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

321–330 of 339 posts

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

#321

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

newfriend wrote: post #183
hackyhacky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete. This would seem to be an admission that the domestic product is inferior, otherwise why would it be necessary to burden the import with tariffs? In any case, if that's the intent, it's not working out for fairly predictable reasons. Lots of imported goods have no domestic equivalent. The factories required to make them require years of investment, w…

If one country has labor protection and pollution regulations, and another country has near-slave labor and dumps chemicals into rivers, would you consider the former inferior? Unable to compete?

Pollution regulations?

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

#322

Post by draw_down »

sham1 wrote: post #158
heratyian wrote: post #78

If tariffs are bad, why does every country tariff US-made products so heavily?

Well that's the big question. Do they? Like, why was a 15% tariff imposed to products from here in the EU? And why was Trump toying with the idea of imposing extra tariffs on my homeland of Finland alongside Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands for sending troops onto Greenland -- after having insulted the whole lot of us -- and of course also to France for daring to not join Trump's…

[dead]

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

#323

Post by amiga386 »

jemmyw wrote: post #312
amiga386 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a motte-and-bailey argument.

The government set out to reduce consumption of high-sugar drinks. They had choices on how to do that e.g. they could've targetted demand. They chose to target supply with a "sin tax".

Private companies then, for no reason whatsoever, of their own free will, decided to eliminate high-sugar drink options. They would not have done so had the government not imposed the tax. If you then blame the government for their action, they'll want to say "oh I only set the tax", despite knowing they set the tax intentionally to engineer this outcome.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/irn-bru-dri...

> The reduction in Irn-Bru’s sugar content from 8.5 teaspoons to four, taking a can from just under 140 calories to about 65 calories

The old (2018) Irn-Bru had about 35g of table sugar per 330ml, it now has 14.85g. Coca-Cola has 35g, Pepsi has 15g. Both those multinational companies still sell their full-sugar drinks, at a much higher price with the sugar tax applied, though they also sell sugar-free alternatives (Max, Zero), as does Irn-Bru (Xtra). Coke and Pepsi have a much larger sales volume and can afford to make less sales on their full-sugar product, and keep them in their product line-up. I don't think Irn-Bru can.

The UK government ruined Irn-Bru. I still drink as much as I normally do, which is about 12 litres a year; I am well under the intended beneficiary of this war on sugar, the sort of people who drink >100 litres a year, but when I do have it, it now tastes of sadness and lamentations for better times in the past, and I just feel anger for those who wrecked it for everybody.

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

#324

Post by amiga386 »

optionalsquid wrote: post #316
amiga386 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. I want the 2017 recipe, not the 1901 recipe.

The 1901 recipe has 11g sugar per 100ml. Also it lacks caffeine.

The 2017 recipe had 35g sugar per 100ml.

The 2018 recipe has 4.5g sugar per 100ml.

The sugar tax is £0.18 per litre for 5-8g sugar per litre, and £0.24 per litre for >8g sugar per litre.

Irn-Bru has many price points depending on form factor and location, but a 2 litre bottle today typically costs £2.10. The sugar-free variant costs the same. If the full sugar tax applied, it'd cost £2.68 (22.8% higher price).

Coca-Cola is so expensive with the tax, they don't even sell it in 2 litre bottles anymore, just 1.75 litre bottles. Coca-Cola "Original Taste" is £2.55 for 1.75l (£1.46/l) while Coca-Cola Zero is £2.15 for 2l (£1.08/l), a difference of £0.38 per litre, of which £0.24 is sugar tax.

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

#325

Post by ChoGGi »

jimmydddd wrote: post #271
martin8412 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so if they lose that case, Trump will just pass a new executive order that once again takes months to resolve.

Just wanted to point out that this is the first instance of a correct spelling of "lose" I've seen on the Internet in the last three years.

You're loosing your mind Jimmy

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

#326

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

dalyons wrote: post #307
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it made it possible for domestic production to increase.

Of what? Other stuff? Or packing materials? Or

Packaging is a support industry (other than stock boxes which are bulk manufacturerd for things like moving companies, etc).

So... the more companies making things or shipping things, the more boxes are needed. Financial and govt analysts use the packaging industry as kind of a canary for the general health of mnaufacturing and retail as it is on the end of the long tail for supply chains. Packaging is the first to decline and the last to pick up with the cycles of the economy.

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

#327

Post by rlpb »

amiga386 wrote: post #323
jemmyw wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a motte-and-bailey argument. The government set out to reduce consumption of high-sugar drinks. They had choices on how to do that e.g. they could've targetted demand. They chose to target supply with a "sin tax". Private companies then, for no reason whatsoever, of their own free will, decided to eliminate high-sugar drink options. They would not have done so had the government not imposed the tax. If you the…

> I still drink as much as I normally do, which is about 12 litres a year; I am well under the intended beneficiary of this war on sugar, the sort of people who drink >100 litres a year…

It sounds like Irn-Bru was only viable _because_ of the sort of people who drink >100 litres a year. You were benefitting from that viability thanks to the very people you admit were being targeted by the tax. If they had stopped their high consumption for some other reason, availability of the original Irn-Bru would have suffered the same result due to the same drop in demand. The tax isn’t directly to blame here. The direct cause is the original motivation itself, regardless of how it was implemented. Considering only this specific example you cannot reject the tax without also rejecting the motivation.

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

#328

Post by brodouevencode »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #14
brodouevencode wrote: post #4

The public needs to understand that tariffs aren't meant to punish other countries (which is what is being sold) - they are meant to change domestic behavior.

Sure, they work via changing domestic behavior. But the purpose of that change is what's important. They can be used to gently (as compared to sanctions) shift demand away from a particular country, or alternatively to apply pressure to a sector to bring it on shore.

> But the purpose of that change is what's important.

Good point.

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

#329

Post by brodouevencode »

Alupis wrote: post #249
g947o wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, at least 50% of the things you use every day, from phone and laptops to kitchen utensils.

For today, sure. People act like 365 days is long enough to change consumer spending habits, and onshore production facilities that took years to offshore. If tariffs are held strong, there will be two possible outcomes: 1) Domestic production will be increased (via American businesses as well as onshoring foreign businesses), providing jobs and ultimately lower-cost products 2) International tariffs will be decrease…

Not sure why you are getting downvoted - nothing you have said is incorrect. Given the parent comments my guess is that it's because you're speaking in purely economic terms and not grounded in political ideology.

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

#330

Post by bubblewand »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #261
cheema33 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pre-COVID we were at ~$25MM yearly and now we are $150MM+ and growing steadily. And you think this is due to tariffs? If so, please provide some details.

Manufacturing is booming in the Midwest which is the region we service. They have more business, we have more business.

Given the sheer volume of cheap stuff that had been coming straight from China, and the end of de minimus, my first guess would be the majority of this is Chinese and other foreign goods that are now being imported in bulk to minimize duties and costs of handling paperwork, then distributed state-side. Lots of new business (and resulting extra costs to consumers) in logistics, without as much of an increase on the manufacturing side.

I mean, it’s not like US clothes manufacturers, for example, can compete with East Asia even with 100% tariffs (on the wholesale price). Not even close. Ditto electronics, most toys, et c. Lots and lots of really high-volume stuff that was getting drop shipped through e.g. Amazon sellers, not to mention lots of traditional US brands that were shipping straight from overseas warehouses.

Post reply on HN