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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by llbeansandrice »

legitster wrote: post #562
bradleyjg wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kavanaugh clearly isn’t in the same bucket. His votes go either way. I don’t recall seeing a single decision this administration where either Alito or Thomas wrote against a White House position. Not just in case opinions but even in an order. I don’t think we’ve seen a justice act as a stalking horse for the president in this way since Fortas.

Kavanaugh strikes me as principled, but in kind of a Type-A, "well, actually" sort of way where he will get pulled into rabbit holes and want to die on random textual hills. He is all over the map, but not in a way that seems consistent or predictable.

His dissent in this case was basically "Don't over turn the tariffs because it will be too hard to make everyone whole" Which doesn't strike me as "principled" at all.

Wasn't it JFK who said "We choose to Not do these things bc they're kinda hard actually"? /s

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

#662

Post by Forgeties79 »

warmwaffles wrote: post #278
rozap wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.

Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?

The problem is we've kicked this can down the road for decades. We can't just let the president perform Congress's job, no matter how "stuck" they are.

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

#663

Post by heresie-dabord »

rozap wrote: post #225
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.

Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.

> There is no strategy here.

Unless the money is fully accounted and restituted, I believe we can assume what the strategy is.

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

#664

Post by aucisson_masque »

sc68cal wrote: post #71
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)

The importer pays the tax and passes it on as higher prices to the consumer. So the importers are the one that had the tax collected from them and would be getting the refund. The importer CAN be the seller, but other times the importer is a middleman in the supply chain.

at the end of the day, it's average joe who bought his things more expensive, and he won't get back his money.

That's what matters, don't care if it's the seller or a middleman that gets this money.

That's really a shame for american citizens, i'd be furious if i was american.

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

#665

Post by PearlRiver »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #256
ssully wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In fairness Trump is the first guy who uses this cheatcode so blatantly. There used to be a kind of decorum.

But yes it is basically eliminating parliament and rule by a monarch- making a mockery of 1776.

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

#666

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sowbug wrote: post #80
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)

Or maybe this is used to justify a new emergency federal law that all purchases must be reported on your tax return, just in case the government ever needs to refund any illegally collected import taxes. I think I'm kidding, but I'm not really sure anymore.

A federal law has to be approved by Congress, that isn’t happening. An executive order maybe?

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

#667

Post by blurbleblurble »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #664
sc68cal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The importer pays the tax and passes it on as higher prices to the consumer. So the importers are the one that had the tax collected from them and would be getting the refund. The importer CAN be the seller, but other times the importer is a middleman in the supply chain.

at the end of the day, it's average joe who bought his things more expensive, and he won't get back his money. That's what matters, don't care if it's the seller or a middleman that gets this money. That's really a shame for american citizens, i'd be furious if i was american.

Many are beyond furious

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

#668

Post by Forgeties79 »

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?

>Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US?

If their laws allow their leaders to enact tariffs then sure, they're welcome to do it. Foreign relations is complicated partially because countries operate differently. In the US, Congress is supposed to levy taxes and impose tariffs. Not the president. This game of nibbling (now chomping) at the edges of that clearly outlined role needs to end.

>When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?

We can still enact tariffs and similar policies. We have the same mechanisms they do. I don’t understand what is so “unfair.” Trump just seems to call everything he doesn’t like “unfair.”

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

#669

Post by fn-mote »

jrmg wrote: post #392
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)

Can I get compensation from UPS or FedEx for making me pay illegal tariffs - and making me pay a fee to them for processing it too? (I know the answer is practically ’no’, but it does still seem to me that the bureaucracy and companies that went along with this obviously illegal operation bear some culpability...)

> Can I get compensation from UPS or FedEx for making me pay illegal tariffs - and making me pay a fee to them for processing it too?

I can see why you are mad, but it seems like the were fulfilling their legal obligation (at the time).

The good news is that having directly paid UPS and not a middleman makes it much more likely that you will receive the money back. If anybody does.

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

#670

Post by jfengel »

conductr wrote: post #597
rocmcd wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, but that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Just because Congress is stuck doesn't mean the Executive gets to do whatever they want.

I think a lot of time Congress being stuck is a feature, not a bug. What happens when things aren't stuck, they change too much, in both frequency and magnitude. Kind of like when one person in the executive branch gets to make the rules. It's utter chaos and uncertainty on the business environment, even on the consumer environment, they have no idea what anything costs anymore. Am I paying double from a year ago bec…

With Congress completely stuck, the executive branch takes over a lot of functions that probably belong to the legislature. I say "probably" because the Constitution isn't really explicit about it, but it's what most people would infer.

The executive branch is less accountable than the legislative one. You elect only the top office, and only once every four years. With so much bundled into a single vote, it's nearly impossible to hold any specific action to account.

It doesn't work out great for the judicial branch, either. They often rule that a decision is based on the law as written, and it's up to the legislature to fix that -- while knowing full well that the legislature can't and won't. And they're not consistent about that; they'll also interpret a law to favor their ideology, and again Congress is in no position to clarify the intended interpretation.

Congress was deliberately set up to favor inaction, and not without reason. But that has reached the point where it practically doesn't even exist as a body, and its ability to serve as a check on the other branches has vanished, leading to even more abuses.

Post reply on HN