Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 843 posts

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

#751

Post by amenhotep »

vuln wrote: post #543
teeray wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice delayed is justice denied. There should be an express lane for litigation similar actions like this.

we can’t even do that with violent criminal let alone white color criminals. lol

This is a silly point. Courts aren't sitting around umming and ahhing about whether they should issue an arrest warrant to get x violent criminal off the streets, the system wastes minimal time in apprehending them and putting them in jail. At THAT point things slow to a crawl - because there's no longer the urgent incentive to act to prevent further harm.

Whereas in these cases the government is potentially harming the entire public every single day that the courts don't act.

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

#752

Post by mhb »

wutwutwat wrote: post #695
mhb wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. You're confusing capitalism and how businesses generally work with this particular tariff. Which, based on these comments, was often/always just passed through to customers.

That's what I just said

I know you're being cute, but businesses generally don't pass all the costs of increased COGS on to customers.

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

#753

Post by myrmidon »

tt24 wrote: post #564
myrmidon wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to shift tax burden from very wealthy Americans onto average citizens, what do you hope to achieve with that?

What is the purpose of taxation then, in your view?

> I don’t think that wealth inequality is a problem

I have a very hard time understanding this perspective.

Wealth can already buy (directly or indirectly) all forms of property, political power and even legal outcomes. I see no real way to remedy any of that, so it seems clear to me that (wealth) inequality must be somewhat kept in check to prevent our society from degenerating into some form of neo-feudalism.

What is your view on that? Do you want a society more strongly stratified by wealth? (why?)

Would you want to provide less equal opportunity in life for Americans is general, or would that be an undesirable side-effect?

Sorry for asking apparently loaded questions-- I'm genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint, and attacking the points that seem most critical from my view.

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

#754

Post by tdeck »

sgc wrote: post #744
mft_ wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want to get to the root cause, on the Democratic side it’s the people who promoted/supported/covered up for Biden when it would have been obvious to anyone close that he wasn’t fit for the purpose any more. And Biden himself, for his hubris. That was why things were rushed and there wasn’t a proper primary. Yes, they could have held a very late/quick convention and would likely not have picked Kamala, b…

I love how the root cause is always the opposition, never the perpetrator. Focusing on the Democrats (who are hot garbage) is such a wonderful way to keep attention focused anywhere but on the almost half the country still supporting a murderous cabal filled with people covering for a bunch of (other??) people who raped children to get pleasure from the sexual torture (yes, it's pretty clear from the Epstein files th…

I don't disagree with you, but I also wonder what exactly the Biden justice department was doing with these files for four years. It seems to me like they were covering for the same people. Being "in the club" is more important to them than party.

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

#755

Post by Steve16384 »

cpt1138 wrote: post #685

I ordered something from a Chinese company and they quoted me 5USD per unit and 35USD shipping. I accepted and the units were shipped and delivered and of excellent quality. Sometime later FedEx sends me a weird bill for some random seeming amount of money I owed. They had a link or email or something to basically refuse to pay. I did refuse to pay. The shipper ended up communicating with me to determine I was going…

I've had this before, a few years ago, and a quick google at the time seemed to show that a fair few other people have. I'm in the UK, and about 6 months after buying something small from China (iirc), we got an £10 invoice for a "disbursement fee" from Fedex. It was very vague as to what the fee was actually for. I assume it was just a "scam" by Fedex to get more money.

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

#756

Post by orbisvicis »

What is it like purchasing consumer goods from the EU under the new 10% section 122 rates? Previously I could have expected 25% tariffs + UPS/govt fees equivalent to another 40%. But hearing the horrors of shippers (UPS, FedEx, DHL) charging import fees equivalent to 1000% with no recourse to refuse the shipment and recoup costs, I never pulled the trigger. Has anything changed with the section 122 rates, especially considering the $800 de minimus exception won't be reinstated?

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

#757

Post by missingdays »

WesleyJohnson wrote: post #446
cvoss wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did not pay the tariffs. You bore the cost of the tariffs. Those are not the same thing. The refund is due to the party that got the bill for the tariff and paid it-- the importer. What you paid for was for the business not to go bankrupt while this was occurring. If the business wants to refund you for that, they can choose to do so. But you are not owed a refund.

What businesses were legitimately going to go bankrupt by the increased tariffs? I'm not defending the tariffs, mind you, but I don't buy that every company had to increase prices to offset the additional taxes. Many could've taken the hit and been fine, except profits would be down and shareholders would be angry.

https://www.greaterthangames.com/blogs/news/greater-than-gam...

Effectively closed

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

#758

Post by watwut »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #714
NewJazz wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the supreme court is to blame for all of this because they decided to invalidate lower court injunctions, reasoning that there was no chance for "irreparable harm"... Yeah, right.

No. The people are to blame. Both the people who voted for the criminal to be president. And the people who supported such a horrible Democratic candidate that she couldn't even win against Trump.

And as always, all acts of republicans and conservatives are fault of the democrats.

The only people who are innocent are the people who have huge power in their hands and literally made decisions that caused this.

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

#759

Post by braincat31415 »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #714
NewJazz wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the supreme court is to blame for all of this because they decided to invalidate lower court injunctions, reasoning that there was no chance for "irreparable harm"... Yeah, right.

No. The people are to blame. Both the people who voted for the criminal to be president. And the people who supported such a horrible Democratic candidate that she couldn't even win against Trump.

Depends which people. The question is why people voted for Trump en masse.

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

#760

Post by watwut »

braincat31415 wrote: post #759
light_hue_1 wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The people are to blame. Both the people who voted for the criminal to be president. And the people who supported such a horrible Democratic candidate that she couldn't even win against Trump.

Depends which people. The question is why people voted for Trump en masse.

People who voted for Trump were pretty clear about what their issues were. They wanted to bully trans and they wanted to stick it to the libs. They were looking forward to liberals suffering. Some of them would never vote for a woman or black person. They liked masculinity Trump projects - aggressive insulting fraudster.

There is no mystery about that.

Post reply on HN