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

761–770 of 843 posts

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

#761

Post by the_real_cher »

jurschreuder wrote: post #690

“We live in the age of computers,” Eaton said. “It must be possible for Customs Service to program its computers so it doesn’t need a manual review.” In DHL the link to get tax documents is already broken for a year or so, so I cannot get VAT back on DHL shipments. With FedEx I can but it's a manual process of screenshotting a bank transaction and emailing a specific email address with a shipping number. When tariffs…

DHL is massive scam company.

I ordered a tent from overseas and they classified it as both a food product and an aluminum product and charged me 600 bucks in tariffs.

I'm fighting to get it back but they keep ignoring me with polite "were really busy" replys.

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

#762

Post by the_real_cher »

tdeck wrote: post #754
sgc wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the real lesson to take away from all of this.

Voting doesn't matter the only thing in history that has ever changed corrupt politicians is violence.

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

#763

Post by watwut »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #711
pstuart wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately yes. But every one of his enablers is complicit and should be tried if we are ever able to extricate ourselves from this mess.

If the lesson by now isn’t “be careful wishing for powers you don’t want the other side to use against you” then I don’t know what will drive that home…

The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one.

As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.

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

#764

Post by bthallplz »

freetonik wrote: post #146

There was an interesting case in Finland. Finnish customs used to apply a 22% tax (ELV) on top of the car tax for imported used cars from other EU countries. On top of that, Finnish law required VAT to be charged on the car tax itself. There were multiple court cases and this practice was found unlawful (and actually against EU law). But the government did not issue automatic refunds, and instead requested that peopl…

> I've been living in Finland for 10+ years, and this whole story was super surprising for me to learn because the prevailing notion among people here is that Finland is the land of law, and everything is done correctly and legally, always, and we can and should trust the authorities.

I'd pretty much grown up believing that that's how the US worked post-slavery (aside from occasional deviances from the rule). Since the start of the pandemic, I've had quite the awakening.

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

#765

Post by NewJazz »

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.

1. Nobody supported Kamala as the democratic nominee.

2. The US senate is horribly malapportioned and gates scotus nominations.

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

#766

Post by infinitewars »

skinpop wrote: post #727
omnimus wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DOGE was about breaking things as much as you can. Especially those that were working and not under Trumps control.

it's about justifying tax cuts for the rich

With these contracts, they want to give trillions to Musk. Cuts aren't good enough for oligarchy!

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

#767

Post by epolanski »

Saline9515 wrote: post #633
epolanski wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutely absurd that we’re at this point. It's not really, this is the result of having a flawed democratic system. What do Turkey, Philippines, Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Nicaragua, etc and now US have all in common? They are ALL presidential or semi-presidential republics where a single person "rules" without needing to face opposition in a parliament nor even requiring support from its own party. Winner-takes-a…

France has arguably the most presidential regime of the OECD, while it's not without faults it's not horrible either. Parliamentary regimes optimize for coalition stability which weakens them and forces to always take the path of least resistance, which isn't usually the best one.

> Parliamentary regimes optimize for coalition stability which weakens them and forces to always take the path of least resistance, which isn't usually the best one.

This is good: we live in objectively good times and safe/wealthy countries where problems are relatively minor and we should focus on debating and compromising, not having know-it-all unbounded captains.

Our first focus is risk management: not having systems that make it easy for the Putin/Erdogan and Trump-like individual to ruin everything.

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

#768

Post by nothrabannosir »

watwut wrote: post #763
nothrabannosir wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the lesson by now isn’t “be careful wishing for powers you don’t want the other side to use against you” then I don’t know what will drive that home…

The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.

Which actual law should send them to jail?

The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake.

Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail.

Guess what will happen? The administration after that will send your politicians to jail. And the bananificiation of the US will be complete.

If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Raise the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much!

The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies.

Edit: Let me rephrase: rather than try and find a single law by which to hang the executive , of which I’m sure there are a million, my impression is that for every one of them there’s a commensurate law which exonerates them. Congress keeps protecting the president. Congress is the most powerful of the three branches, by design . To genuinely see someone going to jail, From The executive branch , Congress needs to make a clear, unequivocal, statement.

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

#769

Post by tmtvl »

gus_massa wrote: post #417
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't buying insurance. There's no insurance payout for the companies. They got a small amount of money in hand, and lost the chance to reclaim any of the tariff refund. That isn't insurance. Also, the SCOTUS is not a criminal court, it is a constitutional court. If a case is heard there, both sides have not agreed on "obvious illegality". That is unsuprising since in general one side (in this case, the admini…

I agree, it's like "reverse insurance". I'm not sure what is the name. In insurance, you pay [-$10] to avoid a potencial negative risk [-$100]. Here you get money [+$10] instead of waiting for a potencial positive benefit [+$100]. Very slightly related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage

The term you're looking for is 'instant gratification'.

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

#770

Post by braincat31415 »

watwut wrote: post #760
braincat31415 wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly the kind of simplistic thinking that I was talking about. People had legitimate concerns about cost of living, food inflation (look at the charts of food prices 2020-2024), ballooning national debt, military adventures, crime, fraud, expensive housing and rent. I could go on. Trump's government is unlikely to offer any solutions to the above, but that's a different story. Voting because they wanted libs to suffer... sheesh. Most people are not that dumb and have objective reasons to vote a certain way. Any party that wants to stay in power longer will have to address these issues. Do you really think an average family is more concerned about trans issues than their inability to afford a house?
Post reply on HN