Connect with us

Politics

Donald Trump’s policies could add twice as much to US debt as Kamala Harris’: study

Published

on

Spread the love

China-targeted tariffs by former American president would lead to significant revenue loss plus ‘economic and geopolitical repercussions’

Former US president Donald Trump‘s tariff plans, including additional duties on Chinese imports, could offset US$2.7 trillion of American debt in the next decade but could also trigger revenue loss with “geopolitical repercussions”, a study has found.

Trump’s fiscal proposals could add twice as much to the national debt compared to plans under US Vice-President Kamala Harris, according to a report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based non-profit group, on Monday.

Policies under the Republican standard-bearer, who has proposed further tax cuts for corporations and replacing individual income tax with tariffs, could add to the US budget deficit by up to US$15.15 trillion compared to US$8.1 trillion under his Democratic opponent’s plans, the non-partisan group said.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

Trump has long advocated the idea of imposing high tariffs on US imports, arguing they could create jobs domestically and shrink the federal deficit.

Since launching his 2024 bid for the White House, the former president has proposed a 10 or 20 per cent universal tariff on all imports as well as 60 per cent duties on Chinese goods.

A 10 per cent universal tariff could raise US$2.5 trillion for the American economy, the report found, or up to US$4.30 trillion if Trump goes with a 20 per cent tariff. But either amount would fall far short of making up the costs of his other fiscal policies.

In addition, his tariff plans could lead to significant revenue loss, plus “economic and geopolitical repercussions”, especially with additional duties imposed on Chinese goods.

Trump during his first term as president took aim at Beijing with tariffs on more than US$300 billion worth of mainland imports, most of which remain in effect.

On the campaign trail for the November election, he has vowed to double down with more tariffs if re-elected, accusing the world’s second-biggest economy of being responsible for a large trade deficit with the US while “stealing” American jobs.

One of Trump’s prime targets is electric vehicles, having described them as a “green new scam”. At a rally in Wisconsin on Sunday, he threatened to impose tariffs as high as 200 per cent on Chinese EVs imported from Mexico.

EVs made on the mainland already face 100 per cent tariffs under US President Joe Biden, who said the product has undercut America’s manufacturing industry.

The Biden administration has also promoted a narrative of Chinese manufacturing being at “overcapacity”, urging American allies to address the challenge too.

Last week, the European Union voted in favour of additional tariffs of up to 35 per cent on Chinese EVs from November after initial negotiations with China fell through. The two agreed to continue talks, with the latest one scheduled on Monday, according to China’s commerce ministry.

Beijing has slammed the moves by Western nations as “indiscriminate” and “unfair”, saying they disrupt global supply chains. It has retaliated by imposing export controls on critical mineralsthat are essential for making EVs.

The report’s findings follow similar research that has warned of negative impacts on the US economy should Trump’s proposed tariffs on China come to fruition.

In September, the Tax Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, estimated the 10 per cent universal tariff and 60 per cent Chinese import tariff would reduce US GDP by roughly 0.8 per cent.

Meanwhile, a report last month by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, another Washington-based think tank, asserted that Trump’s tariff measures would result in weaker economic growth, higher inflation and job losses.

If China opted to retaliate, it added, US GDP would fall by more than 0.2 per cent below the baseline by 2026 and inflation would rise by 0.6 percentage points in 2025.

More Articles from SCMP

Spirit of Hong Kong Awards: meet the company saving the planet one lunchbox at a time

Hong Kong developers to make nearly 18,000 new flats available to homebuyers

Philippines moves to define sea routes, strengthening sovereignty against China

Manchester City triumph, wild scenes in US, what happened overnight in the world of sport

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

NATO opens its doors: Putin is furious

Published

on

NATO opens its doors: Putin is furious © Pixabay
Spread the love

NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte , said on Thursday that Ukraine would be a NATO member state in the future.

He also acknowledged that he was unable to say exactly when the country would join the transatlantic organization.

Arriving at the meeting of the Atlantic Alliance’s defense ministers in Brussels from today to Friday, Rutte said that at the moment, it seemed that Ukraine would become the 33rd ally, with NATO currently having 32 members, while admitting that another country could join the transatlantic organization before Kiev. A demonstration of NATO’s determination to thwart Moscow’s plans.

Continue Reading

Politics

INEC announces date for Anambra Governorship Election

Published

on

Spread the love

 

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has announced the date for the Anambra governorship election.

Addressing representatives of political parties at the INEC headquarters in Abuja on Thursday, October 17, INEC national chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu said the election will be held on Saturday 8th November 2025.

His words: “As you are aware, the last governorship election in Anambra State was held on 6th November 2021. By the effluxion of time, the governorship election is due next year.

“Consequently, the Commission has approved that the 2025 Anambra State Governorship election will hold on Saturday 8th November 2025.

“In compliance with the mandatory requirement of 360 days, the formal notice for the election will be published on 13th November 2024. Party primaries will be held from 20th March 2025 to 10th April 2025.

“The candidate nomination portal will open at 9.00 am on 18th April 2025 and close at 6.00 pm on 12th May 2025. The final list of candidates will be published on 9th June 2025.

“Campaign in public by political parties will commence on 11th June 2025 and end at midnight of Thursday 6th November 2025. Voting will take place in all the 5,720 Polling Units across the State on Saturday 8th November 2025.

“In the coming weeks, the Commission will provide details of other electoral activities, including the registration of new voters, transfer of voters and the replacement of lost or damaged PVCs.

“The detailed Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2025 Anambra State Governorship election will be uploaded to our website and social media platforms before the end of this meeting.”

Continue Reading

Politics

A path to Ukrainian peace: Beyond exaggerated expectations

Published

on

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, greets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, following a joint press conference in Kyiv, September 2024 Christoph Soeder/AP
Spread the love

The protracted, attritional war that Russia has waged against Ukraine for nearly three years has led analysts and political leaders alike to ponder how to end this war as soon as possible and achieve a lasting peace.

Increasingly, proposals are emerging to apply a model similar to the one implemented in Germany after World War II. Adapting to Ukraine would mean that it would never relinquish the annexed territories, and the West would never recognise these territories as Russian.

However, Ukraine would accept the reality that it cannot reclaim the occupied territories through force and would commit to a non-violent approach.

In exchange, Ukraine would demand concrete, not merely symbolic, security guarantees that Russia would not repeat its aggression against Ukraine.

Just recently, both Czech President Petr Pavel and outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have expressed themselves along a similar vein. So, what is preventing the implementation of such a solution?

I would say that a problem lies in the exaggerated and unrealistic expectations held by Ukrainian citizens and a significant part of the democratic world.

This is a common phenomenon within the political sphere. Unrealistic expectations can be inadvertently cultivated not only by populists but also by well-intentioned politicians who make excessive promises to their constituents.

Such expectations pose a significant risk, not merely to the politicians who propagate them, but more importantly to the communities they represent, as these communities may find themselves on a perilous path with limited options for reversal.

Can we really make Putin kneel?

It appears that Ukraine has experienced precisely this phenomenon. The initial Ukrainian successes, including the defence of Kyiv against a blitzkrieg (a rapid invasion by Russian airborne troops at the outset of the war), the defence of Kharkiv, and the subsequent daring counteroffensive, led both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and parts of the West to experience euphoria and to foster expectations of a Ukrainian victory over Russia, with Western support.

These expectations included the notion of expelling Russian forces from all occupied territories, including Crimea.

Talk of the West’s vast economic and military superiority also contributed to the illusion that, eventually, Putin will kneel.

Russian soldiers guard a pier where two Ukrainian naval vessels are moored, in Sevastopol, March 2014 AP Photo

The West is also to blame for creating these exaggerated, unrealistic expectations. Some leaders hoped to persuade Putin to back down or at least suspend his operation. In the case of Ukraine, the granting of EU candidate status was considered by many to be something that was not even on the table.

Talk of the West’s vast economic and military superiority also contributed to the illusion that, eventually, Putin will kneel.

However, it seems to me that President Zelensky also made a key mistake by not involving the Ukrainian parliamentary opposition in solving the problem.

On the contrary, there have been reports here and there that Ukrainian border guards have not allowed the leader of the opposition, former President Petro Poroshenko, to leave Ukraine.

The mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, has repeatedly expressed his criticism of the president. There are no known joint negotiations by the wider Ukrainian political leadership to seek a common solution to the key issues of the war.

I believe Zelenskyy should do this

And that’s how misinformation spreads. For example, the idea that these are various nationalist, if not outright fascist, units of Ukrainian fighters who are preventing President Zelenskyy from making any compromises.

In reality, it is the Ukrainian president himself who has manoeuvred himself into a position where the opposition will not proactively help him, and his voters will have a hard time understanding a potential change of approach to ending the war and thus will also have a hard time accepting any compromise.

He should invite the parliamentary opposition to the negotiating table, lay his cards on it and try to find a broad political consensus among Ukrainian leaders in an open discussion on the future arrangement of relations with Russia.

Therefore, I believe that the president of Ukraine should change his approach, first and foremost towards the representatives of the Ukrainian political opposition.

Instead of the pompous global peace summits that are doomed to failure in advance, instead of the “victory plans” that President Zelenskyy is presenting to world leaders (which, it seems, are just a new version of older demands), he should organise a peace summit at home, in Kyiv.

He should invite the parliamentary opposition to the negotiating table, lay his cards on it and try to find a broad political consensus among Ukrainian leaders in an open discussion on the future arrangement of relations with Russia.

Agreeing on necessary compromises

Undoubtedly, the price for such a change in approach could be a demand from the opposition to participate in the governance of Ukraine. There may also be other political demands.

In any case, the upside of such demands would be substantial: a broad political consensus among the Ukrainian political elite, which would begin to address Ukrainian citizens in a common, unified language.

Only in this way is it possible to agree to the compromises that are necessary to end the war and establish a sustainable peace. At the same time, these compromises in no way mean capitulation or resignation to a part of Ukrainian territory.

Mikuláš Dzurinda is president of Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the EPP-affiliated think-tank, and former prime minister of Slovakia.

Continue Reading

Trending