Originally posted by coreying
View Post
Either way, they'd be a tiny percentage of the value of the car, and I have sought to cover such costs with "shipping and haulage", but a few hundred duty-free dollars either way on a $40k car is not going to have a significant effect on the figures overall.
Originally posted by coreying
View Post
I also accepted your advice that duty was based on the net factory price and added into my assumptions some extra non-dutiable costs an importer might incur - but the error for these costs could be 100% and it would still not have a huge impact on the percentage reduction that should flow through to the list price.
But until this post, you have not provided any facts either, just baloney about a bunch of irrelevant costs. And even now, all you've done is provide some links without distilling the relevant facts. The Customs link does confirm that duty is paid on the factory price, as I expected it would.
Originally posted by coreying
View Post
But the Drive quote does refer somewhat ambiguously to the tariff being paid on the "wholesale price" which is not entirely consistent with what you said in your post about tariffs being based on the ex-factory price and what Customs says in its Guide to the Valuation of Imported Road Vehicles about duty being paid on the ex-factory price, not the wholesale price, but Drive is probably more ambiguous than wrong.
But the wholesale price is what dealers pay and the factory price is what the importer pays. Do you still have as much faith in Drive (and the press)?
Originally posted by coreying
View Post
For your part, you (and Maverick) read an article about how Mazda reduced their retail prices by 3% in response to the tariff cut and tout that as evidence that 3% is the most that an importer can pass on by way of cuts to the list price.
You then tried to explain why a 5% drop in the tariff rate could not possibly translate to a similar drop in the list price.
For my part, I rebutted your fallacious arguments (mainly about dealer overheads), used some realistic assumptions and applied basic cost accounting principles, to show the contrary view that most of the 4.55% reduction in the landed factory cost could reasonably be expected to flow through to the RRP unless it had already been factored in or the importer was going take a bigger share of the pie - and boo-hoo, you did not like it. I showed how after taking out non-dutiable variable costs such as shipping etc, the percentage benefit of the tariff reduction remained a constant as importer and retailer margins and GST were added.
If you believe everything you read in the press or, worse, misinterpret it, or read more than is there, you do everyone on this forum a disservice when you cite that article and Mazda's actions as authority for the proposition that a 5% reduction in tariff level translates to at most 3% off RRP (before ORCs) and then make up porkies to explain this outcome. As it turned out, Mazda's 3% price reduction aligned perfectly with the percentage you'd expect if an importer passed on the dollar saving but not the percentage saving, and this, coincidentally or not, was reflected in my numbers.
I much prefer to start with the facts, or in their absence some reasonable assumptions, and see what the result is, rather than make up "facts" to justify or explain a particular outcome.
If the non-dutiable assumptions in my example are half right, it shows a percentage reduction in list price in the order of 4.3% is feasible (that percentage being constant once non-dutiable costs have been accounted for).
Naturally, if anyone has an accurate bill of costs a car importer incurs I'd be happy to update the figures.
Comment