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

311–320 of 339 posts

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

#311

Post by ranger_danger »

leptons wrote: post #120
ranger_danger wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the misunderstanding is in a combination of wording + practical application. Tariffs in the legal sense are technically paid by the importer who sells a product. It's their responsibility to pay it... always. The importer could technically eat that cost, and the consumer wouldn't see a difference on their price tag. But what happens in practice, the vast majority of the time, is the importer passes that extra…

A part costs what a part costs, and the consumer is always going to be the one who pay for that. If tariffs raise the price of the part, then the consumer pays more for the product the part is used in. The cost of the part goes up (because tariffs), the price of the product goes up too. It's really that simple. No "importer" is going to eat the cost of the tariffs, and it is ridiculous that anyone would think that.

> No "importer" is going to eat the cost of the tariffs, and it is ridiculous that anyone would think that.

I know several who do exactly that.

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

#312

Post by jemmyw »

amiga386 wrote: post #295
rlpb wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destroying demand for sugary drinks was exactly the intent, though.

Yes, but if there's an axe murderer in my house, I don't care how much he intends to murder me. I don't want him to murder me. The government has a variety of aims and objectives. Certainly, shooting for a more healthy population is good. Convincing those that drink a lot to drink less would be one way. Permanently making the drinks awful for the entire population, no matter how many or few they drink, and ensuring w…

But the government didn't make the drink awful. They only set the tax. Your position is that you'd have paid more anyway but now tis not an option. That seems like a business decision. Maybe the old version has so much sugar it was untenable with the tax... how sugary was it?

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

#313

Post by NedF »

iaaan wrote: post #236
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.

My spouse and I regularly import vintage toys and collectables from Asian countries. We've paid hundreds of dollars in tariffs on items that this point about manufacturing doesn't apply to at all

[dead]

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

#314

Post by nielsbot »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #310
nielsbot wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the Dems can get power again we need them to aggressively pursue leftist economic populism. As you can see from the present moment, once principles become inconvenient, they abandon them. So, yes, “both sides”. Being clear-eyed about this can save our democracy.

Wild speculation: My hot take is that we’re in the midst of a political realignment. The Democratic Party will be the new center-right “conservative” party, and progressives will be their primary opponents. Assuming MAGA has a dumpster fire collapse when the AI bubble pops and we have the worst market contraction and affordability crisis in decades.

You don’t think a progressive takeover (a lefty Tea Party, if you will) of the Dems is more likely?

I hope progressives can keep up momentum. I worry that if things go back to normal a lot of people who are doing fine (economically) will go back to sleep.

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

#316

Post by optionalsquid »

amiga386 wrote: post #204
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.

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 t…

> It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap.

It looks like they reintroduced the original recipe in 2021 (and previously as a limited release in 2019), under the name Irn Bru 1901. Or does that version still differ from the version of Irn Bru the low-sugar Irn Bru replaced?

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

#317

Post by transcriptase »

bootsmann wrote: post #74
transcriptase wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You make it more attractive to do business with someone domestically by increasing the cost of doing business with nations that subsidize their exports or undercut your companies with slave labour or lax environmental regulations. Over the long term, domestic capacity either grows or emerges to take advantage of business models that were unprofitable due to impossibly cheap imports before.

> by increasing the cost of doing business with nations that subsidize their exports or undercut your companies with slave labour or lax environmental regulations This is why the ”overregulated” EU got hit with a 30% tariff?

That was symbolic. Europe hasn’t produced anything except regulations, the fumes of mismanaged luxury brands, and cured meats for nearly 30 years. Nobody on either side was actually impacted.

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

#318

Post by leptons »

yadaeno wrote: post #299
leptons wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tariffs affect the cost of business same-day. How? The day the tariff goes into effect is after vast amounts of on-shore stock has already landed, purchased for a far lower price. The purchases done on the day the tariffs took effect and after are costing more, but have not landed yet. So no, it's practically never a "same-day" effect. >claims that tariffs are destroying the American consumer feel like gas lighting…

> The day the tariff goes into effect is after vast amounts of on-shore stock has already landed Tariffs took effect in February 2025. We saw CPI go up 2.7% in 2025 and 2.5%/4 in Q1 2026 so I'm skeptical of the inventory lag theory. Maybe we're stressing some other part of the economy and gearing up for catastrophic failure, but I don't see that in the economic data. > If you live in the US I live in the US. Gas pric…

>Maybe tariffs are cutting into some drop shipper's profits but I'm definitely not paying for it.

I have a small hardware startup (parts from China, assembled on-shore), and I guarantee you that my customers are paying for every cent of the tariffs that make my product cost ~30% to 100% more (depending on the whims of an imbecile). No way am I paying it. I can't afford it. The parts cost what they cost, and there simply is no alternative part that can be purchased locally. If my customers can't swallow the extra cost, then I have less customers, which kills my small business. If you were my customer, you would be paying for the tariffs.

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

#319

Post by nobody9999 »

pembrook wrote: post #37
estearum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's astonishing is, whether you like him or not, the Orange man actually got the American public to accept what is defacto the largest tax increase in decades. What does it mean "got the public to accept it?" The public had no say and these are probably illegal. On top of that, he probably literally does not know that these are effectively taxes on consumers (i.e. he believe his own bullshit). No credit is due h…

This was a huge part of the platform that the US overwhelmingly voted for in the last election. People wanted this. Yes, I'm sure he believes his own bullshit, but ironically, its bullshit that the US actually needed to pull (tax increases). Modern democracy has proven totally incapable of not stealing the future from its children.

>This was a huge part of the platform that the US overwhelmingly voted for in the last election. People wanted this.

Please define "overwhelmingly" in this context.

A plurality (Not a majority), with a a small margin of victory (1.5%) at that of voters voted for the eventual winner.

In fact, more people didn't vote at all[0] than voted for the winner. As such, I don't understand your use of that adverb.

It's entirely possible that I'm missing something important. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-1...

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

#320

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

nielsbot wrote: post #314
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild speculation: My hot take is that we’re in the midst of a political realignment. The Democratic Party will be the new center-right “conservative” party, and progressives will be their primary opponents. Assuming MAGA has a dumpster fire collapse when the AI bubble pops and we have the worst market contraction and affordability crisis in decades.

You don’t think a progressive takeover (a lefty Tea Party, if you will) of the Dems is more likely? I hope progressives can keep up momentum. I worry that if things go back to normal a lot of people who are doing fine (economically) will go back to sleep.

Continued speculation: 0% shot of a progressive takeover given the complete lack of moneyed interest, and the pushback from the core Democrats any time any progressive sniffs national success.

If MAGA fails as a political movement it’ll leave a rightwing power vacuum and the Democratic Party will fill it. The progressives will split and you’ll see center right Democrats going up against left wing Progressives in the north. There will still be some vestigial Republican Party in the south that will be based mostly on anti-woke rhetoric, but won’t have any appetite for the policies that MAGA is famous for after they caused an economic collapse, and will mostly vote alongside the new northern democrats.

Post reply on HN