U.S. Small Biz Can't Ship to the EU Anymore

aalsetmusic about 4 hours ago 41 commentsRead Article on glog.glennf.com

HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

44% Positive

Analyzed from 1394 words in the discussion.

Discussion (41 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

t0mpr1c3•about 2 hours ago

I used to manufacture specialized consumer electronics in Shenzhen and sell them worldwide through Etsy. When Britain left the EU I stopped shipping to the UK rather than deal with VAT. I eventually stopped shipping outside the US altogether because shipping and administrative costs ate all the profit. When tariffs on Chinese goods went over 100% in 2024 I packed it in altogether. Bye bye side gig. The demand is still there. Maybe in 10 years I'll pick it up again.

gammalost•about 3 hours ago

I get that it is a shame for you personally. Despite this I think high processing fees are good. First of all, it addresses the issue of people in the EU importing things we really do not need. Secondly, if it is something you really want then it can be imported at a noticible (but managable) premium. If the set of die are special, then paying 3 (or even 10) euro extra would, in my opinion, be fine

Pragmata•about 2 hours ago

>First of all, it addresses the issue of people in the EU importing things we really do not need.

What right do you have to tell me what i do or do not need?

What an absolutely evil stance to have.

gammalost•about 1 hour ago

I want to reduce the amount of trash being shipped straight from China to our landfills. And yes, that will come at the expense of some things. Is that evil? In my opinion it is a necessary solution to a problem

bromuro•about 1 hour ago

I think you are missing the big picture. The ones importing “trash” (as you call it) in relevant quantities are bigger businesses and companies.

qubex•about 1 hour ago

No right at all, nor do I, and indeed nobody is asserting or exerting that right: market forces will adjust prices accordingly in order to ensure that customers will be able to make purchases at the market rate (through reshipping companies, for example).

ragall•about 1 hour ago

He has he right, as I do, as you do, the same right as any other citizen.

tygon•about 1 hour ago

You can feel how you wish. Few dispute one should be free to express themselves in a way that does not impact others. You can do whatever you want in your own head. It is when your views butt against others that issues inevitably arise.

xnx•about 2 hours ago

> it addresses the issue of people in the EU importing things we really do not need.

How do you determine what someone does not really need?

guywithahat•about 2 hours ago

The determining factor seems to be if customers are willing to pay more for it. I can only imagine in time they’ll find rich people need many things, while the poor could have done without all along. Who knew

gammalost•about 2 hours ago

Well yeah that's classic wealth inequality for you. A fee for import can only fix part of the problem.

Are you arguing for a cap on the amount of stuff a private individual can import instead of a fee? I suppose it would be a bit more invasive, but it could work and be more equal.

iamnothere•about 2 hours ago

“Democracy” — the same way they decide what you don’t need to say or think.

gammalost•about 2 hours ago

Well we (as private consumers) need things such as: food, clothes, entertainment, a place to live, energy.

Things we do not need: kickstarter passion projects, temu trash, a very cool custom built split keyboard that broke after a few days. I'm not against the idea of small scale importing, I bought the super cool split keyboard afterall. But the unnecesary pleasures of life are a sometimes thing and deserves to be treated as such

xnx•about 1 hour ago

Who is to judge "needs" from "unnecessary pleasures"? EU bureaucrats?

graemep•about 1 hour ago

Why do you need entertsinment? Make your own. I think commercial entertainment us harmful to society as it competes with community involement for people's time. Passion projects are good for personal fulfilment and innovation.

Basic food and shelter are necessities. Luxuries are not. You can survive in a hut eating gruel. I known nudists who think we would be better off without clothes.

vrganj•about 2 hours ago

I think in general, the 3 euro thing is fine. However, it seems like there should be exceptions.

I like to do some electronics as a hobby and learning project. I was gonna try to build a thing to make my old timey doorbell intercom smart with an esp32, an audio codec and a circuit to safely read the signals.

Lots of cheap little parts I would usually get on Aliexpress. A lot of them around 50 cents or so. Now, each of them has a 3 euro fee added to it. The cost of this project would go from like 25 to like 75 euros. That seems super unacceptable to me and like it discourages experimenting with electronics, and with that a type of innovation Europe should try to encourage instead.

probably_wrong•about 2 hours ago

It is my understanding that you pay per product category. If you get all your electronics in one sending then you pay only 3€ total and not per part.

spwa4•about 2 hours ago

Then why does it not apply to large companies? (if you can maintain stock inside the EU, and due to shipping charges you need like 7 locations, you can avoid to pay most of these fees, so they do not apply to Apple for example)

veeti•about 3 hours ago

These fees were sucessfully lobbied in the media as a "Temu tax", and even reputable state broadcasters continue to refer to it as a "junk fee". However, it applies indiscriminately to everything from a decades old vintage book purchased from the UK, or spare parts to restore electronics ordered from Japan.

graemep•about 2 hours ago

Its a barrier to competition (what people here like to call a moat) that favours big business and mainstream products over small business and niche products.

torlok•about 2 hours ago

The EU closed a tax loophole, and I'm happy to support small local businesses over people shipping things from overseas. I'm sure there are edge cases, but overall I don't see an issue here.

thehappypm•about 4 hours ago

This is not a tariff issue, unbelievably, but one about reducing competition.

I’m not sure I’m following the argument here, because tariffs are all about protectionism, which is a form of reducing external competition

Arodex•about 1 hour ago

It is not a tariff issue because there are no tariffs.

The author says so, if you take the time to read the actual article:

>I say this isn’t a tariff issue, and it’s not—these are existing customs charges that were waived for these low-cost shipments.

It is US companies having to pay VAT just like EU companies (the author seems surprised EU member states have varying VAT rates, but it is the same across the US), and private shipment companies deciding to push administrative costs to the customers. And inflation and energy costs soaring, due to a certain (US) administration going all-in on AI and foreign wars (which also affect intra-EU shipping).

But guess what: it costs less to ship something between two neighbouring European countries than across the Atlantic ocean. That's still not a tariff.

jleyank•about 4 hours ago

Fwiw, non us businesses have the same problem trying to ship to the us. It’s how governments want to roll now and how they generate counter actions.

tetromino_•about 2 hours ago

The US idiocy was to whiplash de minimis regulations. The US gov't suddenly raised the de minimis threshold to $800; with the easily foreseeable effect that the country got flooded with crap from Temu; and then reacted by eliminating de minimis completely.

If they'd just kept the threshold at $200, all the chaos could have been avoided...

t0mpr1c3•about 1 hour ago

To my mind, the increase from $200 to $800 was more of a pragmatic policy tweak than a change of course. It was a recognition that US customs had limited capacity to check the value of small packages.

nemomarx•about 2 hours ago

> This is a story of the end of de minimis shipping, which figuratively means “too small to trifle with.”

Didn't the US also end de minimis exceptions recently? Can we really expect other countries and economic zones to keep them if we don't?

tempestn•about 2 hours ago

Yes, the US started this scrapping of de minimis exemptions.

readthenotes1•about 2 hours ago

Well, if they're too small to trifle with, it would be irrational to trifle with them, wouldn't it?

Berniek•about 2 hours ago

The de minimis system was in theory to allow developing countries to be able to take advantage of their very low labor costs and also to save the receiving country the inspection costs. Mostly countries ("third world") have time limited agreements. Tariffs were about originally about protection of local manufacturing. But both these changed with the politics and greed. China has cheap labor costs but superb management of manufacturing. Politics are now simple. China has 3 times as many consumers as the US. China refuses to float its currency, so the major currencies can't effectively export their inflation to them like they do with other trading partners by manipulating their interest rates. The US dollar is the defacto world currency but that means countries must have reserves of US dollars. Those reserves are not piles of US bank notes they are stocks, bonds real estate in the US. These foreign reserves mean influence in the economy. The current round of tariff wars are all about long term debt and attempting to reduce the long term bond rate. But countries wont wear that because their reserves are partly in bonds. So retaliation in the form of "custom fees" occur. More than likely, the EU fees and charges are aimed at China. Already China leads the world in production in many important areas (nuclear reactors, batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels). Countries can see China becoming (if not already) the worlds biggest economy with the political power that comes with it. Sadly, its the small manufactures & businesses that suffer the most, but thats democracy and capitalist system in action

t0mpr1c3•about 1 hour ago

Good luck trying to rationalize US tariff policy. Shit-flinging chaos monkey gonna fling shit.

tempestn•about 2 hours ago

The current round of tariff wars are all about Donald Trump and his obsession with bilateral trade imbalances. Long-term bond rates would be better addressed through the balance of production and taxation in the domestic economy.

Edit: do those downvoting disagree that a focus on bilateral trade imbalances and tariffs is an idiosyncrasy of Trump, and that we would not be seeing similar trade wars with a different president? If so, please make your case. He has repeatedly stated that that is what he feels is important, and has shared explicit motivation for broad tariffs based on facile derivations from bilateral trade imbalances. So it's pretty difficult to see it instead as a reasoned response to long-term bond rates.

readthenotes1•about 2 hours ago

Less shipping should mean less CO2 right?

t0mpr1c3•about 1 hour ago

Buying local is not necessarily less polluting because of the economics of scale. Driving 5 miles to a farm stall to buy a kilo of fresh tomatoes can generate more pollution per unit than walking to a supermarket that shipped a refrigerated container of produce from a greenhouse in the Netherlands.

scotty79•about 2 hours ago

Don't increases in shippng costs just follow weakening dollar?

t0mpr1c3•about 1 hour ago

Yes, if you are shipping a tankerload of crude oil. For small packages, administrative and compliance costs can easily outweigh the cost of physically moving the goods.