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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by JimmyBiscuit »

beloch wrote: post #761
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)

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…

Umm this doesnt seem to be true: https://www.semafor.com/article/02/20/2026/cantor-fitzgerald...

Or is there another source for this claim?

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

#922

Post by sigwinch »

jopsen wrote: post #707
mattas wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of getting a refund for mischaracterized tariffs is actually fairly common (it's called a duty drawback and there's a cottage industry around this). It's generally used when an importer incorrectly categorized their import under an HS code that has a higher duty than the correctly categorized HS code. The difference this time is the scale is orders of magnitude larger. Will be interesting to see how they (im…

> The difference this time is the scale is orders of magnitude larger. The administration will just do nothing. They need 3 maneuvers for this to drag out longer than Trump 2. There is no intention to follow the law here.

I wager he’ll:

1. Claim to refund the money to each taxpayer with a Trump-signed check.

2. The number of checks will not total $200 B. Any reporting to the contrary will take up space from the truth about Epstein.

3. Before 2028, a loyal SuperPAC will form with hundreds of billions in dark money.

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

#923

Post by FpUser »

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.

>"maybe it goes against the national debt or lessens our deficit next year."

And help to prosecute those who broke the law and raised illegal tax /s

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

#924

Post by jamincan »

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.

It depends on the terms of the transaction. Most business-to-business transactions would have the importer responsible for duties, but many, maybe the majority of business-to-consumer transactions have taxes & duties covered by the exporter and included in the final price which would typically reflect the additional taxes & duties in the prices. In those case, the exporter would be the one refunded.

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

#925

Post by sigwinch »

skeletal88 wrote: post #684
warmwaffles wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?

It is because your congress and political system don't need coalition governments orvaby kind of agreements, winner takes it all. A true multy party system wpuld be mote flexible and less prone to catering to extremes on the left or right

Israel has such a system. Netanyahu is aloft because of a small, fringe party.

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

#926

Post by sigwinch »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #737
csense wrote: post #151

I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.

Maybe in rare cases, but for each of the various policy goals tariffs are used for, there are other kinds of targeted industrial policy that work better and cost less. Tariffs are the most expensive way to try to onshore manufacturing. The cost per "job created" is astronomical usually. They incentivize corruption and black markets. Even regular old subsidies are usually easier, cheaper, and less problematic

With as much respect as possible, isn’t this disproven by data now? You can’t connect tariffs to a single manufacturing job created.

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

#927

Post by sigwinch »

aliceryhl wrote: post #893
bgentry wrote: post #77

The actual decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Hmm, I read some of the decision, and now I'm not sure what to make of all of it. When I came to the opinion from Jackson, J., I found it extremely compelling. He says this: ... But some of TWEA’s sections delegating this authority had lapsed, and “there [was] doubt as to the effectiveness of other sections.” Accordingly, Congress amended TWEA in 1941, adding the subsection that includes the “regulate ... importation…

Kavanaugh’s reasoning is that a wartime law, TWEA, can be congruent to a peacetime law, IEEPA. The rest of the court acknowledged that the President always had control of tariffs during war.

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

#928

Post by simonh »

freeone3000 wrote: post #742
ragazzina wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?

Auto tariffs have kept Detroit producing automobiles despite various other entrants, while still being low enough for foreign competition.

I think the same effects can be achieved using subsidies, and I do accept such interventions can have legitimate justifications.

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

#929

Post by aaronrobinson »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #917
tedd4u wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acti…

[flagged]

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

#930

Post by Betelbuddy »

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)

>> 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices.

Not according to the current administration: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CODFD3j623E

According to them, China and others are paying the tariffs, so any refunds clearly have to go to China...

Post reply on HN