Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: PugetSoundSoldier
So your solution is to increase tariffs, rather than increase the docking, transport, and processing fees the port charges, is that correct?

I have no idea where you got that.

I am for charging those who receive the direct benefit with the cost of foreign imports. I do not favor subsidizing imports.

270 posted on 05/11/2009 2:09:33 PM PDT by calcowgirl (RECALL Abel Maldonado! - NO on Props 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies ]


To: calcowgirl
Well, your main contention is that:

I am wondering why you choose to increase tariffs rather than docking fees. If you increase tariffs, then shippers who use the ports around LA will pay more money for the costs you say they are creating; but so will shippers who use the ports of Washington and Oregon and Louisiana and Texas, where they may not have those costs to the same degree you see in California!

Essentially, you are forcing ALL ports to increase the charge on incoming product, regardless of the need of those ports to raise additional capital.

So, if your issue really is the infrastructure costs created by shipping, then wouldn't it be logical to simply increase the fees at a given port to cover the costs of that port? Rather than force ALL ports and states to increase their costs, regardless of the need to do so?

274 posted on 05/11/2009 2:14:29 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson