Shoe Industry Wants to Boot Import Tax

Recs

0

Footwear makers and retailers are trying to stomp out a Depression-era U.S. government shoe tax, a move they say could save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars annually and kick-start relatively flat footwear sales.

Trade associations and their members, such as Payless ShoeSource, Nike Inc., and Columbia Sportswear Co., have been lobbying U.S. lawmakers weekly since the summer to get them to exempt certain categories of footwear _ including all children's shoes _ from the import tariffs that can run as high as 67.5 percent a pair.

The groups created a Web site_ EndtheShoeTax.org _ to raise awareness and encourage constituents to tell their lawmakers, via an e-mail prompt on the site, to pass the Affordable Footwear Act of 2007.

While the matter appears to have widespread industry support, its relative obscurity and low-level priority make passage of the bill anything but a shoe-in, several supporters say.

Imposed in the 1930s, the tariffs were designed to protect a domestic manufacturing industry from cheap imports. But that industry has largely disappeared over the past 20 years, as manufacturing overseas has become easier and cheaper.

"It's an anachronism," Peter T. Mangione, president of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, said of the tariffs. "It's just completely out of sync with what we need today."

Of the 2.4 billion pairs of shoes Americans bought in 2006, nearly 99 percent were made overseas, mostly in China, according to the American Apparel & Footwear Association.

U.S. shoe tariffs are among the highest in the world, compared with the European Union's 17 percent, Japan's 10 percent or Chile's six percent duties, according to the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.

Even those last-standing domestic shoemakers, represented by the Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association, and some companies, including privately held New Balance, which makes 25 percent of its products in the United States, support the bill.

"For the first time ever, we've got a united footwear industry," said Brad Figel, global director of government affairs for Beaverton, Ore.-based Nike.

By framing the issue as tax relief for consumers, the trade groups say it's gained a bipartisan foothold in Congress.

Reps. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., and Kevin Brady, R-Texas, on Oct. 23 introduced a House bill that repeals duties on certain footwear. It now has 61 co-sponsors. Senators Gordon Smith, R-Ore., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., introduced companion legislation in the Senate before Thanksgiving.

The proposed legislation won't repeal the duties entirely, but would eliminate some $800 million paid annually to the U.S. Treasury, which collected nearly $2 billion in 2006 just from shoe-import duties.

Any savings is significant, tariff critics say, because the biggest dent would be in low-cost footwear and all children's shoes _ items most likely on the shopping list of lower-income families.

Kevin Burke, president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, said, as an example, a high-end casual leather men's boat shoe that sells for $189.95, includes a 6.9 percent duty, or $13.13. But a pair of canvas casual shoe for a young girl, priced at $14.99, contains a 28.8 percent duty, or $4.32.

"That's ridiculous," said Burke, whose group spent $432,000 lobbying in the first six months this year on tariff legislation, according to a Senate disclosure form.

Crowley, who said the House Ways and Means Committee will likely hold a hearing on the matter early next year, said dealing with lost government revenue could become a problem, but added that savings to consumers could boost footwear sales.

"That in and of itself could help toward offsetting some of the loss that will be derived from the elimination of the tariffs," he said.

The shoe bill will likely be tied into a typically "contentious" general tax or trade bill _ a pairing that could jeopardize its chances "even if this particular issue has no particular enemies," said Ed Gresser, Progressive Policy Institute's trade policy director.

The industry hopes the bill will be approved by the spring.

The $55 billion footwear industry is betting that lowering costs could help boost shoe sales, although many said it's too early to tell whether that would actually happen.

Matt Rubel, chief executive and president of Topeka, Kan.-based Collective Brands Inc., the holding company for the Stride Rite Corp., and Payless ShoeSource said the footwear market up until this year has "shown very, very moderate to slow growth," and doesn't show signs of picking up the pace.

Stopping short of hailing the repeal as an instant revenue booster for the industry, Rubel did say the savings for families with children would be significant.

"Why do we want to tax these people?" he asked.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 07, 2009, at 11:30 PM, TERRIUSA wrote:

    Abolish tarrifs? We need to increase them the more so it will cost more to manufactured shoes offshore so companies will come back and reinvest in our workforce. We do not need cheap imports we need American made quality that supports high paying jobs that in turn will poored money into American families so we can have a stronger economy and support the middle class.

    These companies does not want ot save the consumer money they just want to make a larger profit. The 99% of the shoes that were purchased should have been made here not by sweat shops in China, then they would not have to pay the import taxes. The taxes on thesse shoes need to go toward paying off our nations deficiet. If they do not want ot pay import taxes then they need buy American made shoes. Lastly I do not want ot pay taxes either, yet I do not have a choice, neither should corporate America.

    All these firm want to pay no taxes and no to decrease the prices of the shoes yet keep the savings for them selves, like they do by buyinh the cheap imports that supporting their own country.

    There would not be low income families if they would support domestic manufacturing rather than causing Americans to lose their jobs to cheap Chinease labor.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 551873, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/22/2009 5:43:38 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
An Open Letter to the Federal Reserve

Related Tickers

11/20/2009 4:00 PM
NKE $63.92 Up +0.36 +0.57%
Nike, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****
PSS $20.12 Down -0.09 -0.45%
Collective Brands… CAPS Rating: **
COLM $38.45 Down -0.80 -2.04%
Columbia Sportswea… CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Put: A put is an options contract that gives the holder the right, but not the obligation, to sell the underlying asset at a specified price on or before a specified date.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!