145% isn’t even accurate because that’s just on the cost of the good. You then have to figure in retailer margin, seller margin etc. Most MSRPs will be 300% of what they were to keep those the same as before.
BS If an item costs an extra $100 to put on a shelf, the retailer will still want to cover the costs of obtaining and spending that $100. No-one is going to use funds commercially, for free. WTF do you think retailers will be good keeping the same profit, numerically, whilst spending 145% more for it?
I always wonder what compels some people to make so little effort to understand what they are replying to, but make so much effort in proving they have no idea what they are replying to. Can you explain?
Obviously, you already know the answer.
Personally, I’ve always laughed at people who posit questions that they already know the answer to. Faux Intelligentsia.
At the border you pay tariffs on all the costs up to that point, because they are all considered to be part of the value of the shipment as it crosses the border. So the price of good, plus the price of packaging (as far as it was packaged in China), plus the price of the freight shipping are tariffed together, which makes the result of the calculation a little worse, but fundamentally you’re right.
Yes, then you only pay tariff for the powder, for the big jar, and the transpacific shipping of the big jar. That’s what I meant by “as far as it was packaged in China”.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. But especially to say that the bulk powder from China can be incredibly cheap, so for a lot of goods the 20$ bottle won’t be affected that much by tariffs even if they’re at 150%. It’s the type of thing with a lot of goods where you can look it up and the bulk amount is cheap but then you have to deal with an entire pallet of something you only need like 5 times ever. So buying the small relatively expensive bottle is still better, and with a wild guess it could only be like 1-4 dollars per bottle more.
145% isn’t even accurate because that’s just on the cost of the good. You then have to figure in retailer margin, seller margin etc. Most MSRPs will be 300% of what they were to keep those the same as before.
Not really. If they keep the same % based on what it costs them, then it should increase by the same amount.
If they instead get the same amount (which would effectively mean reduce their margins) the final cost would be a bit less.
Happy to be corrected with some numerical example.
So if you see any price increase greater than the tariff amount, it’s plain corporate greed.
BS If an item costs an extra $100 to put on a shelf, the retailer will still want to cover the costs of obtaining and spending that $100. No-one is going to use funds commercially, for free. WTF do you think retailers will be good keeping the same profit, numerically, whilst spending 145% more for it?
I always wonder what compels some people to make so little effort to understand what they are replying to, but make so much effort in proving they have no idea what they are replying to. Can you explain?
Obviously, you already know the answer.
Personally, I’ve always laughed at people who posit questions that they already know the answer to. Faux Intelligentsia.
Less if anything.
You buy something from China for $100. Add packing, staff costs and delivery and you sell it retail for say $200. A nice healthy profit margin.
Now you add the 145%, so it costs $245 from China. None of the rest of it will cost you more. Still an extra $100, for $345 total.
The retail customer pays an extra (345/200=) 72.5% instead.
It’s a lot, but not 145%.
So if your retail price goes up by 145% or more, they either weren’t making a lot of profit before, or they’re greedy bastards.
At the border you pay tariffs on all the costs up to that point, because they are all considered to be part of the value of the shipment as it crosses the border. So the price of good, plus the price of packaging (as far as it was packaged in China), plus the price of the freight shipping are tariffed together, which makes the result of the calculation a little worse, but fundamentally you’re right.
It depends on if it is something like a powder that comes raw in a 200 lb jar and you package it yourself into small containers.
Yes, then you only pay tariff for the powder, for the big jar, and the transpacific shipping of the big jar. That’s what I meant by “as far as it was packaged in China”.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. But especially to say that the bulk powder from China can be incredibly cheap, so for a lot of goods the 20$ bottle won’t be affected that much by tariffs even if they’re at 150%. It’s the type of thing with a lot of goods where you can look it up and the bulk amount is cheap but then you have to deal with an entire pallet of something you only need like 5 times ever. So buying the small relatively expensive bottle is still better, and with a wild guess it could only be like 1-4 dollars per bottle more.
I think “corporate greed” is a good explanation for pretty much all our problems.
Given the effect on the climate due to pollution, even rain or lack of can be explained by corporate greed