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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by SirFatty »

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]

Said with confidence, as if you actually know what's going on behind the scenes.

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

#252

Post by fuzzfactor »

latchkey wrote: post #210
fuzzfactor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a legitimate tax. That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.

maybe i lean too much in one direction, but what is a "legitimate tax"? Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.

Excellent question.

I lean quite heavily myself.

In more ways than one though ;)

The most legitimate tax I see is one that citizens would cheerfully pay willingly under any economic conditions.

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

#253

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #171
mrbombastic wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A witness also reported to the FBI that Lutnick and CF are engaged in massive fraud: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA012492... Oh and he bought his house from Epstein for $10. Nothing to see here just a criminal admin fleecing you without even shame enough to try to hide it well.

And took his wife, kids, and their nannies to have lunch with Epstein. Years after he'd said he wouldn't associate with Epstein anymore, and years after Epstein's conviction. If that was me, I would have used my substantial wealth to have lunch literally anywhere else in the world, with anyone else in the world .

[flagged]

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

#254

Post by Hikikomori »

furyofantares wrote: post #152
xnx wrote: post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

Why do we repeatedly say that tarrifs are passed off in full to the consumer in the form of higher prices? Isn't that as obviously wrong as the argument for them, that they're paid entirely by the other countries? Is there a reason to believe, or evidence, that it's not a mixture of the two? edit: I want to highlight esseph's reply has a link to evidence that last year's tarrifs were passed off 90% to consumers, whic…

It's much more true than saying that the foreign company pays it. Depends on how much slack there is in profit margins for both the exporter and importer, but the consumer does pay most of it, like 90%.

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

#256

Post by Ajedi32 »

ssully wrote: post #240
Ajedi32 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs.

The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea.

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

#258

Post by singpolyma3 »

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…

Is a refund even likely?

Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court.

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

#259

Post by Ccecil »

jeromegv wrote: post #126
fuoqi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I mentioned "litigation" in my comment, i.e. you probably would need to separately sue the government if you want to refund the tariffs.

That's not how it works. There is a normal process in place for importers/brokers to request refunds if a specific tariff was overpaid or a tariff was ruled to be illegal. But if you imported through DHL and you were not the broker, that is more complicated, you might need to ask DHL for it, and they might not want to do it for you (as they don't have a standard process in place).

Drawback claims (assuming this is the correct thing to use) are quite difficult to do. Requires a customs broker. You used to be able to file them manually as a normal person but they ended that when the first 25% tariffs on China went into play. You need to be a customs broker to get access to the software you need to file the claim...

I spent a bit of time attempting to find a broker [1] to handle this for our project (since we had a large amount of eligible refunds due to importing then sending out of country after QA) but in the long run gave up...which is what they hope for.

Keeping an eye on all this to see how it plays out.

[1] Not only did I look for a broker but I debated becoming one myself due to this.

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

#260

Post by jdashg »

omnimus wrote: post #244
csense wrote: post #151

I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.

Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US? When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?

Absolutely!
Post reply on HN