6 ms·

It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is. Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs

by RC_ITR 5y ago

It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is. Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company? Even moreso, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford lobbied FOR those laws before changing its mind in where to produce a particular sku

nickff 5y ago
>"Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?" Have you read a tariff schedule? They're full of this stuff, which seem to be protections or favors for specific industries. Anti-dumping protections seem similar.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  >It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is.
  - nickff 5y ago
    I am not sure it is 'corrupt', though that may be a question of semantics. I didn't mean to disagree with you, just point out how rampant the issue was.
    - secabeen 5y ago
      I don't think it's corrupt exactly, often these details are worked out in deals between the various countries or as retaliation for other unilateral increases. We lower your rate on rice to 6% if you lower our rate on chicken; if you raise your rate on our machine parts to 25%, we'll raise our rate on your cargo vans to 25%. Etc. It's part of the negotiations, and it often has nothing to do with the specifics of the items being tarriffed.
colejohnson66 5y ago
No lobbying involved. It’s the remnants of a tariff war with France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  The Chicken Wars brought the powerful agricultural lobby in France into direct conflict with the powerful agricultural lobby in the United States. Not surprisingly, France, the largest poultry producer in the EEC, was unwilling to embrace a free trade policy whose benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe. The benefits of protectionism were concentrated in France and the costs were borne by consumers throughout Europe. Indeed, the stakes were sufficiently high that France might have quit the EEC had not French agricultural interests been appeased. That's from the 'further reading' link on Wikipedia.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Yes, but I meant lobbying from Ford for said tariff as you suggested.
    - RC_ITR 5y ago
      At the same time, the U.S. auto industry was suffering its own trade crisis due to competition from growingly popular foreign cars and trucks. During the early 1960s, sales of Volkswagens surged as America’s love affair with the iconic VW “Bug” coupe and Type 2 van shifted into overdrive. By 1963, the situation got so bad that Walter Reuther, president of the United Automobile Workers Union (U.A.W.), threatened a strike that would have halted all U.S. auto production just before the 1964 presidential election. Running for reelection and aware of the influence the U.A.W. had in Congress and in the minds of voters, President Johnson looked for a way to persuade Reuther’s union not to strike and to support his “Great Society” civil rights agenda. Johnson succeeded on both counts by agreeing to include light trucks in the Chicken Tax. While U.S. tariffs on other Chicken Tax items have since been rescinded, lobbying efforts by the U.A.W. have kept the tariff on light trucks and utility vans alive. As a result, American-made trucks still dominate sales in the U.S., and some very desirable trucks, like the high-end Australian-made Volkswagen Amorak, are not sold in the United States. https://www.thoughtco.com/chicken-tax-4159747 https://www.thoughtco.com/chicken-tax-4159747
jrockway 5y ago
It sounds like the age-old market segmentation thing. People driving their kids to soccer practice don't make money with their vans, so they'll notice the higher price (and if they find out their congresscritter was responsible, they'll vote for a different one). Meanwhile, cargo vans are used to make money, so the users can bear the extra cost. There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote. (It's too bad that Ford doesn't dump the seats they take out of the van into Boston Harbor! Someone would probably still get the reference.) It's the same game that SaaS companies play. Everything is free until you want SSO, then it's $30,000 a year. If you need SSO, you can afford it. Personally, I hate this in both cases. I think we could save everyone a lot of time if every vendor you did business with just grabbed you by the ankles and flipped you upside down and took whatever money fell out of your pocket. Why tiptoe around what they really want...
- titusjohnson 5y ago
  > There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote. I'm confused about this statement. Businesses are comprised of individuals, and those individuals (if citizens) can vote. So the business has a vote through the voice of its employees and representation in government through the people employees at a business. Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then...
  - slt2021 5y ago
    maybe businesses can't vote, but they can buy votes of the congressmen directly. why go through the hassle of voting and deal with uncertainty whether you voted a right person, when you can just buy with cash whatever law/regulation you need
  - NoboruWataya 5y ago
    > Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then... I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes. That would be politically quite unpopular, but there is a certain logic to it and it would also make taxes easier to administer and more difficult to avoid. And it doesn't need to be as pro-rich as it sounds - you could just replace corporation taxes with other taxes targeting wealthy individuals, such as a wealth tax or higher income taxes.

by RC_ITR 5y ago

nickff 5y ago

>"Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?" Have you read a tariff schedule? They're full of this stuff, which seem to be protections or favors for specific industries. Anti-dumping protections seem similar.

RC_ITR 5y ago
>It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is.
- nickff 5y ago
  I am not sure it is 'corrupt', though that may be a question of semantics. I didn't mean to disagree with you, just point out how rampant the issue was.
  - secabeen 5y ago
    I don't think it's corrupt exactly, often these details are worked out in deals between the various countries or as retaliation for other unilateral increases. We lower your rate on rice to 6% if you lower our rate on chicken; if you raise your rate on our machine parts to 25%, we'll raise our rate on your cargo vans to 25%. Etc. It's part of the negotiations, and it often has nothing to do with the specifics of the items being tarriffed.

colejohnson66 5y ago

No lobbying involved. It’s the remnants of a tariff war with France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

RC_ITR 5y ago
The Chicken Wars brought the powerful agricultural lobby in France into direct conflict with the powerful agricultural lobby in the United States. Not surprisingly, France, the largest poultry producer in the EEC, was unwilling to embrace a free trade policy whose benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe. The benefits of protectionism were concentrated in France and the costs were borne by consumers throughout Europe. Indeed, the stakes were sufficiently high that France might have quit the EEC had not French agricultural interests been appeased. That's from the 'further reading' link on Wikipedia.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Yes, but I meant lobbying from Ford for said tariff as you suggested.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    At the same time, the U.S. auto industry was suffering its own trade crisis due to competition from growingly popular foreign cars and trucks. During the early 1960s, sales of Volkswagens surged as America’s love affair with the iconic VW “Bug” coupe and Type 2 van shifted into overdrive. By 1963, the situation got so bad that Walter Reuther, president of the United Automobile Workers Union (U.A.W.), threatened a strike that would have halted all U.S. auto production just before the 1964 presidential election. Running for reelection and aware of the influence the U.A.W. had in Congress and in the minds of voters, President Johnson looked for a way to persuade Reuther’s union not to strike and to support his “Great Society” civil rights agenda. Johnson succeeded on both counts by agreeing to include light trucks in the Chicken Tax. While U.S. tariffs on other Chicken Tax items have since been rescinded, lobbying efforts by the U.A.W. have kept the tariff on light trucks and utility vans alive. As a result, American-made trucks still dominate sales in the U.S., and some very desirable trucks, like the high-end Australian-made Volkswagen Amorak, are not sold in the United States. https://www.thoughtco.com/chicken-tax-4159747 https://www.thoughtco.com/chicken-tax-4159747

jrockway 5y ago

It sounds like the age-old market segmentation thing. People driving their kids to soccer practice don't make money with their vans, so they'll notice the higher price (and if they find out their congresscritter was responsible, they'll vote for a different one). Meanwhile, cargo vans are used to make money, so the users can bear the extra cost. There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote. (It's too bad that Ford doesn't dump the seats they take out of the van into Boston Harbor! Someone would probably still get the reference.) It's the same game that SaaS companies play. Everything is free until you want SSO, then it's $30,000 a year. If you need SSO, you can afford it. Personally, I hate this in both cases. I think we could save everyone a lot of time if every vendor you did business with just grabbed you by the ankles and flipped you upside down and took whatever money fell out of your pocket. Why tiptoe around what they really want...

titusjohnson 5y ago
> There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote. I'm confused about this statement. Businesses are comprised of individuals, and those individuals (if citizens) can vote. So the business has a vote through the voice of its employees and representation in government through the people employees at a business. Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then...
- slt2021 5y ago
  maybe businesses can't vote, but they can buy votes of the congressmen directly. why go through the hassle of voting and deal with uncertainty whether you voted a right person, when you can just buy with cash whatever law/regulation you need
- NoboruWataya 5y ago
  > Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then... I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes. That would be politically quite unpopular, but there is a certain logic to it and it would also make taxes easier to administer and more difficult to avoid. And it doesn't need to be as pro-rich as it sounds - you could just replace corporation taxes with other taxes targeting wealthy individuals, such as a wealth tax or higher income taxes.