Dispute With China Obscures Big Role Tariffs Play in Consumer Prices
6/2/10 6:00 AM
The Commerce Department tweaked China recently when it slapped a 99 percent tariff on Chinese-made oil field pipes entering the U.S. The move was but the latest volley in a long-running skirmish over a wide variety of imports. To the extent that most people think of tariffs at all, it’s usually in a context like this. Tariffs are perceived as little more than an obscure negotiating tactic for trade disputes. But thanks to the large number of imported goods Americans consume on a regular basis, tariffs actually play much more of a role in average Americans’ lives — and household budgets — than they may realize.
Most people take for granted that they know how much an item will cost them when they look at the price tag and figure in the amount of their local sales tax. But low-income Americans end up paying extra for necessities like clothes and shoes — victims of an outdated, inefficient tariff system that inadvertently penalizes the poor. Even proponents of reform, though, acknowledge that the byzantine nature of the tariff code and the low priority it’s generally assigned by lawmakers makes the prospect of changing this entrenched system unlikely.
Luxury goods have very low tariffs, while cheap clothes, underwear, shoes and household products have much higher rates, said Edward Gresser, trade policy director at the Democratic Leadership Council. “The people who are paying for the tariff system don’t know they’re paying for it,” he said.
“It’s the dirty secret of the U.S. tariff code,” said Daniel Griswold, trade policy expert at the Cato Institute. “It’s our most regressive tax that the federal government imposes.”
The country’s trade policy is a quilt of special interests, trade group bargaining chips and concessions, some pieces of which date back to an era when the manufacture of household goods was a booming part of the domestic economy.
“[It’s] usually for no good reason other than the political influence of a domestic group or for retribution against some other country that placed a high tariff on one of our exports,” said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution.
The disparities are staggering. In his research, Gresser found that the tariff rate on a cashmere sweater is 4 percent; the rate for one made of much cheaper acrylic is 32 percent. A silk brassiere has a tariff rate of less than 3 percent, but the rate on a polyester one is slightly less than 17 percent. The tariff rate on a snakeskin handbag is just over 5 percent but climbs to 16 percent for one made of canvas. Similar variations occur when it comes to household goods. Drinking glasses that cost more than $5 each have a tariff of 3 percent, while those that cost less than 30 cents each have a rate of 28.5 percent. A silk pillowcase has a rate of 4.5 percent; this goes up to nearly 15 percent for one made of polyester.
Overall, clothes and shoes contributed nearly $10 billion in tariff revenue in 2009, while higher-cost items including audiovisual equipment, computers and even cars added less than $2 billion. Gresser contends that the $10 billion is disproportionately borne by people who can’t afford to buy luxury goods. What’s more, when customers pay sales tax on these products, that amount is also higher than it would otherwise be thanks to the tariff that drives up the retail price.
In spite of this evidence, Gresser has had an uphill battle gaining support for his cause. Trade groups and politicians don’t want to lower a bar to foreign importers without getting some kind of concession in return. From their perspective, dropping a tariff that adds 32 percent to the price of a cheap men’s shirt amounts to giving away a valuable bargaining chip. Other groups — including, it should be noted, some prominent left-leaning think tanks — say dropping tariffs will cost jobs we can ill afford to lose in this economy.
While apparel and footwear manufacturing has largely moved offshore, there are still a few hundred thousand U.S. workers in those industries, according to Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, who says removing tariffs on cheap clothes and shoes would put these (generally low-income) Americans out of work. He also contends that even the high tariffs aren’t as onerous as they appear.
“If you look at expenditures as a share of total consumer spending for the bottom quintile of Americans, it still ends up being a fairly small number,” only a small fraction of a percentage point more than the average for all Americans, he said. Scott added that the globalization of trade, along with the resulting downward pressure on prices, has hurt low-income Americans more than it has helped them.
Griswold of the Cato Institute says this worry is overblown, sometimes deliberately for political gain. “Less than one-third of one percent of workers make clothing of any kind in the U.S.,” he said. “The self-interest of these producers and trade organizations gets wrapped up in rhetoric about saving jobs, which appeals to public perceptions. It’s much harder to visualize the benefits to families able to buy more affordable shoes.”
For William Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the argument that lowering or abolishing tariffs on low-cost products will cost jobs speaks more to the need to invest in training programs for low-skilled American workers. “It’s a challenge to protectionists. It does redistribute the pattern of job creation,” he acknowledged. But the genie is already out of the bottle when it comes to globalization, he said, and companies have already moved the bulk of their labor-intensive production offshore. Leaving high tariffs on cheap imported goods isn’t going to stop them from appearing on discount and dollar-store shelves, it’s just going to penalize the consumers who buy them.
“It’s easy to overlook, easy to ignore because people without political voice or power are the most affected,” he said.
Finance ministers from the world’s leading economies ripped up their support for fiscal stimulus on Saturday, recognising that financial market concerns over sovereign debt had forced a much greater focus on deficit reduction.
The meeting of the Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Busan, South Korea, also dropped proposals for a global banking levy, instead giving countries leeway to do what they thought best for their domestic circumstances.
The communiqué of the meeting made it clear that the G20 no longer thought that expansionary fiscal policy was sustainable or effective in fostering an economic recovery because investors were no longer confident about some countries’ public finances. “The recent events highlight the importance of sustainable public finances and the need for our countries to put in place credible, growth-friendly measures, to deliver fiscal sustainability,” the communiqué stated.
“Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation,” it added. “We welcome the recent announcements by some countries to reduce their deficits in 2010 and strengthen their fiscal frameworks and institutions”.
These words were in marked contrast to the G20’s previous communiqué from late April, which called for fiscal support to “be maintained until the recovery is firmly driven by the private sector and becomes more entrenched”.
After the meeting, finance ministers acknowledged that the landscape had changed. George Osborne, British chancellor, claimed credit for the change. The new words were a “significant success in getting endorsement from the G20 for … a significant change in tone in the language on fiscal sustainability”.
Many other finance ministers accepted market realities had changed the G20’s policy, Christine Lagarde, French finance minister, said: “There’s a large majority for whom redressing the public finances is priority number one. For a minority, it’s supporting growth”.
Even Dominique Strauss Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund who championed fiscal stimulus since January 2008, recognised the world was suddenly different. Asked whether he felt comfortable with the change in tone from the G20, he replied: “Totally comfortable. I am not the champion of fiscal stimulus, but the champion of right fiscal policy”.
But there were concerns around the G20 that the rush to reduce budget deficits, necessary though officials now thought it was, would undermine the recovery in the near term.
In a letter to the rest of the G20, Tim Geithner, US Treasury secretary, argued: “Concerns about growth as Europe makes needed policy adjustments threaten to undercut the momentum of the recovery”.
Ministers from many countries stressed the need for structural reforms to boost the potential for private sector growth
In private, G20 officials said that the US had been the country most concerned about the new austerity drive and feared for the momentum for global growth. In the meetings it had been frank in the meeting in calling for China to revalue the renminbi and for Germany to boost domestic demand, officials said.
Mr Geithner, himself, was open about his fears in his letter to the G20. “Concerns about growth as Europe makes needed policy adjustments threaten to undercut the momentum of the recovery,” he wrote, adding that fiscal tightening won’t “succeed unless we are able to strengthen confidence in the global recovery.”
When discussing reforms to the financial system, the G20 found there was no consensus for a global levy on banks. The decision to allow countries to pursue their own domestic agendas on new taxes on banks was particularly pleasing for Canada, which has long opposed the idea.
Jim Flaherty, Canadian finance minister, said: “The debate on … bank levies has been a distraction form the core issues and it has been apparent again from out meetings that most of the G20 members do not support the concept of a universal levy”.
Instead, the G20 “recognis[ed] there is a range of policy approaches” and that countries could develop their own thinking, “taking into account individual country’s circumstances and options”.
For countries such as the US and UK still wanting to go ahead with unilateral banking levies, the G20 agreed that they should be devised within a set of principles to minimise the opportunities for banks to pick and choose between different jurisdictions depending on the levies introduced.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
