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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by Betelbuddy »

Betelbuddy wrote: post #930
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...

You are downvoting the messenger. In a way...its an IQ test...

"Trump says China is paying for his tariffs" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-tru...

"Trump Incorrectly Has Insisted ‘China’s Paying the Tariffs’" - https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006661985/tr...

"Fact check: Trump and Vance keep falsely describing how tariffs work" - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/fact-check-trump...

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

#962

Post by fuzzfactor »

maest wrote: post #918
encrypted_bird wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

Roger. Surely it's twisted a bit more with the kind of things Trump spews, but for instance a great leader wins a well-deserved Nobel Prize, and you say it couldn't have happened to a more deserving contender.

You say the same thing when a complete moron fails to win the same prize.

Equal fairness to all ;)

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

#963

Post by lokar »

cdrnsf wrote: post #423
mothballed wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.gov can write the check back to Americans then, and disband ICE, CBP, the DEA, and the ATF to pay for it.

Better yet, dissolve ICE and DHS and send stimulus checks to folks with what used to be their budget.

Or best: try to get the defect down to about 2% of GDP

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

#964

Post by JKCalhoun »

idiotsecant wrote: post #945
gcanyon wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent this is true, the entire thing could literally be a grift (I'm not saying Trump is smart enough to come up with this, just that people around him are, and he's grifty enough to go along with it): 1. Trump enacts the tariff, despite knowing it will be struck down. 2. The tariff extracts hundreds of billions from the economy. 3. Finance firms buy the potential refund for pennies on the dollar, knowing tha…

Trump has been obsessed with tariffs for decades. I fully believe he thought this was a great idea. Lutnick, on the other hand, quite obviously forsaw this eventuality (as did anyone who understands how power actually flows in the United States) and encouraged it while preparing to profit massively himself. It's an obvious play, good on him for getting away with it. It's clear at this point that this administration h…

And now Scott Bessent has single-handedly made tariffs a seemingly illegitimate economic tool. Nice job.

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

#965

Post by JKCalhoun »

qingcharles wrote: post #833
blurbleblurble wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many are beyond furious

Check Truth Social, many are livid that the tariffs were found illegal . A lot of supporters of the current government prefer to pay higher prices for goods.

(I'll just take your word for it.)

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

#966

Post by Paradigma11 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #154
apexalpha wrote: post #136

It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it.

Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977.

An additional problem seems to be that this law had some congressional check that has been ruled unconstitutional since.

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

#967

Post by consumer451 »

ifwinterco wrote: post #915
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

In practice, isn't this just a blanket federal sales tax/VAT? Isn't that inflationary?

I am curious, what do you see as the benefit of this style of taxation?

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

#968

Post by Sabinus »

lucketone wrote: post #871
Forgeties79 wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is we've kicked this can down the road for decades. We can't just let the president perform Congress's job, no matter how "stuck" they are.

I disagree with the metaphor. In suggest: The can of worms was opened. (i.e. subsequent us presidents, no matter which party, will use more freedom of movement in the office)

Why not just do away with the Presidency and call him King?

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

#969

Post by linuxhansl »

dmix wrote: post #455
linuxhansl wrote: post #301

Finally some sanity. The administration has use laws about "national security" and other so call "emergencies" to impose tariffs. If everything is an emergency then nothing is, and that was clearly not congress' intention with those laws. The power to impose tariffs rests with the legislator, not the executive. Of course our congress is effectively useless - we can thank decades of Mitch McConnell's (and others) "not…

The most dangerous part of the current admin is the fealty he demands from congress and how exploits his popularity to be a kingmaker in local elections. This is something FDR did heavily in the 1930s to expand his own power and bully congress into passing the New Deal. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/purge-1938 He also used legally questionable executive orders like crazy.

Congressional Republicans let him do it.

Congressional Republicans confirmed every single one of his cabinet members.

So perhaps he demands it, but does not give congress a pass. At all. They chose to let him.

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

#970

Post by cjbenedikt »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #314
cjbenedikt wrote: post #38

Now let's see what will happen.After all J.D.Vance (US VP)famously said:" The judiciary has decided. Now let them enforce it".

Ahem. The line is widely attributed to President Andrew Jackson, usually quoted as: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” He probably didn't say it either, its first appearance is in an 1860s book by Horace Greeley.

You are probably right. Only noticed the comment as he made it recently. Still not exactly reassuring. Mirrors his mindset.
Post reply on HN