Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 339 posts

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#201

Post by bubbadog77 »

K0nserv wrote: post #184
phkahler wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The point is to make foreign goods more expensive in order to bring production back to the US. People who don't realize this point out who is actually paying and claim its a problem. Will this bring manufacturing back? It seems to be working to some extent, but its a risk to manufacturers because the whole thing could get reversed after an election.

There are a few problems with how Trump is going about this: 1. The tariffs are too broad, they don't target a single or a few industries. 2. Trump has gone back and forth many times on them, using them as negotiating leverage, not as long term incentives. 3. They are on very shaky legal grounds and will likely end up getting reversed by either the Supreme Court or the next president. If you want to use tariffs to en…

Very well put.

And with China a key target in the Trump Tariff debacle, China is punching holes in these punitive tariffs. Besides shipping goods to intermediary countries that are not as heavily tariffed then exporting to the U.S., China is taking ownership stakes in American businesses, thus circumventing the whole tariff thing. And the beauty of this is, they can take advantage of U.S. taxpayer benefits, such as an R&D tax credit, to sweeten the deal.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#202

Post by Anonbrit »

rubyfan wrote: post #181
tialaramex wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebod…

I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.

Found to be illegal when? 3 decades after they've done their damage?

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#203

Post by danesparza »

phkahler wrote: post #119
hackyhacky wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" Everyone? No, only the willfully ignorant.

Right. They're on goods from China. The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete.

"They're on goods from China".

And at least 60 other countries

"The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete."

Who is the 'we' in that sentence? If it's US citizens, then how is making US citizens pay more money helping US citizens compete?

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#204

Post by amiga386 »

taeric wrote: post #40
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #13

Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them. The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is. There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Un…

It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

The trouble with sugar taxes is it does drive soda-company behaviour. A. G. Barr killed the real Irn Bru in 2018 to avoid the Scottish sugar tax.

It could've passed on the tax to the consumer, but it didn't. It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap. No amount of money can bring the good stuff back. The sugar tax killed it. The world is now a slightly worse place, thanks to government interference.

(I'm sure there's a way to extrapolate this anecdote back to tariffs)

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#205

Post by munk-a »

tialaramex wrote: post #141
taeric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebod…

Tariffs to produce market effects (like onshoring) only work if those tariffs are observed to be durable (in four years all these tariffs will evaporate) and are strengthened by being paired with other encouragement (i.e. industry development subsidies).

These tariffs are arbitrary and capricious and no business would rationally respond to them with any kind of long term investment. People just want to weather the storm of the mad king and international partners are developing alternative relationships to seek more stability.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#206

Post by munk-a »

ourmandave wrote: post #196
tialaramex wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebod…

And if tariffs don't work, he'll just defund whatever aid you're receiving or project you're building or life saving research you're doing or critical job you're performing. And if the cost if lives or dollars or reputation is enormous, he'll still sleep like a baby.

It's cool though, you can probably get a few billion in funding if you "lobby" a few million to the right people. The tariffs exist, imo, primarily as a threat to induce bribes for loopholes (e.g. the smartphone loophole).

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#207

Post by munk-a »

Anonbrit wrote: post #202
rubyfan wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.

Found to be illegal when? 3 decades after they've done their damage?

There's a case in process that'll likely resolve in the next two months. Quite a few companies have filed suite banking on getting their fees reimbursed.

In the current political climate nothing is certain - but this will likely come to a resolution in the near term.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#208

Post by alright2565 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #110
taeric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

Pretty much every tax is ultimately paid by the consumer, because all the suppliers have to make a profit or they won't stay in business. The point of an import tariff isn't to make anything cheaper, it's to level the market in the presence of a foreign supplier who has much lower costs (e.g. sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc.) that are not available to domestic suppliers.

I would love to see joint tarrifs, together with US allies, to fight against things like sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc. That would really send a signal that those things are unacceptable, and lead to change.

That's not what we have here, and that's not what the Trump tarrifs are perceived as internationally.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#209

Post by bubbadog77 »

curun1r wrote: post #114
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #13

Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them. The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is. There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Un…

What’s obnoxious about them isn’t tariffs conceptually, it’s the implementation. There’s an argument that some sort of tariffs are actually necessary. The world is changing and the US has become reliant on countries who increasingly have divergent interests from the US. Additionally, some countries have aging populations that will make them more and more unreliable places to manufacture stuff in the next couple decad…

Excellent points! But at the end of the day, Trump's tariffs seem more like an ego-driven money-grab rather than a sincere move to motivate re-shoring of manufacturing. I really suspect the whole manufacturing renaissance the administration cites as the key reason for this policy is really a ruse.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#210

Post by danesparza »

varispeed wrote: post #111

Many carriers also effectively stopped honouring DAP Incoterm. If consumer doesn't pay the tariff within 2 months or so, they charge the shipper. See FedEx for instance: 14.6 Regardless of any payment instructions to the contrary, the Sender is ultimately responsible for payment of duties and taxes and all fees and surcharges related to FedEx’s disbursement of duties and taxes if payment is not received. If a Recipie…

I just got a DHL shipment from the UK. They indicated I (the receiver) needed to pay the tariff or the shipment would be returned to the sender within 1 week.

It sure sounds like they aren't going to charge the shipper. And I can't blame them for not wanting to be left empty-handed.

Post reply on HN