logo
"That's One Of The Worst Financial Decisions You Could Possibly Make": 7 Things A Personal Finance Expert Wants You To Know About The Trump Tariffs

"That's One Of The Worst Financial Decisions You Could Possibly Make": 7 Things A Personal Finance Expert Wants You To Know About The Trump Tariffs

Yahoo09-04-2025

Last week, President Trump announced blanket tariffs on imported goods from over 180 countries around the world.
Shortly afterward, panic rippled through the market as stocks plummeted, and economists have been saying that we're now more likely to experience a recession and higher inflation (again, ugh) in 2025.
What does this news mean for you and me? Last week, I spoke with an economic analyst about how the tariffs are likely to pan out, and the tl;dr is "not great." So, this week, I reached out to personal finance expert Ramit Sethi to get his advice for surviving a bad economy.
Ramit Sethi is the author of I Will Teach You To Be Rich, host of the Money For Couples podcast, and host of the Netflix series How To Get Rich.
One of the things I love about Ramit's work is how he emphasizes that a "rich life" isn't about buying status symbols and hoarding wealth. Instead, Ramit talks a lot about how we can use our money as a tool to live more meaningful and enjoyable lives. Lately, he has also been answering viewer questions on Instagram and talking more about how money is inherently political.
Here's what we talked about:
1.First, Ramit said that the tariffs will impact middle-class and poor Americans far more than wealthier people.
Ramit Sethi: Tariffs are going to hit the poor and middle class quite dramatically. There is good data showing that on an annual basis, these tariffs will hit the median American household, costing them over $2,500 per year. Trump's tariffs are directly a tax on the poor and middle class.
All of this for no reason, so that wealthy people can get a big fat tax cut. These tariffs make no sense for America. Tariffs have very specific surgical uses, but putting a blanket tariff on essentially the entire world, minus, of course, Russia, for very conspicuous reasons, is unprecedented and unexpected, and as a result, the market dropped dramatically.
2.Declining 401(k) balances and retirement worries are dominating headlines, but Ramit cautions against taking drastic action right now, especially if you're still decades away from retirement age.
RS: If you are in your 20s, 30s — even 40s — you can reasonably expect that the market will go up some years and it will go down some years, and because you have the ultimate luxury, which is time that allows continued compounding. And what that means is, stop looking at your investment accounts and in general, keep investing consistently.
Now, I think this is a really important point because people make very poor life-changing decisions during chaos like this. I saw it happen in 2001, I saw it happen in 2008, I saw it happen in 2020. You can literally cost yourself millions of dollars if you make a panic decision. And the most common type of panic is that people see those charts in the red for one day, one week, one month, and they finally can't take it anymore, and they log in, freak out, and sell everything.
That's one of the worst financial decisions you can possibly make in your entire life. That will cost you more than all the coffees, all the vacations, all the unscrupulous 1.5% AUM fees that you will ever pay is selling in a panic. There are so many other ways to protect yourself besides selling.
But just to circle back, if you have the benefit of time, historically, the market has recovered and done very well through multiple World Wars, through pandemics, through oil crises. So I will tell everybody, I'm not selling. I plan to be continuing to invest, and if you do the same, it will give you a very good shot at living at a very rich life.
3.Instead, he says your number one financial priority right now should be beefing up your emergency fund.
RS: I have an aggressive recommendation that I'm making, and that is to focus on assembling a 12-month emergency fund. That's not typical. Most, a lot of financial experts recommend three to six months. I'm recommending 12. The only time, the only other time that I have recommended a 12-month emergency fund was when COVID hit, which should suggest the seriousness of the situation that we are in.
Let me explain: Yes, the fact that the market dropped this dramatically in a matter of three days is extremely dangerous. This isn't normal ups and downs of the market. This is one dangerous dictator who, on a whim, decided to wreak havoc across trillions of dollars, and he cost most Americans tens of thousands of dollars in a single day. This isn't a joke. It's not something to be made light of.
It's not something that just disappears. The toothpaste is out of the tube, meaning other countries now regard America as an unstable partner. And even if Trump waved his hands and undid the tariffs tomorrow, they would still treat America like an unstable partner because, frankly, we are.
So, what does it mean for individual investors? That is why I say a 12-month emergency fund because I see a lot of uncertainty ahead of us. And when there's uncertainty in the market, companies re-branch, they lay people off. That's very dangerous. You do not want to get in a situation where your back is against the financial wall, and you have to make really bad decisions. Those can haunt you for decades.
4.If you, like a lot of Americans, don't have much in savings at the moment (much less a fully-stocked emergency fund that could cover your basic living expenses for a full year), Ramit offered a five-step plan for socking away cash.
RS: First, I would take a look at my discretionary spending, and I would get serious about tamping down or eliminating most of it. Discretionary spending is the fun stuff. It's stuff like going out, travel, drinks, eating out those kinds of things, and I would immediately redirect that toward savings.
Second, I would pause and stretch out expenses as I could. A simple example would be any major plans to move, to buy a major purchase, like a car, home renovation, anything that can be paused. I would pause it and anything that can be stretched out, for example. You know, even if you were able to stretch out, say, regular purchases that you make, for example, let's say, any type of self-care, even if you stretch that out one month over the course of a year, you can save hundreds of dollars.
Next, I would consider decreasing [payments toward] any low-interest debt that I am overpaying. For example, if I have a 3% mortgage and I'm paying an extra $200 a month, not anymore, I'm sending that $200 a month straight to my savings account to build that emergency fund up.
Number four is, if necessary, I would consider decreasing my 401(k) [contributions] just to get the match. I would really try hard not to eliminate it altogether, but I would consider decreasing it for the time being.
And then finally, and I really, really try not to get to this, but it's an option if necessary. If you're aggressively paying high-interest debt, like a credit card debt, I might, in the worst case, consider decreasing the amount I am paying towards that to build up a savings account, but I would try as hard as possible not to get to that level.
5.If you're torn between paying off debt and building your savings, Ramit explained that paying it all off could come back to bite you in the ass if you don't also have an emergency fund you can draw on.
RS: In America, most people are taught that debt is like a snakebite. You do anything you can to avoid it, and so the way that people think about debt is like they have two pedals in their entire financial life. Pay off debt or not. That's a very simplistic way of looking at the world.
There's a different way to look at it. If you have low-interest debt in usual times, mathematically, you can pay the minimum and maybe invest any extra money you have, because you can probably make more investing than you would paying off a 3% mortgage or student loan.
But in times like this, when you have people who take who just hate debt, and they pay it off as fast as they can. The problem is, you might end up debt-free, and then you might get laid off the next month, and now you're in a real pickle. You have no money in a savings account, and because you thought you were doing the right thing, "Oh, I'm paying my debt off." Well, you need to build a savings account as well because times are very chaotic, and if you end up getting laid off, you need to have money to survive.
6.To make your savings do the most work for you, Ramit advises keeping your emergency fund in a very specific type of savings account that offers higher-than-average interest rates.
RS: A high-yield savings account is the place to put it. There are a number of great accounts. Pick a great account, store your money there.
The important thing is not agonizing over which account to open. They're all fine. The point is to set your money up to automatically go there every single month. That's the most important thing you can do. And then second is to take a very critical look at your spending right now, eliminate expenses that you can and be sure to redirect that money to savings.
7.Finally, Ramit gave his take on one of the most common questions people have been asking him about the tariffs.
RS: "What's Trump's plan here?" Oh, God, there is no plan. Trump is a fucking moron who decided on a whim to light a fire through the global economy. There is no economic justification, which is why virtually no economist will back what he did.
I will say it's quite hilarious to watch the many people who previously supported him turning a blind eye to deporting legal residents, restricting women's reproductive rights, but suddenly, when their 401(k) goes down, suddenly they're outraged. That's a huge condemnation of the Republican voters.
You can follow Ramit on Instagram.
What's a piece of financial advice that's helped you get through tough or uncertain economic times? Tell us all about it in the comments!

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gavin Newsom Demands Trump Remove National Guard From LA Immigration Protests: ‘Breach of State Sovereignty'
Gavin Newsom Demands Trump Remove National Guard From LA Immigration Protests: ‘Breach of State Sovereignty'

Yahoo

time41 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gavin Newsom Demands Trump Remove National Guard From LA Immigration Protests: ‘Breach of State Sovereignty'

Gov. Gavin Newsom has formally requested that Donald Trump recall the National Guard from Los Angeles and other areas where Californians are protesting the ongoing immigration raids, calling the federal deployment 'a serious breach of state sovereignty.' Newsom shared his official letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday afternoon in an Instagram post, saying, 'I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to my command. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the Order. Return order to California.' In a Saturday night memorandum, Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to aid federal law enforcement officers battling growing unrest in downtown L.A. and surrounding areas. Newsom immediately condemned the order, suggesting it would only enflame tensions. Federal officials told reporters on Sunday that several law enforcement officers had been injured in the skirmishes. Read the entire text of Newsom's letter below: Dear Secretary Hegseth: On June 7, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum to your office entitled 'Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions.' The memorandum purports to invoke 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to 'call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard . . . to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property.' The memorandum further directs 'actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority.' Section 12406 states that 'the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary' to (1) repel an invasion of the United States by a foreign nation; (2) suppress a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) execute the laws of the United States when the President is unable to do so with regular forces. Section 12406 further states that '[o]rders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.' Last night, the Adjutant General of California received a memorandum from your office with the subject line 'Calling Members of the California National Guard into Federal Service,' which states that '[t]wo thousand members of the California National Guard will be called into Federal service effective immediately for a period of 60 days.' Notably, this directive did not issue 'through the governor[] of the State[]' as required by section 12406; the Department of Defense did not transmit this directive to the Office of the Governor, nor was it approved or ordered by the Governor of California. This directive is also inconsistent with the President's memorandum, which anticipates 'coordinat[ion] with the Governors of the States' in identifying and ordering units of the National Guard into federal service. At present, law enforcement authorities from the City and County of Los Angeles are safeguarding public safety, and, as demonstrated by the robust law enforcement response yesterday evening to protect federal facilities, local law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order. In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation. There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the State from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required. Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary. Sincerely, David SappLegal Affairs SecretaryOffice of Governor Gavin Newsom The post Gavin Newsom Demands Trump Remove National Guard From LA Immigration Protests: 'Breach of State Sovereignty' appeared first on TheWrap.

Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks
Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks

Yahoo

time41 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks

According to a rumor that spread online in late May and early June 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump would be sending out $5,000 "stimulus" checks to Americans after his administration uncovered billions of dollars in "wasted money." The viral rumor likely stems from an investment firm CEO's proposal to send some taxpayers so-called "DOGE Dividend" checks. The original proposal for $5,000 checks was based on the assumption that DOGE would achieve $2 trillion in total savings, which is highly unlikely. Trump has previously floated the idea of a "DOGE Dividend," but there was no proof at the time of this writing that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans. Snopes reached out to the White House for clarity but has not received a response. In late May and early June 2025, a rumor on TikTok (archived) claimed that U.S. President Donald Trump was reportedly sending out $5,000 "stimulus" checks to Americans after his administration uncovered $50 billion in "wasted money." "Trump is going to be sending out five grand to everybody and this is because they uncovered $50 billion … of just wasted money," the TikTok video's narrator said. @todaynews919 #fyp #foryou #new #news ♬ original sound - todaynews919 The video's narrator later said the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency initiative allegedly proposed sending money it had "recovered" to the American people. The initiative, spearheaded by tech billionaire Elon Musk before his departure, works to slash government spending through layoffs and cuts to various federal programs. Though Trump has previously floated the idea of a "DOGE Dividend," there was no proof at the time of this writing that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans. Snopes reached out to the White House to ask if the president has any plans to send such checks and is awaiting a response. Since we were not able to definitively prove or disprove this rumor, we have not put a rating on this claim. The viral rumor likely stems from a proposal to send some taxpayers "DOGE Dividend" checks. Trump previously said he would consider such a plan, but his administration has not confirmed that it's sending any checks. The idea for DOGE Dividend checks was originally proposed by James Fishback, the founder and CEO of the investment firm Azoria Partners, in an X post (archived) shared on Feb. 18, 2025: Fishback's post also included a more in-depth proposal based on the assumption that DOGE would achieve $2 trillion in total savings. He suggested that the federal government take 20% of DOGE's presumed savings, or about $400 billion, and return it to approximately 79 million taxpaying households in the form of $5,000 tax refund checks called the DOGE Dividend. Under Fishback's plan, the government would send checks only to "households that will be net payers of federal income tax," meaning those that pay more money in taxes than they get back in tax credits or refunds. That means American households that do not owe federal income tax would not qualify for the proposed payments. In 2025, an estimated 40% of U.S. households will pay no federal individual income tax, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Most of these households have lower incomes, with about 70% earning less than $75,000 and about 45% earning less than $40,000, the Tax Policy Center estimates. On the same day that Fishback shared his proposal for the $5,000 checks, Musk replied (archived), "Will check with the president." Trump quickly acknowledged the idea as he delivered remarks during a Saudi investors conference in Miami on Feb. 19, 2025. "There's even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt, because the numbers are incredible, Elon," Trump said at the conference. A reporter also asked Trump about the plan as he flew back to Washington, D.C., aboard Air Force One that day. He said: I love it. A 20% dividend, so to speak, for the money that we're saving by going after the waste and fraud and abuse and all the other things that are happening, I think it's a great idea. The dividend checks would also give taxpayers "an incentive … to go out and report things to use when we can save money," Trump added. Several weeks later, Fishback spoke further about his proposal during a March 2025 podcast appearance. He said if DOGE didn't hit the $2 trillion in projected savings, the amount of money in the dividend checks should be adjusted. "This plan is not predestined to the $5,000 number. If the savings come in above or below that, the check will be reflected accordingly," Fishback said. "So again, if the savings are $1 trillion — which I think is awfully low — the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500." At a town hall in Wisconsin on March 30, 2025, Musk fielded questions about the proposal, ultimately putting the responsibility of approving tax refund checks on Congress and Trump. "It's somewhat up to the Congress and maybe the president … as to whether specific checks are cut," Musk said in response. A search of did not return any results for legislation proposing "DOGE Dividend" tax refund checks. Snopes also could not find any record of Trump sharing additional details about a plan for such checks since February 2025, and we are still awaiting a response from the White House. It's still unclear how much money DOGE might ultimately save. Musk said in October 2024 that he expected to cut "at least $2 trillion" but he later lowered that estimate to $1 trillion. However, both of those estimates were "wildly unrealistic," PolitiFact reported in June 2025. As of June 6, 2025, DOGE's online "wall of receipts" touted an estimated $180 billion in cuts, but analyses by PolitiFact (here and here) and The New York Times found that the online ledger was riddled with errors. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. "Who Will Pay No Federal Individual Income Tax in 2025?" Tax Policy Center, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. Palm Beach Post. "Full Donald Trump Speech at Miami FII Investment Summit Hosted by Saudi Public Investment Fund." YouTube, 19 Feb. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. David Lin. "Will You Get a $5,000 Check? "Doge Dividend" Explained | James Fishback." YouTube, 12 Mar. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul. "LIVE | Elon Musk Holds Town Hall in Wisconsin." YouTube, 30 Mar. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Legislative Search Results." 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. WFAA. "Elon Musk Full Speech at Trump Rally in Madison Square Garden (Oct. 27, 2024)." YouTube, 27 Oct. 2024, Accessed 15 Nov. 2024. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. Clarke, Amelia. "Yes, Musk Said He'd Ask Trump about $5K Checks for US Taxpayers Funded by DOGE Savings." Snopes, 21 Feb. 2025, Czopek, Madison, and Amy Sherman. "Trump and Musk Public Bickering Raises More DOGE Uncertainty." @Politifact, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. DOGE. "DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency." DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency, 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. McCullough, Caleb. "Where Do DOGE's Reported Savings Come From?" @Politifact, 21 Feb. 2025, Fahrenthold, David A, and Jeremy Singer-Vine. "DOGE Is Far Short of Its Goal, and Still Overstating Its Progress." The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025.

U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'
U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'

Hamilton Spectator

time2 hours ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'

OTTAWA - The American ambassador to Canada is pushing back on Ottawa's travel advice, saying his country doesn't search phones at the border and arguing some Americans travelling here are having a tough time. 'We welcome Canadians to come in and invest, to spend their hard-earned Canadian dollars at U.S. businesses,' U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra told The Canadian Press in an interview Friday. 'If a Canadian has had a disappointing experience coming into the United States, I'm not denying that it happened, but I'm saying it's an isolated event and it is not a pattern.' In April, Ottawa updated its advice to Canadians travelling to the United States to warn them about the possibility they might be detained if denied entry. 'Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices,' reads the new guidance. There have been reports of Canadians facing intensified scrutiny at the border, having phones searched and, in some cases, being detained. Hoekstra insisted concerns about device searches are not grounded in reality. 'Coming to the U.S., that's a decision for the Canadians to make. Searching devices and all of that is not a well-founded fear. We don't do that. America is a welcoming place,' he said. He said some Americans have expressed similar concerns about Canada. 'I've heard that from Americans coming into Canada as well, OK? Saying, 'You know, we've not received a warm reception when we've gotten to Canadian customs,'' he said. When asked if these reports from American travellers involve arbitrary phone searches and lengthy detainment, Hoekstra said there are consular cases of Americans complaining to the embassy about the Canada Border Services Agency. 'We've said, 'OK this may have been an isolated event. There may have been a Canadian border person who was having a bad day, and thought they'd take it out on, you know, somebody across the border,'' he said. In a statement, the CBSA said its officers follow a code of conduct and the federal ethics code that both require them to treat everyone equally, and the agency investigates any complaints of mistreatment. 'Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of integrity, respect and professionalism at all times,' wrote spokeswoman Karine Martel. 'Treating people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our border services officers' relationship with the public and a key part of this is serving all travellers in a non-discriminatory way.' Hoekstra said travel to the U.S. is up to individuals. 'If you decide that you're not going to come down or whatever, that's your decision and you're missing an opportunity. There are great things to see in America,' Hoekstra said. He also noted the case of CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, who recently said she prepared to visit the U.S. last month as if she was 'going to North Korea' — with a 'burner phone' that didn't carry any personal information — only to experience a warm welcome. 'It's like, (let's) get past the rhetoric and let's look at the real experiences that people are having here,' Hoekstra said. Airlines have been cutting flights between Canada and the U.S. due to a slump in demand, and Flight Centre Travel Group Canada reported a nearly 40 per cent drop in flights between the two countries year-over-year in February. A survey in early May conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies found 52 per cent of respondents feel that 'it is no longer safe for all Canadians travelling to the United States,' with 29 per cent disagreeing and 19 per cent saying they were unsure. Roughly the same proportion said they personally feel unwelcome in the U.S. LGBTQ+ groups have opted against attending World Pride events in Washington and United Nations events in New York, citing scrutiny at the border as the Trump administration scales back protections for transgender and nonbinary people. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store