Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (195210)	8/12/2025 5:42:03 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197016

Nobody makes stuff in tiawan, ships to USA (with a tarif), then reships to china (with an export tax). Good point! How can their be an US export tariff when the product never touches the USA?

To: engineer who wrote (195210)	8/12/2025 7:32:25 PM
From: sbfm	Respond to of 197016

The press is calling it an export tax. The WH has picked up that phrase. Its typical sloppy press and WH. An export tax is imposed pursuant to a statute - similar to what a Canadian province attempted during the first round of tariffs (export tax on electricity to the US). Export taxes, while not the norm, have a long history. This is NOT an export tax; it's more akin to a fee in exchange for a license to do business. And, because its a freely, voluntarily, negotiated contract, its terms can be whatever the parties decide. For example, a party can freely partner with another party and give them a percentage of a specified revenue stream - there are no restrictions on where that stream may originate. That's what this is - except one private party is a government. The "hammer" to force this free, voluntary result are government contracts which may, or may not, be awarded - totally unrelated to the negotiation, of course. Where an export tax imposed by a government isn't based on a law, the company can challenge it; here the shareholders are the only ones who have standing to challenge (IMO). (Interesting question whether the shareholders could even cancel the contract, as opposed to claiming damages for management's breach of fiduciary duty) Creative and worrisome as it sets a precedent for the entire world to step in front of investors in every company.