Online shoppers hit with massive tariff charges on their clothes -- 50% inflation -- Thanks Trump

That is true. This basically targets small business who might have ordered in small batches and individual buyers going direct.

 

TEMU should be banned in the states.

 

In the case of things like cheap clothing the elimination of the de minimis exception so the tariff applies to small shipments is protecting US retailers rather than US manufacturers.

If you own CityGator’s Athleisure Emporium and were importing a shipping container full of Chinese-made yoga pants to sell, you were paying duties and import taxes on your yoga pants inventory when the container was released into the U.S. and having to pass those costs onto your customers. If I buy a pair of your yoga pants, I was paying whatever portion of those duties you passed on in the sales price.

If I bought that identical pair of yoga pants on AliExpress, however, a guy in Guangzhou was dropping a pair of yoga pants in a plastic shipper bag, handing it to a Chinese courier, and they would show up on my doorstep in two or three weeks without anyone having paid the duties and import taxes on them. CityGator’s Athleisure Emporium is never going to be able to compete with that price advantage, so your pool of customers (even amongst those who want that particular kind of Chinese yoga pants) was limited to people who either: 1) don’t know AliExpress exists; 2) don’t want to deal with confusing foreign retailer websites and potentially have to argue with sellers who don’t speak English; or 3) are willing to knowingly pay more because they value being able to see an employee’s smiling face when they walk into your store.

It does raise an interesting policy question with respect to the de minimis exception of whether subsidizing Chinese e-commerce platforms to compete with the U.S. retail sector via a tax advantage for direct shipment was really consistent with what we want to accomplish.

 

I did read the article, which was a bad joke, The tariff was only $75, 25% of the so called 50% inflation alleged in the title. The rest was regular shipping and sales tax. The same shipping and sales tax that this dummy complaining paid the last time she bought crappy clothes from China.

Im glad to see that occupy so much free space in your head that you try to keep up with my positions. Now I know that my memory is not what it used to be and I can see that yours is either failing as well or you are once again cherry picking data to fit your warped narratives. I am not a fan of tariffs, but our manufacturers have to pay them when they sell to many of these very same countries. Contrary to lib folklore, the US and Trump did not invent tariffs. I would not have done the tariffs on Mexico and Canada but using the threat to get concessions from them is necessary. They are not the good neighbors and trading partners that they claim to be or the Dems and media want to believe.

China is a different beast altogether. They have been bending us over for a long time and make it almost impossible to sell our goods there. Additionally they steal our IP from every factory operating there and then subsidize their own companies to use it and undercut the cost. The CCP is dangerous. If the tariffs are the only way to get a level playing field, and I’m not saying they are, then I might have to hold my nose and go along.

As for your allegations that I support predatory pricing, once again you are wrong. I do not deny that it exists, (look at local gas stations every time a hurricane is in the gulf, or when you need gas on the turnpike on the way home from a game), but I have objected to many specific allegations here that were untrue. Objecting to specifics is not the same as denial of existence.

In short, this article was a typical lib hit piece intended to incense the stupid with embellishments and falsehoods. I can see by the the posting of it here to start a thread that, once again, their ploy worked like charm.

 

There are dozens of other places that can make cheap shit as good and as cheaply as the CCP. One is right on their southern border. Another south of that. Others right here in our backyard. The whole point of tariffs (if applied smartly) is to shift the supply chains to more favorable countries geopolitically. And, ideally, to get them closer to home and more secure. Your cheap CCP product is worthless if it's sitting on a dock in Shanghai because a certain dictator decided to lock everything down.

 

I have a friend from UF who recently divorced and is enjoying the single life once again. He feels that yoga pants should be banned to anyone over 40 as they lead to a false and misleading appearance in their use.

 

Perhaps you need to read the article again. Because literally none of that is consistent with the article. The first person listed paid an extra $101.85 in duties. The second person paid an extra $115.91 in duties.

I remember how mad you used to get at the notion that a company would take advantage of price increases to raise their prices due to changes in consumer expectations. You would flip out and I sult anybody that even suggested the possibility of such a thing. And yet, here you are suggesting such a thing.

The rest of your rambling reply is just trying to to square why you support tax increases this time with something other than Daddy Trump did it.

 

It is the entire point of protectionist tariffs. To artificially make prices on imports go up, thereby encouraging domestic production.

Problem is when govt introduces economic efficiencies like this, the “gains” in domestic production forced by the govt never seem to outweigh the economic losses. It’s similar folly to “tax cuts pay for themselves”. Funny how Republicans have now wholesale adopted the dumbest conservative tax theory, and the dumbest liberal protectionist trade theory.

I’m not ideologically rigid on tariffs either way. I’ve definitely always leaned more on free trade side of the equation, I think the base case for tariffs should be 0%, but when dumping or unfair practices occur I’m open if the govt can make a case on that trade (docspor has made the economic argument we should even embrace dumping! Not sure I agree, but I’m not entirely equipped to argue against him either). Blanket tariffs are no bueno, esp against our allies. Against adversaries like China they can be a tool, but we should be more strategic. Not sure taxing some poor lady’s wedding dress falls in this “strategic” category. I’m sure Bezos is most pleased though.

 

Most of what they’re being asked to pay in “duties” likely isn’t actually duties, tariffs, or anything else imposed by CBP. It’s customs brokerage fees being added by the carrier to compensate them for handling customs clearance on your behalf, that weren’t previously being paid because that kind of shipment didn’t have to clear customs under the de minimis exception. In short, they’re now dealing with what most of the rest of the world (who didn’t have high de minimis exceptions - as an example, while our exception was $800, Canada’s is $20 for goods from countries other than the U.S. and Mexico) has had to all along and losing some of what made Chinese e-commerce so attractive to US consumers specifically.

From an ultra-technical perspective they could avoid those aspects of the charge by going to the point of entry and clearing customs themselves, although it obviously wouldn’t make any sense to do so on these kinds of packages.

 

Basically, they are increasing administrative fees. So there is no actual economic benefit, just useless paperwork for the government. Sounds great. Weren't Republicans supposed to be against that sort of thing?

 

Read my CityGator’s Athleisure Emporium example in post #25. If we’re going to forego government revenue to subsidize a business model, Chinese e-commerce websites definitely shouldn’t be the one we pick to subsidize.

 

They’ll just blame, DEI, Biden and the Democrats so…

 

The problem is that you are framing this as an advantage for the business and ignoring that a customer chose them because they got a benefit. Basically, you are choosing to up the taxes on somebody who was willing to deal with the disadvantages, likely because they are highly price sensitive. Why should the price sensitive people not have an option that bypasses services that you would prefer? Because we need more government paperwork?

My preference would be for the Emporium not to have to pay tariffs either. The tariffs on them are dumb. Not sure why we should do something dumb because we did something else dumb.

 

You need some help dude. I hope you have someone you can talk to

 

And there it is: whenever faced with your own inability to stick to facts, you lash out with personal insults. An alternative would be to be factually accurate but that doesn't seem to be something that you can do.

 

This is happening in our business, but most people don't know they are purchasing from Guangzhou, nor that it takes 3 weeks for delivery. We get angry customer service calls and emails asking where their order is, and we share that they purchased from Guangzhou. Not only do we need to tax these packages at a higher rate than 10%, but we need to hold FB & Amazon accountable for letting the counterfeiters market on their platforms. The Chinese will go low in price point to push you out of your niche.