I tried to make sure it was the most current data. Plenty of people are quick to tell me I’m wrong, but they can’t seem to bring any receipts to show otherwise so at this point that’s what I have to go by. If I find anything different, I will update the post.
1 Like
I’m not trying to hold anyone to the fire on this. Personally, I do appreciate you bringing something new to the conversation and I’m inclined to believe what you brought because it was exactly what I was looking for and couldn’t find on the .GOV site. It also fits the environment best based on the prices and info out there. The direct receipts (code and section/chapter numbers) are always a plus, and much easier to digest than a random, “because I said so”.
You obviously missed the point by a country mile.
ANd it’s you who keeps making political comments. I pointed out a group of Chinese Americans who started a business in America making it known how the Chinese gov’t suppresses it’s people. You went into political overdrive about it. Bambu could just as easily be making products here as well as China as do thousands of other companies. Instead, they continue to use the cheapest most slave like labor in the world, which you sit here defending like they are the champions of the world. And I have not stated once anything to do with any political affiliation so perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror pal.
6 Likes
So you support other countries charging the US massive tariffs but have a fit when we return the favor? I guess fair and level playing fields just aren’t fair and level in your world?
7 Likes
Thanks for following up on this, but the “shows us the receipts” burden is on you, not everyone else. This is you speaking:
“Now believe me when I tell you I didn’t want to have to do this video but so many videos about the tariffs I’ve seen are just either a just blatant self-promotion or completely flat out wrong.”
“8485 is what 3D printers would fall under and that would be 35%”
but you just wrote above:
Which is just gobbledygook. As someone else pointed out, section 301 is not the reciprocal tariff.
The entire video is riddled with factual errors as was your explanation of it above, there really isn’t any point to trying to correct you, nor do I think you’d do anything useful with the correct information. My “someone is wrong on the internet” days are long past me.
So if you have the “receipts”, maybe show them? You can cut and paste images directly into a message.
Your point was that Chinese people who live in China should have started their business in the US to avoid tariffs that didn’t exist at the time. If that wasn’t your point please tell me what it was.
Quote one.
Really?
5 Likes
They don’t — at least they didn’t before the last few weeks (to the degree we’re at). There were some tariffs on some things, and as I said I believe some things needed to be tweaked, but the extreme measures of this administration are way overboard and were completely unnecessary and will put us into a recession and possibly worse.
3 Likes
I started the post with “Here’s the latest info I’ve pulled together—double-checked everything, and this is accurate to my knowledge,” and I made it clear in the video—multiple times —that the info could be off.
The whole point of the video was to question whether the percentages being thrown around were accurate. I specifically said they could be wrong, but I also said with confidence they’re not 245%. Whether it’s 25%, 28%, or 31%, I acknowledged the numbers might not be exact—and I’ve continued to update the info as I find more. But other videos out there were absolutely making people believe it was 245%, and that’s a problem.
I continue to say that I’m human and subject to error—but it’s still better than everyone walking away thinking it’s 245%.
If anyone wants to dig in and share what they believe are the correct numbers, I’m all for it. I’d be glad to report that. At the time I shot the video, I used the best info I could find. The post above is the most current data I’ve come across. And guess what? I’m only human so the numbers could be wrong that’s the most important point still stands it’s not 245%
One of the biggest reasons I don’t visit forums much anymore is because of stuff like this. Forums used to be about cooperation if I made a post like this years ago, people would’ve double-checked it and said, “Hey, I think you might be off here. I found this instead.” People worked together as a community to figure things out. Now, forums are just about being skeptical and critical.
I was ask specifically to post here in more detail. It took me several days to do that because I wanted to do the research again I’ve done what I’ve been asked to do. Take it for a what it’s worth. 
Exactly where in the video did you say anything about them not being 245%?
Please include a URL with a timecode, like this. Just change the 108 to the number where you say “don’t believe that 245% number! It’s fake news!”
Well, I think I said 145 at the time but here you go, it’s unbelievable how petty you’re being.
how about some evidence where I say clearly that I could be wrong here. And just like a community invited anyone that has better info to jump in the comments and let me know.
Now, I’m done engaging with this post. It went way beyond useful to just petty attacks being critical over percentage points instead of focusing on the bigger subject. Good day.
1 Like
Just had our first negative quarter. One more triggers recession. Went from the fastest inflation recovery in the world to recession level economics in a couple months.
2 Likes
Well you are the one who said your video was about dispelling the myth of the 245% tariff. Isn’t the actual tariff rate on that HS 148.1%? Not such a great video anymore in that case, is it? But if you were saying 245% all along in the video hey, you were right! Great retcon, but next time delete the video first.
OK, I agree, let’s not quibble over a few (100) percentage points.
Was this statement in your video true? You don’t need to “explain it”, just was it true?
And one other thing I’d like to bring up is the de minimus now that means that a product coming into the United States from China as long as it costs less than $800 is not subject to tariffs anyway and that will be in place until May 2nd so technically any Chinese manufacturer that’s charging you the tariff right now doesn’t actually have to.
Or maybe not?
For people interested in this sort of thing, I’m running his 3d printer HTS code in a couple engines we use here at the office for managing imports. One of them just takes a list of HTS codes & countries and spits out a single number for each code, the other breaks down the components for each item.
For the one that just gives a total it is showing 148.1% and for the breakdown one it is showing:
Base customs duty 3.1%
Executive Order/IEEPA - Reciprocal Tariff 125%
Executive Order/IEEPA 20%
Section 301 25%
The 1st system is usually reliable, the difference between them is the Section 301.
Note both of these rates are specific to that exact HTS code, don’t interpret those numbers to be the “China tariff rate” if that is what you are googling for to compare.
4 Likes
Excellent answer, correct.
Why is the breakdown so high? It appears to be doubling entries up. I thought there were only a few products that applied an adjustment after the two executive order codes. That breakdown totals over 170%.
Which ones are doubled up?
LOL, that’s the problem. Which ones are the right ones. That breakdown is grabbing a ton of add-ons. When I search, I see some claiming 28.1% at the lowest and now with yours 173.1% at the highest.
I’m trying to answer your question, you said some entries are doubled up. If you tell me which appear to you to be duplicated I can try to answer.
Otherwise, are you just saying they are really high? Yes, tariffs on China are really high.
Yup. All I can say is that I’m using commercial tools we pay for, not google. I’m interested in the Section 301 discrepancy, it a little bothersome. But that’s only 25%.
I guess the only question I need answered is in reference to Section 301. Is that a specific exemption section or is it a larger overall section that only signifies the president’s ability to enact tariffs? Or something completely different?
You missed the point because I said, and again in the following posts, thousands of companies operate in multiple countries. You like to selectively read.
The whole thing started cause I made the simple point things are made in China where wages are low and people are oppressed. You keep ignoring that and commenting circles around the fact you don’t like.
I then, responding to your roundabout answer, notated that another group of Chinese had started a company in America, The Epoch Times. At that point, you went into politics with your post that their content is “against he Chinese Gov’t and banned in China and having thier company there wouldn’t be a good idea” followed by a post involving politics being linked. In a roundabout way, as all your posts have been, you managed to prove my point. The Chinese gov’t oppresses it’s people and in order to speak freely they have to be here to operate a news organization. Since you went that way, I notated a fact I read on a news article about politics and tv viewship. So yea, you went there. I followed your lead. You sure have a lot of free time to sit around commenting on posts.