Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs • Hacker News Board

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

#561

Post by anang » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 7:48 PM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #513

Calavar wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case, the idea that Cantor can't do something because the former head is now in a government job is crazy. No one "in the business" thinks Cantor is suddenly hobbled. That's not the idea, and it almost seems like a straw man to be honest. The actual idea is that the current head of Cantor can't do something because he's a direct relative of a high ranking government official whose powers and job duties pres…

Cantor Fitzgerald is an investment bank. Rather than claim a straw man, think about what they do and how it interacts with the administration. Everything they do is heavily regulated. If they couldn't do anything that gave an appearance of a conflict, they literally couldn't do a single thing that makes up their business and would be hobbled.

I think a lot of people feel like people who have one foot in a heavy regulated industry shouldn't have their other foot in the regulatory body that regulates that industry.

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

#562

Post by crazygringo » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 7:49 PM UTC

zoobab wrote: post #234

mgkimsal wrote: post #194

One thing I don't see mentioned enough with the whole "the consumers paid these tariffs! we should get refunds!"... We "paid" not just in higher prices, but in many layoffs, reduction in working hours, skipped bonuses and raises. Companies that get 'refunds' will have an opportunity to use that money to rehire and repay workers. I'm cynical enough to think that will happen in large measures across the whole country,…

"use that money to rehire and repay workers" or give it to shareholders.

Shareholders only want money when a company can't reinvest it effectively.

Reinvesting it to generate more revenue now that prices are lower again is the obvious capitalist thing to do.

The companies aren't going to rehire workers out of charity. They do it because it makes them more money.

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

#563

Post by crazygringo » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 7:52 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #170

downrightmike wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most everything was probably bought with credit/debit cards. The individual records exist. Just using your Amazon etc order history should be dead simple

you would need to prove what part of the amounts you paid were due to tariffs, and which were ordinary price changes. All vendors would need to publish that information, and be honest about it. Don't see it coming.

The real thing is, price changes tend to be proportional to tariffs. If the tariff was $20, the consumer got charged $40 more. But not uniformly -- every price is different, there are other non-tariff price changes too, prices can increase before or after tariffs not exactly at the same time, etc.

If companies want to try to refund customers and come up with their own formulas for that, that's great. But usually there isn't some objective right answer that can be imposed externally.

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

#564

Post by tt24 » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #409

tt24 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not my argument. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a more regressive tax scheme. Bill Gates and I consume approximately the same amount of resources. I don’t see why he should have to pay a significantly different rate than I do.

I'd argue that ressource consumption/pollution are on the contrary pretty strongly correlated with wealth. But I don't see the primary justification for taxes as "keeping consumption in check" (whatever that would mean for you): In my view, we pay taxes to keep our society functional. Progressive taxation is required to prevent escalating wealth inequality (and I'd argue that US administrations have done a really poo…

I agree that the purpose of taxation is not to keep consumption in check.

I don’t think that wealth inequality is a problem, and therefore don’t agree that taxation should be used to address it.

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

#565

Post by mempko » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

Did the people pay for the majority of the tariffs, like 80% percent? But the companies are getting this money? How is this now just a transfer of what I paid to these companies? They just get free money at my expense?

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

#566

Post by jtbayly » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 8:08 PM UTC

abcd_f wrote: post #135

jtbayly wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court already invalidated the tariffs. That’s the context of this order (and the subtitle of the article).

But they didn't say anything about refunding them and you can bet Trump will oppose that and ask the SCOTUS to decide on it. They of course have an option to take their time to render the decision and then just dismiss the case without a comment. That's what the GP likely meant. The circus must go on.

Thanks! I guess I wasn't understanding what jerf meant, and I hadn't read enough to be correcting people.

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

#567

Post by yndoendo » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 8:09 PM UTC

ranger_danger wrote: post #155

NickC25 wrote: post #42

Private businesses get refunded and a payday, prices for the consumer stay high (because consumers have proven that they can bear them), and inflation goes up. Clearly, this makes America great again. /s

What if lowering prices actually resulted in enough extra sales that it provided more profit?

I recommend _Alchemy: The Surprising Power of Ideas That Don't Make Sense_ by Rory Sutherland [0]. It will help improve the understanding of marketing and hows business operate. This is an over simplified summary.

There are mainly two reasons people buy something.

1) It is seen as good deal.

2) It is seen as luxury.

Your premise hinges on only #1 and ignores #2. #1 is also limited to select products. How many bed sheets or cars do you need?

It also rejects the Friedman doctrine [1]. The continual following of this doctrine is what has lead to the enshitification of many products and services. Non-living wages also came out of following it. Living wages harms profits.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26210508-alchemy

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

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

#568

Post by guywithahat » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 8:11 PM UTC

trymas wrote: post #256

Side topic, but this number puts into how crazy it was for trump[0] to go on tariff war against enemies and friends alike. All the propaganda and extortionist language about how all countries will pay up to USA. Astronomical tariffs in some cases, trade wars and dramas, alienate all allies and from all of this they got only $130B ? $7T of spending, $1.77T in deficit[1] and they planned to fix this hole with $100B?! M…

I mean 130 billion is a significant amount of money, and it's more remarkable given the tax is unnoticeable to the average consumer and primarily impacted foreign manufacturers (either forcing them to move to the US or more friendly countries). The deficit wasn't built in two years and I don't think it could be solved in two years either.

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

#569

Post by yndoendo » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

mattas wrote: post #56

I wonder if brands will have a "tariff refund" sale. Make everything 20% off until all of the brand's tariff refund is passed on to customers. Of course, this wouldn't help the customers that already paid the tariff but it could be a good marketing ploy.

They will do this right before raising the prices on all goods to 30% before the sale deal.

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

#570

Post by bryanrasmussen » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 8:17 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #220

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. It's not insider trading. Lutnick didn't have inside information. His son just had a brain. Anyone who read the case knew which way the court was going, it was the least surprising decision ever. Perhaps the only surprising thing is that the court ever heard it.

He presumably did not have access to the court's opinion before it was released, but he did have access to internal White House legal opinions before the tariffs were announced ("Mr. President this is illegal and very likely to be overturned by the courts"), and he obviously had access to the entire federal legal team during the court cases. I can't prove that there was any White House advisory memo before the tariff…

>but he did have access to internal White House legal opinions before the tariffs were announced

yes but the opinion that it was illegal was the received wisdom by everybody with any sort of legal expertise in the subject. It would have been completely insane if the white house staff didn't believe the same. So I guess I'm actually surprised at the white house staff believing what everybody else did?