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

When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

oldvcr.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 316 posts

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#271

Post by esalman »

WalterBright wrote: post #262
esalman wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot truly make anything locally these days. We had decades of free trade. It will take decades to roll back. And you will lose all the benefit that came with it. Even if we pretend the policies are well-intentioned, it takes decades of investment to make the infrastructure and workforce ready to produce things locally at scale. With policies like the dismantling of department of education, I do not see any ini…

> With policies like the dismantling of department of education, I do not see any initiative being taken to prepare the workforce for the future. The DOE was created by Carter, and there is no evidence in the last 45 years of it having any positive effect on education in the US.

Your argument is so baseless that even a template AI response can refute it.

Yes, the DoE has been planting decade-scale workforce seeds since the Carter years—mostly via STEM/CTE programs that outlive administrations. Core idea: build adaptable skills (problem-solving, digital literacy, work-based learning) so kids & adults can pivot when AI/climate/whatever nukes today’s jobs.

*Carter-era kickoff* - 1979: Science and Engineering Education Act (Carter signs) → first federal push for pre-college STEM pipelines. NSF/DoE joint grants still fund teacher training 45 yrs later.

*Reagan/Bush I* - 1983 A Nation at Risk → DoE launches magnet schools & AP incentives. Many still running.

*Clinton* - 1994 School-to-Work Opportunities Act → seed money for apprenticeships. morphed into Perkins.

*Bush II* - 2006 Perkins IV → “programs of study” with stackable credentials. Still the backbone of high-school CTE.

*Obama* - 2010 Race to the Top → $4B for state STEM/CTE alignment. - 2014 Computer Science for All → CS now in 70% of HS nationwide.

*Biden* - 2022 YOU Belong in STEM + 2025 DOL/DoE joint admin of WIOA/Perkins → less red tape, more training $.

*Impact numbers* - Perkins V: 8M HS students/yr in CTE; 1.3M postsecondary. - WIOA adult ed: 1.5M/yr gain credentials. - Meta-analyses show STEM exposure → +0.2σ critical thinking, +15% lifetime earnings.

*Caveats* - Funding is ~$16B/yr total—peanuts vs GDP. - 2025 DoE staff cuts (≈50%) threaten oversight. - Europe still laps us on apprenticeships (3-yr paid tracks vs US 6-month internships).

Bottom line: DoE’s been playing the long game since disco. The programs work, but they’re chronically underpowered and politically fragile.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#272

Post by bruce511 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #265
bruce511 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidies are a definite tool, and subsidies are existent in many industries. Lots of farm products for example are subsidized. Of course they encounter their own political hurdles. Think Solar, Electric Cars, CHIPS act etc. But they become political footballs, even to the detriment of local interests. (Witness Florida reps voting to repeal CHIPS even though Florida got a lot of CHIPS money.) So yes, companies want c…

They become political footballs when you do it wrong. If you make a tax credit for solar then it's partisan and the Republicans are going to try to get rid of it. If you make a tax credit for all manufacturing and some companies are using it to manufacture solar and lithium batteries then everybody still wants to keep it because there are also companies using it to manufacture trucks and gas turbines and mining equip…

But that's the point isn't it? You can't (shouldn't?) subsidize all industries. That's unaffordable, and misses the concept of subsidizing things considered important to long term national security.

So subsidies, by their nature, are govt putting their finger on the scales, picking winners and losers.

And of course companies competing with those industries (coal versus solar) will lobby, and provide votes.

Bearing in mind of course that ultimately subsidies are just a tax on all citizens for the benefit of some.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#273

Post by cardiffspaceman »

tim333 wrote: post #204
epolanski wrote: post #53

As an European, I'm kinda pissed we don't retaliate the duties. I'd rather take a financial hit than act so weak and passive. I swear between chat control, selling out EU's privacy to US tech companies (you can check how many times Palantir & others met commission members, it's public), the insanity of the ICE ban and this tariffs passivity I'm very unhappy. Also, it's too convenient to only focus on material goods w…

The world's been through many past periods of tariffs. Generally the countries that do a lot end up hurting themselves - see say Argentina, near wealthiest in the world around 1890, now way down the list. Neighbours like Brazil that thought we'll tariff too have been meh. Countries like Singapore that went the other way and had zero tariffs got rich - from not much per capita to overtaking the US in that case.

Argentina is a deeper example. A mfr can/could build a plant in Tierra del Fuego and avoid tariffs. But it has been cheaper to fly to Manhattan and buy your iPhone than to buy whatever cellphones are available in Buenos Aires.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#274

Post by mrbombastic »

chrneu wrote: post #146
michaelteter wrote: post #50

Never fear! That $2000 check will be coming your way soon.

Lol the mental gymnastics of republicans to say "Tariffs aren't taxes on citizens, they're taxes on foreign countries" and now trump is easing tariffs on foods because they're too expensive. he's also thinking of shipping out STIMULUS CHECKS because people are struggling to buy tariffed goods. it's mind boggling what they must be thinking to justify this stuff.

True freedom is letting your beliefs float to support whatever the fuck you feel like doing that day

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#275

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bruce511 wrote: post #272
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They become political footballs when you do it wrong. If you make a tax credit for solar then it's partisan and the Republicans are going to try to get rid of it. If you make a tax credit for all manufacturing and some companies are using it to manufacture solar and lithium batteries then everybody still wants to keep it because there are also companies using it to manufacture trucks and gas turbines and mining equip…

But that's the point isn't it? You can't (shouldn't?) subsidize all industries. That's unaffordable, and misses the concept of subsidizing things considered important to long term national security. So subsidies, by their nature, are govt putting their finger on the scales, picking winners and losers. And of course companies competing with those industries (coal versus solar) will lobby, and provide votes. Bearing in…

All taxes are imperfect. The least distortionary one is a head tax and that's heinously regressive; it's basically a UBI with the sign inverted (which is also why a UBI is the least distortionary means of social assistance).

So the question then is, what are you going to tax and how much? The problem right now is that we're so bad at it. To begin with the government burns money like there is no consequence to it. Huge payouts to affluent retirees who don't need the money, defense contracts for things the military doesn't even want, etc. And yes, that means you need to stick your foot up the rear end of some lobbyists. Stop being the people who say it can't be done and start being the people doing it.

> You can't (shouldn't?) subsidize all industries.

If you stop wasting preposterous amounts of money then you could lower taxes across the board and remove the anti-subsidy. But taxes are also by category anyway.

So for example, don't lower the tax rate on dividends but create new credits and deductions and faster depreciation for capital investments, or make R&D fully deductible in the first year. In other words, if you make money and use it to buy a Ferrari, you're paying tax. If you use the same money to build a factory, you get to deduct it right away. Then you're effectively subsidizing all kinds of new factories or new construction, but not subsidizing purchases of imported products. Which is like a tariff in the sense that it makes domestic products relatively more attractive, except that it does it by making things less expensive rather than more expensive.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#276

Post by CPLX »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #260
CPLX wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America had no idea how good they had it, in the before times. The de minimis exception was absolutely insane. It was a full-blown loophole that caused tens of billions of dollars in goods to come through the border almost completely unregulated, ranging from the stuff that should have had tariffs on it, to knockoffs, to drugs and chemicals that shouldn't be in the United States at all. Even if you are a free trade…

It was only exploitable by lying about the value of a shipment. The only was you can stop that sort of loophole exploitation is by massive enforcement (i.e. large numbers of random package investigations to establish the actual value of the shipment and comparing it with the declared value). The cost of such enforcement is very high - possibly not as high as the value of the goods imported by lying about their value,…

I'm not sure if you understand what the de minimis exception was. That's just factually incorrect.

Literally billions of dollars were getting through because they were being shipped one at a time to fulfill e-commerce type orders, which completely circumvented the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

It was absolutely a loophole. The word betrays the loophole, since de minimis is a legal term that means something is too small to matter or worry about. But it became tens of billions of dollars in merchandise.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#277

Post by Terr_ »

lesuorac wrote: post #242
Terr_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its funny how little US citizens know about this Is it really? It sounds like you're implying it's some kind of woeful ignorance, but I say it's perfectly reasonable: 1. Each US state is already in a open-borders zero-tariff framework with all other states, which covers a very large portion of what people purchase. 2. Until recently, most individual consumers didn't need to think about tariffs on international good…

I disagree, it's woeful ignorance (and sometimes even willful). When Amazon and all first came out they didn't charge sales taxes and states were pretty unhappy because largely nobody was paying the sales taxes they were supposed to on their tax returns.

Maybe I just have low standards like "never click the link from the Nigerian prince who needs assistance moving funds", but this again seems like a "they never encounter it so why would they know it" situation, judged harshly because of fundamental attribution error. [0]

* Most Americans have no other encounters with "use taxes" in their day-to-day lives.

* It's natural to assume the vendor (or new Internet Computer Thing) is continuing to handle it, especially when that's how all their regular purchases work.

* The tax functionally didn't exist for many decades, at least when the retailer had no in-state presence.

> states [...] tax returns

22.7% of Americans in states without income tax: "The what?" :p

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#278

Post by realo »

WalterBright wrote: post #261
Teever wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leads you to believe that the implementation of tariffs under this administration was done for the purposes that you have enumerated? It seems that you're operating under the normally reasonable assumption that these policies were implemented after careful consideration with specific goals in mind. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thou…

> What leads you to believe that the implementation of tariffs under this administration was done for the purposes that you have enumerated? That's what the administration has stated as the goals of them. For example, many foreign companies have announced plans to invest in creating factories in the US. How that will eventually work out will take some time to see. > I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the pe…

From my non US-ian vantage point, it really looks like the current US administration is really trying hard to help Putin as much as it can to destroy the USA we used to know and like.

And the rest of the world as well, as collateral damage.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#279

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

CPLX wrote: post #276
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was only exploitable by lying about the value of a shipment. The only was you can stop that sort of loophole exploitation is by massive enforcement (i.e. large numbers of random package investigations to establish the actual value of the shipment and comparing it with the declared value). The cost of such enforcement is very high - possibly not as high as the value of the goods imported by lying about their value,…

I'm not sure if you understand what the de minimis exception was. That's just factually incorrect. Literally billions of dollars were getting through because they were being shipped one at a time to fulfill e-commerce type orders, which completely circumvented the spirit of the law, if not the letter. It was absolutely a loophole. The word betrays the loophole, since de minimis is a legal term that means something is…

The stated purpose of the exception was to allow individuals who are the "final destination" to import relatively low value items from overseas without the hassle and work of customs duties.

Your claim appears to be that this was abused in an organized way that led to a scale of use that was not anticipated when the exception was created. What evidence do you have for this claim?

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#280

Post by ericd »

wqaatwt wrote: post #165
ericd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever read about people burning piles of German currency because it was better than using it to buy firewood with? Not to say we would get there, but allowing inflation to run is not kinder.

Inflation like that doesn’t just happen. It can only be the outcome of explicit government policy. Like in post WW1 Germany they wanted to wipe the value of all domestic government debt they accumulated during the war.

Eh my understanding was more that they had to cover fiscal deficits with printing, because they had heavy WW1 war reps (only payable in gold, so they couldn’t inflate it away).

There are times when it’s politically infeasible to defend the currency, even if they technically could. See the response in France to trying to raise the retirement age a bit, because their budget is in trouble.

Post reply on HN