Ronny
Ronny, there are some significant differences. I believe you have Socialism in Sweden that requires the higher taxes and costs. In the United States, the higher costs are probably offset by the lower taxes, and there's no Socialism.
In Canada, we seem to have both the higher costs and taxes, and neither capitalism not socialism.
Lobohowler wrote:
$1500 increase from $7500 to $9000 is 20%.
Correct, but remember that the 10% import tariff for goods originating in Japan (if indeed this is manufactured in Japan) is charged for the price to the U.S. distributor, then wholesale to retailer and then retail to you and I, so the influence of the tariff, even if you assume that full price is pushed forward to the consumer, is way less than 10% of retail.
bwcolor wrote:
Correct, but remember that the 10% import tariff for goods originating in Japan (if indeed this is manufactured in Japan) is charged for the price to the U.S. distributor, then wholesale to retailer and then retail to you and I, so the influence of the tariff, even if you assume that full price is pushed forward to the consumer, is way less than 10% of retail.
The tax rate on Japanese goods coming into the US is 15% and from Chinas it's 30%. Those numbers are for any content as well. So a lens or body may have gone up by an in-between number since it may have had differing percentages of source content. Any deviation on that value passed on to consumers is almost always the manufacturer absorbing some of the increase.
I won't get into whether tariffs are right are wrong - I have my own opinion. BUT, distributors and dealers are NOT absorbing the tariff impacts on camera prices. The margins are too small. Dealers make very little on camera gear relative to some other products industries. I have 2 very good friends in the camera business and they tell me that no way could they afford to do that. B&H won't do it, Adorama won't do it and I wouldn't expect them too.
Regardless of right or wrong, consumers pay the price for tariffs. Not industry. It's not some manna from heaven, it's tax folks. Taxes are paid by consumers. What we have seen is camera manufacturers shouldering the burden of some of that increase in some cases.
What I worry about for the average photographer is the inability to purchase more camera gear, People will likely buy less gear, hold onto what gear they buy longer, and that slowdown in product flow will only hurt the camera industry. There is no win there. It's funny that one of the stated purposes of tariffs was to make the US more competitive, but there are no consumer camera manufacturers in the US.
Just a very small example, the OM 60 macro just went from $399 to $649 at B&H. So if you want to buy that lens right now, it sure looks like you'd be the one absorbing the cost of the Tariffs. But more alarmingly, you're probably not going to buy that lens at that price. So as crf59 states above, spending will slow down on non essentials and that's never good. This whole policy was a known disaster right from the get go but for some strange reason people are reluctant to admit it.
Gary
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Just a very small example, the OM 60 macro just went from $399 to $649 at B&H. So if you want to buy that lens right now, it sure looks like you'd be the one absorbing the cost of the Tariffs. But more alarmingly, you're probably not going to buy that lens at that price. So as crf59 states above, spending will slow down on non essentials and that's never good. This whole policy was a known disaster right from the get go but for some strange reason people are reluctant to admit it.
Gary
There are other problems. I don't believe prices are that elastic. Even if a tariff is removed, there is still that product that was brought in under a higher cost for the manufacturer (or importer) and those cost still need to be recouped. My experience has been that once prices on discretionary items go up, they don't come down. Effectively, a higher price starts to look normal.
The other mind-numbing inanity is the on-again, off-again random nature of these tariffs. The only way a manufacturer can deal with that kind of uncertainty, and protect their share-holders is to simply raise prices to where they 'think' they will cover costs. A threat of a tariff is the same as a tariff and that implies that prices go up just because of uncertainty. Either way, consumers lose.
Tariffs can be effective tools to protect nascent industries (although the discussion of the extent of government in a 'free' market is never going to end), or to balance heavily subsidized foreign industries/agriculture, but this kind of, you know, broad brush, done on a whim, policy just doesn't seem well thought out.
ruthenium wrote:
Ronny, there are some significant differences. I believe you have Socialism in Sweden that requires the higher taxes and costs. In the United States, the higher costs are probably offset by the lower taxes, and there's no Socialism.
In Canada, we seem to have both the higher costs and taxes, and neither capitalism not socialism.
In socialism, the means of production are owned by the state; this is not largely the case in Sweden where 90% of industry is privately owned. While the US has lower taxes, the costs of living, health care, and education are much higher. The US government just bought 10% of Intel stock, didn't it, so ... hmm ... sounds a bit like move towards socialism right there.
Trump's tariffs toll
