Timeline for Do governments want customs duties or not?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2021 at 22:31 | vote | accept | Vilx- | ||
| May 16, 2021 at 22:02 | comment | added | phoog | @Vilx customs duties were traditionally a source of revenue as much as of market influence. Imported goods were taxed so the government could function. ("Traditionally" here refers to the 19th century and earlier.) | |
| May 14, 2021 at 22:06 | comment | added | Krazy Glew | @Vilx: Again not always true: Sometimes the raw materials have no duties, and I believe there have even been cases where the raw materials were subsidized, in order to encourage domestic industry. Subsidizing or negative tariffs materials might be passed off as trying to help an underdeveloped country. or colony | |
| May 14, 2021 at 22:02 | comment | added | Vilx- | @KrazyGlew - sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Yes, of course the amount often varies by the type of good and/or origin. What I mean is - there is always by default SOME amount of tax on ALL incoming goods, unless an explicit exception is made. It's not the case that countries would only tax those goods where they want to protect local industries and leave the rest alone. They tax everything that comes in until an exception is agreed upon. | |
| May 14, 2021 at 17:15 | comment | added | Krazy Glew | @Vilx: customs duties are frequently NOT uniform across all goods. For example, at various times the USA has taxed Canadian lumber and other processed wood products at higher rates than timber/raw logs. Canada wants the extra value of processing wood products, whereas American sawmills do not have enough domestic supply. They argue that Canadian policies such as forbidding export of raw logs amount to subsidies.Hmmm… I wonder whatthe American policy of forbidding already contracted sales exporting vaccine and components thereof early in this pandemic amounts to protectionism? | |
| May 14, 2021 at 9:59 | history | edited | henning no longer feeds AI | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 14, 2021 at 9:56 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | There is a lack of clarity in my answer, but I don't have time now to fix it. I'll come back to it. In the meantime, the answer to A is that states use trade agreements to credibly commit to free trade. In particular: 1. They "tie their hands" against domestic protectionist pressures. And 2. they commit to meet tariff reductions etc. by their treaty partners with their own, reciprocal reductions instead of exploiting each other's concessions (which would undermine the willingness to make trade concessions in the first place). 2. realizes collective gains despite contrary individual incentives | |
| May 14, 2021 at 9:19 | comment | added | Vilx- | Hmm... this doesn't seem to be quite it. If this were the case, then: A - why would countries even consider international agreements? B - why are customs duties applied uniformly over ALL merchandise, even ones that the country itself doesn't produce? | |
| May 14, 2021 at 7:58 | history | answered | henning no longer feeds AI | CC BY-SA 4.0 |