CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[dapaterson]

I suspect it’s cover for the annoyance at the ReArm Europe thing instead of buying stuff here.

When in doubt with POTUS47, I assume it's not tactical concealment, but rather "surrounded by imbeciles who learn things long after it's revealed".

 

[KevinB]

When in doubt with POTUS47, I assume it's not tactical concealment, but rather "surrounded by imbeciles who learn things long after it's revealed".

Throw in rage bait for the base…

 

[GK .Dundas]

Which to be fair 47 has gone out of his way to make everyone leery of buying US kit, so it’s an own goal at this point.

He's good at that.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

When in doubt with POTUS47, I assume it's not tactical concealment, but rather "surrounded by imbeciles who learn things long after it's revealed".

I am positive the man has dementia.

He could be surrounded by Rhodes scholars for all we know; he still makes irrational decision that often self-sabotage previous stated goals or contradicts previous decisions.

I have to wonder how long until the 25th Amendment comes into play...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I don't even understand how people somehow think it's a bad thing that our Govt is getting challenged on C59?

So far, the entire argument presented is "TrUmP BaD"

I think it's hilarious that our Govt is getting taken to task by a foreign Govt over this stuff.

 

[Remius]

I don't even understand how people somehow think it's a bad thing that our Govt is getting challenged on C59?

Being challenged on it is fine. Packing up your toys and leaving the sandbox over it? Not buying it. There is more at play.

So far, the entire argument presented is "TrUmP BaD"

Not quite. Just bad faith. They only found out about this now? right…

So far this administration has been all over the place on what it wants.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I don't even understand how people somehow think it's a bad thing that our Govt is getting challenged on C59?

So far, the entire argument presented is "TrUmP BaD"

I think it's hilarious that our Govt is getting taken to task by a foreign Govt over this stuff.

For the record, my comment was completely separate from my views on C-59.

I think its a terrible attempt to adapt CANCON policies to the internet, which is ridiculous.

 

[RangerRay]

I don't even understand how people somehow think it's a bad thing that our Govt is getting challenged on C59?

So far, the entire argument presented is "TrUmP BaD"

I think it's hilarious that our Govt is getting taken to task by a foreign Govt over this stuff.

The Biden Administration was threatening tariffs when this bill was passed. They were distracted by the election though.

I definitely wouldn’t cry if this tax and its legislation were ditched. Unfortunately because Trump went and put a big target on it, i think it will be harder for Carney to quietly get rid of it, were he so inclined.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It’s a shit bill. Seems like a short sighted tax grab from my POV.

One man's "short sighted tax grab" is another's "ending someone's tax holiday that nobody else gets."

 

[OldSolduer]

I have to wonder how long until the 25th Amendment comes into play...

Well if Biden wasn't taken out then I doubt if Trump will be.

Not only that but Bill C 59 is a threat to our freedom of expression.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Well if Biden wasn't taken out then I doubt if Trump will be.

Not only that but Bill C 59 is a threat to our freedom of expression.

Biden didn't figuratively burn the house down by forgetting he left the stove on. If he wasn't mentally fit, he at least had adults in the room keeping him in check. I cannot say the same for Trump.

Trump's erratic behaviour has caused widespread damage to America and the world (and has made it impossible for Canada to "make a deal" with). Biden's tenure was not without its problems, but it definitely wasn't this.

I commend PMMC for having the patience of a Kindergarten teacher trying to keep things on track.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

For the record, my comment was completely separate from my views on C-59.

I think its a terrible attempt to adapt CANCON policies to the internet, which is ridiculous.

This is my view. People can't see the forest through the trees because of Big Orange Man.

Trump is a 79 year old billionaire on his last term, he don't give a damn.

I don't think American opinion on C59, C18, etc would have changed regardless of which geriatric the Americans voted to occupy the oval office.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is my view. People can't see the forest through the trees because of Big Orange Man.

Trump is a 79 year old billionaire on his last term, he don't give a damn.

I don't think American opinion on C59, C18, etc would have changed regardless of which geriatric the Americans voted to occupy the oval office.

I just see that sooner or later the remaining adults in the Senate/Congress are going to come together and shut this shit down before the whole thing just comes crashing down.

 

[Quirky]

So far, the entire argument presented is "TrUmP BaD"

I think it's hilarious that our Govt is getting taken to task by a foreign Govt over this stuff.

Basically you can justify any amount of nonsense with the ideology of orange man bad.

This country voted for "more of the same, please" and it's adorable to think that "elbows up" tricked millions of simpletons into thinking that "we're tough and we're not gonna take shit from Trump". Viva viva La Resistance!

 

[Czech_pivo]

Basically you can justify any amount of nonsense with the ideology of orange man bad.

This country voted for "more of the same, please" and it's adorable to think that "elbows up" tricked millions of simpletons into thinking that "we're tough and we're not gonna take shit from Trump". Viva viva La Resistance!

lol.
PP would be doing no better than the current PM.

 

[Remius]

lol.
PP would be doing no better than the current PM.

Who?

 

[brihard]

Basically you can justify any amount of nonsense with the ideology of orange man bad.

This country voted for "more of the same, please" and it's adorable to think that "elbows up" tricked millions of simpletons into thinking that "we're tough and we're not gonna take shit from Trump". Viva viva La Resistance!

While Trump is, in fact, pretty bad, that‘a not the argument being presented.

Economically, his tariffs are hot garbage. That’s why developed economies, including his own, have largely moved on from such mercantilist policies for a long, long time now.

The Digital Services Tax is much more nuanced than is being presented in this thread. While I can’t speak to how effective or optimal a policy it’s likely to be, it does reflect an actual economic gap that causes disadvantage for domestic providers of economic goods and services.

If I drive down to Canadian Tire, or hop on their website to order products, I’m buying them from a Canadian based retailer and paying that retailer for those goods. That Canadian retailer pays the applicable level of corporate tax on its earnings in Canada. Those corporate taxes are part of its expenses and those costs return to consumers.

Similarly, if I have a cable TV package from Bell, I pay them for the service, they earn Canadian business income and are domestically taxed on same.

If however we shift that to me purchasing goods from Amazon, in a lot of cases they simply have better prices. Amazon is also quite succesful at shielding its Canadian revenue from Canadian corporate taxes. They certainly still pay tax, but are able to structure to avoid quite a bit more than, say, Canadian Tire can. Keeping it simple and sticking with Amazon, same thing for, say, an Amazon Prime streaming service. Considerable Canadian revenue, partially shielded from Canadian taxation compared to domestic media competitors. They enjoy other regulatory benefits too that bring costs down, such as CanCon.

Now, this is a very simple breakdown, but it highlights that we have foreign entrants to Canadian business, operating exclusively in the online space, and who are able to avoid comparable Canadian business taxation and so undercut Canadian competitors. While taxation approaches to level this playing field need to be gone about carefully, the concept is not inherently wrong or nonsensical. It’s reasonable to think that goods and service providers competing for Canadian business should be on a fairly level playing field in terms of the tax burden they incur for selling me the same goods or services.

How precisely to go about doing this? I’m not qualified to say. It’s certainly obvious why the U.S. would get pissy about this- it takes their complaints about the U.S. ‘subsidizing’ other countries and flips it on its head. ‘Subsidy’ is of course nonsense, but primarily U.S.- based digital companies are currently enjoying an unfair advantage in many markets they enter, Canada being just one of them. Many other major economies have already implemented similar taxes at similar rates.

I have no problem with Amazon or Apple or Netflix or whomever competing in Canadian markets. It’s a good thing for consumer choice. Their Canadian sourced revenues should simply be treated similar in taxation to Canadian revenues from companies who are physically operating here. We were at the table with the U.S. and other OECD countries to come up with a common approach on this, but the U.S. has left those negotiations. Fine, that’s their right, but it gives them less say in what happens. This is becoming another case of Trump picking a fight with everyone at once and being shocked when other players make moves that aren’t what he wants them to make.

There’s not a shred of doubt in my mind that the government didn’t have a late stage Tantrump baked into its planning on this. It’s a very well established pattern at this point; he doesn’t get what he demands, he throws his teddy bear out of the crib and takes to Truth Social. That’s fine. He’s not capable of engaging in calm and mature approaches to trade policy, so it’s one of the challenges our government faces for the next few years. Doesn’t meant we roll over and play dead whenever Trump screams and demands. If he wants to go to the mattresses over Uber and Netflix, it will hurt other sectors of their economy that stand to suffer from instability.

Meanwhile, the digital services companies will quietly carry on recognizing that they need to price in foreign markets levying a direct revenue tax to offset the domestic corporate taxes they can dodge in those markets.

EDIT TO ADD: I forgot the caveat that I don’t think the taxes should be levied retroactively. A company should be able to do business knowing in real time what the tax implications of its decisions and business model are. Applying taxes retroactively isn’t fair; they might have otherwise made different decisions. That would be a reasonable concession to make on this issue.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't even understand how people somehow think it's a bad thing that our Govt is getting challenged on C59?

So far, the entire argument presented is "TrUmP BaD"

Brave stance being in favour of multinationals being able to (or continuing to be able to) do business and access customers in Canada without paying taxes, continuing a tax break that similar Canadian companies don't get. I know Amazon, Google & Meta are truly hard done by, and not making THAT much money, so they deserve some slack, right?

And that was true even before POTUS47 came onto the scene lately.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

EDIT TO ADD: I forgot the caveat that I don’t think the taxes should be levied retroactively. A company should be able to do business knowing in real time what the tax implications of its decisions and business model are. Applying taxes retroactively isn’t fair; they might have otherwise made different decisions. That would be a reasonable concession to make on this issue.

It's not quite retroactive, at least not in the sense that companies couldn't have made decision on the basis of the tax. The Act simply stated that the tax, when it took effect, would cover the period from the date of introduction of the Act in Parliament going forward. Thus, the companies affected by this knew from the start what would happen and from what date, right off the bat. While the press and business lobbies calls that "retroactive", it is a well established concept of legislative effect that is not considered to be retroactive in law and is used extensively in tax matters (throughout the world, I might add) so that the taxed entities cannot use the time between introduction of the bill and its adoption to evacuate/hide/evade (use what term you may) the incoming taxation.

 

[Czech_pivo]

While Trump is, in fact, pretty bad, that‘a not the argument being presented.

Economically, his tariffs are hot garbage. That’s why developed economies, including his own, have largely moved on from such mercantilist policies for a long, long time now.

The Digital Services Tax is much more nuanced than is being presented in this thread. While I can’t speak to how effective or optimal a policy it’s likely to be, it does reflect an actual economic gap that causes disadvantage for domestic providers of economic goods and services.

If I drive down to Canadian Tire, or hop on their website to order products, I’m buying them from a Canadian based retailer and paying that retailer for those goods. That Canadian retailer pays the applicable level of corporate tax on its earnings in Canada. Those corporate taxes are part of its expenses and those costs return to consumers.

Similarly, if I have a cable TV package from Bell, I pay them for the service, they earn Canadian business income and are domestically taxed on same.

If however we shift that to me purchasing goods from Amazon, in a lot of cases they simply have better prices. Amazon is also quite succesful at shielding its Canadian revenue from Canadian corporate taxes. They certainly still pay tax, but are able to structure to avoid quite a bit more than, say, Canadian Tire can. Keeping it simple and sticking with Amazon, same thing for, say, an Amazon Prime streaming service. Considerable Canadian revenue, partially shielded from Canadian taxation compared to domestic media competitors. They enjoy other regulatory benefits too that bring costs down, such as CanCon.

Now, this is a very simple breakdown, but it highlights that we have foreign entrants to Canadian business, operating exclusively in the online space, and who are able to avoid comparable Canadian business taxation and so undercut Canadian competitors. While taxation approaches to level this playing field need to be gone about carefully, the concept is not inherently wrong or nonsensical. It’s reasonable to think that goods and service providers competing for Canadian business should be on a fairly level playing field in terms of the tax burden they incur for selling me the same goods or services.

How precisely to go about doing this? I’m not qualified to say. It’s certainly obvious why the U.S. would get pissy about this- it takes their complaints about the U.S. ‘subsidizing’ other countries and flips it on its head. ‘Subsidy’ is of course nonsense, but primarily U.S.- based digital companies are currently enjoying an unfair advantage in many markets they enter, Canada being just one of them. Many other major economies have already implemented similar taxes at similar rates.

I have no problem with Amazon or Apple or Netflix or whomever competing in Canadian markets. It’s a good thing for consumer choice. Their Canadian sourced revenues should simply be treated similar in taxation to Canadian revenues from companies who are physically operating here. We were at the table with the U.S. and other OECD countries to come up with a common approach on this, but the U.S. has left those negotiations. Fine, that’s their right, but it gives them less say in what happens. This is becoming another case of Trump picking a fight with everyone at once and being shocked when other players make moves that aren’t what he wants them to make.

There’s not a shred of doubt in my mind that the government didn’t have a late stage Tantrump baked into its planning on this. It’s a very well established pattern at this point; he doesn’t get what he demands, he throws his teddy bear out of the crib and takes to Truth Social. That’s fine. He’s not capable of engaging in calm and mature approaches to trade policy, so it’s one of the challenges our government faces for the next few years. Doesn’t meant we roll over and play dead whenever Trump screams and demands. If he wants to go to the mattresses over Uber and Netflix, it will hurt other sectors of their economy that stand to suffer from instability.

Meanwhile, the digital services companies will quietly carry on recognizing that they need to price in foreign markets levying a direct revenue tax to offset the domestic corporate taxes they can dodge in those markets.

EDIT TO ADD: I forgot the caveat that I don’t think the taxes should be levied retroactively. A company should be able to do business knowing in real time what the tax implications of its decisions and business model are. Applying taxes retroactively isn’t fair; they might have otherwise made different decisions. That would be a reasonable concession to make on this issue.

Awesome reply/analysis!

On a side note, I’m visiting my wife’s family in Rhode Island and Connecticut over the next few days, can’t wait to be having conversations about what’s going on between Canada and Trump. Luckily none of my wife’s family is a Trump supporters, but nevertheless it might be interesting.
Our intention is to spend as little money down here as possible, it’s strictly a family visit as my MIL will be turning 92 later in August.