Donate
  • Freedom
  • Innovation
  • Growth

Millions of Shoes, and One Tax to Boot


One of the problems that arises when a government passes lots of laws—and here Congress is an overachiever—is that things change over time. And a policy that may have been defensible at one time loses any pretext of justification.

That’s what’s happened with the shoe import tax.

As National Public Radio recently reportedly, in the early 1900s the U.S. had a thriving domestic shoe manufacturing industry.

In an effort to protect that industry against cheap foreign competition, Congress imposed an import tariff on lower-cost shoes. There wasn’t much foreign competition for the high-dollar footwear.

Since the early 1990s, however, almost all shoe manufacturing has moved to other countries. We still have the tariffs but no domestic industry to protect. As a result, the U.S. still imposes up to a 67 percent tariff on lower-cost shoes—the ones most likely purchased by low- and middle-income families—but little or no tariff on the expensive shoes.

How’s that for tax fairness?

Well, Reps. Joe Crowley (D-NY) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) have introduced the Affordable Footwear Act to eliminate the tax. According to Rep. Crowley, the legislation:
  • Would eliminate rates that can run as high as 67.5 percent on less-expensive shoes;
  • And therefore eliminate the $1.9 billion importers paid last year in import duties; and
  • Would thus eliminate and estimated $4 billion to $5 billion consumers pay, when distribution mark-ups are included, in unnecessary taxes.

We’re all for giving the shoe tax the boot. But the issue raises another important question: Why does such a tax stay on the books for so long?

The NPR report also included a discussion with a former expert from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, who pointed out that there is no one at the Treasury or Commerce Departments charged with looking over the various tariffs and asking whether it still makes sense to retain them.

Well, at least Reps. Crowley and Brady found this one. Even protectionists should agree that it doesn’t make much sense to try and protect a U.S. industry that no longer exists.