TPP could cut $4.1 million in taxes on Alaska employers over five years

Posted on by Dan Anthony

According to new research on Alaska’s imports from the so-called “new TPP” countries not covered by existing free trade agreements (i.e., Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam), the TPP would cut import taxes paid by Alaska employers dramatically. These benefits come in addition to opening new markets for exports and modernizing outdated rules.

How much could Alaska employers save? In 2015, imports into Alaska from new TPP countries faced an estimated $842,000 in tariffs (i.e., taxes). TPP could eliminate 98 percent of these taxes by year five, saving as much as $4.1 million over that period, as shown in the graph below.

tpp_state_alaska_cuts

What types of products would be impacted? Imports into Alaska are a mix of raw materials and components used by American manufacturers and finished goods sold directly to American families. Clearly, not all the tariffs go away: many imports are subject to phase-outs and tariffs would remain in place for up to 30 years on certain sensitive items. The box below highlights select imports into Alaska whose import taxes would fall to zero upon implementation of TPP.

tpp_state_alaska_products

Looking for more information? Please use the links below to:

If you would benefit from TPP and want Congress to pass it this year, please click here to add you name to the free TPP importers list now.

New interactive map shows potential import benefits from TPP by state

Posted on by Dan Anthony

Today we launched a new interactive map featuring first-of-its-kind research on the potential impacts of US tariff cuts under TPP for employers in all states.

The research is unique in several ways. First, it quantifies estimated tariffs paid on import from the so-called “new TPP” countries (i.e., Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam). Second, it uses the proposed US tariff reductions to show how those taxes could be reduced for employers in every state over the first five years of TPP implementation. Third, the research provides multiple examples of specific products imported into each state of products whose tariffs would be eliminated immediately upon implementation (e.g., Alabama’s imports of textile finishing dyes from Japan or Michigan’s imports of mufflers from Malaysia).

The interactive map highlights the top-line data for each state in terms of import taxes paid and potential tax cuts. For example, employers importing into Kentucky from new TPP countries paid an estimated $117 million in import taxes in 2015. If TPP were in effect, tariffs on those same products would be reduced by 90 percent by year five, potential saving Kentucky employers over $500 million along the way.tpp_state_imports_map

tpp_state_imports_kentuckyIn addition to the “fast facts,” clicking on the map also provides an option to download the corresponding one-page fact sheet for each state (pictured). The fact sheets include addition details, such as how the tariffs paid would fall over time, the list of key products eligible for duty-free treatment, and the top sources for products currently facing import taxes.

Using Kentucky again: most tariffs would be eliminated immediately and the majority of tariffs paid are on imports from Japan. Numerous raw materials and components used by American manufacturers – such as metal-working machinery from New Zealand, wiring sets (auto parts) from Vietnam, and rubber gaskets from Malaysia – are among the Kentucky imports that would go duty-free immediately.

Perhaps surprisingly to many, there is tremendous variation between the states – and those differences are not just based on import volumes. For example, while more than 95 percent of imports into Alaska and West Virginia could be duty free by year 5, just 28 percent of imports into Hawaii could be eligible. we’ll be publishing several blog posts daily for the rest of the month to highlight some of the research for each state.

 

Benefits of trade, and TPP specifically, are often concentrated in unexpected places

Posted on by Dan Anthony

Diffuse benefits and concentrated losses. Those two characteristics supposedly make free trade hard to defend. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), one of the most vocal supporters of trade generally and TPP specifically, made that point in a Politico article last week.

Yet the benefits of trade – or potential benefits from changes in trade policy – often are very concentrated in unexpected places. Looking at which states import specific products from TPP countries, and how TPP would impact tariffs on those products, shows how.

Take U.S. imports of arc-welding equipment from New Zealand. These products faced about $53,000 in tariffs in 2015, which the TPP would eliminate immediately. It is hard to imagine hundreds of arc-welding equipment importers across the United States rallying for TPP to save a few hundred dollars each (i.e., if the benefits are diffuse).

However, 100% of U.S. imports of those products last year went to Colorado. Based on this, it seems likely that a single company would benefit from TPP tariff cuts on arc-welding equipment from New Zealand, and that the company is located in Colorado. This example is hardly unique.

Nearly all states are the dominant importer of at least one product that stands to benefit from significant tariff cuts under TPP (see table below). In 2015, U.S. imports of fishing nets from Japan went exclusively to Alaska ($70,000 in tariffs paid), while plastic toilet seats from Malaysia went to Georgia ($800,000 in tariffs paid), and wool fabrics from Vietnam went to Vermont ($100,000 in tariffs paid). Less surprisingly, nearly all mufflers and exhaust parts from Malaysia went to Michigan ($250,000 in tariffs paid). As the Alaska and Vermont examples show, even small states are often the top beneficiaries for specific products.

All of the imports above would become duty-free immediately under TPP. Unlike the diffuse benefits case, it is easy to understand the motivation for sole-importers of products facing $50,000 or $100,000 or even $800,000 annually to support TPP.

So why aren’t they? Many – in particular small businesses – appear unaware of the potential benefits of TPP. They lack of time to pore through a 5,000-page document in search of the two to three lines impacting their business (in an agreement that may not even come up for a vote). Perhaps just as importantly, the resources dedicated to educating exporters about potential TPP benefits simply do not exist on the importer side.

At least as it relates to engaging importers in support of TPP, it appears that lack of education may be a bigger problem than a lack of concentrated benefits.

The table below shows an example of U.S. imports from TPP countries that are concentrated in each state, along with the estimated tariffs paid on those imports into that state and how TPP would lower those tariffs. 

tpp_unique_products