4 ms·

Fine, most women have more hair. But why would the haircut be taxed at a different rate.

by elil17 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago
Because the tariffs are almost never set based on the idea of consumer equality, they're usually set based on some sort of protectionism for the supply side of the equation. The main reason they aren't is not out of equality, but because neither mens nor womens haircuts can be imported.
- elil17 4y ago
  While I'm not a fan of tariffs overall, if we're going to have them would it not be reasonable to have some modicum of thought put into not having them be horribly unfair towards the average citizen? Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate on my underwear just because I'm a woman? Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate on my polyester clothes compared to some rich person who buys silk everything? I'm not saying it's destined to change or even that it should be super high on anyone's policy priority list. But can we not just acknowledge that this is just infuriatingly unfair? That a good system would not have a policy like this?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    There usually are political discussions about the impact on consumers when tariffs are implemented. They just aren't the only consideration. Often some sort of compromise is the end result.
    - elil17 4y ago
      How do you know that? Aren’t most tariff decisions done behind closed doors?
      - kube-system 4y ago
        The topic of tariffs came up a lot as a part of public political discourse in the previous political cycle. It is ultimately within the authority of Congress. A lot of it is boring, though: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?congress=__ALL__&text=tariff#congress=117&sort=relevance https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?congress=__ALL...
        elil17 4y ago
        Most HTS rates are set by TATA at USTIC. Those bills are the exception, not the rule.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I suspect this is all just because the system is designed to make money. If you could pocket a percentage on every item imported into the country, and you wanted to raise rates by a small amount this year to make more money, would you do it on the cheap polyester clothing that makes up the vast majority of the clothing imported or on the more rarely imported higher quality items? I know which I'd pick! The most popular items being imported would be more likely to get that increase. If people buy more women's clothing (including underwear) than men's clothing, I'd likely be raising those rates. If women's clothing was both more often imported and more expensive than men's clothing that seems like an even more ideal place to raise rates. I think that this is another case where the problem is that we have a system designed to make more and more money while the solution requires considering that something (in this case fairness) is more important than maximizing the amount of money to be made.

Fine, most women have more hair. But why would the haircut be taxed at a different rate.

by elil17 4y ago

Fine, most women have more hair. But why would the haircut be taxed at a different rate.

Because the tariffs are almost never set based on the idea of consumer equality, they're usually set based on some sort of protectionism for the supply side of the equation. The main reason they aren't is not out of equality, but because neither mens nor womens haircuts can be imported.

elil17 4y ago
While I'm not a fan of tariffs overall, if we're going to have them would it not be reasonable to have some modicum of thought put into not having them be horribly unfair towards the average citizen? Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate on my underwear just because I'm a woman? Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate on my polyester clothes compared to some rich person who buys silk everything? I'm not saying it's destined to change or even that it should be super high on anyone's policy priority list. But can we not just acknowledge that this is just infuriatingly unfair? That a good system would not have a policy like this?
- kube-system 4y ago
  There usually are political discussions about the impact on consumers when tariffs are implemented. They just aren't the only consideration. Often some sort of compromise is the end result.
  - elil17 4y ago
    How do you know that? Aren’t most tariff decisions done behind closed doors?
    - kube-system 4y ago
      The topic of tariffs came up a lot as a part of public political discourse in the previous political cycle. It is ultimately within the authority of Congress. A lot of it is boring, though: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?congress=__ALL__&text=tariff#congress=117&sort=relevance https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?congress=__ALL...
      - elil17 4y ago
        Most HTS rates are set by TATA at USTIC. Those bills are the exception, not the rule.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I suspect this is all just because the system is designed to make money. If you could pocket a percentage on every item imported into the country, and you wanted to raise rates by a small amount this year to make more money, would you do it on the cheap polyester clothing that makes up the vast majority of the clothing imported or on the more rarely imported higher quality items? I know which I'd pick! The most popular items being imported would be more likely to get that increase. If people buy more women's clothing (including underwear) than men's clothing, I'd likely be raising those rates. If women's clothing was both more often imported and more expensive than men's clothing that seems like an even more ideal place to raise rates. I think that this is another case where the problem is that we have a system designed to make more and more money while the solution requires considering that something (in this case fairness) is more important than maximizing the amount of money to be made.