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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by xnx »

yalogin wrote: post #903
xnx wrote: post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

It’s worse. Sellers raised prices citing tariffs. Not only does the seller get a one time bonus, the prices are now permanently raised as we all know prices are never coming down

The willingness of the customer to buy from competitors is the only thing that ever effects prices.

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

#912

Post by latexr »

sc68cal wrote: post #71
xnx wrote: post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

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.

> The importer pays the tax and passes it on as higher prices to the consumer.

So it matters how we’re interpreting “paying”. One way to look at it is that if the cost was passed on to the consumer, the consumer paid it. The importer simply handed over the money.

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

#913

Post by aaronrobinson »

xnx wrote: post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

5) US Gov uses a different law 6) Go to step 1

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

#914

Post by aaronrobinson »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #804
beloch wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be so in some cases, but there are extra steps in others. e.g. In a different path, 1 and 2 are the same, but things then diverge. 3) To recoup some of those tariff costs, the company sells the rights to any potential future tariff refunds. They recoup a portion of what they paid immediately but hand away the right to a full refund to another party, such as Cantor Fitzgerald. The seller might use this to re…

Some additional context to your note: Howard Lutnick is Trump's Secretary of the Treasury. And also was Epstein's literal next-door neighbor.

[flagged]

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

#915

Post by ifwinterco »

consumer451 wrote: post #628

In response, POTUS just declared a global 10% tariff. Does anyone understand if this is legal? https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-orders-temporary-1...

The irony is 10% universal global tariff might actually make some economic sense if he got rid of all the other ones

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

#916

Post by hermanzegerman »

conductr wrote: post #885
not_a_bot_4sho wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been no decisions about refunds. The court avoided addressing that. That topic will surely go back to the courts, kicking and screaming

Personally think it should not get refunded. There’s no sane way to get it back to its source. And no one group should be making profit from it. Best if it stays with the government like a federal forfeiture so in theory we all benefit from it as citizens , maybe it goes against the national debt or lessens our deficit next year.

So illegal actions shouldn't have consequences for anyone?

That's a good way to deter such acts in the future

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

#917

Post by LeifCarrotson »

tedd4u wrote: post #856
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some additional context to your note: Howard Lutnick is Trump's Secretary of the Treasury. And also was Epstein's literal next-door neighbor.

Lutnick is Secretary of Commerce. This is a smaller role than Scott Bessent, who is the Secretary of the Treasury.

You're right, I'm wrong, sorry, I was checking my memory on Wikipedia [1] which opens the section of his bio "Secretary of Commerce" with the line "Following the 2024 presidential election, Lutnick was being considered as secretary of the treasury." and I swapped the two roles.

While a smaller role, this is a worse conflict of interest as the secretary of commerce is directly responsible for recommending tarriff actions to the President.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Lutnick#Secretary_of_co...

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

#918

Post by maest »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #839
fuzzfactor wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving act of vengeance.

Apologies, but I'm having a hard time parsing your sentence. What exactly are you saying?

The GP is using a snowclone of the original: "It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy".

For example, if your boss is very rude and disparaging, but then he gets fired, you would say, sarcastically, "It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy", implying there's some element of karma at work.

By analogy, GP is saying these tarrifs were an undeserving act of vengeance. I assume "undeserved" in the sense that it wasn't deserved by those on the receiving end.

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

#919

Post by hermanzegerman »

cortesoft wrote: post #676
layer8 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For goods for which no domestic equivalent alternatives exist, why would the foreign suppliers lower their prices to compensate for the tariffs (which are paid by the importers to the government)? More generally, the cost of the tariffs will be split between foreign suppliers and local importers/consumers according to the competitiveness and availability of domestic suppliers, and according to market elasticity for t…

Well, they would likely have to lower their profit margin because the demand is reduced by the higher prices. Fewer purchasers will want to/be able to buy the item at the higher price. The supply and demand curve will find a new equilibrium, but it isn’t like the sellers are going to sell the exact same quantity of items with the price exactly increased by the tariff amount.

You know they can also sell to other countries than the US which would pay a higher price than the new lower price pre-tariff to the US?

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

#920

Post by carlosjobim »

lentil_soup wrote: post #816
carlosjobim wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then where are the hackers in this comment section calling out for the European Council to strike down European tariffs like the US supreme court did? Where were they before Trump?

Which European tariffs are these?

Famously tariffs on steel. The European Union was originally created as a tariffs union, and the official name was "European Coal and Steel Community", which then slowly grew into the EU we have now.

Steel tariffs are still a core part of the EU, and are aggressively used today.

The European Commission has all the information on tariffs you might be interested in at this page:

https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs/customs-tariff...

The European Council has a more general information page:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-tariffs-expla...

Post reply on HN