in costs or tariff policies."
The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unconstitutional, but this decision will not result in lower consumer prices. The administration quickly pivoted to alternative legal authorities, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to reimpose tariffs at 15% on global imports. These tariffs accounted for only half of all import taxes being collected, so alternative tools remain available. Additionally, economists cite "price stickiness," an economic concept explaining why businesses do not immediately reduce prices even when costs decrease. For consumers, the specific legal authority used to impose tariffs is irrelevant to their purchasing power.
Read at www.npr.org
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]