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

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

Post by PowerElectronix »

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.

i read that Costco could actually refund everyone, as they can know exactly who bought what.

If they do, that's another matter, but they definitely can.

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

#722

Post by vkou »

RupertSalt wrote: post #443
tombert wrote: post #298

Earlier 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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff A tariff or import tax is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer. Exceptionally, an export tax may be levied on exports of goods or raw materials and is paid by the exporter. If an analysis says that "domestic consumers are paying 90%" of a tariff then they are simplifying the process that…

> then I would expect to see a notation on the price tags and a line-item on my receipts,

Trump started threatening anyone who was going to do that, because he doesn't want his face attached to price hikes.

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

#723

Post by jacobgkau »

aardvarkr wrote: post #697
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%?

It wasn't the tariff. UPS has been tacking on a ridiculously high paperwork fee for the service of processing tariff payments. Other shipping companies have also had fees, but UPS is the main one that's made it exorbitant and disproportionately higher than the tariff itself.

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

#725

Post by [deleted] »

eigenspace wrote: post #173
jonkoops wrote: post #100

I wonder what this means for the EU. We made a new deal under pressure of the tariffs that is actually worse than the deal we had. If we had not bent the knee, we would have had that original deal back, or at least, so it seems? Now we seem to be properly shafted due to weak politicians.

The deal more or less had 3 'bad' things in it: 1. The EU would face higher tariffs on their exports to the USA. Now mostly struck down 2. The EU would not retaliate with tariffs of its own. Not really a big deal since the only US export to the EU that's worth worrying about are digital services, and those aren't subject to tariffs anyways. 3. The EU promised to buy lots of LNG and make investments in the USA to the…

[deleted]

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

#726

Post by [deleted] »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #522
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.

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…

[deleted]

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

#727

Post by vkou »

philistine wrote: post #464
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.

The whole legal apparatus of the US doesn't want to hear that but your laws suck. They're flawed because of the political system borne of compromise with parties incapable of whipping their members to just vote in favour of a law they don't fully agree with.

That's the case in any country where a parliamentary body is split so closely.

When you need every vote to get legislature to pass, because you control 51% of a chamber, backbenchers on the ideological fringe of a party, (DINOs and RINOs) have a lot of power.

When you have a majority with comfortable margins, you can care a lot less about what the Sinemas and Manchins and McCains of a party think.

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

#728

Post by jopsen »

illithid0 wrote: post #19
franktankbank wrote: post #2

Can't say one way or another whether the power of the president was abused in this case but its a sad state for businesses who can't get started because of flip flopping policy. I'm for the tarrifs, its absolutely ridiculous to think only Wall Street matters.

The power to impose tariffs is given to Congress in the Constitution. Exceptions are allowed but in rare and specific situations. The fact that SCOTUS struck it down means the tariffs as imposed were unconstitutional. You can be for tariffs all you want, I'm not here to argue their efficacy. But you absolutely cannot with any intellectual honesty still be on the fence about whether he abused his power given this ruli…

I don't think the administration cares about the appearance of impropriety.

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

#729

Post by whattheheckheck »

RupertSalt wrote: post #443
tombert wrote: post #298

Earlier 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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff A tariff or import tax is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer. Exceptionally, an export tax may be levied on exports of goods or raw materials and is paid by the exporter. If an analysis says that "domestic consumers are paying 90%" of a tariff then they are simplifying the process that…

The importer is the consumer...

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

#730

Post by tim333 »

sowbug wrote: post #118
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.

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 think the tax is basically on the profit made when you add up costs and expenses. Say:

Before: Importer pays China $10 for widget, pays $2 duty, sells to shop for $12 - profit zero, tax on that zero.

Now: Paid $10 for widget. Paid $2 duty, sold for $12, $2 refunded - profit $2, pays tax on the $2.

At least that's the normal way of doing accounting. There can be odd exceptions and complications in local laws.

Post reply on HN