[mft_]

> This headline is misleading because it makes it seem like tariffs are a step function that activate below 85%, which isn't true.

> The formula is a simple, linear equation: tariffs = 0.25 * MSRP * (percent foreign content - 15)

Um... unless I'm missing something, agree it's not a if/then rule, but in practice, that's exactly how the formula works?

84% domestic = 16% foreign = 0.25 * MSRP * (16-15) = 25% tariff on 1% of MSRP

85% domestic = 15% foreign = 0.25 * MSRP * (15-15) = 25% tariff on 0% of MSRP - which is nothing

86% domestic = 15% foreign = 0.25 * MSRP * (14-15) = 25% tariff on -1% of MSRP - but let's assume the Gov't isn't going to pay companies so effectively 0% again

So yes, it's a tariff that effectively activates below 85% domestic content.

[tempestn]

Your parent's point is that it does not suddenly apply to the full value when exceeding 15% foreign content.

[ta1243]

The headline doesn't say that

Any vehicle at 85% is exempt

Any vehicle at 84.999% or less pays a tarrif

That tarrif may be 1 cent or $100,000, the headline doesn't say anything about that.

Given the need for transparency though it would be best if every item bought in america highlights the exact cost of the tarrif, same as it highlights sales tax. Indeed America is fairly unique in advertising pre tax prices (buy a can of coke for $1, it comes to $1.07 at the store), it would make sense if prices were also advertised pre tarrif too, in terms of transparency. I wonder how the administration could encourage that.

[leereeves]

> That tarrif may be 1 cent or $100,000, the headline doesn't say anything about that.

Exactly. Neither does the story.

That was the point of the top comment. The story doesn't explain that the tariff may be 1 cent and completely trivial. It should have.

[ta1243]

So you want the HN submitter to editorialise to emphasise your political view that the tarrif charged "might not be too bad"?

[tempestn]

It is a critique of the article headline, not of the HN contributor.