The largest component is cascading taxes. There are some rules which allow you to get a discount on taxes of products you sell based on taxes of the components you bought, but in general each step in production and distribution will pay taxes on the incoming values including all previous taxes. That means that you look at a product in a store and think that the price includes 18% state taxes which doesn't sound so bad. But if you could trace it back through the supply chain all the way to mining the raw materials you would see that about 60% of the price is tax.
This, by the way, leads to the ironic situation where poor people pay way more taxes than rich ones even though the law is supposed to implement "progressive taxes". So the poor person is in the 0% income tax bracket but spends nearly everything they earn on stuff with hidden 60% taxes in them. The rich person is in the 35% income tax bracket but only a fraction of that income goes to products while much of their expenses have little to no taxes.
Other sources of "custo Brasil" are losses in transport due to bad infrastructure and crime, having to hire extra people to deal with complex regulations, costs due to delays and things like that.
Short term the tariffs are likely paid for by the exporting country, company and/or consumer (there's a limit to how much you can pass on to the consumer), whereas long term the goods will be manufactured/assembled in another country.
It was inaugurated in 2012 and indeed for a few years did produce Apple devices, specifically iPads, but AFAIK in 2017 they shut down the line: https://diariodonordeste.verdesmares.com.br/negocios/apple-e...
Depends on the tariffs. If done correctly, they can be used to protect a local industry in its infancy until it is mature enough to compete on the world stage (assuming you don't stifle its own innovation via these subsidies).
But in this case, Brazil wasn't making an iPhone/Mac competitor
Wow, how does a president think this?
Most people with no economics background will for example think that it's just companies that pay salary related taxes, or consumers who pay VAT. Those are both true in the accounting sense that the money is paid by those respective parties to the government but not in the economic sense of who would have the extra money if there were no tax.
Everyone I know who has bought a house (not selling) has the seller pay the commission. I bought a house 2 years ago and the seller didn’t have a realtor, he paid 3% to my realtor. It’s baked into the price, you don’t pay $500k for a house and then add on 6% or 3% percent commission to pay the realtors. The commission comes out of the sale price.
I think you've missed the point of this comment thread. Head up to great-great-great-grandparent comment:
"IME this is one of the most common economic misconceptions that people have, to think that the economic cost of a tax is borne by whoever nominally pays it. Most people with no economics background will for example think that it's just companies that pay salary related taxes, or consumers who pay VAT. Those are both true in the accounting sense that the money is paid by those respective parties to the government but not in the economic sense of who would have the extra money if there were no tax."
Elsewhere in the thread is the example of credit card feeds which technically are paid for by the merchant, but economically are paid for by the consumers.
Now try to carry these concepts to your Real Estate Agent scenario. I shall leave that as an exercise.
[0]: I think it was this: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180130005244/en/New...
The same mechanism works the opposite way for larger employers, where electronic payments cut losses from theft, and the costs required to prevent the thefts.
Personally my problem with credit card fees is that they are generally not advertised and the costumer should easily be able to know how much they are going to get charged even before the checkout or ordering (this obviously applies to non VAT-included prices).
Merchants on the other hand should reject non-profitable payment options (in my country it is quite rude to try to pay a coffe with a visa/mastercard)
It really comes down to the market dynamics for that particular product and its competitors.
The two cases where it is almost unconditionally stupid is if there is no chance to develop or grow a local market or if you are reliant on those same countries for your own export (they are most likely going to tariff your products back)
Where do you live that this is true of VAT? Everywhere I know of, the retailer is responsible for paying VAT on the products they sell to consumers.