25% Tariffs on All Imports - Effect on Rivian prices?

[andrewgrhogg]

I can see from this post why many otherwise smart and educated people became MAGA nuts. The lack of basic math and economics skills, and the willingness to just throw out logic, is truly flabbergasting. It’s also scary because you’re just going to ride the horse over the cliff and take the rest of us with you. After all the jobs have been lost and the economy is in tatters you will be lying under your pile of rubble babbling on about whatever next level stupid shit Trump and Fox News are putting out. This is all just epic “Don’t look up” bat shit crazy stuff - only it’s real life and not a comedy!

Sponsored

 

[savethemanual]

You don't add the two together. China, using a combination of currency manipulation, regulation, and tariffs, has a burden of 67% of the product's cost applied to the goods that we sell to them. In response, we have instituted a 34% tariff on the goods they sell to us. Also, it's more like a 46% tariff we are charging them now on most things.

Well I get that's it's very complicated, but the WH is not explaining things this way and imposing that China has a tariff of 67 percent being added to all USA goods imported. So confusing.

 

[doit82]

So you don't understand there are additional trade barriers outside of tariffs? If you don't know that, you're not qualified to continue discussing this.

my point is that to call them reciprocal tariffs as if those are the tariffs those countries placed on us is extremely misleading. But thank you for telling me what I am qualified to discuss. Remember, I have more degrees than you so my points are more valid.

 

[McLovin]

I think this whole thread can be boiled down to this meme:

 

[Zoidz]

There's a misconception among many regarding who pays tariffs. I am speaking from some personal experiences, as well as what I have read, but I'm am not a subject matter expert on this. Some here probably know a lot more than me about this - I'm posting it as general info based on my experience. Also, this is not a political post, it is just quoting the President and pointing out the facts. I just went through this recently for some specialized bolts from Germany for some process equipment.

TLDR - Tariffs are paid by the importer, not the tariffed country, and a 25% tariff does not translate to a 25% increase in retail price.

“China” is “paying billions and billions of dollars” on U.S. tariffs, President Trump said in his debate with Joe Biden on October 22.

1. Tariffs payments are transacted to the US Government by the US IMPORTER (not the supplier) unless other arrangements are made in advance, such as paying the supplier on your invoice to pay the tariff for you. In any event, the IMPORTER is ultimately responsible for satisfying the duties/taxes/tariffs before the shipment will clear customs, not the shipper.

2. UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. all have departments who manage this, acting as an intermediary. They will not release the shipment for delivery until it clears customs - they manage that process for you and collect taxes, duties and tariffs that are due to the government. They charge you a fee for this service.

3. It is paid on the DECLARED value which is not the same as the RETAIL value. This can get complicated as to how declared value is calculated, and explains why the cost of an imported product may not increase 25% of retail. It may be less. It may be zero.

4. If you understand the above process, it should be abundantly clear that the consumer will likely pay the tariff at the end of the day, unless the importer chooses to absorb the tariff. Do you really think in this economy, most importers will cut their profit margin?

Now, consider Rivian. Let's say that the aluminum subframe is made in China and has a DECLARED value of $500 (I'm making this up). From Rivian's perspective on pricing the vehicle, it has other values - the value associated to cost of building the vehicle (let's say $700) and a spare parts value for repairs (let's say $2000). Rivian will typically pay the 25% tariff on the $500 declared value. But that $ amount is less than 25% of the vehicle build cost, and much less than 25% of the spare part assigned cost. So most importantly, the cost of an assemble vehicle or spare part will not necessarily go up 25%.

 

[SANZC02]

Like this thread, the tariffs are a hot mess.

If it were really about bringing manufacturing back into the country it would be targeted for meaningful products. They would not be trying to kill the Chips act that is bringing a critical part of the supply chain on shore with higher paying jobs.

A big part of our economy is services, maybe as high as 80%. We had record low unemployment so it is not about jobs. We simply do not have the work force or appetite for many of the lower paying manufacturing jobs these tariffs seem to be targeting.

I’m not saying there are not things we can or should be looking at but take the time to do it right. Moving fast with crazy formulas that are 1 size fits all is simply breaking things across the broad spectrum of government responsibilities. Some of these things may be easily fixable but others can cause long lasting harm to our economy, security, and reputation. This is simply not how an effective government should be acting.

Apologies to the administrator and any members this clearly anti-political statement was made and may offend. I fully understand if you feel the need to delete it.

 

[DuoRivians]

Jaguar Land Rover just paused all exports to the U.S. because of these tariffs:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/05/jaguar-land-rover-us-shipments-trumps-tariffs

The tariffs will likely affect Rivian’s pricing somehow. It’ll also create weak consumer demand. That said, Rivian may be better off relatively versus competitors.

 

[André]

The calculation has been posted and takes into account money manipulation (subsidies), so it's not made up as much as some news agencies have posted...

« However, despite the characterization of the tariffs as “reciprocal,” and despite the accompanying graphics referring to foreign “tariffs charged to the USA including currency manipulation and trade barriers,” the White House did not actually measure tariffs, currency manipulation, or trade barrier policies employed by other countries. Instead, it drew its estimates from something else entirely: bilateral trade deficits in goods.

Specifically, the White House documents appear to allege the “tariffs charged to the USA” are the greater of two different quantities: (a) 10 percent, and (b) the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total quantity of US imports from that country.

Set aside, for now, the damage to economic growth these tariffs will cause, or the distributional impact of one of the largest tax hikes in US history. Other Tax Foundation work will cover that. (We currently estimate the cumulative amount of Trump tariffs at $3.1 trillion over 10 years, amounting to a roughly $2,100 tax increase per household in 2025 alone.)

The method for calculating other countries’ so-called “tariffs” for reciprocal purposes is nonsense. Bilateral deficits are not tariffs, nor are they meaningful anyway; trade in services is relevant; and tariffs cannot be used to target overall trade deficits. The overall result is an extraordinary policy error that will severely damage the economy while failing to reduce the US trade deficit.»

 

[TexasBob]

You don't add the two together. China, using a combination of currency manipulation, regulation, and tariffs, has a burden of 67% of the product's cost applied to the goods that we sell to them. In response, we have instituted a 34% tariff on the goods they sell to us. Also, it's more like a 46% tariff we are charging them now on most things.

I thought everyone knew this, but there was no calculation of any of the things you referenbce above. The calculation was as follows:

Net Trade Deficit $ / Total Trade $ = % Trade Deficit.
That is the assumed effect of "currency manipulation, regulation, and tariffs, etc."
Tariff set at 1/2 that amount. It is almost wholly arbitrary.

 

[TexasBob]

I thought everyone knew this, but there was no calculation of any of the things you referenbce above. The calculation was as follows:

Net Trade Deficit $ / Total Trade $ = % Trade Deficit.
That is the assumed effect of "currency manipulation, regulation, and tariffs, etc."
Tariff set at 1/2 that amount. It is almost wholly arbitrary.

Also noting that is only includes goods, not services.

Also, also noting that the WH has confirmed the above.

 

[captainjp]

Jaguar Land Rover just paused all exports to the U.S. because of these tariffs:

That’s not a bad thing, at least regarding Land Rover. Talk about a money pit…

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I thought everyone knew this, but there was no calculation of any of the things you referenbce above. The calculation was as follows:

Net Trade Deficit $ / Total Trade $ = % Trade Deficit.
That is the assumed effect of "currency manipulation, regulation, and tariffs, etc."
Tariff set at 1/2 that amount. It is almost wholly arbitrary.

If that’s the way it’s calculated then you’re correct it’s arbitrary.

 

[captainjp]

If it were really about bringing manufacturing back into the country it would be targeted for meaningful products. They would not be trying to kill the Chips act that is bringing a critical part of the supply chain on shore with higher paying jobs.

Or pausing DOE loans awarded for the construction of job-creating manufacturing facilities in the US.

Sponsored