←back to thread

689 points taubek | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
aimor ◴[] No.43633841[source]
Trying to summarize the summary for myself

From a $100 shoe that sells for $76:

- $24 goes overseas (22 cost, 2 freight)

- $8 goes to the US gov't (3 import, 2 Nike tax, 3 Footlocker tax)

- $33 goes to US employees or businesses (5 Nike marketing, 11 Nike expenses, 17 Footlocker expenses)

- $5 goes to Nike (11% return)

- $6 goes to Footlocker (8% return)

But now with 100% tariffs, it's a $100 shoe that sells for $100 (or a $132 shoe that sells for $100) and:

- $24 goes overseas (22 cost, 2 freight)

- $29 goes to the US gov't (22 import, 3 Nike tax, 4 Footlocker tax)

- $33 goes to US employees or businesses (5 Nike marketing, 11 Nike expenses, 17 Footlocker expenses)

- $7 goes to Nike (11% return, 7.15 exactly)

- $7 goes to Footlocker (8% return, 7.45 exactly)

And if a US shoemaker wanted to undercut the import, a Made in USA shoe that sells for $100:

- $7+ goes to the US gov't (? shoemaker tax, 3 Nike tax, 4 Footlocker tax)

- $79 goes to US employees or businesses (46 to shoemaker, 5 Nike marketing, 11 Nike expenses, 17 Footlocker expenses)

- $7 goes to Nike (11% return, 7.15 exactly)

- $7 goes to Footlocker (8% return, 7.45 exactly)

replies(5): >>43633989 #>>43634855 #>>43634868 #>>43639490 #>>43645462 #
milesskorpen ◴[] No.43633989[source]
The piece to add there is that all this money is getting paid by the consumer. The overseas piece doesn't change, same number of US dollars going to the other country. The $24 increase in cost is paid by the US consumer.
replies(3): >>43634095 #>>43634102 #>>43634640 #
slg ◴[] No.43634095[source]
It's just a sales tax. I don't know why people opposing tariffs never talk about them in this manner because sales taxes are something people innately understand if they have spent any time in the US and "tariffs" clearly aren't as well understood.
replies(2): >>43634477 #>>43635353 #
ajmurmann ◴[] No.43634477[source]
It's worse than a sales tax. Tariffs have a few market-distorting effects that a sales tax doesn't.

* Domestic consumers and companies are incentivized to potentially go for the 2nd best product. This over time can impact productivity as the tooling will decline over time as inferior solutions are bought.

* Reduced competition. We've seen this with the 25% "chicken tax" on pickup trucks. Arguably one culprit in US automakers falling behind is that they had a protected market around pickup trucks where it was hard to impossible for foreign competition to keep them on their toes. So US automakers retreated more and more into this safe haven.

* Destruction of economies of scale: If everyone wants the entire supply chain to be replicated in their country, we obviously loose economies of scale and thus efficiency. This sounds like it would be small but having multiple Shenzhen's is just not viable and we'll have to deal with higher prices and less product choice.

* Galapagos island syndrome: Over time separation of markets can lead to incompatible technologies which amplifies all other points.

replies(1): >>43635375 #
lostlogin ◴[] No.43635375[source]
> Tariffs have a few market-distorting effects that a sales tax doesn't.

There are still stupid edge cases. The cake-versus-biscuit saga in the UK comes to mind.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes

replies(1): >>43638630 #
1. ajmurmann ◴[] No.43638630[source]
Just double checking, you are saying reduced competition and scale economics are "stupid edge cases"?
replies(1): >>43638674 #
2. lostlogin ◴[] No.43638674[source]
I’m saying that using a courtroom to decide the definition of a biscuit indicates a problem with sales tax legislation.

Flat rate sales tax has its problems, but avoiding Jaffa cake situations is entirely desirable.

replies(1): >>43638954 #
3. ajmurmann ◴[] No.43638954[source]
Agreed, complex policies open the door for unintended consequences and have higher enforcement cost. If you do a sales tax or VAT it should be flat. If anyone thinks that it will be regressive or put poor people at a disadvantage, the answer IMO is UBI, even a small one can make up for sales tax on food while avoiding the deadweight loss from nonsense like that Jaffa cake nonsense.