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

Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#231

Post by lotsofpulp »

sc68cal wrote: post #155
sowbug wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the CPAs among us: will the refunded import taxes be treated as extra profit for all the importers who paid them? I could see an argument that they don't have a legal obligation to pass the refunds on to their customers, any more than my local grocery store owes me 5 cents for the gallon of milk I bought last year if the store discovers that their wholesaler had been mistakenly overcharging them.

That's a great question. I would also love to know that answer. I agree with you that they're not going to share the refund if the importer was the middleman in the supply chain, and same thing if the importer was also the seller.

There is a 1099 specifically for money received from the government.

https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1099-g

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#232

Post by butterbomb »

coldpie wrote: post #153
taeric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap, you couldn't make a story that is a more direct echo of the plot point in Wonderful Life if you tried.

If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.

> We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029

Best we can do is a couple dozen golden parachutes.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#233

Post by tracker1 »

Just a thought.... I would think that "refunds" in the form of US Bonds with varying rates of maturity would probably be appropriate so as not to "shock" the system so to speak.

That said, I'm still a proponent of having the bulk of the federal budget based on tariffs and excise taxes. I don't like income and property taxes in general. I'd be less opposed to income taxes if there was truly a way to fairly leverage them, there simply isn't. VAT is at least more fair IMO. I also wouldn't mind a tax as part of leveraged asset loans (including cars/homes) with maybe a single exclusion for a primary residence and vehicle under a given price.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#234

Post by somenameforme »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #165
edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

Remember when a conflict of interest was so important that Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm, because heaven forbid, he accidentally made some money while president. Like his peanut farm would unduly sway government peanut policy.

An even more interesting one is that Ford was the first president to go on paid speaking tours after office. It's not like the 37 other presidents couldn't have also cashed in on the office in a similar fashion, but it was felt that such a thing would impugn the integrity of the office and also undermine the perception of somebody working as a genuine servant of the state.

There has most certainly been a major decline in values over time that corresponds quite strongly with the rise in the perceived importance of wealth.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#235

Post by noonething »

f33d5173 wrote: post #226
edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#236

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

axus wrote: post #198
dayyan wrote: post #13

This ruling impacts tariffs imposed by way of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which includes the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2’s so-called “Liberation Day.” Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that roughly $170 billion in tariff revenues have been generated through February 20 via these policies. However, this ruling has no bearing on section 232 tariffs, which have been used to justify levies…

It'd be cool if the backup plan was to get Congressional approval, per the US Constitution

Trump aside. Congress is clearly not interested in setting budgets or tax policy.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#237

Post by burkaman »

f33d5173 wrote: post #226
edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

[flagged]

He had access to the entire legal team for one side of the case. He also had access to internal legal discussions when the tariffs were put in place, when the president was almost certainly advised that they were illegal and would likely be struck down.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#238

Post by ceejayoz »

irishcoffee wrote: post #228
loeg wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two of the justices would be happy to let Trump get away with murder. It's not that the law is ill-defined so much as a few justices are extremely partisan. Happily, a quorum of saner heads came about in this instance.

It sure is interesting how different things might be if RBG and Biden had stepped down instead of doing... whatever it was they did instead.

It'd be interesting if Biden had taken the new doctrine of presidential immunity to heart in the last few months of his term.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#239

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

sowbug wrote: post #50
fuoqi wrote: post #32

Let the fun of returning hundreds of billions of the illegal tariff revenue back to importers through litigation begin!

Will I get back the $17 DHL charged to collect the $1 tariff on the cat toys I bought from China? Actual event may not have occurred, but DHL flat fee is real.

Were cat toys not made in the US? Especially if you were to factor and $18 delta?

Sorry, but tariffs on aluminum or steel that is only made in China or microchips or components. I think that’s a valid discussion to have. … you’re complaining about disposable cat toys that were likely made in a sweat shop where the workers were not making a livable wage and then putting in a container on a ship burning crude oil and pushed around the world so you can have some junk that was a couple dollars cheaper than a domestic option?

Not the same thing.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#240

Post by ssully »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #154
apexalpha wrote: post #136

It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it.

Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977.

Except that isn’t relevant at all. This Supreme Court is completely cooked. If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning.
Post reply on HN