NationStates Jolt Archive

A little while ago, I bought a few things for my computer from the US. As they went through the border at customs, a tax was applied to them, and when I received them, I had to pay that tax. At first I didn't know what the charge was for, so I asked the person at the post office, and they told me. Then I began to wonder "what about NAFTA? Doesn't taxing something as it crosses the border completely contradict it? Doesn't it fly in the face of free trade and the spirit of competition? It gived domestic manufacturers and retailers a huge unfair advantage over international ones, and isn't that exactly what NAFTA was put in place to prevent? What is going on here? What purpose does NAFTA serve if goods can be taxed as they cross the border anyway? And why is such taxation even allowed in the first place?

You don't specify what kind of tax it was. NAFTA does away with customs taxes and tariffs, but you still have to pay federal and provincial consumer tax. Also the taxes weren't cut immediately, but gradually. It may be that computer stuff is still being taxed. I think 2009 is the year when nothing is taxes anymore.

It wasn't pst or gst/hst. It was some kind of customs tax. Also, looking at the wikipedia article, taxes on computers were some of the first to go.

It wasn't pst or gst/hst. It was some kind of customs tax. Also, looking at the wikipedia article, taxes on computers were some of the first to go.
Did you get a receipt? Maybe it says there.

Just another reason to disband the NAFTA agreement

Just another reason to disband the NAFTA agreement
You say this as a protectionist capitalist or as a socialist?

A little while ago, I bought a few things for my computer from the US. As they went through the border at customs, a tax was applied to them, and when I received them, I had to pay that tax. At first I didn't know what the charge was for, so I asked the person at the post office, and they told me. Then I began to wonder "what about NAFTA? Doesn't taxing something as it crosses the border completely contradict it? Doesn't it fly in the face of free trade and the spirit of competition? It gived domestic manufacturers and retailers a huge unfair advantage over international ones, and isn't that exactly what NAFTA was put in place to prevent? What is going on here? What purpose does NAFTA serve if goods can be taxed as they cross the border anyway? And why is such taxation even allowed in the first place?

I deal with NAFTA laws every day. You need to read the laws pertaining to it. The law was properly applied in your case, as it is in every case where you buy something in a country other than your country of origin, when you could have bought it there. It's wordy, but it is not hard to understand.

Just another reason to disband the NAFTA agreement

...of course the biggest reason is that NAFTA has cost the USA over 4 million manufacturing jobs since its inception.

I deal with NAFTA laws every day. You need to read the laws pertaining to it. The law was properly applied in your case, as it is in every case where you buy something in a country other than your country of origin, when you could have bought it there. It's wordy, but it is not hard to understand.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would please enlighten me. The agreement is quite long, and I don't even know where to begin to look.

...of course the biggest reason is that NAFTA has cost the USA over 4 million manufacturing jobs since its inception.
While at the same time increasing the total value of exported goods. Could it be that the US workers are becoming :shock horror: more productive?

You say this as a protectionist capitalist or as a socialist?
I'm a staunch free-trader and I favour at least radically reworking NAFTA so there is some accountability to it.

While at the same time increasing the total value of exported goods. Could it be that the US workers are becoming :shock horror: more productive?

No it couldn't. It is well documented and even acknowledged that NAFTA has cost far more jobs than promised and raised barriers to entry to all but established mega corporations. It has in fact lived up to none of the promises made when first thrust upon us.

Ok, rather than arguing about NAFTA, can someone please just answer my question? If you want to debate about it, start your own thread.

No it couldn't. It is well documented and even acknowledged that NAFTA has cost far more jobs than promised and raised barriers to entry to all but established mega corporations. It has in fact lived up to none of the promises made when first thrust upon us.
Really? Only NAFTA, eh? Look at the figures in unemployment, total exports, and trade between NAFTA partners for the first eight years of the treaty. The US Department of Commerce has them.
Then look at the next years. Clearly there's someting more at play there. Go on, take a look at those numbers and then give me your opinion.

I'm a staunch free-trader and I favour at least radically reworking NAFTA so there is some accountability to it.
Original (ish).

...of course the biggest reason is that NAFTA has cost the USA over 4 million manufacturing jobs since its inception.

Surely that's a good reason for it to exist! If they are found to be less productive than others then they should be laid off. That's the free market mate.

Could someone please answer my question?

A little while ago, I bought a few things for my computer from the US. As they went through the border at customs, a tax was applied to them, and when I received them, I had to pay that tax. At first I didn't know what the charge was for, so I asked the person at the post office, and they told me. Then I began to wonder "what about NAFTA? Doesn't taxing something as it crosses the border completely contradict it?
Which border were they taxed at? The US border or the border of your country? And evidently what country did you import the goods to?

Doesn't it fly in the face of free trade and the spirit of competition?
Mmm, well it depends.

It gived domestic manufacturers and retailers a huge unfair advantage over international ones, and isn't that exactly what NAFTA was put in place to prevent? What is going on here? What purpose does NAFTA serve if goods can be taxed as they cross the border anyway? And why is such taxation even allowed in the first place?
Such taxation (duty) has been traditionally charged for a long time for various historical/political/economic reasons. NAFTA is not a 'free trade with everyone' agreement so far as I know. Countries tend to have tarriffs that they apply according to what is being imported, or where it has come from, or both. Also some taxes might be charged when goods arrive in the country, that are charged on the goods of domestic manufacturers and retailers.

It's not easy to even attempt to answer your question about why you got charged a particular tax or duty, unless you can clarify where the charge was incurred (leaving the US or entering your country) and what country you imported the goods to.

Which border were they taxed at? The US border or the border of your country? And evidently what country did you import the goods to?


Mmm, well it depends.


Such taxation (duty) has been traditionally charged for a long time for various historical/political/economic reasons. NAFTA is not a 'free trade with everyone' agreement so far as I know. Countries tend to have tarriffs that they apply according to what is being imported, or where it has come from, or both. Also some taxes might be charged when goods arrive in the country, that are charged on the goods of domestic manufacturers and retailers.

It's not easy to even attempt to answer your question about why you got charged a particular tax or duty, unless you can clarify where the charge was incurred (leaving the US or entering your country) and what country you imported the goods to.
I am from Canada. It left the US and entered Canada at the same time. The tax was charged on this side of the border.
I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm from a country which is a member of NAFTA. It would have been a pretty damn stupid question if I wasn't.

I am from Canada. It left the US and entered Canada at the same time. The tax was charged on this side of the border.
Well yes, but whether or not that is the case in 'real-time/real-life' for the purposes of crossing border, they are two seperate incidences.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm from a country which is a member of NAFTA. It would have been a pretty damn stupid question if I wasn't.
Well I dont think I suggested your country wasnt a member, but so's Mexico.

Regarding your question, some computer stuff would probably not incur a duty, however for some computer stuff there will be a duty; probably between 3.7 and 3.9%.

...of course the biggest reason is that NAFTA has cost the USA over 4 million manufacturing jobs since its inception.
Which is because they weren't as efficient as they were in Mexico or Canada (where the people can actually read...remember the Toyota Story?).
Surely you don't advocate the nanny-state helping lazy people.

The point is that NAFTA is a joke, requiring other nations to open their markets to the US, yet the US as always doesn't do this.
I can pretty much guarantee you that you would get a lot more out of the agreement if you would adhere to it.

...of course the biggest reason is that NAFTA has cost the USA over 4 million manufacturing jobs since its inception.

But at the same time the US has gained over 25 million private sector jobs, including millions in higher paying information and finance sectors. Outsourcing manufacturing lowers prices and increases productivity; we wouldn't be losing these jobs if our workforce wasn't overpaid and underqualified. It's competition.

Regarding your question, some computer stuff would probably not incur a duty, however for some computer stuff there will be a duty; probably between 3.7 and 3.9%.
Well, what they charged was closer to about 25%... Pretty fucking ridiculous.

Well, what they charged was closer to about 25%... Pretty fucking ridiculous.
That's too much. Were your parts made in China?

Well, what they charged was closer to about 25%... Pretty fucking ridiculous.
Mmm, are you certain the goods you purchassed were actually US goods for the purposes of duty? Could the goods have originated elsewhere before you purchased them?

Mmm, are you certain the goods you purchassed were actually US goods for the purposes of duty? Could the goods have originated elsewhere before you purchased them?
Does it bloody well matter?
I hate all this protectionism. I mean, some imports (like Steel) are taxed on entry - and the money goes directly (that is 1:1) to US Steel Manufacturers!
Free Trade my arse.

Does it bloody well matter?

For the purposes of working out any duty on importation into Canada, yes it does matter.

Does it bloody well matter?

Goods manufactured outside the free trade area are not protected by the free trade agreement.

I mean on "principle". Protectionism in general is inexcusable, no matter where it's being done.

I mean on "principle". Protectionism in general is inexcusable, no matter where it's being done.
Ok, to avoid confusion you probably should have stated as much since in the context in which you posted, the effect was you were asking whether or not the place goods originated from matter when calculating the amount of duty charged as per a trade agreement based on where goods originate from...

Ok, to avoid confusion you probably should have stated as much since in the context in which you posted, the effect was you were asking whether or not the place goods originated from matter when calculating the amount of duty charged as per a trade agreement based on where goods originate from...
That oughta clear things up. :D

The goods I bought came directly from the United States, not from somewhere else through there. A 25% tarriff is pretty bad for something that should be covered under NAFTA.

The goods I bought came directly from the United States, not from somewhere else through there. A 25% tarriff is pretty bad for something that should be covered under NAFTA.
But where were they manufactured?

The goods I bought came directly from the United States, not from somewhere else through there. A 25% tarriff is pretty bad for something that should be covered under NAFTA.
If you are absolutely certain and know for a fact that the goods originated in the US, then it seems odd. :confused:

Do you have the reciept (of the duty you were charged), if so what are the particulars (ie are the charges given some descriptive designation)?

What did you actually have brought in (ie what goods and who is the supplier, brand, manufacturer etc)?