| ▲ | mothballed a day ago |
| ... 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. |
|
| ▲ | andyfilms1 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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? |
| |
| ▲ | coldpie a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, you're almost there, just go one step further. Now you've got a big pile of money and no clear rules on where it should go. Who gets to decide where it will go? Given how this administration operates, where do you think it will go? | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. So if I'm the owner of Uncle Billy Bobs Autoparts and I ship from Madeupcountry. I billed you $500 extra for some new car part. The US government refunds me on the tariffs they charged me to import my product to you, and now your taxes is going into my refund. Who wins in this scenario? They're effectively giving every country a free bonus. I wouldn't be surprised if some people got scammed by the tariffs by being overcharged. There's no serious paper trail to any of this to meaningfully return lost revenue to the American consumer, I would rather not waste tax dollars on refunds. I guess the only "winners" are maybe businesses that didn't pass on the revenue loss on to the consumer? But how do you even correctly refund those businesses? | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar a day ago | parent [-] | | You just refund the people who pay the tariffs. You can't do any more than that. | | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm okay with that, though I don't think most of my receipts highlight how much went into a tariff. Maybe for very specific purchases it did, but for most things I've bought over the past year there's no real way to gauge this. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar a day ago | parent [-] | | Agreed; only the edge importer can be refunded by the government. Hopefully those businesses pass on the refund, but that's up to them. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SJC_Hacker a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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? Gee, I don't know, receipts ? Also simply revenue on the business end |
|
|
| ▲ | mhb a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun a day ago | parent | next [-] | | "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). | | |
| ▲ | pwg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If the amounts are under the limit you might sue the company who cut those invoices in small claims court for the amounts of the tariff line items on the invoices. The invoices give you slam dunk evidence that you paid that amount in tariffs, and the supreme court decision says the payment was illegally collected, so seems like an easy win for you. | |
| ▲ | philipallstar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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). You could ask for a tariff refund from those suppliers. |
| |
| ▲ | ex-aws-dude a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're thinking way too much like a programmer It doesn't need to be a perfect solution, you could just give everyone a flat refund similar to class action payouts. | | |
| ▲ | mhb a day ago | parent [-] | | Well that would seem like a potentially huge mess depending on the size of the purchases. Not to mention that the purchasers are not all easily tracked down. I wasn't suggesting it because it was perfect; I was suggesting it because it might be viable. |
| |
| ▲ | quickthrowman a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer As someone who prices and sells labor and material for a living, nobody ate increased tariffs. They were passed along to the ultimate consumer of the tariffed product. Everyone was facing the same tariffs so they’re all incentivized to pass the cost along, line iteming the tariffs on the invoice would make it abundantly clear. I passed along all increased costs with a note on my proposal that said “Any and all additional tariffs will be paid for by the customer.” | |
| ▲ | Larrikin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Making people spend more money to "save" money is just a sale to increase profits even more. | |
| ▲ | wutwutwat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's not how capitalism works. Consumers ate the cost. Have you not bought anything in the last year? | | |
| ▲ | mhb a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah. You're confusing capitalism and how businesses generally work with this particular tariff. Which, based on these comments, was often/always just passed through to customers. | | |
| ▲ | wutwutwat 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's what I just said | | |
| ▲ | mhb 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know you're being cute, but businesses generally don't pass all the costs of increased COGS on to customers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | selimthegrim a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe this will finally be the impetus for the US to go for a VAT? Hell if we get a carbon based border adjustment tax out of this like people were talking about in Trump’s first term this might be a case of broken clocks. |
|
|
| ▲ | candiddevmike a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's COVID PPP all over again... Expect more asset inflation. |
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One thing that should happen moving forward, whether we keep tariffs in one way or the other, we need consumer protection laws. I assume companies abused the "oh yeah you owe us for the tariffs" as a way to overcharge consumers. I think additional costs driven by tariffs should be 100% spelled out to the consumer next to where you're shown the tax amount. This should allow for auditing later if companies overcharge. It also would make "refunding" more reasonable, since you could show a receipt if technically you paid for a tariff, otherwise, if the company swallows it, they would show the amount but 'discount' or 'omit' it as something they are choosing to pay for. Without a paper trail I don't see how refunding any of this is feasible. |
|
| ▲ | magicalhippo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > refunded to the importer of record. Not the people the costs were passed to I mean the importers were the ones who paid the duties. It's not a given they passed it on, and if it was then in many cases it was spread out. That is importer paid for one container of items, which in turn got sold to individuals which the government has no record of. If you ordered delivery by say FedEx and they paid the duty and passed it on to you, you should have a reasonable case to get it refunded from FedEx when they get the money back. Ideally they handle it automatically since they have all the necessary details. For manufacturing companies it's less clear, as some might have swallowed all or some of the duties, and multiple components might have been affected by different rates etc. Will be interesting to see how companies who passed it on will handle this, given it's a massive PITA to do anything but screw over their customers. |
| |
| ▲ | toast0 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you ordered delivery by say FedEx and they paid the duty and passed it on to you, you should have a reasonable case to get it refunded from FedEx when they get the money back. Ideally they handle it automatically since they have all the necessary details. I didn't have to deal with it, but from other comments, most of the international shippers also charged a hefty fee to broker the tarrifs. Expect not to get that refunded. | |
| ▲ | 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | coldpie a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yet another successful Republican transfer of wealth from the people who do the work (employees) to the people who don't (owners). |
|
| ▲ | bdangubic a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| that was the plan all along |
| |
| ▲ | davidw a day ago | parent [-] | | These people are evil, but also bumbling idiots, so sometimes there is no evil plan, just incompetence. | | |
| ▲ | candiddevmike a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There are direct ties from the administration to companies offering hedges against tariffs. There was absolutely an evil plan, IMO. | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Agree. But a few sure scrambled when they read the tea leaves and saw a chance to profit by it. | |
| ▲ | bdangubic a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | they are everything except incompetent when it comes to massively looting us and profiting. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NuclearPM a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tax to businesses? You think the costs were only passed down once? Really? |
|
| ▲ | adampunk a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-] | | Their skirts were too short and they didn’t scream hard enough, eh? | | |
| ▲ | adampunk a day ago | parent [-] | | No, THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT DEMOCRATS. Christ on a bike, |
|
|