4 ms·

I don't see it. Exporter pays: Consumer ends up paying price + tariff, then seller pays the tariff to the shipping company, which pays it to the government. I

I don't see it. Exporter pays: Consumer ends up paying price + tariff, then seller pays the tariff to the shipping company, which pays it to the government. Importer pays: Consumer pays price, then later pays the tariff to the shipping company, which pays it to the government. In both cases the consumer is paying price + tariff. A small difference is that some consumers could be psychologically tricked by the lower price tag in the importer pays model. Note that what I'm saying doesn't concern itself with changes in pricing due to this.

ThunderSizzle 1y ago
> Note that what I'm saying doesn't concern itself with changes in pricing due to this. That's the problem with your semantics then. If the manufacturer no longer makes the same income because they can't increase the final price, in effect the consumer didn't pay the tariff.
- exe34 1y ago
  what happens in practise is that local sellers also increase their prices so that the customer still pays more, but the exporter isn't paying any tariff. if exporters paid tariffs, every country would put tariffs on things that they didn't make themselves. they only do it for things they're trying to compete in making. can you figure out why?
bregma 1y ago
To simplify: if the exporter lowers their price, the consumer pays the same, the exporter gets less, and the consumer pays the tariff to the government. If the exporter charges the same price, the consumer pays more, the exporter get the same as before, and the consumer pays the tariff to the government. The consumer always pays the tariff. The exporter never pays the tariff.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Please pretend that the exporter hypothetically pays the tariff. It just changes who is paying who. The end result is the same.
  - exe34 1y ago
    We don't have to pretend. We know who's paying. It's the consumer/importer.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      You are not listening to what I am writing. I am saying that they are equivalent. If you are not going to engage with my comment, why comment?
      - exe34 1y ago
        They are not equivalent. What usually happens isn't that people buy less foreign and more local, but that local sellers take advantage and raise their prices to be just below the foreign+tariff. the fact is that IRS is collecting money from the suckers who voted for this and you're desperately trying to make it sound like the exporters are paying for it.
- throw234234234 1y ago
  Sure but what actually matters is the consumer's value received vs value earned. In the end it isn't "who" pays, but who gains and who loses value in the net. NOTE: This includes government spending from the tariff. If the foreign supplier pays the tariff the country COULD be better off in net terms when you add the consumer + government together assuming the government spends all it takes which in a deficit situation is a reasonable assumption.
carlosjobim 1y ago
> In both cases the consumer is paying price + tariff. Consumers pay all of the operating costs and taxes of a company. That's not the debate. With tariffs, the cost of an imported product becomes higher than a domestically produced product, making consumers purchase the domestically produced product. This is the purpose. The long-term purpose is that foreign companies start making their products in your country to avoid tariffs and be able to compete. The discussion about if the buyer or seller pays the tariffs or taxes is non-sensical and a distraction.
- exe34 1y ago
  > The long-term purpose is that foreign companies start making their products in your country to avoid tariffs and be able to compete. There is no long term in the US anymore. TACO flip flops every few days, based on who he spoke to last.
  - carlosjobim 1y ago
    Trump didn't invent tariffs.
    - exe34 1y ago
      No other country flip flops like he does - nobody will make any long term plans when they don't know if the tariffs will be there Tuesday, much less in 3.5 years. Business and investment need stability, not histrionic outbursts and foreign policy at 3am.

ThunderSizzle 1y ago

> Note that what I'm saying doesn't concern itself with changes in pricing due to this. That's the problem with your semantics then. If the manufacturer no longer makes the same income because they can't increase the final price, in effect the consumer didn't pay the tariff.

exe34 1y ago
what happens in practise is that local sellers also increase their prices so that the customer still pays more, but the exporter isn't paying any tariff. if exporters paid tariffs, every country would put tariffs on things that they didn't make themselves. they only do it for things they're trying to compete in making. can you figure out why?

bregma 1y ago

To simplify: if the exporter lowers their price, the consumer pays the same, the exporter gets less, and the consumer pays the tariff to the government. If the exporter charges the same price, the consumer pays more, the exporter get the same as before, and the consumer pays the tariff to the government. The consumer always pays the tariff. The exporter never pays the tariff.

charcircuit 1y ago
Please pretend that the exporter hypothetically pays the tariff. It just changes who is paying who. The end result is the same.
- exe34 1y ago
  We don't have to pretend. We know who's paying. It's the consumer/importer.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    You are not listening to what I am writing. I am saying that they are equivalent. If you are not going to engage with my comment, why comment?
    - exe34 1y ago
      They are not equivalent. What usually happens isn't that people buy less foreign and more local, but that local sellers take advantage and raise their prices to be just below the foreign+tariff. the fact is that IRS is collecting money from the suckers who voted for this and you're desperately trying to make it sound like the exporters are paying for it.
throw234234234 1y ago
Sure but what actually matters is the consumer's value received vs value earned. In the end it isn't "who" pays, but who gains and who loses value in the net. NOTE: This includes government spending from the tariff. If the foreign supplier pays the tariff the country COULD be better off in net terms when you add the consumer + government together assuming the government spends all it takes which in a deficit situation is a reasonable assumption.

carlosjobim 1y ago

> In both cases the consumer is paying price + tariff. Consumers pay all of the operating costs and taxes of a company. That's not the debate. With tariffs, the cost of an imported product becomes higher than a domestically produced product, making consumers purchase the domestically produced product. This is the purpose. The long-term purpose is that foreign companies start making their products in your country to avoid tariffs and be able to compete. The discussion about if the buyer or seller pays the tariffs or taxes is non-sensical and a distraction.

exe34 1y ago
> The long-term purpose is that foreign companies start making their products in your country to avoid tariffs and be able to compete. There is no long term in the US anymore. TACO flip flops every few days, based on who he spoke to last.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  Trump didn't invent tariffs.
  - exe34 1y ago
    No other country flip flops like he does - nobody will make any long term plans when they don't know if the tariffs will be there Tuesday, much less in 3.5 years. Business and investment need stability, not histrionic outbursts and foreign policy at 3am.