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

81–90 of 843 posts

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

#81

Post by andyfilms1 »

mothballed wrote: post #4

... refunded to the importer of record. Not the people the costs were passed to. Essentially turning it retroactively into a tax to private businesses. This is the worst case of all scenarios for the consumer.

I understand the frustration but I don't understand the logic. The businesses who paid the tariffs (who were literally sent an invoice that they paid) should be the ones refunded.

How would the government even be able to determine if a business increased product prices due to tariffs vs other factors, or even if the business increased prices at all? What if the product is a loss leader and the company was fine just eating the expense? Or what about a nefarious company who manufacturers their stuff in Canada but used "tariffs" as an excuse to increase prices? What would they be refunded from?

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

#83

Post by JKCalhoun »

mhb wrote: post #28
mothballed wrote: post #4

... refunded to the importer of record. Not the people the costs were passed to. Essentially turning it retroactively into a tax to private businesses. This is the worst case of all scenarios for the consumer.

Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer cost, it seems pretty impractical to determine who is due a refund - end users or businesses. Or the logistics of refunds to customers. One possibility would be for businesses to return the fraction of the tariff paid by customers to future customers by offering the items affected with a negative tax until the refund is used up.

"Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer cost…"

Ha ha, that's a good one. I have yet to hear about reduced profits anywhere. Instead, as I said in another comment, I have actual physical receipts with the additional tariff cost (itemized!) in a pile on my workshop (which I'll never see refunded).

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

#84

Post by seanmcdirmid »

energy123 wrote: post #58
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

For it to be insider trading, he would have had to have access to private information from the Supreme Court, which seems unlikely.

They could have used inside government legal analysis that other people didnt have. You could have predicted this with higher certainty if you knew the justices well enough.

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

#85

Post by dtech »

AdamN wrote: post #64
hypeatei wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Ironically I was mildly in favor of tariffs from the left pov. Reduced consumption and getting more taxes to help pay down the debt. Consumption was likely mildly reduced (and still is with the 15% tax) but now we have more inflation coming our way when those billions start flowing and our debt just keeps going up.

Note that it's less than 15%, only what the importer pays, so less than a VAT would be

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

#86

Post by JKCalhoun »

davidw wrote: post #19
bdangubic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that was the plan all along

These people are evil, but also bumbling idiots, so sometimes there is no evil plan, just incompetence.

Agree. But a few sure scrambled when they read the tea leaves and saw a chance to profit by it.

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

#87

Post by UncleMeat »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #45
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case? As for whether consumers should get anything, I’m sympathetic. It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people? You’d have to quantify how much overhead they’ve paid in tariffs, and that seems like an IRS-scale j…

Imagine instead if the government didn't do the illegal thing in the first place. Or if the supreme court had not intervened on the initial stay of the tariffs to allow them to go into place while the suit proceeded.

The fact that businesses were put in a position to make this choice is outrageous in the first place.

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

#88

Post by nkohari »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #45
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case? As for whether consumers should get anything, I’m sympathetic. It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people? You’d have to quantify how much overhead they’ve paid in tariffs, and that seems like an IRS-scale j…

I don't think anyone is disagreeing it's a shrewd decision by the corporations, just that it shouldn't benefit the Secretary of Commerce. We're a long way from having to put your peanut farm in a blind trust to avoid the perception of corruption.

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

#89

Post by jtbayly »

jerf wrote: post #70

None of this matters; this is guaranteed to go to the Supreme Court. Too much money, too much precedent. The only thing being established now is the battleground as the procedure of getting up to the Supreme Court. The actual rulings on the way up to the Supreme Court are of minimal consequence.

The Supreme Court already invalidated the tariffs. That’s the context of this order (and the subtitle of the article).

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

#90

Post by JKCalhoun »

AdamN wrote: post #64
hypeatei wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Ironically I was mildly in favor of tariffs from the left pov. Reduced consumption and getting more taxes to help pay down the debt. Consumption was likely mildly reduced (and still is with the 15% tax) but now we have more inflation coming our way when those billions start flowing and our debt just keeps going up.

Such a regressive tax to get behind.

Now if tariffs had only been applied to, I don't know, yachts, private jets…

Post reply on HN