Is the US a country or a market?
Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
691–700 of 1001 posts
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think at some point america would get sick of having a billionaire gang of thieves in charge. Trump just gave himself a $10 billion dollar slush fund from taxpayers. Who stopped him? No one. This amount of money will buy you one great den. Noem wants luxury jets from the taxpayer. So. Much. Winning.
The irony is that Trump won on a message of "drain the swamp" which was supposed to address this issue. Instead it seems like it's more of just "replace the swamp" with his own guys.
Another point of irony: Elon was tasked with "draining" the swamp and the left immediately goes to burn Teslas.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that no…
> For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. Watching from across the Atlantic, I was always fascinated by Scalia's opinions (especially his dissents). I usually vehemently disagreed with him on principle (and I do believe his opinions were principled), but I often found myself conceding to his points, from a "what is and what should be…
Amy Coney Barrett has somewhat taken up the mantel, but her legal reasoning is probably superior.
Thomas wants to pretend he's the OG originalist, but I don't think he is anywhere near Barrett's peer.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#694Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Many voted for this
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of getting a refund for mischaracterized tariffs is actually fairly common (it's called a duty drawback and there's a cottage industry around this). It's generally used when an importer incorrectly categorized their import under an HS code that has a higher duty than the correctly categorized HS code. The difference this time is the scale is orders of magnitude larger. Will be interesting to see how they (im…
Smart money is that they will make some token comment about "leave it up to the states" or lower courts and then do absolutely nothing about it
The feds are the ones that control import duties, not the states. The courts will decide two years from now what to do.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#696Useful site for daily tariff updates: Trade Compliance Resource Hub.[1]
They've marked which tariffs are now invalid and which are still valid.
[1] https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2026/02/20/trump-...
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#697Earlier 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.
I got charged a $600 tariff from UPS to ship a $30 25-pound sandbag into the US from Canada. UPS didn't even deliver the product. I'm suing them in small claims. We'll see what happens. I imagine that even after the ruling, our ass backwards legal system will somehow say this makes sense, even though the tariff rate was never near high enough for that bill to make any sense. Further, they're going to get refunded the…
Huh? In what world was the tariff on sand 2000%?
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#698Earlier 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.
So they basically figured out how to bribe all these companies?
Such a kleptocracy.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an odd thing to say. The businesses in the other countries are, you know, businesses. Even if it were Chinese companies that were paying the tariffs, that will be baked into the cost of the good. This is literally first-day economics. No such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the item that the end user pays should reflect all costs associated with production and distribution to that end user. I have no idea how…
It wasn't a "rumor" it was explicit deliberate disinformation. Unfortunately many people in the US have insufficient education and accurate news feeds to realize. See also: disinformation that "other countries charge us the same tariffs", which turns out to be either a plain lie, or they mean VAT (a sales tax, like we have in the US).
Here's Trump's claims debunked in detail: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/08/recapping-trumps-deceptive...
"But we found that Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariff rates weren’t based on tariffs that other countries charged on goods coming from the U.S. Instead, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative came up with the rates by dividing the size of a country’s trade imbalance with the U.S. in goods by how much America imports in goods from that nation. "
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?
It is because your congress and political system don't need coalition governments orvaby kind of agreements, winner takes it all. A true multy party system wpuld be mote flexible and less prone to catering to extremes on the left or right
A multiparty systems has some advantages. But it also has flaws and it wasn’t able to stop Brexit.
And I don’t think a multiparty system would have been able to stop the rise of Trump all else being equal equal.