End of cheap shipping from China? - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    So the new thing now is the US and the rest of the UPU members have reached a deal which will allow the US to set its own rates granted it contributes 40 million to the body's trust fund for pensions, etc. The US will not withdraw from the UPU like it originally gave intent to, but could mean that the rates will be much higher.

    "In response to a request for information about changes in cost, Peter Navarro sent CNBC an interview with longtime FedEx lobbyist Jim Campbell in which Campbell suggested US terminal dues would rise 125% to 180%. Other estimates, according to industry executives like Law, suggest terminal dues could rise up to 600%."

    Global postal group reaches deal to avoid US withdrawal

    According to the USPS, in 2013 they lost right at 80 mm from this.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    2,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1104
    Likes (Received)
    1141

    Default

    If memory serves it is anyone who receives more than 75,000 tons of out of country mail gets to set their own rates, not just the US.Yes, the price will go up. The details are an interesting read.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john.k View Post
    Chinese traders in a special export zone get free/heavily subsidised postage on container loads to export.
    That's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of - send containers through the mail.

    Of course, since a 40' container is about $2500 USD from China to the US, it would probaly not save much money but at least them Chinee could keep on exploiting the worldwide mail system.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    According to the USPS, in 2013 they lost right at 80 mm from this.
    Been a while since I looked at this but as I remember, the way the treaty is structured, each side charges locals what their own internal cost is, then the other side delivers internally for free. That's a gross generalization but ...

    What that means is, Chinese costs are so much lower than the US that people are picking on that to claim "Unfair !" Of course if the US had anything to mail back, then it would balance out. But since the US has nothing to offer and US costs are so ridiculous, it's one-sided.

    Maybe they should look into why US costs are so ridiculous. Anyone used UPS recently ? Jesus H Christ, those guys are insane. It's quintupled in just a few years. Post Office is a bit better but still, pretty high.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    467
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    239
    Likes (Received)
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    That's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of - send containers through the mail.

    Of course, since a 40' container is about $2500 USD from China to the US, it would probaly not save much money but at least them Chinee could keep on exploiting the worldwide mail system.
    You are saying fill the container with mail and then ship it? Lol

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    2325

    Default

    I think the big advantage China has over the US is that they don't have UPS and Fedex to rip them off over charges for getting items through customs at the other end.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Been a while since I looked at this but as I remember, the way the treaty is structured, each side charges locals what their own internal cost is, then the other side delivers internally for free. That's a gross generalization but ...

    What that means is, Chinese costs are so much lower than the US that people are picking on that to claim "Unfair !"
    Well if that is the case, it is unfair. Why should the US postal service only be reimbursed the Chinese postal service's costs? That would mean terminal dues are currently too low and do not reflect the true cost that the originating postal service is supposed to be reimbursing.

    The way I understood it is that the UPU's system is setup such that the developed nations pay more of the cost than developing countries, which is essentially a subsidy.

    Update: I just looked and apparently the way they calculate this is mostly not via a precise costing method like you mentioned. It's done via classifying the 192 members into five separate groups, where the method is "based on the value of their postal development indicator, determined as a weighted combination of the gross national income per capita (75%) and the normal average cost per letter (25%) estimated econometrically". From 2008: https://2009-2017.state.gov/document...ion/116468.pdf

    I couldn't access the file for classification off the UPU website, but a long article written in 2017 says the system currently has six groups, 1.1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

    "Group 1.1 includes the United States, Japan, Australia, and most of the world’s other developed economies, as well as most of the overseas territories belonging to Great Britain and France.

    Groups 1.2 and 2 apply the same terminal dues schedule for inbound and outbound letter post. Group 1.2 includes more recently advanced countries, such as Hong Kong and Singapore.

    Group 2 consists of countries with mid-size economies such as Cyprus, Hungary, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, and Saudi Arabia.

    Group 3 includes still emerging economies such as Argentina, Bosnia, Brazil, Chile, Jamaica, Gabon, Cuba, Kazakhstan, as well as the People’s Republic of China.

    Groups 4 and 5 apply the same terminal dues schedule for inbound and outbound letter post. These groups generally include least developed countries, but they also include countries with substantial economic potential such as Egypt, India, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, and Vietnam.
    "

    Crisis in the Mail: Fixing a Broken International Package System - by Arthur Herman

    That does seem a bit unfair to me...

    Apparently there are also some compliance/liability costs with respect to customs that are not incurred under this arrangement that are for goods and packages that are not covered. They talk about it in that long article, but it was also mentioned here when this all started...

    Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Homeland Security, Postmaster General, and Chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission | The White House

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,050
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3387
    Likes (Received)
    3592

    Default

    I thought it was through the UN.. if so it will go on still.


    But yes if the usps stops the will help.
    USPS is done subsidizing Chinese package shipping | TheHill

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    That does seem a bit unfair to me...
    I don't know if it's fair or not. It just happens to be the agreement everyone signed. Lots of things in life aren't fair but if you sign on the dotted line, then it's assumed you will stick to your word.

    If the US wants to leave that agreement, fine. But don't whine and cry when other people use it to their advantage.

    Shoulda gotta pre-nup. Didn't. Oh-oh

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    We renegotiated it, we didn't withdraw from the UPU. Sounds like a win to me.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    We renegotiated it, we didn't withdraw from the UPU. Sounds like a win to me.
    Fine and dandy. But people should knock it off with the "China is cheating !" shit. They were doing exactly what the treaty which the US signed said. That's not "cheating".

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,563
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    561
    Likes (Received)
    2705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Fine and dandy. But people should knock it off with the "China is cheating !" shit. They were doing exactly what the treaty which the US signed said. That's not "cheating".
    The part that's arguable in my mind is, China's continuing status as a 'developing country'. IMO it should be moved to the same class as the USA, UK, Australia et al.

    WRT USA postal costs and ripoffs by UPS et al, I quite agree. Got a quote the other day for something from Canada. Purchase price, $75 CAD. UPS freight to Australia, $240 CAD. For a Dickinson flue cap that has to mass less than 2 kg.

    No sale.

    PDW

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    I doubt it's 99.9%. Plenty of people like Wal-Mart, for example, who buy from China. The 800 dollar limit you're talking about is called de minimis value. For the EU, it's only 22 for VAT, but 150 EUR for customs duties. The US has nearly the highest duty-free de minimis in the world. Another thing the US could do trade-wise is lower it to 400, or even less.
    I wonder how much else you get wrong in your posts?

    You can start with "For the EU, it's only 22% for VAT, but 150 EUR for customs duties."

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I wonder how much else you get wrong in your posts?

    You can start with "For the EU, it's only 22% for VAT, but 150 EUR for customs duties."
    Here's where that came from:

    https://global-express.org/assets/fi...rch%202018.pdf

    Now I see - I thought all customs union members had the same rates but apparently not. Out of the 28 members, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Lithuania, and the UK have differing rates on VAT.

    VAT should be without the percentage sign - not sure why you added a percentage sign there. Idk why I included VAT there anyway - it has nothing to do with this as far as I can see.

    I don't have a problem admitting it when I get something wrong.

    You've shown that you do.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Fine and dandy. But people should knock it off with the "China is cheating !" shit. They were doing exactly what the treaty which the US signed said. That's not "cheating".
    True. Unfortunately, China wants to play both sides of the argument - they cry foul when the US starts wanting to treat them the same way they treat us. This example of the UPU framework is representative of a bunch of trade arrangements. The developed countries give concessions to everyone else just as in this example, with respect to tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and other measures.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    2325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    The part that's arguable in my mind is, China's continuing status as a 'developing country'. IMO it should be moved to the same class as the USA, UK, Australia et al.

    PDW
    Thing is, that whilst China has just under the GDP of the US, it's got 4.3 times the population. So it isn't all that rich on a per capita basis.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    2325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    VAT should be without the percentage sign - not sure why you added a percentage sign there. Idk why I included VAT there anyway - it has nothing to do with this as far as I can see.
    Since VAT is a percentage of price, it's always given as a percentage. Otherwise, your 22 (no percent) would be more correctly stated as 0.22.


  17. #37
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    Here's where that came from:

    https://global-express.org/assets/fi...rch%202018.pdf

    Now I see - I thought all customs union members had the same rates but apparently not. Out of the 28 members, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Lithuania, and the UK have differing rates on VAT.

    VAT should be without the percentage sign - not sure why you added a percentage sign there. Idk why I included VAT there anyway - it has nothing to do with this as far as I can see.

    I don't have a problem admitting it when I get something wrong.

    You've shown that you do.
    I thought as much. Most of the BS you post is what you get from internet links. Try posting now and then about what you know from personal experience.

    VAT isn't a special currency abbreviation, it's a percentage.

    Value Added Tax Rates (VAT) By Country – USCIB

    What is VAT? | Taxation and Customs Union


    "I don't have a problem admitting it when I get something wrong."

    That helps explain why you write so many posts

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    Since VAT is a percentage of price, it's always given as a percentage. Otherwise, your 22 (no percent) would be more correctly stated as 0.22.

    Click on the link - it is not in percentage. It's 22 EUR for most of the countries. We are talking about de minimis value, not the tax rates. So I don't know why he added a percentage sign to what I said.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I thought as much. Most of the BS you post is what you get from internet links. Try posting now and then about what you know from personal experience.
    You mean like the Turkey-EU funding thing you got wrong? There's others. Do you want me to go get them now? Will you admit this time you were wrong, and also not mention those things anymore since you don't have personal experience? Btw, I thought you had me on ignore.

  20. Likes barbter liked this post
  21. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    2325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    Click on the link - it is not in percentage. It's 22 EUR for most of the countries. We are talking about de minimis value, not the tax rates. So I don't know why he added a percentage sign to what I said.
    Mea Culpa. Should have tracked back to Mattij's post. VAT free threshold €22 Duty free threshold €150. Oops,

    Sorry, blood sugar was low.

    And, yes, you chaps have a pretty high de minimis value for incoming stuff!


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •