EU Members To Slap Tariffs On US Tobacco, Electronics, And Toys – But Not Bourbon.
(www.rferl.org)
from [email protected] to [email protected] on 08 Apr 2025 15:14
https://reddthat.com/post/38680297
from [email protected] to [email protected] on 08 Apr 2025 15:14
https://reddthat.com/post/38680297
European Union leaders will consider imposing 25 percent tariffs on a range of US imports, including steel, clothes, and food, but not bourbon or other alcoholic drinks, following US President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports from the EU.
#world
threaded - newest
Big mistake. They should focus on Bourbon and food. That will hit MAGAts the hardest.
Yeah, that’s an odd one to leave out. US alcohol isn’t any form of necessity either.
Maybe there’s a export like rye that the EU provides
Maybe it’s to avoid tarrifs on European alcohols?
No, bourbon and food is small fry.
Internet services headquartered in the US. That’s the real deal.
Require a $100/per computer/per year on-going tax (phased in very slowly over 36 months, with extremely slow ramp in the first 18 months) for every enterprise Windows installation. Then figure out a similar approach for cloud computing and mobile enterprise (targeting Android/iOS). That’s how you grab the Americans by the balls.
Even better: services. Tariff Facebook ads, Netflix subscriptions, Office 365, Amazon Prime. If the corporations want to pull the strings in government, hit them directly.
Yes, that would be part of it. Windows on enterprise is just a good, simple example.
I think that surprising amount of them are already located in Ireland for that and other tax related possibilities. Giant corporations are basically pirates sailing on lawless waters.
Target HQ based on consolidated financial account reporting not regional HQ. Doesn’t matter if you have a regional subsidiary in Ireland or Moldova. If the final accounts/HQs are US-based all transactions in Europe get hit with massive on-going subscription-style tariffs (since ICT services are largely subscription based).
If only tax-evasion was so easily solved. The are not shy of restructuring completely just to fit into any gap that law created. On paper “BigBadCorpo US” and “BigBadCorpo Irealand” could be two completely separate entities, with BBCI turning zero to no profits becouse it license brand from BBCUS.
You would think that Worner Bross is a movie making company. It’s not. On paper it’s a company that lend very overprices movie equipment. To shell companies created solely for the purpose of creating one movie…
Taxes are hard and people who employ literal armies of layers have the edge over slow law making.
While this is true, it’s also a matter of desire and commitment.
Case in point, the US companies all publish consolidated accounts and often break out Europe, albeit sometimes it’s EMEA not Europe.
You can target the final consolidated accounts and focus on revenues if the companies don’t provide actual numbers for Europe (or if it looks like there is something fishy going on, which there is).
Company A is in Poland. You regulate law in Poland. Company B is in USA. You don’t regulate a law in USA.
You want to tax company A, based on company B report, that was created for 3rd party government?
I recognize that this is not exactly a reasonable approach.
But sometimes (when the situation is dire and you’re dealing with unreasonable, profoundly corrupt individuals that lack humanity) you need to take an active (not reactive) approach.
Literally just say “You made $20B (revenue) in Europe as per your 10-K, you will pay $4B and we don’t care what you have to say because we both know you are dishonest and corrupt. Lying is not going to work!”
I am not saying that now is the time to use such measures. But to completely deny any active postures and solely leverage a reactive approach does not work.
That’s not unreasonable. That’s a law-suit. They will get back all this money with surplus.
Imagine that you have a company A. And you legitimately licens something from 3rd party company B. That’s your cost.
And you license something else from company C… that’s your profit some how?
On paper your relationship with company B and C is identical. There is nothing tangible linking you to company C more than B.
And if you manage to find something, they will shift the structure and change it.
You probably pay higher taxes than some of those companies.
Pirates. Enemies of the human kind.
See, you’re still thinking on their terms. It’s a fundamentally a reactive approach. You let American oligarchs (and their supporters among the American population) define the rules of the game. I will note that I agree with you that you’ll never beat their army of lawyers (on their own terms).
I am saying develop and implement approaches where the lawyers don’t matter. You tell the US oligarchs that they must pay X billion additional tariff fees based on data that identifies their commercial activity in Europe (I worked in tech market research at one point and there are reliable private data sources that allow you to make relatively accurate estimates around US company sales in Europe; irrespective of legal structure).
You tell them that they are welcome to say no and you’d happy for them to engage in lawsuits or bawsuits or do whatever they want. But you warn them that they might not like the outcome.
When they do say “no!” you go all in and de facto ban all American IT services and shut down their business in Europe.
Now I am not saying this has to be done immediately (or done at all). You can initially try and work with them for a long time, but all throughout this process you keep a full menu of options open, including de facto seizing their assets and implementing a blanket ban (either explicit or a fee structure that makes their business non-viable) on all American IT services.
I am just saying that we need to expand our horizon of capabilities beyond the rules set by Americans. It stupid to come to a gun fight with boxing gloves.
I’m thinking “rule of law”. Is that their terms? You can’t arbitrary tax someone with “I know how much you REALLY earned” alone.
And when you quantify it they will beat it in your own game.
I would argue “rule of law” is not relevant to American oligarchs. There is no difference between say a russian oligarch and an American oligarch with the exception that American oligarchs have a stronger preference for theatrics/PR and copytext that references terms like “freedom” and “rule of law” and “personal responsibility”. Russian oligarchs just don’t bother because paradoxically they are more honest than American oligarchs.
It’s not a matter of knowing how much they REALLY earned. It’s about telling them that they will pay this much and if they don’t, they are welcome to go along with lawsuits or whatever they feel like.
They can make a statement in the UN about discrimination against the most discriminated group in the world; freedom loving American billionaires. Tell them they can get Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and Snoop Dog to perform a modern supergroup track as a legacy to the 40th year anniversary of We are the World called “We are Silicon Valley” (or “We are Wall Street”).
Just warn them that if “We are Silicon Valley” doesn’t change the course of human history (let alone become #1 in every single country in the world), things might not work out for them as they would like.
I agree. But it’s relevant to me.
I want my government to work within the rules. I don’t want my government to be able to tax people on "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es.
I’m not saying that taxes can’t be improvement. But taxing international companies is extremely complex problem. No one found completely bulletproof solution yet, and it’s almost impossible to do unilaterally without multiple sides collaborating. Everytime someone say “the should just…” it’s a gross oversimplification that present reality where solution is obvious and everyone not implementing it gave bad will or lack competency or gut.
How is it a strongly held opinion and “everyone knows”? Various tax avoidance schemes are extremely well documented both in general media reporting, NGO reporting and even academia. Are you saying that even something as simple as the wikipedia article on the Dutch Sandwich was just made up on the spot? Did the Wikipedia editors find a local hardcore alcoholic that is known for making up crazy stories and decided to document one of his claimed escapades where he got wasted with a recently divorced senior financial accounting executive who told him about the dutch sandwich?
You say “rule of law” is relevant to you. What does this mean? Can you define this specifically.
You are acting somewhat high and mighty on this topic (just a little bit, although I will admit such a rhetorical approach is fair considering the topic), but on what basis should one take your alleged commitment to “rule of law” at face value?
What you are saying is that we must tolerate corporate criminality no matter what. We are not allowed to challenge their methods and any and all information on corporate tax avoidance is inherently hearsay.
I will admit I am being a little bit hyperbolic, but how else should once interpret "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es?
What’s the gross oversimplification? Perhaps the gross oversimplification is your "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es? Have you thought about that?
Ok. Let’s take a step back
You have companies in Poland. Let’s call them A, B and C.
And we have company D in USA.
One of those A,B,C is a “child” of company D. Other two simply do business with company D.
Company D in they finacial statmet - that is a 3rd party statment that you have no rights to audit in any way, in some cases it want even be avaible to you - claim that they earned $10M from each A, B and C. (This is the “hearsay” becouse it’s an information form outside your bouble of control. You have no way of verifying it. US gov have, but they are 3rd party to you and company A, B and C)
A, B, and C each in their tax reports created for you claim that those $10M is their cost.
In case of one you say “no, it’s not your cost, it’s your profit”.
What specific difference between A, B, C makes you say that? One is similarly named to D? It won’t be, by next tax year. All all registered in Poland. All have polish board. All spand money at company D. What’s the difference? What parameter would you choose to tax one of those but not the other?
Let’s go with what you are saying, even though you didn’t address a single point that I mentioned. Define what you mean by “rule of law”, be clear and specific, don’t hide behind polemics! What is your definition of rule of law? You brought it up, define it. I never acted high and mighty and brought up “rule of law”. I said the Americans need a taste of their medicine.
Back to your example.
You have 3 polish companies that interact with a US corp. One is the actual subsidiary and two other are clients.
You’re saying you can audit ABC, but you can’t figure out which one is the subsidiary and which ones are clients? Are you serious? I have zero professional experience in accounting and even I would be able to tell the difference between a client and subsidiary if I had access to their internal accounts (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow statement over multiple quarters).
I am not an expert on tax scamming methods, but I would argue I may have more knowledge than the average person (or not).
Why would Corp D even use the model you describe? Why would they try and hide within Polish ABC? Why not just openly say C is our subsidiary, make it a cost centre and redirect the actual money to Company E in Luxembourg or Isle of Mann. Subsidiary C always fails to make any profit. Top American brand D that everyone in the world knows, has a poor subsidiary C in Poland that is never able to make a profit. The crocodiles are crying about poor Polish subsidiary C. You ask a crocodile about subsidiary C and the crocodile says “it is such a gross oversimplification that subsidiary C’s losses are a tax scam. We are trying to develop professional experience in Poland via subsidiary C. Don’t you believe in the rule of law?”
This is where your lack of imagination and inability to think beyond rules set by American oligarchs comes into play.
Let’s say we made a thought experiment and assumed your ABC model is viable (it is not viable because the profits will be re-directed to a tax shelter jurisdiction and Company D won’t bother with local-only schemes because they are not efficient). Nevertheless, you do have a way of verifying the total sales by company D in Poland. This applies to both B2C (shipments into channel, POS data) and B2B sales (VAT calculations, government stats agency research).
What you are arguing is nothing can change, nothing should change and we should always kiss the feet of the oligarchs that run company D.
I am saying the arguments by the army of lawyers are bullshit and if you really want to, you can make their jobs redundant. It’s all about gumption and willingness to rock the boat.
You can do a lot against tax evasions - if you want. Yes, they will find loopholes. But you can close them. Quickly - if you want. They have literal armies of lawyers? Well, hire armies of clerks, they will pay for themselves and make laws without loopholes.
That windows tax sounds like a way to bring about the year of the Linux desktop and I like that idea.
I recognize the irony of “year of linux on the desktop”, but we (not only EU, I say this as someone from non-EU Europe) should not be giving the Americans money. They’ve proven that they are unreliable and unwilling to deal with corruption and degeneracy in their country. No disrespect to sane Americans, but at the end of the day they too need to make things happen.
For the record, I’m american. Entire current situation aside, I would prefer my chosen operating system have more support and if I can at least get that out of the destruction of the only country I’ve ever lived in I mean that’s something I guess.
But yeah you probably shouldn’t be financing the Nazis of the 2020s that is true, and taxing people who do would probably cut down on that.
As I said, no disrespect to sane Americans.
I’ve lived in the US and travelled extensively around the country (not only Manhattan and north-western part of LA), there are many sane Americans even in provincial pro-corruption hotspots.
But until the sane Americans implement true anti-corruption, judicial and election reforms (no Obama style “hope and change” bullshit), it is reasonable to expect nothing good to come out of the US. Even if a hypothetical Michelle Obama administration takes power in the next election (which is a giant if), that’s not going to change anything until the Americans stop treating their oligarchs and criminal groups as sacred cows.
You’re preaching to the choir man I’ve been beating this drum with increasing volume for years. We need 20 million+ of us on the national mall demanding a new constitution and government under threat of 1789 and I don’t honestly know if that’s possible.
Michelle Obama or any Dem won’t be taking power in 2028, if the above doesn’t happen 2028 isn’t a real election and if it does the United States Government as it currently exists doesn’t anymore so who even knows what the structure of our government will be.
Idk don’t count on us getting our shit together, trump could literally genocide Hispanics on American soil and 1/3 of Americans would strongly approve specifically genociding Hispanics. Even if we recover from this, things will get worse for Americans as our empire crumbles, and in 40 years when I’m the boomer and my friends are all the boomers, we’ll collectively beg for the good old days we grew up in when the American Empire was still strong, and we’ll collectively vote for the new nationalists of the day to make America great again again.
I should mention that while I’m a fan of democracy and would never want to live under another system of government I do not and have never believed democracy to be long term sustainable. Maybe I would if I lived in a real one idk but y’all still got far right problems over there in most of the former empires so idk.
I honestly don’t know what to say other than I wish you luck (no irony intended); it will benefit both you and me and you and our countries (and the world).
There’s barriers to mass adoption sure but the installation process of most distros since they all use the same GUI installer is…not it. Like I kinda just don’t believe you tbh, your comment is entirely out of line with my experience even a decade ago. Maybe in 2006 when I first installed fedora core 4.
Like I can understand having issues using it day to day and I’m not going to tell anyone to swap operating systems, but if you can’t get Ubuntu up and running idk how you install and go through the windows OOBE.
You tried installing it is a VM made by Microsoft, on Windows, and blame Linux for the problems? Lol
It is nonsense to think that an experimental developer tool made by a company with an interest actively against Linux adoption should be easier or more stable than a standard desktop OS installation. People recommend live usbs for transitioning for this reason. Something you would know if you had done even a cursory web search, something which normal people are actually capable of, despite your contempt for them.
Who or what made you think WSL was meant for the masses? Enabling it is hidden deep in the settings. Just like things in windows not meant for the masses.
Had you searched, you would have seen what is recommended for the masses that want to give Linux a spin, Linux on a USB stick. You install it using apps that are on windows. Then reboot your computer and here goes your full Linux. Take out the USB, reboot, windows again.
If you’re installing it on win 10 Windows Subsystem for Linux, then you’re installing it within windows which is not the same.
The permissions issues you encountered would likely have been due to you accessing features managed by windows. I guess it’s possible you ran some commands you shouldn’t have, but it would be just as easy to break a windows build if you’re running random commands you don’t understand as Administrator.
You can install ubuntu (or any other linux distro) on a usb, reboot your computer, probably mess with some bios boot-order settings, and try out an actual linux OS (and its installer), not one managed by windows. I think the bios settings are likely the biggest hangup. But I also doubt the majority of people who can’t install Linux could install Windows.
As per driver compatibility, there’s a good chance your issues were related again to WSL, which on win10 doesn’t seem to support cuda. I barely used WSL, but I remember not having direct gpu access, completely negating the point of me upgrading to pro and allowing me to get permission from work to wipe windows.
Anyways, I think what a lot of windows users don’t realize is how much time and energy they spent learning how to use windows and get around this or that and all the wasted hours spent troubleshooting something. So I do understand not wanting to do that all over again. But if OSX, android, and chromebooks can be turn key for your average user, I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from adapting to “Linux”.
The usual solution is to dual boot. If you’re not ready for that try out the system on a live USB image, or in a proper VM, but none of that WSL stuff.
Lol what? I can’t take this conversation seriously anymore lmao. It’s like me saying windows sucks because I can’t game under qemu. Microsoft says on their own site that WSL isn’t for GUI apps and even a cursory Google search would have told you that.
Thing is, had you asked anyone, about their recommendation on how to try Linux, most Linux users myself included, would’ve been happy to have given you advice.
WSL, just simply is not something to be recommended for that use case. Your stance of trying a non-recommended way to do something and reufusing the advice that tells you so, while insisting that you expect it to work that way, isn’t very sensible.
If you want to try Linux without dedicating a machine to it, there are options.
You can run a Live-Linux environment from a USB stick just to test the waters, you can even configure that with persistent storage to take your system with you on a keychain and run it on any computer that lets you boot from USB. Or you can go the dual-boot route.
Those are not that hard to do (with the exception of dual-booting, Windows makes that unneccessarrly troublesome). If you can read and follow a recipe, you can manage to do that. Still it’s not something, that the average joe wants to do, I get that. But when has the average user ever bothered to install an OS? Most people buy their hardware with Windows installed and never touch it. Until we get wide spread options of OEM installed Linux machines, that will always be more convenient.
Lets be realistic here, everything from MAGA dominated states is small fry, they are not exactly the most productive states.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/5be61489-8c66-470e-8cc9-2ff9ec232928.png">
Devils advocate, most of those states are agriculture heavy. What do you mean by productive?
I mean they are literally some of the poorest US states with the lowest GDP per capita, the highest poverty rates, the highest rates of people who need government support,… and most relevant for this discussion, the least valuable exports.
I feel that would grab our European balls more than theirs. Practically everyone is heavily invested in AWS, Azure or GCP with few actual European alternatives, and migration to a new provider being a massive undertaking for a lot of those projects.
I definitely agree, I work in the industry so I have no childish illusions about how painful this would be.
That being said, it is not completely out of the realm of reality. China still uses Windows/Android/iOS, but they have their own cloud providers and they are making massive inroads with respect to semiconductors and homegrown components. And they are working on getting rid of American operating syste6m and I think in ~10 years they will succeed.
At some point you need to make a call around whether using American tech is in your interests. Moving off American tech will never be easy, the question is when and how you do it and how you manage the pain.
And mark my words, the Americans are only going to get even volatile and chauvinistic. Unfortunately, the sane Americans lack risk-tolerance and motivation (they are in a broad sense too well off to care if their country moves from current early proto-fascism to full on facism).
Invoke anti coercion regulations and suspend intellectual property rights of the US companies. Job done.
Right, why are countries not coordinating counter tariffs. Why isn’t EU and Canada and others joining up to target some of the biggest donors and supporters
They should tax digital products.
Digital Providers are large donors but they are located in a blue state. Target the states with the votes that mater.
Problem is the bourbon distillers might go broke, now no more future bourbon.
Some issues transcend politics.
Shut it down!
Bourbon tastes like shit.
Highland scotch, that’s the real gold.
I’d take that hit. There is some damn good whiskey made in blue states. Westland is from the PNW, and one of my favorites.
kentuckys economy is exclusively bourban, or at least most of it.
And Kentucky is full of magats
Someone in charge likely has a bourbon cellar. If you’ve ever had good bourbon, you’ll understand. Small amounts of the top shelf bourbon can be like good chocolate.
Or they’re practiced lushes and don’t want any alcohol price increases.
I’ll be 100% honest the most selfish thought I had when Canada started to boycott was me wondering if I’d be able to get Buffalo Trace without jumping through hoops.
This is not to say it’s top shelf, but there was a time when it was commonly in stock and under $30. So much bang for your buck.
Found the American.
It’s all Whiskey, it having to be made in the USA is the only distinction of it being Bourbon.
There’s plenty of Whiskeys, Ryes and Corn Whiskeys that blow Bourbon out of the water.
I can’t say I’ve ever enjoyed the taste of a regular whiskey, top shelf or not. There is a difference. Granted, your comment is intended as baiting in this way.
Try a corn whiskey, some people don’t like Rye or the other grains, but the only distinction (again) between corn whiskey and bourbon is quite literally Bourbon is only bottled in the USA. That’s it. Nothing else.
The “baiting” is to find the Americans, they cling to bourbon is better, but it’s really not, it’s a corn whiskey, distilled in the USA. Americans are the only ones swooning over a marketing difference.
You can take aged Kentucky bourbon over to the UK, but you couldn’t bottle is as bourbon, that’s how stupid this distinction is.
I’m not passionate about bourbon nor am I a real drinker and thus the wrong person to pull into what is intended to be a heated discussion on it.
My original point is some people are and some of those people make policy decisions.
Straight bourbon is required to be 51% corn, aged in chared oak barrels for at least 2 years, and must be at least 80 proof.
Of course none of that makes it better, because it’s just preferences like anything else anyway. But bourbon is its own thing.
Hey you just described the requirement of corn whiskey? Anyone can distill a spirit that could be called Bourbon, but they can’t, since it wasn’t bottled in the USA.
The only difference between a corn whiskey is bourbon is bottled in the USA, but try to make it sound better than it is. It’s a corn whiskey, bottled in the USA.
No, not all whiskeys are required to be fermented in a new charred oak barrels. That’s what produces the typical smokey flavor associated with bourbon. All bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon. That’s like saying all other grain whiskey that doesn’t use corn is Scotch.
…
If you make an aged oak spirit in the UK, it would be a corn whiskey, that exact same spirit in the USA would be Bourbon.
Thank you for the being the stereotypical ignorant American who thinks bourbon is unique.
That’s it, it’s literally a USA ego thing.
Also, scotch is a terrible example, that’s another unique one, it’s made in Scotland only…. You really don’t know your whiskey history at all do you?
Yes, it must be made in the us. Scotch also has to be made in Scotland. But nobody is out here saying it’s Scottish ego. They just know the flavor profile of scotch. But you can make similar things elsewhere, true.
That’s because Scotland isn’t making it part of their identity like USA did dude….
Also, the USA has their own bullshit version, single malt whiskey. Of course they would try and copy while refusing to let others -.-
Lol, what? You are just riding on some xenophobia tip or something. You know the fact that there is a ton of American whiskey that is not called bourbon kinda disproves your whole prejudice, right? Whatever, keep stewing in it I guess.
Jack Daniels put whiskey on it’s bottles, don’t they?
Ya, that’s because it’s not Bourbon. Which kinda proves the point, right.
Yet it 100% is made to the bourbon minimal conditions. So it’s Bourbon, deceptively (strong word here for the lulz) labeled as whiskey?
Ya, kinda and it is a pretty funny answer. Jack uses a slightly different process called the Lincoln county process. Basically, they filter it through charcoal made from maple wood.
That still meets the requirements for Bourbon, but they wanted to have their own “Tennessee whiskey” definition that includes the Lincoln process. Although, I don’t know who else uses it other than them and Dickle.
So, ya, bourbon subset that doesn’t want to be called bourbon because it’s Tennessee whiskey. Lol.
I think they're avoiding it because of the exports of wine, champagn, beer, etc. out of the EU more than anything, but that's just a (very slightly) educated guess.
There’s Irish Scottish and Japanese whisky which are in my opinion superior anyway, should take a leaf from Canadas book and take them off the shelves.
American spirits are mixers here, I’ll use bourbon if I want a cocktail but if I want a glass of something - I dont reach for american.
I dont want them off the shelves though, I wan america to revwrse course and be fucking normal before we end up at war.
You and me both sister.
If the american supply ceases, european producers won’t be able to handle demand. Expect higher prices - good whiskey takes several years to produce and nobody has prepared for a stupid situation like this
Suck it up, buttercup. Take a stand!!
Lack of alcohol supply (a specific kind no less) is so far down the list of actual problems though. The majority of the population of the EU in every country seems to be on board with suffering a little in order to stick it to trump, so whiskey is really a weird thing to not import, especially given the potential impact it can have on the political opinion in affected regions.
Qu’ils boire de la champagne.
-Marie Antoinette
As a Canadian, I don’t give a rat’s ass what other countries do. I WILL NOT buy anything American. Full stop!!
Yup. Bourbon is way over rated.
Four Roses is nice for the price
Still way too harsh. Irish whiskey and Highland scotch are far smoother and more tasty.
Ardbeg is one of my absolute favourites, I’m more into Islay
Canada makes rye whiskey
When I did drink, I found bourbon too sweet
can’t do tariffs on the us but how about that chat control?
The eu seems to be really incapable of doing anything lately.