Easing the penalty for crossing the border
The US is hinting that our “cross border quota” is stingy. For obvious reasons, the Canadian retail industry is already seeking shelter from the storm, reminding the government that competition is an ugly word.
As a taxpayer, might I mention that I’m permitted to spend my “after tax” income. My already lightened pockets see no reason to subsidize the shopkeeper for “the unfair world we live in”. Over the years, the difference in our currency value was protection enough. Even with a strong loonie, the price differences leave me in a state of wonder. Under current rules, you have to do a “sleep-over” to make the cross-border experience worthwhile. Great for US motels.
Here’s an example. A camera lens, manufactured in the Pacific Rim (and not our edge). Amazon US hangs a tag of $360US while Amazon CA will deliver the same item for $528CDN. A quick play on the calculator and I learn that buying “locally” comes with a surcharge approaching 47%. One item; I can find many, many, many more. Don’t blame it on higher rents, or more beneficial employment packages. This is virtual retail, taken from a server farm that knows no flag. Just a long tradition of pretending that things up in Canada don’t really cost more – it’s all that fresh air and open space.
Oddly, the same lens is available at an even better price, from a small retail shop in southern Ontario that fronts on eBay. Go figure.
We’ve lived under the leaky cloud of “free trade” for about a quarter of a century now, and the only ones that seem to benefit are… hmm. Remind me to call an economist and see if that question has been answered. I don’t go “cross border shopping”, but if I did, why should the government need to extract another pound/454 g when I get to the turnstile?
