5 ms·

It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that

by taeric 8mo ago

It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

alistairSH 8mo ago
And nobody is really confused by that. Yet that's not what the administration says about the subject. They're either confused or they're lying (and the people who support them and regurgitate their talking points are confused).
- John23832 8mo ago
  > They're either confused or they're lying The belief that they are confused is a generosity that we should really be disabused of at this point.
  - taeric 8mo ago
    I don't think I can beat the drum of "they are liars" heavily enough. It remains frustrating to see so much accidental carrying of water for them as people look for a hint of legitimacy.
- ToucanLoucan 8mo ago
  I don't think they're confused or lying. I think they're ideologically driven buffoons, the preferred recruits of all fascist administrations. They don't care about American manufacturing, and they don't understand economics. They want to advance their agenda. Like, even the propaganda by fascists claiming fascism makes for good policies is bad. Germany under the Reich, completely setting aside the human atrocities, was a fucking SHIT SHOW of a nation state.
SoftTalker 8mo ago
Pretty much every tax is ultimately paid by the consumer, because all the suppliers have to make a profit or they won't stay in business. The point of an import tariff isn't to make anything cheaper, it's to level the market in the presence of a foreign supplier who has much lower costs (e.g. sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc.) that are not available to domestic suppliers.
- alright2565 8mo ago
  I would love to see joint tarrifs, together with US allies, to fight against things like sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc. That would really send a signal that those things are unacceptable, and lead to change. That's not what we have here, and that's not what the Trump tarrifs are perceived as internationally.
- bobthepanda 8mo ago
  The problem is that the tariffs are so broad in ways that don’t help US industry; and there are few supply chains wholly within the US so you end up hurting US manufacturing as well. It doesn’t really make sense, for example, that we slapped tariffs on Madagascar, when the primary reason we run a trade deficit with them is that they grow vanilla which cannot be grown in the US.
  - Aloisius 8mo ago
    Several species of vanilla are indigenous to Puerto Rico. Indeed, Puerto Rico used to be the ninth largest vanilla producer in the world. Vanilla will happily grow in parts of Florida and the USVI as well.
    - ncruces 8mo ago
      So that's the goal? Onshore vanilla production, now cheaper than Madagascar given the 47% tariff? No wait; the tariff was reduced to 10%, maybe 15? Something.
      - 8mo ago
TheJoeMan 8mo ago
If rent or business taxes go up, the business may either eat the cost or eventually raise the main price, they don’t tack a “rent offset fee” on the final bill. But with tariffs, up to a point the business dgaf because they just pass it through as a separate “junk fee” line item.
- philipallstar 8mo ago
  Yeah, it's like VAT or state taxes.
- ryandrake 8mo ago
  > If rent or business taxes go up, the business may either eat the cost or eventually raise the main price, they don’t tack a “rent offset fee” on the final bill. But with tariffs, up to a point the business dgaf because they just pass it through as a separate “junk fee” line item. It's always kind of enlightening to see exactly what things businesses choose to explicitly pass on to the customer, and what things they just eat as a cost of doing business. It's often very political and performative. Some restaurants in California have taken to adding a "Living Wage Fee" to restaurant bills as a way to protest having to pay their employees proper wages. They could have just eaten the cost and raised their food prices slightly, but instead they chose the passive-aggressive route, complaining about it via the bill, which the customer sees. Presumably to try to convince the customer that "Living Wage" politics are bad and that they visibly raise the price the customer pays. But, when the county raises their property taxes, the same restaurants just eat the cost. They don't add an "Unfair Property Taxes" line item to their diners' bills.
tialaramex 8mo ago
Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebody wrote a mean Tweet about Donald so the tariffs are back and the deal is off.
- rubyfan 8mo ago
  I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.
  - rjbwork 8mo ago
    Phew, good thing this regime is super into following the law and listening to courts.
  - Anonbrit 8mo ago
    Found to be illegal when? 3 decades after they've done their damage?
    - munk-a 8mo ago
      There's a case in process that'll likely resolve in the next two months. Quite a few companies have filed suite banking on getting their fees reimbursed. In the current political climate nothing is certain - but this will likely come to a resolution in the near term.
      - martin8412 8mo ago
        Okay, so if they lose that case, Trump will just pass a new executive order that once again takes months to resolve.
        vkou 8mo ago
amiga386 8mo ago
The trouble with sugar taxes is it does drive soda-company behaviour. A. G. Barr killed the real Irn Bru in 2018 to avoid the Scottish sugar tax. It could've passed on the tax to the consumer, but it didn't. It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap. No amount of money can bring the good stuff back. The sugar tax killed it. The world is now a slightly worse place, thanks to government interference. (I'm sure there's a way to extrapolate this anecdote back to tariffs)
- taeric 8mo ago
  The sibling point that talks about the goal of the tax hits the idea you are talking about, I think. And this is what I meant saying you can show they can impact the soda companies. But regardless of any downstream effects of the tax existing, the tax is paid by the consumer.
- rlpb 8mo ago
  Destroying demand for sugary drinks was exactly the intent, though.
  - amiga386 8mo ago
    Yes, but if there's an axe murderer in my house, I don't care how much he intends to murder me. I don't want him to murder me. The government has a variety of aims and objectives. Certainly, shooting for a more healthy population is good. Convincing those that drink a lot to drink less would be one way. Permanently making the drinks awful for the entire population, no matter how many or few they drink, and ensuring what was once good never ever comes back... is another way.
    - jemmyw 8mo ago
      But the government didn't make the drink awful. They only set the tax. Your position is that you'd have paid more anyway but now tis not an option. That seems like a business decision. Maybe the old version has so much sugar it was untenable with the tax... how sugary was it?
mmooss 8mo ago
> It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that. Businesses like to say that, to get consumers to back them politically, but it's not at all true: When input costs increase, a seller must decide whether to take the extra expense out of their profit or to increase the price (or some mix of the two). Taking the extra cost out of their profit obviously decreases profit. Raising the price decreases sales (consumers won't buy as much at a higher price), which decreases profit. The change is not linear (look up demand curves). The seller, if they are smart, already found the price that maximizes revenue. Therefore changing the price will reduce revenue. In reality, it's not such a science and there are other factors. Another fundamental factor is price elasticity of demand, which is how much a change in price affects demand. For sugary drinks, quite a bit - people can forgo them. For lifesaving healthcare, elasticity is less, for obvious reasons.

by taeric 8mo ago

alistairSH 8mo ago

And nobody is really confused by that. Yet that's not what the administration says about the subject. They're either confused or they're lying (and the people who support them and regurgitate their talking points are confused).

John23832 8mo ago
> They're either confused or they're lying The belief that they are confused is a generosity that we should really be disabused of at this point.
- taeric 8mo ago
  I don't think I can beat the drum of "they are liars" heavily enough. It remains frustrating to see so much accidental carrying of water for them as people look for a hint of legitimacy.
ToucanLoucan 8mo ago
I don't think they're confused or lying. I think they're ideologically driven buffoons, the preferred recruits of all fascist administrations. They don't care about American manufacturing, and they don't understand economics. They want to advance their agenda. Like, even the propaganda by fascists claiming fascism makes for good policies is bad. Germany under the Reich, completely setting aside the human atrocities, was a fucking SHIT SHOW of a nation state.

SoftTalker 8mo ago

Pretty much every tax is ultimately paid by the consumer, because all the suppliers have to make a profit or they won't stay in business. The point of an import tariff isn't to make anything cheaper, it's to level the market in the presence of a foreign supplier who has much lower costs (e.g. sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc.) that are not available to domestic suppliers.

alright2565 8mo ago
I would love to see joint tarrifs, together with US allies, to fight against things like sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc. That would really send a signal that those things are unacceptable, and lead to change. That's not what we have here, and that's not what the Trump tarrifs are perceived as internationally.
bobthepanda 8mo ago
The problem is that the tariffs are so broad in ways that don’t help US industry; and there are few supply chains wholly within the US so you end up hurting US manufacturing as well. It doesn’t really make sense, for example, that we slapped tariffs on Madagascar, when the primary reason we run a trade deficit with them is that they grow vanilla which cannot be grown in the US.
- Aloisius 8mo ago
  Several species of vanilla are indigenous to Puerto Rico. Indeed, Puerto Rico used to be the ninth largest vanilla producer in the world. Vanilla will happily grow in parts of Florida and the USVI as well.
  - ncruces 8mo ago
    So that's the goal? Onshore vanilla production, now cheaper than Madagascar given the 47% tariff? No wait; the tariff was reduced to 10%, maybe 15? Something.
    - 8mo ago

TheJoeMan 8mo ago

If rent or business taxes go up, the business may either eat the cost or eventually raise the main price, they don’t tack a “rent offset fee” on the final bill. But with tariffs, up to a point the business dgaf because they just pass it through as a separate “junk fee” line item.

philipallstar 8mo ago
Yeah, it's like VAT or state taxes.
ryandrake 8mo ago
> If rent or business taxes go up, the business may either eat the cost or eventually raise the main price, they don’t tack a “rent offset fee” on the final bill. But with tariffs, up to a point the business dgaf because they just pass it through as a separate “junk fee” line item. It's always kind of enlightening to see exactly what things businesses choose to explicitly pass on to the customer, and what things they just eat as a cost of doing business. It's often very political and performative. Some restaurants in California have taken to adding a "Living Wage Fee" to restaurant bills as a way to protest having to pay their employees proper wages. They could have just eaten the cost and raised their food prices slightly, but instead they chose the passive-aggressive route, complaining about it via the bill, which the customer sees. Presumably to try to convince the customer that "Living Wage" politics are bad and that they visibly raise the price the customer pays. But, when the county raises their property taxes, the same restaurants just eat the cost. They don't add an "Unfair Property Taxes" line item to their diners' bills.

tialaramex 8mo ago

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebody wrote a mean Tweet about Donald so the tariffs are back and the deal is off.

rubyfan 8mo ago
I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.
- rjbwork 8mo ago
  Phew, good thing this regime is super into following the law and listening to courts.
- Anonbrit 8mo ago
  Found to be illegal when? 3 decades after they've done their damage?
  - munk-a 8mo ago
    There's a case in process that'll likely resolve in the next two months. Quite a few companies have filed suite banking on getting their fees reimbursed. In the current political climate nothing is certain - but this will likely come to a resolution in the near term.
    - martin8412 8mo ago
      Okay, so if they lose that case, Trump will just pass a new executive order that once again takes months to resolve.
      - vkou 8mo ago

amiga386 8mo ago

The trouble with sugar taxes is it does drive soda-company behaviour. A. G. Barr killed the real Irn Bru in 2018 to avoid the Scottish sugar tax. It could've passed on the tax to the consumer, but it didn't. It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap. No amount of money can bring the good stuff back. The sugar tax killed it. The world is now a slightly worse place, thanks to government interference. (I'm sure there's a way to extrapolate this anecdote back to tariffs)

taeric 8mo ago
The sibling point that talks about the goal of the tax hits the idea you are talking about, I think. And this is what I meant saying you can show they can impact the soda companies. But regardless of any downstream effects of the tax existing, the tax is paid by the consumer.
rlpb 8mo ago
Destroying demand for sugary drinks was exactly the intent, though.
- amiga386 8mo ago
  Yes, but if there's an axe murderer in my house, I don't care how much he intends to murder me. I don't want him to murder me. The government has a variety of aims and objectives. Certainly, shooting for a more healthy population is good. Convincing those that drink a lot to drink less would be one way. Permanently making the drinks awful for the entire population, no matter how many or few they drink, and ensuring what was once good never ever comes back... is another way.
  - jemmyw 8mo ago
    But the government didn't make the drink awful. They only set the tax. Your position is that you'd have paid more anyway but now tis not an option. That seems like a business decision. Maybe the old version has so much sugar it was untenable with the tax... how sugary was it?

mmooss 8mo ago

> It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that. Businesses like to say that, to get consumers to back them politically, but it's not at all true: When input costs increase, a seller must decide whether to take the extra expense out of their profit or to increase the price (or some mix of the two). Taking the extra cost out of their profit obviously decreases profit. Raising the price decreases sales (consumers won't buy as much at a higher price), which decreases profit. The change is not linear (look up demand curves). The seller, if they are smart, already found the price that maximizes revenue. Therefore changing the price will reduce revenue. In reality, it's not such a science and there are other factors. Another fundamental factor is price elasticity of demand, which is how much a change in price affects demand. For sugary drinks, quite a bit - people can forgo them. For lifesaving healthcare, elasticity is less, for obvious reasons.