Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 843 posts

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#111

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jacquesm wrote: post #62
sillysaurusx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case? As for whether consumers should get anything, I’m sympathetic. It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people? You’d have to quantify how much overhead they’ve paid in tariffs, and that seems like an IRS-scale j…

It's not smart, it's extortion by someone connected to the state and self dealing. If you think this is smart then you may as well go around clubbing old ladies over their heads, as long as you don't get caught it's like free money right? The alternative is not to forbid companies from selling those rights, the alternative is to undo this deal and pay the whole amount back to those that originally forked it over and…

Self-dealing by someone connected to the state, yes. Extortion, no.

It takes a fair amount of money to take a court case to the Supreme Court. You can pay it all (and still maybe lose), or you can let the law firm have part of what you win. This happens all the time in the US legal system. It's not extortion; it's essentially venture funding by the law firm. (Yes, I'm aware of the pattern in the previous sentence, but I'm in fact a human, and not even LLM-assisted.) If the company doesn't want to play that way, they don't have to. They can pay the full cost of the lawsuit themselves.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#112

Post by hypeatei »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #82
hypeatei wrote: post #7

[flagged]

What was the tax rate if you bought things made in the US with US materials?

What if there was no alternative that was US-made?

Even if there was a US version, you'd still pay more regardless. This goes against one of the main grievances in the 2024 cycle: prices are too high.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#113

Post by Supermancho »

satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

This is collusion between the offices of POTUS, SCOTUS, and corporate friends that looks like insider trading, from a zoomed in lens.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#114

Post by indoordin0saur »

petcat wrote: post #53
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

Is it insider trading to bet on a Supreme Court verdict? It's not like it was a slam dunk. The decision was 6-3.

Yeah, because he's the son of the commerce secretary, so (supposedly) has access to the internal deliberations within the government.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#115

Post by rootusrootus »

NickC25 wrote: post #60
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

You forgot to mention that Mr. Lutnik is also a close personal friend of a pedophile-turned-Mossad-agent-turned-pedophile named Jeffrey Epstein and visited his island. Mr. Lutnik deliberately and purposefully lied to congress about it, and faced no charges for lying to congress. In a just world, someone like that would be jailed indefinitely and made to publicly take stand about his activities, and called out to his…

Yeah that’s never going to happen. Nobody in this administration will ever be under oath on the topic. Now they suddenly think Slick Willie is trustworthy because he said he had know knowledge of Trump doing anything wrong. What a world.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#116

Post by gruez »

podgietaru wrote: post #50
sillysaurusx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case? As for whether consumers should get anything, I’m sympathetic. It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people? You’d have to quantify how much overhead they’ve paid in tariffs, and that seems like an IRS-scale j…

Wasn't the whole point of selling your right to refunds that the initial tariff was so onerous to businesses that they needed a cash injection to stay afloat. Don't sell your right to your tariff refund is one of those things that sounds good in principle, but falls apart when you apply some sense to it.

>Wasn't the whole point of selling your right to refunds that the initial tariff was so onerous to businesses that they needed a cash injection to stay afloat.

No? You also do it for certainly. "One bird in hand beats two in the bush" and all that. You see this occurring outside of tariff refunds, with businesses selling debts to debt collectors for pennies on the dollar, or bond holders selling high risk bonds (eg. Argentina) for steep discounts.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#117

Post by Jeremy1026 »

duxup wrote: post #96

Absolutely absurd that we’re at this point. The courts / SCOTUS let the government roll out a massive and obviously illegal tax on citizens for a long time. They should have stepped in earlier. Now we the people probably don’t get our money back….

> probably

Hah, we are 100% not getting our money back. And the higher, tariff level, prices aren't going to go back down either.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#118

Post by koolba »

jacquesm wrote: post #62
sillysaurusx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case? As for whether consumers should get anything, I’m sympathetic. It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people? You’d have to quantify how much overhead they’ve paid in tariffs, and that seems like an IRS-scale j…

It's not smart, it's extortion by someone connected to the state and self dealing. If you think this is smart then you may as well go around clubbing old ladies over their heads, as long as you don't get caught it's like free money right? The alternative is not to forbid companies from selling those rights, the alternative is to undo this deal and pay the whole amount back to those that originally forked it over and…

How is it extortion? They could have gotten a different deal from anybody else or no deal at all. Nobody was twisting there arm or forcing them to deal with this one company to sell their tariff claims.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#119

Post by benrutter »

Lots of comments along the lines that tarrifs were mostly passed down indirectly to consumers, who aren't entitled to refunds.

I definitely agree on principle, it sounds pretty tricky to see how proving "I paid $x more for groceries because of tarrifs" would work in practice.

Does anyone know of policy suggestions for how that could work?

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#120

Post by petcat »

indoordin0saur wrote: post #114
petcat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it insider trading to bet on a Supreme Court verdict? It's not like it was a slam dunk. The decision was 6-3.

Yeah, because he's the son of the commerce secretary, so (supposedly) has access to the internal deliberations within the government.

You're saying that he had access to all of the Supreme Court Justices' chambers?
Post reply on HN