Top 88 Tariffs Quotes & Sayings

Tariffs protect ill-considered government policies, such as costly regulations and high taxes on labor and capital that make our goods uncompetitive in international markets.

Agricultural products ranging from citrus and dairy to beef and chicken face stifling tariffs or nontariff barriers in many countries around the world.

The problem with tariffs is they shift higher costs onto the backs of non-protected industries and consumers.

[Donald Trump] basically has said, 'No it's more of a threat than an actual reality.' I do not think we're going to see tariffs put in place, but that would be the worry.

We shouldn't be putting tariffs on anything. That hurts working men and women in US. What we should be doing is making our manufacturing more competitive.

When China got into the WTO, that allowed it to sell into any other country within the WTO - not just the United States - at the lowest tariffs that country offered. And the other countries could sell into China at the lowest tariffs that China offered. The problem, right off the bat, was that China had much higher tariffs than everywhere else, so the U.S. and Europe in particular got the short end of that stick.

U.S. corn exports to CAFTA countries will benefit from reduced tariffs and duty-free access for corn products.

Politics is involved when you don't tackle inefficiency and burden people with higher tariffs.

The reality is that until we can agree on a formula that reduces tariffs globally we cannot meet this Doha promise for development. In order to keep momentum post-Hong Kong, the European Union must be willing to move.

From better access to American markets for our beef and lamb farmers, to cutting tariffs on dairy products like cheese, which are up to 17 per cent, there are significant opportunities for UK farming.

The EU has made it very clear that for frictionless trade and no tariffs on goods there is a mechanism for achieving that, but there are consequences. There are trade-offs that will have to happen.

Tariffs are only one tool in enforcing our global trade policy.

France would be reluctant to embrace any proposal by the European Commission to slash agricultural tariffs if it threatened the European Union's Common Agriculture Policy .

First of all, a president of the United States can't unilaterally impose a tariff on another country. It takes an act of Congress, and that would never pass Congress. But that's not the way to fix trade policy, to do unilateral tariffs on other countries.

Opening the Pandora's box of tariffs will be an endless game, and it will be a lose-lose proposition.

Enforcing trade deals is spot on. Acting in the interest of American workers is correct. But large-scale tariffs are a terrible idea.

The benefits of a tariff are visible. Union workers can see they are "protected". The harm which a tariff does is invisible. It's spread widely. There are people that don't have jobs because of tariffs but they don't know it.

Do you seriously propose that they are going to be so insane as to allow tariffs to be imposed. The EU is, I'm afraid a job destroying engine. You can see it all across southern Europe, you can see it, alas, in our country.

Tariffs, government contracts, naval and military spending, nationalized industries, tax policy, social welfare, the legal privileging of labor unions were among the means at the disposal of the governing class to exploit the public at large for the benefits of its various clienteles.

We must deal with Chinese theft of intellectual property, though no one is sure that tariffs are the solution.

I'm sure the apple guys from Washington state or the corn guy from Iowa will not like tariffs on corn or apples.

We think the way out of poverty is to view the poor as producers, and the Internet is probably the most efficient tool we have for tapping this capacity. Because you don't need roads. You don't need customs officials who are friendly. You don't need to manage shipping and delivery schedules. You don't have to worry about tariffs.

It makes no sense to introduce an agreement with border restrictions or tariffs.

Tariffs are in the end taxes. And somebody has to pay that tax. I think one thing people are forgetting is that trade disputes are two-sided. When the United States imposes tariffs on a partner like Canada, there is always a possibility that Canada will say that's not fair and retaliate. And at that point, you have to ask the question, - which U.S. industry will suffer because the Canadians retaliated against it?

One thinks that one is winning when we slap tariffs or introduce barriers to imports from another country, and we think we win. But you lose when you export because the other countries are going to raise tariffs as well. They're going to introduce barriers as well. So you win with one hand and you lose with the other.

The idea that you could send agricultural products to Tokyo and Osaka and not pay tariffs, and you would have to pay tariffs sending them to Manchester, is quite hard to fathom in the modern world.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs - even when we benefit from them.

We need to get rid of the 16th amendment, and return to the original system that funds government with a variety of tariffs and duties.

We're already in a trade war with China. The problem is we've not been fighting back. Trump, through tariffs, wants to call a truce.

Thanks to economists, all of us, from the days of Adam Smith and before right down to the present, tariffs are perhaps one tenth of one percent lower than they otherwise would have been. And because of our efforts, we have earned our salaries ten-thousand fold.

Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all used temporarily targeted tariffs on specific industries.

Tariffs would mean prices going up, and customers don't want higher prices.

Tariffs have almost never saved a domestic industry from decline and, often times, by sheltering domestic producers from competition, only reward and prolong bad business practices.

Donald Trump is not a protectionist. If he imposes tariffs on China or any other country that cheats, all he wants to do is defend America against unfair trade practices.

Every Republican president starting with Lincoln - and for almost 100 years thereafter - generally supported tariffs, while Democrats tended to promote free trade.

Protectionism is a misnomer. The only people protected by tariffs, quotas and trade restrictions are those engaged in uneconomic and wasteful activity. Free trade is the only philosophy compatible with international peace and prosperity.

China is the world's biggest exporter, but they're also the people with one of the highest tariffs on imports in the whole world. That seems a little bit oxymoronic.

The USRTA recognizes that the United States is the largest importer of goods even as it maintains, on average, the lowest combination of tariffs and nontariff barriers of any of its major trading partners.

Ask anybody on Main Street whether it makes any sense to allow foreign countries to charge higher tariffs than we charge them, and the answer will surely be a resounding 'heck no!'

Increased tariffs and a weakened pound would mean higher food prices, hurting the poorest families - and the women trying to make ends meet at the heart of them - the most.

A readers eyes may glaze over after they take in a couple of paragraphs about Canadian tariffs or political developments in Pakistan; a story about the reader himself or his neighbors will be read to the end.

Trade wars in which countries are then obliged to retaliate by raising their own tariffs against the initiator undermine growth and hurt consumers. Far from being expressions of strength they highlight the failure of the initiating country's economic sector to compete in the global market place.

Under Ceta the E.U. checks products coming from Canada to ensure they do not originate in any other country - because if they did, they would be subject to E.U. tariffs. The same would happen if the U.K. had a Canada-style deal with the E.U.

What [Donald] has put up for question is this idea of tariffs. Initially, he said if China won't stop taking advantage of us and manipulating their currency, then I will put tariffs in place. That spooked everybody because if you charge China a fee and an extra tariff for anything they bring into the United States, what's going to happen is that companies carrying those goods are going to raise prices. It's going to be expensive for people. People got scared of that, but then he walked that [idea] back. I don't think anybody is expecting heavy tariffs on anything.

In almost every case, whenever a tariff or quota is imposed on imports, that tax is strongly supported by the domestic industry getting the protective shield from lower-priced foreign competition. The sugar industry supports sugar tariffs; textile mills lobby for tariffs on foreign clothing.

Average tariffs between rich countries are only 3 per cent. But developing countries face tariffs of more than 300 per cent in the EU for meat and more than 200 per cent in the US for fruit and nuts. These need to come down dramatically.

If you want India to lower tariffs and facilitate more free trade, then I think Indian producers also have a right to enter the European market.

My belief is that the U.S. is looking at the world through a short-term lens of tariffs and elections, while China is looking at a 25-year plan of becoming the dominant global power.

Egypt does not possess rich natural resources. Its agricultural area is relatively small - less than 10 per cent of the total land. Its growth relies on tourism, Suez Canal tariffs, and foreign investment.

In developing countries, lack of infrastructure is a far more serious barrier to trade than tariffs.

By remaining inside a customs union and the single market in a transitional phase we would be certain that goods and services could continue to flow between the E.U. and the U.K. without tariffs, customs checks or additional red tape.

Businessmen are notable for a peculiarly stalwart character, which enables them to enjoy without loss of self-reliance the benefits of tariffs, franchises, and even outright government subsidies.

No one thinks of controlling inflation of a continental-sized country by holding back municipal tariffs. Macroeconomic stability cannot be achieved through microeconomic intervention.

Leaving the E.U. with no trade deal is the worst possible option. It will condemn British exporters to the full range of tariffs and barriers that apply under WTO rules.

The American Revolution was sparked by a series of taxes and tariffs on tea. More recently, the Thatcher and Reagan 'revolutions' were rooted in overturning the status quo - excessive taxation - to empower the individual and encourage a free society and prosperous economy.

Everybody talks about tariffs as the first thing. Tariffs are the last thing. Tariffs are part of the negotiation. The real trick is going to be increase American exports. Get rid of some of the tariff and non-tariff barriers to American exports.

Evidence points out that if you raise tariffs too much it will increase smuggling.

Rich countries want unfettered access to poor countries' markets, which are often heavily protected by tariffs, but they don't want to give up all the protections for their own goods and services.

As someone who's built business, I take tariffs and their effects very seriously and would only employ such negotiation tools when absolutely necessary.

Manufacturing value chains are global. Many U.S.-made goods have foreign components. Slapping on tariffs will raise prices and slow imports, but it will make us poorer and impede growth.