2 ms·

I don't think this is exactly correct. One purpose of a de minimis exemption is to clear the way for small overseas businesses to integrate more easily into the

I don't think this is exactly correct. One purpose of a de minimis exemption is to clear the way for small overseas businesses to integrate more easily into the national economy by minimizing border wait times and overhead importation costs on cheap goods / goods only found overseas. It has the dual benefit of reducing customs labor costs for the taxpayer. From an economic perspective, business models like these are a desirable and purposeful consequence. We focus on businesses like Temu because everyone agrees they sell cheap garbage, but a lot of overseas businesses sell high-quality or even essential goods. (And clearly, for many people, whatever Temu sells is good enough.)

infecto 1y ago
This rule goes back to the 30s and for most of its history the goal is to reduce administrative burden. The fact that small business around the world might benefit from it is indirect and never the main goal. We focus on Temu because they are running a large dollar value business on imports that skirt duty tax. The dollar volume is the important piece here as they playing on an unfair advantage.
- iterance 1y ago
  If the purpose of the exemption were only to reduce the labor cost of importation, some other scheme (such as prohibiting the importation of cheap goods entirely) would be far more effective. Several other options would be at least equally effective. Factors besides labor are clearly also considered. In your view, what are the factors in addition to customs labor costs that were weighed in 2016 the choice to increase the de minimis exemption? I'm curious, because you seem to feel very strongly that global economic integration is not one of them.
  - infecto 1y ago
    I’m not saying global integration wasn’t ever discussed or considered, just that historically, the primary driver behind de minimis was administrative efficiency. You can trace it all the way back to original rule in the 30s. The idea was that the cost of collecting duty on low-value goods often exceeded the revenue collected, so it made sense to wave them through. That’s very different from encouraging large-scale commercial exploitation. When entire logistics chains are built specifically to stay under the threshold, intentionally bypassing duties that domestic importers would have to pay, that’s a policy failure, not a success. You can absolutely argue that it incidentally helped smaller exporters or increased consumer access, but that’s a long way from saying it was intended to support global e-commerce platforms arbitraging regulatory gaps. You asked what factors were weighed—labor costs and shipment volume handling, sure. Maybe some light consumer benefit. But "building duty-free pipelines for billion-dollar drop-shippers" probably wasn’t in the memo.

infecto 1y ago

This rule goes back to the 30s and for most of its history the goal is to reduce administrative burden. The fact that small business around the world might benefit from it is indirect and never the main goal. We focus on Temu because they are running a large dollar value business on imports that skirt duty tax. The dollar volume is the important piece here as they playing on an unfair advantage.

iterance 1y ago
If the purpose of the exemption were only to reduce the labor cost of importation, some other scheme (such as prohibiting the importation of cheap goods entirely) would be far more effective. Several other options would be at least equally effective. Factors besides labor are clearly also considered. In your view, what are the factors in addition to customs labor costs that were weighed in 2016 the choice to increase the de minimis exemption? I'm curious, because you seem to feel very strongly that global economic integration is not one of them.
- infecto 1y ago
  I’m not saying global integration wasn’t ever discussed or considered, just that historically, the primary driver behind de minimis was administrative efficiency. You can trace it all the way back to original rule in the 30s. The idea was that the cost of collecting duty on low-value goods often exceeded the revenue collected, so it made sense to wave them through. That’s very different from encouraging large-scale commercial exploitation. When entire logistics chains are built specifically to stay under the threshold, intentionally bypassing duties that domestic importers would have to pay, that’s a policy failure, not a success. You can absolutely argue that it incidentally helped smaller exporters or increased consumer access, but that’s a long way from saying it was intended to support global e-commerce platforms arbitraging regulatory gaps. You asked what factors were weighed—labor costs and shipment volume handling, sure. Maybe some light consumer benefit. But "building duty-free pipelines for billion-dollar drop-shippers" probably wasn’t in the memo.