Let's just agree on the facts relevant to this thread:
1. Trump won the election with 49.8% of the votes. Kamala Harris received 48.3% of the votes. This is why Donald Trump is President at the moment.
2. The Trump administration for reasons decided they wanted to impose tariffs on all kinds of goods on all kinds of countries.
3. Tariffs are essentially federal sales taxes on imported goods. There are theoretical scenarios where the tariff is more or less absorbed by the manufacturer/importer.
4. The existence of this thread shows that this is not the case for photographic equipment, and prices are going up.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The point of my post was two fold. One to point out that interest rate increase are not a matter of any administration. The are set by the Federal Reserve Board which designed to be arms length from the administration. Neither the previous Trump administration, nor the current Trump administration, nor the Biden administration sets interest rates. That is a fact not a matter of interpretation. Now whether those interest rates help or hurt Main Street is a political question we should not debate here, but let me just say the Federal Reserve Board sets those interest rates to balance inflation and unemployment. Higher rates ward off inflation. Lower rates ward off unemployment. The primary thing the Federal Reserve board does is try to balance those two bad outcomes by setting the interest rate. Whether they have done a good job of that we should not debate here, but what they are trying to do we should be able to agree upon.
I presented the number and the numbers of course are not a matter of debate. Numbers are numbers and as such are facts. We can't argue numbers. That is the point an increase in 3,059,799 votes is not something we can argue about. It is a fact. You are misreporting the facts when you say 90% or more of the counties shifted in President Trump's favor. That is factually wrong. Yes, he did increase his number of votes in many counties in California and the number is 45 out of 58 counties, but that was offset by decreases in many other counties. Biden won California with 61.5% of the vote with Trump receiving 34.3% of the vote. Harris won California with 58.5% of the vote with Trump receiving 38.3% of the vote. That shift was a lot bigger in California than in the country as a whole. In fact, the shift in California was roughly 2 and half times as big as the shift in the country as a whole. Despite that bigger shift, however, Trump did not increase his share of the votes in 90% of the counties in California. As you reported he increased his share in 77% of the counties (45 out of 58).
We can debate what the numbers mean, but we shouldn't. It is a political statement to say it was a massive shift. I don't think such a political statement should be made here. I could evaluate it but I won't. For those who want to evaluate it the size of the shift which is a fact can be compared to the size of the shift in previous elections as one point of reference for whether the shift is big or small. That comparison is also a fact and of course there are shifts in every election, so where does this one rank compared to previous elections? You can answer that question yourself and decide if saying the shift was massive stacks up in that comparison or not. I would reserve the term massive shift for the one we saw between 1960 and 1964 (a shift of 22% compared to a shift of 5% in the 2024 election) which was a shift to the left. Or the one we saw from 1976 to 1980 (a shift of 13% compared to 5% in 2024) which was a shift to the right or even Reagan's second victory in 1984 (which was a further shift of 12% compared to 5% in 2024) and another shift to the right. Note here that across his two terms there was a shift of 25% to the right. Across Trump's two terms there has been a shift of about 6%. You can call that massive, but numbers are numbers....Show more →
I clarified that I said "they", which means I know the federal reserve is responsible. I could see why you thought that way because I was talking about the previous administration the paragraph before, but I said "they" for a reason. Regardless, who is irrelevant to the the point I was making. It increased the cost of buying a house or a car significantly in the pursuit of trying to solve a bigger problem.
I did not analyze it. I posted places like New York Times that did the analysis. You can even find a version of it on CNN. That doesn't mean Trump won 90% of the counties. That isn't what the articles are saying. They are pointing out that 5% or 10% or whatever more of the vote went to Trump than in 2020 even if the entire volume wasn't enough to flip the county. That is a fact. That is not my fact. That is not my idea. That is not my observation. That is something reported by various news places even those with a left bias. If you find that impressive or not matters none to me. I see it is a mandate. If you see it as insignificant then so be it. We can argue significance but the data is the data. If it wasn't worthy of mention, then it wouldn't be reported by all those new agencies. My only point here is I didn't make this up. This was reported.
cbass wrote:
There is a button at the bottom of the post that says "Hide me" to hide all posts from a certain user. Enjoy your echo chamber.
Thank you for your help. I don't live in an echo chamber, nor do I want to, but I am tired of listening to people who make everything about political, or that allow politics make up their entire personality.
looking at cbass' posting history, it seems all the recent posts are entirely about recent price increase of Leica and Fuji. The only really tangentially photography related post is about designed and made in China lenses from Typoch.
Interestingly the few hundreds of dollars more that my camera gear will cost me yearly, that may or may not be attributable to Trumps tariffs, are more than offset by the THOUSANDS of dollars I will get to keep yearly, now that Trump made no tax on Social Security real... Just sayin'
HS-LD wrote:
Interestingly the few hundreds of dollars more that my camera gear will cost me yearly, that may or may not be attributable to Trumps tariffs, are more than offset by the THOUSANDS of dollars I will get to keep yearly, now that Trump made no tax on Social Security real... Just sayin'
Read the fine print after you read the headlines on Faux News. Rump did not remove the tax on social security. Social Security benefits continue to be subject to federal income tax, but a new deduction introduced by the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) may impact how much much seniors pay in taxes. The OBBB introduces a new temporary tax deduction for seniors called the "Senior Deduction".
The deduction phases out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) over $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers, according to Barron's. If you can afford expensive camera equipment you are probably in a tax bracket that won't receive much of a deduction. And the deduction ends in 2028. Interesting how that coincides with the next general election.
HS-LD wrote:
Interestingly the few hundreds of dollars more that my camera gear will cost me yearly, that may or may not be attributable to Trumps tariffs, are more than offset by the THOUSANDS of dollars I will get to keep yearly, now that Trump made no tax on Social Security real... Just sayin'
Is your gross income low enough that you’ll quality for this _temporary_ and limited deduction from the tax you will continue to pay on your social security income? And how about the future security of that social security income?
At least you are coming around to understanding that you’ll be paying hundreds more to cover taxes paid to the federal government to cover the import tax/tariffs on the photography gear you buy.
Now, what about all of the other things you buy that come from overseas and/or include components that are imported, such as the following?
Home furnishings
Appliances
Computers
Smartphones
Clothing and footwear
Auto parts
Cars
Televisions
Many food products (coffee, chocolate, nuts, produce from Mexico and other places, wine, etc.)
Construction materials
Tools
Furniture
…
And surprising secondary effects: For example, given that auto parts are largely produced overseas, expect your auto insurance costs to rise as insurance companies anticipate increased costs for repairs. Same for homeowners/renters insurance.
There’s hardly anything that you buy that won’t be affected by this.
gdanmitchell wrote:
And surprising secondary effects: For example, given that auto parts are largely produced overseas, expect your auto insurance costs to rise as insurance companies anticipate increased costs for repairs. Same for homeowners/renters insurance.
There’s hardly anything that you buy that won’t be affected by this.
Auto insurance rates already increased by 20% pre-tariff. What caused them to increase so much before tariffs?
Furthermore, I don't mind responding to this stuff, but I also want to be respectful of others that want to focus on photography on this forum and are starting to feel uncomfortable. If anyone feels the need to keep this going, then you can move it to DM or if you have a forum better suited for these types of discussions I have no problem joining and continuing it there. Then again, the chances of us agreeing with each other are almost zero so I also don't mind agreeing to disagree and moving on.
We're talking about camera gear and tariffs, which are effectively an additional tax being passed onto us. In this case, there is direct line between Trump and his tariffs, to manufacturers passing the cost onto us.
What I find is that you if can't see this clear line of logic, you may be compromised in ways that only you will be able to resolve. When you say stuff like this is only a couple gallons of gas extra, I find your reasoning extremely flawed and you are rationalizing a bad thing happening to you, your wallet, and fellow camera aficionados. This is significant tax on US consumers.
cbass wrote:
Auto insurance rates already increased by 20% pre-tariff. What caused them to increase so much before tariffs?
Furthermore, I don't mind responding to this stuff, but I also want to be respectful of others that want to focus on photography on this forum and are starting to feel uncomfortable. If anyone feels the need to keep this going, then you can move it to DM or if you have a forum better suited for these types of discussions I have no problem joining and continuing it there. Then again, the chances of us agreeing with each other are almost zero so I also don't mind agreeing to disagree and moving on.
cbass wrote:
Auto insurance rates already increased by 20% pre-tariff. What caused them to increase so much before tariffs?
Furthermore, I don't mind responding to this stuff, but I also want to be respectful of others that want to focus on photography on this forum and are starting to feel uncomfortable. If anyone feels the need to keep this going, then you can move it to DM or if you have a forum better suited for these types of discussions I have no problem joining and continuing it there. Then again, the chances of us agreeing with each other are almost zero so I also don't mind agreeing to disagree and moving on.
HS-LD wrote:
Interestingly the few hundreds of dollars more that my camera gear will cost me yearly, that may or may not be attributable to Trumps tariffs, are more than offset by the THOUSANDS of dollars I will get to keep yearly, now that Trump made no tax on Social Security real... Just sayin'
The few hundred dollars more are very much attributable to Trump tariffs, as are the couple of "hundred" dollars more that you will have to pay for everything else that imported.
quasitime wrote:
We're talking about camera gear and tariffs, which are effectively an additional tax being passed onto us. In this case, there is direct line between Trump and his tariffs, to manufacturers passing the cost onto us.
What I find is that you if can't see this clear line of logic, you may be compromised in ways that only you will be able to resolve. When you say stuff like this is only a couple gallons of gas extra, I find your reasoning extremely flawed and you are rationalizing a bad thing happening to you, your wallet, and fellow camera aficionados. This is significant tax on US consumers. ...Show more →
Yes, I am desensitized from the disaster of the last 4-5 years under the previous administration. The price of rent has significantly gone up. Loan rates have gone from 3% to 7% while housing costs have increased 40%. Large trucks now cost what condos used to cost. My $2 eggs have been anywhere from $4-9. My $10 lunch is $15 now. Insurance has gone up. So yes, to me $200-300 extra on a lens I buy once a half decade to a decade is nothing to probably paying $1000/month more in food, insurance, and housing costs. That all happened pre-tariff and the media was silent about it and tried to gaslight me that everything is great. To me this is like crying about a faucet with a small drip and ignoring that you have a burst pipe. If you don't understand that, then we won't understand each other. That's fine. If I am honest if I take into account food, insurance, daycare and everything I am paying thousands more a year on goods and services I need every month over something I have the option to buy or not. This has been going on for years already. The last time the bad orange man was in office I had more money in my pocket, so yes, I am willing to let him try his tariffs because I know if it doesn't work out then he will change direction. The other costs due to inflation are never going to come back down.
cbass wrote:
Yes, I am desensitized from the disaster of the last 4-5 years under the previous administration. The price of rent has significantly gone up. Loan rates have gone from 3% to 7% while housing costs have increased 40%. Large trucks now cost what condos used to cost. My $2 eggs have been anywhere from $4-9. My $10 lunch is $15 now. Insurance has gone up. So yes, to me $200-300 extra on a lens I buy once a half decade to a decade is nothing to probably paying $1000/month more in food, insurance, and housing costs. That all happened pre-tariff and the media was silent about it and tried to gaslight me that everything is great. To me this is like crying about a faucet with a small drip and ignoring that you have a burst pipe. If you don't understand that, then we won't understand each other. That's fine. If I am honest if I take into account food, insurance, daycare and everything I am paying thousands more a year on goods and services I need every month over something I have the option to buy or not. This has been going on for years already. The last time the bad orange man was in office I had more money in my pocket and better earning potential so yes I am willing to let him try his tariffs because I know if it doesn't work out then he will change direction. ...Show more →
See, it is this kind of stuff that makes me say over and over again, an opinion without knowledge is useless. You could of course attempt to educate yourself but for whatever reason you choose not to.
And if you truly believe that the media ignored inflation during the last administration, nobody can help you.
mranger211 wrote:
See, it is this kind of stuff that makes me say over and over again, an opinion without knowledge is useless. You could of course attempt to educate yourself but for whatever reason you choose not to.
And if you truly believe that the media ignored inflation during the last administration, nobody can help you.
Educate myself on what? You don't think I know how much extra money disappears from my wallet?
cbass wrote:
Yes, I am desensitized from the disaster of the last 4-5 years under the previous administration. The price of rent has significantly gone up. Loan rates have gone from 3% to 7% while housing costs have increased 40%. Large trucks now cost what condos used to cost. My $2 eggs have been anywhere from $4-9. My $10 lunch is $15 now. Insurance has gone up. So yes, to me $200-300 extra on a lens I buy once a half decade to a decade is nothing to probably paying $1000/month more in food, insurance, and housing costs. That all happened pre-tariff and the media was silent about it and tried to gaslight me that everything is great. To me this is like crying about a faucet with a small drip and ignoring that you have a burst pipe. If you don't understand that, then we won't understand each other. That's fine. If I am honest if I take into account food, insurance, daycare and everything I am paying thousands more a year on goods and services I need every month over something I have the option to buy or not. This has been going on for years already. The last time the bad orange man was in office I had more money in my pocket, so yes, I am willing to let him try his tariffs because I know if it doesn't work out then he will change direction. The other costs due to inflation are never going to come back down.
...Show more →
I personally really do not think the last 5 years is a disaster. I sold my first house with a pretty good appreciation and brought my second house with very low loan interest. All my assets appreciated pretty healthily as well. Food price seems increased a bit, but I have catered lunch and dinner at work, so I probably do not feel it that much.
