Latest news with #JoeLancaster
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Subaru Is the Latest Carmaker To Hike Prices in Response to Tariffs
New cars from Japanese automaker Subaru will reportedly increase in price by several hundred dollars in the coming weeks—and tariffs are the likely culprit. Officially, Subaru of America says it has "adjusted its pricing in response to current market conditions." That's what the company said in a statement to Reuters, which first reported on the price hikes. The biggest change to the market for imported cars, of course, is the 25 percent tariff that the Trump administration announced in March. At the time, the White House said the tariffs would incentivize domestic automobile manufacturing and reduce "American reliance on imports of foreign automobiles." The auto industry responded by pointing out that global supply chains are essential even for vehicles that are made in the United States and warning that the tariffs would likely increase sticker prices for consumers. That's what seems to be happening. Subaru is set to hike prices on its vehicles by between $750 and $2,000 each, depending on the model and trim line, Reuters reported. The news service cited a notice that was sent to Subaru dealers. Subaru is the second automaker to announce higher prices in response to the tariffs. Last month, Ford Motor Company announced that it would raise prices on three of its models by $2,000 apiece—just days after the company said tariffs would reduce its annual earnings by $1.5 billion, as Reason's Joe Lancaster reported at the time. Americans imported nearly 8 million cars in 2024, and the biggest sources of imported cars were Mexico, Japan, and South Korea. When asked in March if his plans for higher tariffs on cars would increase prices for American consumers, President Donald Trump said he "couldn't care less" if that was the outcome. Keep in mind that higher prices are just the most visible consequence of higher tariffs. There are other, unseen consequences, like the people who might have bought a new car this year, who will instead put off that purchase due to the higher prices. They will continue to drive an older, potentially less safe, less fuel-efficient, or simply less fun car instead. The car dealerships will make fewer sales. Ultimately, car manufacturers may see less demand for their products. In March, Cox Automotive predicted that there would be 700,000 fewer cars sold in America this year, a 4.3 percent decline from last year's total, as Americans pull back on spending due to the higher prices created by tariffs. This isn't Subaru's first tangle with high tariffs on vehicles imported to the United States. One of the most famous examples of so-called tariff engineering—that is, a legal way of dodging tariff costs by physically altering an imported product—involves a small pickup truck that Subaru used to manufacture. The Subaru Bi-drive Recreational All-terrain Transporter, or BRAT, was imported to the U.S. with seats installed in the pickup truck's bed, which allowed it to be classified as a passenger vehicle (tariffed at a rate of 2.5 percent in those pre-Trump days), rather than a small cargo truck (subject to a 25 percent tariff that dates back to the 1960s). Alas, with Trump's higher tariffs on all cars, there's likely no similarly easy and hilarious way for Subaru to dodge these taxes. Instead, they'll be passed along to buyers. The post Subaru Is the Latest Carmaker To Hike Prices in Response to Tariffs appeared first on
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge Halts Federal Scrutiny of $200 Transactions
Among the many intrusions of the federal government into our lives is the requirement that cash transactions of $10,000 or more be reported to the authorities. It's just one exercise in surveillance of our lives that should be done away with. But instead of abolishing currency transaction reports, the federal government recently lowered the reporting threshold to $200 in some border areas. Fortunately, a federal judge blocked enforcement of the order in California while legal challenges move forward. "Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) to further combat the illicit activities and money laundering of Mexico-based cartels and other criminal actors along the southwest border of the United States," the U.S. government's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network announced March 11. "The GTO requires all money services businesses (MSBs) located in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas near the southwest border to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) with FinCEN at a $200 threshold, in connection with cash transactions." A decade ago, the policy change might have been justified in the name of fighting terrorists; these days, the feds fret over criminal cartels (although, as Reason's Joe Lancaster reported, President Donald Trump split the difference by designating cartels as terrorists). But no matter who government officials claim to be targeting, the burden of compliance always falls on individuals and small businesses. The change is a big one. Prior to the March 11 announcement, the threshold had been set at $10,000 since 1972. The dollar has lost much of its purchasing power since then, meaning that more and more transactions are subject to the reporting requirement, increasing the burden of compliance. "The inflation-adjusted threshold in 2023 would have been about $72,880," a December 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report observed. "Using an inflation-adjusted threshold would have reduced the number of CTRs filed by at least 90 percent annually since 2014." Not only are Americans suffering under intrusive paperwork, but law enforcement is trying to drink from a firehose of reports. "Law enforcement agencies accessed less than 3 percent of CTRs filed from 2014 through 2023," the GAO added. But instead of eliminating or streamlining the reporting requirement, the feds lowered the threshold. That means much more paperwork for everybody in the affected ZIP codes. "Esperanza Gomez and Arnoldo Gonzalez, Jr. run small businesses near the U.S.-Mexico border that provide everyday, small-dollar financial services—often for customers without bank accounts," the Institute for Justice noted in an April 15 press release about a lawsuit challenging the lowered reporting threshold. "While $10,000 is a large amount to Esperanza and Arnoldo's customers—Esperanza's business, for instance, has never had a transaction that large—lowering the threshold to $200 will mean that almost every transaction triggers a report. The reports require detailed information including birthdates, Social Security numbers, and home addresses." Each report takes Gomez and Gonzalez 20 minutes to file, which means hours of extra work every day. Meanwhile, any actual criminals interested in evading the reporting requirement can take their business to a ZIP code outside the affected area. The excessiveness of the policy change proved persuasive to U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California. On Tuesday, she issued a temporary restraining order that applies to enforcement of the reporting threshold change in the California ZIP codes. "Sammartino ruled that the San Diego plaintiffs, Gomez and her business, Novedades y Servicios Plus, 'have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims,'" reports Alex Riggins of The San Diego Union-Tribune. "The plaintiffs had argued that the geographic targeting order was unlawfully issued without undergoing the notice-and-comment procedures prescribed by federal law and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious under federal law." "The government's order enlists these businesses to carry out an unprecedented and sweeping government surveillance system, and buried them in paperwork in the process," commented Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Rob Johnson. "We are grateful for this temporary relief and will continue to fight to make it permanent." The plaintiffs plan to request an extended restraining order that will remain in place for the duration of litigation. Ultimately, they hope to entirely overturn the lowered reporting requirement. Earlier this month, financial services businesses along the Texas border won a more-targeted restraining order against the government that temporarily relieves them of the burden of compliance while their lawsuit proceeds. One of the plaintiffs in that case pointed out that many of his competitors are located on the Mexican side of the border, beyond the reach of U.S. government reporting requirements. In a May 2024 piece for Reason, Nicholas Anthony and Naomi Brockwell pointed out that financial surveillance has become increasingly intrusive in recent decades with relatively little pushback relative to other forms of government snoopiness. "Compared to today, customers in the 1970s had far more freedom in opening accounts and interacting with their own money. Back then, the decision to transact with a bank could be based on the cash in one's pocket," they wrote. "Transactions were not scrutinized for threats of terrorism or drug trafficking. Customers were not legally required to supply a photo ID to set up an account." Change, and the erosion of financial privacy, came with the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, they added. Inflation has further extended the government's reach by applying what were once high-dollar thresholds for scrutiny to relatively common transactions. Along with the Biden administration's aborted attempt to monitor cash flows of as little as $600, the recent FinCen reduction of the reporting threshold to $200 makes it clear that government officials want to know where our money is at all times. Hopefully, more forceful pushback against financial surveillance will begin with the temporary restraining order in California and its companion in Texas. The post Judge Halts Federal Scrutiny of $200 Transactions appeared first on
