How tariff policy can hurt the poor

People working to alleviate poverty should pay attention to something they may not be used to following: tariff policy

Melanie Stetson Freeman / Staff / File
Lori Lobenstine, founder of Female Sneaker Fiend, has 50 sneakers in her own collection at her home in Boston, Mass., as shown in this Sept. 26, 2006 file photo. The US Outdoor Act, which was introduced in the Senate earlier this year, would eliminate the tariff on certain items like shoes. Such a change in law could help people with low incomes.

As someone who spends her time thinking about how taxes affect low-income families – and ways to make it more rational – I can’t say that I’ve ever gotten my feathers in a ruffle over tariff policy. Why bother, I suppose, when there are so many opportunities for reform in the income tax system?

Apparently, this was a mistake. A recent analysis from Edward Gresser, director of the Progressive Economy project at the GlobalWorks Foundation, shows that some aspects of tariff policy seem misguided in ways that could hurt the poor. Surprisingly, while the tariff on leather dress shoes is 8.5 percent, for trail running shoes it’s 20 percent and for cheap sneakers 48 percent. A cashmere sweater faces a 4 percent tariff, while its wool cousin gets hit with a 17 percent tariff. For their second-cousin, the acrylic sweater, make that 32 percent. All in all, Gresser points out multiple categories of goods that a typical low-income family buys that face higher tariff rates than similar goods designed for higher income families.

Tariff policy joins payroll and excise taxes in imposing a larger burden on lower income families than it does on higher income families. And perhaps that’s why advocates for low-income families ought to take note of them.

Gresser calculates that a typical single-parent faces annual tariffs, hidden in the price of goods, of almost $400 a year. This goes against such policies as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, both of which aim to assist low-income families. Here, one tax policy conflicts with another. In effect, tariffs can claw back a substantial amount of a single parent’s EITC, effectively undermining the EITC’s goal of supplementing wage income.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is trying to kick-start that discussion with the U.S. OUTDOOR Act. Introduced earlier this year in the Senate, the bill would scrap tariffs on shoes, sneakers, hiking shoes and several types of outdoor clothing – products not often made in the United States, but taxed through the tariff system at rates of 20 to 60 percent. That should reduce prices on these goods for consumers.

Poverty policy wonks haven’t thought much about tariffs in recent decades, but these burdens on low-income families ought to be in the mix when tax reform finally percolates to the top of the agenda.

Add/view comments on this post.


The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.

of 5 stories this month > Get unlimited stories
You've read 5 of 5 free stories

Only $1 for your first month.

Get unlimited Monitor journalism.