Hacker News Reader

Comment by polygamous_bat | Hacker News Reader

> Or would the customer (who are taxpayers) be better served by having to pay CBP fees for their $20 shipment from china?

Sorry, this libertarian logic falls short because there are taxpayers who are not customers of bottom-of-the-barrel Chinese doodads, and thus are being hurt by this laxness. Why should I subsidize someone else’s “seen on social media” gadget addiction?

View on HN

Why should the rest of us subsidize your tax addiction? This reasoning goes both ways. And I'm not even arguing whether some tax is useful or not - in most cases buying from a foreign vendor means a far far higher overall tax rate - simply arguing whether to favor a path with more expensive middlemen or not.

Why should I have to pay more so overpriced brands don't have to compete as hard?

It’s not about paying more, it’s about paying the same. The local brand can not avoid the duties on products less than $X, just like you are charged sales tax at the supermarket on a $5 purchase.

Thankfully computers exist now so it is really not onerous at all to charge the correct duties and massive fees if you want to make the customs people do work (this is basically now the EU approach, and AliExpress had no problem adjusting).

Some products are too niche to be sold locally. If no local brands exist for a product I have to buy it from someone oversees and import it myself. Even if it is sold locally it may be overly marked up compared to buying it from the original seller because there is no local competition to keep the price in check.

Okay, and what part of that means normal duties should not be paid on that specialty product?

Seriously people, we have computers now. Every SaaS in Europe needs to pay correct VAT on every subscription sold based on the customer origin, it is not at all unreasonable to have online sellers pay duties for products shipped to US.

I'm already paying through the nose for foriegn stuff. I don't want even more fees to be tacked on.

So you would like taxpayers to provide a subsidy for your fidget spinner from China? I would much rather that dollar go to healthcare or higher education.

Yes, I would prefer to have my hobbies be subsidized.

I’m convinced this is a big part of Amazon’s rise to prominence. While they often had competitive pricing, they also had a built-in discount by not collecting sales tax that brick and mortar stores with nexus could not avoid. And they fought hard against any changes to the status quo as it pertains to sales tax (at least until it became advantageous to do otherwise).

I’m fairly certain Amazon knew these consumers weren’t paying use tax instead. Local stores took a beating by having to play by rules that Amazon didn’t.

Heavily discounted shipping (media mail) also supported Amazon's initial rise. Funny how cheap shipping is coming full circle.

By starting with books (and then CDs/DVDs), Jeff picked a good target: inventory that doesn't depreciate too fast, subsidized shipping, not needing to collect sales taxes up-front, high costs at b&m level, high value per weight/volume, popularity of carrying large inventory (books aren't too fungible)

Much better than pets.com selling cat and dog food.

Mail order without nexus didn't charge tax either. The Internet didn't invent the the interstate commerce loophole.

It didn’t, it just made it way easier to order from. And Amazon carried more inventory than most mail order catalogs. Subsidizing shipping helped a lot as well.

I think it’s also about keeping the wealth/supporting the relevant skills in your own community. Saving a dollar here and there helps an individual a little but the community gets damaged in the long run. And the individual suffers in the long run too.

Whether the community is hurt in the long run is a complicated economic question involving many factors.

Specialization is one of the most important motors of economic development. Not every community can or should try to produce everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com