Submissions must be from original sources with original headlines. Memes, self-promotion and low-quality blogs are not acceptable. Source spamming is not acceptable. Further explanation.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
This is the standard operating procedure for Republicans and their corporate friends. Screw the workers and consumer and drown themselves in excess profits.
Last year Corporate America had total RECORD profits of $3.4 Trillion. There is also RECORD stock market. They have so much money they don't know what to do with it!
Record profits generated by low wages/benefits to their employees AND high prices for consumers. The rich thrive while the rest of us struggles for the basics of life.
Democrats must win BIG in November. The working class can't afford Republican Policies!
Oh they know what to do with it. They're using it to rig the system in their favor.
Perfect example is Howard Nutlick and his son at Cantor Fitzgerald. They make money from Nutlick liberalizing crypto regulations and by buying the refund rights for tariffs. Then they take that money and do things like donate $10m to the Fellowship PAC which lobbies lawmakers to further liberalize crypto regs so they can make even more money.
People don't realize that the system is being actively rigged against them by the ultra wealthy.
>People don't realize that the system is being actively rigged against them by the ultra wealthy.
rigged...that is incorrect and part of the misdirection. What people dont realize is that the system is working correctly/almost perfectly as designed. You have to accept this fact.......it just wasn't designed to protect you or advance your demographic (your demographic has a different role in the system). Once you accept the fact, you can start to realize that any avenue the perfectly working system gives you, is not really gonna change much and in fact in just a never ending carrot and string/mirage.
please dont ask me what the solution to changing the perfectly working system is.....the system doesnt allow free thought or proven historical solutions, to this problem, to be expressed in forums owned by said Ultra wealthy.
You’re giving too much credit to the aristocrats. They didn’t see it coming they only became willing to acknowledge its existence once heads were already rolling. Then they panicked and needed to find an excuse. They needed to find an argument that could be used to justify and preserve their exploitative way of life. Thus conservatism was born not preemptively but as a reaction to the rise of democracy around the globe.
The reason that people say the system is rigged is because they’ve been lied too their whole lives. People believe that you have to earn money for instance. They’ve been taught that in order to obtain money they first have to create something of value and then exchange that thing for money. And they are taught that this system works because every time somebody pays you for something valuable you created they are using money earned from the creation of their own valuable things. Of course what’s been omitted is that it’s also possible to obtain money without creating anything of value by simply working to make the lives of everyone else harder. You can buy up an apartment and cut the maintenance budget while raising rents. You can buy a firm and cut employees while raising the prices customers pay claiming that there is a shortage of supply. You can buy a fish off of a fisherman for 5$ and charge them 20$ to eat it. The list goes on ad infinium but the important part is to always remember to be thankful for being given the opportunity to create something of value because how else would we know you’re bought?
I feel like the system here was created for the people in the upper classes but each administration will tug it in a certain direction. Right now and in trumps previous term, the direction has been very hard right where businesses are making their fair share and more of record profits.
The price of oil goes up, but what’s the cost to refine it? I feel like refineries are the bottleneck and the reason for the cost since we do not consume our own oil. Building a pipeline from Canada through the states doesn’t drop the price of gas or oil. We consume other countries oil as it’s a different grade.
Now another deal is what Trump is doing for his crypto bros who have teased and enticed him on how crypto works and how it can be untraceable for the donors. People can donate a lot and not be called out. Trump has made billions in this current term, compared to the past presidents, this is what happens when you elect a conman and person who will not divest his properties. He funnels as much as he can into his businesses at the expense of the taxpayers.
This. Capitalism is working perfectly, as designed.
.if we want freedom FROM corrupt oligar hs, we need democratic socialism to neuter capitalistic enslavement.
Cope lol surely we’d see record highs in wages too right? Oh wait. Wages have stagnated relative to inflation since the 1970s. This shit is just not sustainable to have 50% of the population not be able to afford housing, healthcare and food.
Sure they won't turn the whole thing right around but we would not have this entire fucking tariff mess if it weren't for Republicans. Inflation would be lower and we'd probably have gotten more rate cuts by now.
I am will to bet that if the DEMs were in control the exact same demographic (not necessarily the same individuals) would be profiting massively.... AND the reverse robin hooding would still be going on, just at a slightly different rate. When you toss a coin, somethings its heads, sometimes its tails but every time it ends up in the hands of the person tossing it. Gosh I wonder, in a pay to play system, if its possible to amass enough capitol to simply control both sides of a duopoly? nah, thats just crazy talk
its not...Plus its not both sides are the same, they clearly are not. It is just both sides have the same puppeteer. Understand?
how come when you point this out, both sides of the intentionally polarized duopoly fight it so hard and try to dismiss the peopel saying it? the indoctrination/brainwashing runs deep, real deep. So deep it puts their ........
I have never seen anyone say “both sides are the same, therefore you might as well vote Democrat.”
I have seen people say countless times “both sides are the same, so you might as well vote conservative”.
Does that help you understand?
Also
Over the long term, both sides aren’t the same.
Non aristocrats in the west are much better off than 100 or 200 years ago. And that’s because of progressive blood.
Conservatives now are trying to undo that progress. The problem is the Democratic Party is an umbrella party with soft conservatives and progressives. While the republicans are staunch conservatives.
no I fully understand you...do you understand what I wrote?
ps personally never heard anyone say "both sides are the same" then say they are voting for one or the other cuz of that reason...we all have anecdotal evidence of different things. so to answer your question of why you hear that? I will go with you having out in certain echo chambers and hear the same thing? I dont really know the answer, since it isnt what I am discussing in the first place..
buddy you edited your comment..hard to discuss anything when you do that, cuz you change it..
>I don’t see how I’m in an echo chamber if I hear people constantly trying to change my mind.
you asked why you hear certain things..I have no idea why.
do you know what a circular conversation is?? please dont edit your comments and then tell peopel "you dint address the historical tings I brought up". when you dont put that in the first run..anyhow, I answered your question..your turn...do you understand what I was talking about? I honestly dont think you do or are getting anywhere near the point I was making.
They will, but it will take longer than the 4 years Trump will have spent ruining it, and people like you are too cynical to understand it takes longer to repair and build things than it does to break them.
And perhaps people like you dont understand that people like me have given the Democrats ample opportunities to make the changes they have promised. Make good on the “Hope and change”. And…still waiting. I’m not looking to them for answers any more. Nothing but hollow promises
It’s gotta be more than “Trump bad”. OK so yeah, what else you got? Get real
Republicans?
How many of the top 10, heck top 50 Fortune 500 companies are from republican states/counties?
Honest question since you throw the left’s favourite touchstone - corporate friends’….. haha the generational bias is so loud it’s deafening.
This isn’t the 1960’s and fighting the evil corporate war machine. We already did that then. It’s what your parents/grandparents romanticize about (their formative years)…flower power, the Beatles, peace signs etc.
This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.
How many of the software giants - the corporate friends you speak of - how many are from lefty bastions like Silicon Valley?
That’s who the evil corporations are now.
How many board rooms of the SP 500 companies today -‘corporate’- could be considered republican?
1/10? Doubt it’s even 1/20
That’s quite the sweeping generalization
And you have it on good authority what board rooms are like?
Or just a young kid still in school pretending to pass off experience??
lol, you have nothing to support such an assertion except being butt-hurt, or some other ridiculous anecdotal assertion.
I mean, I’m just saying true things. Conservatism is anti worker. Corporations are anti worker. I don’t see any companies lobbying for increased pto, universal health care, more maternity leave, increase wfh. No. They want more control and desperate workers.
But if we’re going to start calling people butt hurt instead of addressing what they’ve actually said, you seem to think that the voting habits of a town are somehow the same thing as corporate behavior. Which is moronic. “Corporations that aren’t headquartered in right leaning districts can’t be conservative”. That makes literally no sense.
You’re also conflating the fight for workers rights with music choices and logos. The most square person ever can still be pro workers rights.
It’s not about trivialisms like “stick it to the man” it’s about empowering regular people.
But yes, conservatism is anti worker. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk%29 It was conceptualized to minimize democracies ability to give regular people control as well as insulate aristocrats from that control.
Even the term “right wing” comes from the pro monarchists who would sit to the right in the French government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Aristocrats and their hyper wealthy lapdogs running large corporations all have class solidarity. You should too.
I mean of course it’s anti worker. Every single business cuts labor first before cutting anything else. Hell, when the execs are last on the line for what is ultimately their responsibility. Other than calling people with workers rights “kook aid drinkers” do you have anything of substance to say?
You forgot the ‘rich’ element of your evil white Anglo-Saxon effigy persona you’re burning up. Which, I am.
Own land and farm - hence the ‘gurrrrlz’. And I’m now the duke.
Generational wealth my boy, ….and lots of work.
For profit. Not for everyone else. Not a charity. I don’t lick,my boots get licked.
I'm commenting from desktop just to highlight that your thought process here doesn't make sense, but you don't need to respond.
> Republicans? How many of the top 10, heck top 50 Fortune 500 companies are from republican states/counties?
"I don't think many large companies are from areas that vote conservative"
> Honest question since you throw the left’s favourite touchstone - corporate friends’….. haha the generational bias is so loud it’s deafening.
"its outdated to think corporations are antiworker"
>This isn’t the 1960’s and fighting the evil corporate war machine. We already did that then.
"People in the 60s opposed unchecked corporate power and supported workers rights, and its outdated."
>It’s what your parents/grandparents romanticize about (their formative years)…flower power, the Beatles, peace signs etc. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.
"Opposing unchecked corporate power and supporting workers rights was a fad in the 60s like music and wall art preference. As a fad, it had no real meaning."
>How many of the software giants - the corporate friends you speak of - how many are from lefty bastions like Silicon Valley?
"Lots of corporations have headquarters in places that vote liberal."
>That’s who the evil corporations are now.
"Corporations are left wing now because a lot of the people who live near their head quarters vote liberal."
>How many board rooms of the SP 500 companies today -‘corporate’- could be considered republican? 1/10? Doubt it’s even 1/20
"The largest companies probably aren't conservative because they aren't head quartered near groups of people who vote conservative."
now lets substitute
"How many large companies are from areas that vote liberal vs conservative?"
"its outdated to think corporations are antiworker and you sound old."
"People in the 60s opposed unchecked corporate power and supported workers rights and that's outdated."
"Opposing unchecked corporate power and supporting workers rights was a fad in the 60s like music and wall art preference. As a fad, it had no real meaning."
"Lots of corporations have headquarters in places that vote liberal."
"Corporations are left wing now because a lot of the people who live near their head quarters vote liberal."
"The largest companies probably aren't conservative because they aren't head quartered near groups of people who vote conservative."
now lets remove redundancy
"its outdated to think corporations are antiworker and you sound old."
"People in the 60s opposed unchecked corporate power and supported workers rights, but that was a fad like peace signs and had no real meaning."
"The largest companies now probably aren't conservative because they aren't head quartered near groups of people who vote conservative."
"Instead, corporations are left wing now because a lot of the people who live near their head quarters vote liberal."
And there's a few things wrong with that.
Supporting workers rights is never outdated and every right you have now was won with blood by people fighting for worker's rights. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/5/21/1093478/community/A-Day-in-the-Life-of-Joe-Republican-8/ on the similar topic.
Supporting workers rights isn't a fad and isn't unique to hippie aesthetics. I mean, the Jungle was from 1904. And this English workers rights movement predates the american civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism
Large corporations chose where to have their head quarters based on tons of factors. The voting habits of the local populations has nothing to do with whether the corporation itself behaves in a conservative, antiworker, manner.
The problem persists so badly that many prefer not join unions in fear of losing their jobs just because things have gotten so expensive that people are too scared to lose their livelyhood.
Yes but overall union representation has been decimated the last 40 years. You don’t have to be in a union but if we have more folks represented by them it puts pressure on non union companies to compete. I had a friend that worked at Trader Joe’s, the threat of them unionizing had Trader Joe’s raising wages asap. Actually a few stores had unionized.
You said a shortsighted view. His call for more employment representation through unions is spot on. If we had 30% of employees represented by unions every Americans economic situation would be better. Unions have been gutted to the benefit of no one but a few rich oligarchs in the US.
There is a lot of confusion on the relationship of the trade deficit and the growing government debt. A lot of people thought that tariffs were the fix for it.
It’s completely senseless but people bought into it.
I know doctors and engineers that believed it for awhile
I’m not sure. I think the workers who supported tariffs did so because they thought it would protect their jobs or bring back the ones that had already been lost.
I just don’t think the working class can’t be relied upon to be the savior of our economy. There is a pretty diverse group of interests within that category. I don’t think you can expect them to vote the way that bare self interest would dictate.
It depends on how you define 'working class', but the traditional blue-collar demographic shifted pretty solidly in the last decade or so to explicitly support these policies (or rather, elect the people who support these policies). Most unions didn't endorse him, but a lot of the rank-and-file members did.
Reverse Robinhood for sure. The consumers all had to pay increased prices for products, so the rich get to profit and then the same consumers get to donate their tax dollars to refunds to the same rich people. It's literally a double tap to consumers to feed the rich, it's absolute insanity.
tariffs weren't paid by consumers. they were paid by importers who passed the cost onto consumers.
the distinction is important. because you're never seeing a penny of those refunds.
direct your anger where it should be. Trump. and republicans in congress for enabling him/ceding their responsibility to check the executive. on these illegal tariffs.
Yes, the corporations and importers paid the tariffs directly to the government, which is why they filed lawsuits to obtain refunds from the government.
But the corporations also passed on those costs to consumers who paid inflated prices, which is why many of those same corporations are now currently subject to multiple class action lawsuits by customers seeking refunds once the corporations get the money back from the government.
But, the price to tariff cost isnt 1:1, and a lot of them didn't raise their prices immediately especially for consumer products and the tariffs changed constantly so figuring it out isn't easy. And a lot of stuff would be raw or semifinished goods that are repackaged in the US. So there isn't like an easy tariff percent on your actual consumer receipt. That makes it so there is lots of room for lawyers.
will be interesting to see if there's any actual legal grounds for consumers to win damages.
i would imagine it's impossible to prove what if any amt of price increase is directly related to tariffs. there's no illegal activity in raising prices due to tariffs, and no legal requirement for a company to refund prices. So what damage is anyone actually claiming?
and how would any consumer claim any damage?
ie. let's take costco. they're likely getting a refund. how much of their tariffs refund is translated in cost to consumers. raw goods... how much exactly did an item go up? what about the shipping costs from trucking/parts that went up to get the goods to them. what about material costs/machines/equipment ...from everything in their stores, to warehouses, to all along the supply chain, that went up because of tariffs, and those costs were passed onto costco, which then had to hire people/have workers consider all of these price issues. to delegate costs to items on the showroom floor. or ...fertilizer/feed costs used by producers of produce/food products. Like.. if costco sells chicken, how much of the increase in chicken prices is because chicken sellers increase costs... maybe for tariffs, maybe for all the logistics in the chicken supply chain. what about coca cola? aluminum prices went up. so soda cans were more expensive. but costco buys finished soda not aluminum.... and the price of coke goes up. has nothing to do with tariffs they got a refund for. (but the price is up due to tariffs)
and costco isnt' a shitty corporation. they probably. of ANY company, resisted cost increases as much as possible. and are probably one of the companies that would lower prices if tariffs went away (they're still in place btw)
I thought Tim Apple showed up to the white house with a solid gold apple placque for Donald Trump and exempt cell phones from the tariffs because they thought a tax on phones would be to jolting to the public and make them realize the effects of the tariffs.
Ok, Apple was a muddy example. The point stands though - there's no way to know which companies were able to pass on the costs vs those that could not due to local competition.
...and often, there are other muddy circumstances like Apple's where they were instead forced to build manufacturing in the US.
Technically the business paid the tariffs and raised prices in response, which people then paid.
They may have had a tariff “line item” but the government collected from the business.
So this course of action makes sense - Trump is the criminal here. We just need to tax businesses more (big business not small) and the wealthy. Fuck Trump
If your receipt had a tariff line item, you might win in court to get your refund. But in the case of the lawsuit against Nintendo, there isn't a tariff line item, the console just had a new price given that the costs increased.
I saw a video where like fed ex charged some lady 63 dollars for a “tariff charge” to get a package or something like that. Wonder if that is redeemable from FedEx? Or is it the government who owes you?
You're telling me the Republicans said they were going to cut taxes, made a tax, then rebated that tax to the rich? I just don't believe they would do such a thing. They've usually not bothered raising the tax in the first place, and just switched to giving money to rich people.
No it's working exactly the way it should just like the PPP loans 80% went to corporate interest and the people that actually needed it didn't get it just like everything else in this country the rich get everything and you might get a taste but not likely
And the repayment of those tariffs will likely be borrowed, sitting their as debt for....eternity. The money collected from the tarrifs, really just helped with interest payments on the $39 trillion in debt owed. Net loss to future generations who will be paying for this ill conceived experiment.
I volunteer for a not-for-profit that builds a free product for disadvantaged people. It costs about $1500 per unit. We had to pay $15,000 tariff on a $25,000 order of metal screws from Taiwan. That means, simply, that we build ten fewer units for folks.
If we can get a refund, then we can go ahead and build those units. I wonder how many charitable organizations that use "stuff" they had to buy are in the same situation?
When slavery ended, the owners were compensated for "lost property," while the enslaved, who were denied wages and wealth, received nothing. Banks got the bailouts during the Great Recession, not the people lost their livelihoods. The current situation with tariffs reflects a long historical precedent where legal and economic systems prioritize property rights over human rights, the working class, etc., ensuring restitution flows to owners rather than those who actually bore the cost.
Yes. We, the consumers, are paying for the tariffs twice. Once to the corporations when we buy things and once through tax dollars when the government pays them back.
If you want to know who a government actually serves, don’t listen to politician. Just look at who the tax code gives the most advantages to.
Look at who pays the most, who gets breaks, and who has access to loopholes. Are regular wages getting hit harder than capital gains? Are small businesses paying more proportionally than huge corporations with teams of accountants finding every workaround?
Every deduction, credit, and special rule exists because someone pushed for it and a government mechanism granted it.
If most of the burden falls on people earning income through work while people making money through assets get better treatment, that says a lot. Same thing when certain industries or groups always seem to get special carve-outs.
It is even worse. Take a look at Lutnik's company buying up the rights to tariff refunds from businesses who wanted some cash now rather than waiting on maybe getting a refund.
Importers paid the tariffs. Some of those companies increased their prices to cover the tariffs. Some of them didn't. Unless you specifically paid tariffs (I had a DHL shipment that wouldn't get delivered until I paid them $60), you didn't pay "tariffs"
I want to be clear that I'm not defending the tariffs. They were bullshit and we all knew it from the beginning. But bureaucratically, most customers didn't "pay tariffs" and the mechanism to make them whole is non-existent.
Tariffs strategically targeted to specific domestic industries coupled with investment in those same industries is appropriate. Even then they should be temporary.
The only same answer is no refunds, but every cent goes into the general treasury of the United States and must be accounted for. No Trump‘s slush fund.
There’s no federal accounting currently happening. They’re just stealing money from the people and doing whatever they want with it. Remember Trump’s $500m in Qatar?
The pass through was generally not very high, I don't even know why this is that big of a topic. On a few select items like coffee, ya, that was pass through, but the average pass through was super low in most analysis. I mean poeple need to put this energy into getting congress to do it's damn job.
Citation needed? According to this study commissioned by Congress, the "not very high" pass through costed the average household $1,700 in the span of one year. That's about 2.1% of the average household income, more than an entire week's pay gone from every family. Recall that ~60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck... 2.1% starts to seem rather significant.
Even if that is potentially at the very high end of possible estimates (and I'm not going to take a study commissioned by the opposing party as gospel by any means), if I've paid even an extra $1,000 because of a harebrained tax that was completely illegal in the first place, well, I sure wouldn't turn the check down. That could've been a whole extra mortgage payment, a vacation, long overdue car maintenance, Christmas, etc. for many families. Maybe meals, rent, bills for others. 2% may seem small on its face but in a world where most people are living in the margins, losing the margins is a big damn deal. An even bigger deal when it seems so completely unnecessary to begin with.
This is unfortunately what consumers in the US voted for. Our society willfully elected a POTUS who made it clear that he was going to impose these tariffs. Our society literally asked for this.
What I don’t understand about these article is have they tried to trace the tariff money to the prices?
Unless your a consumer who paid the tariff bill yourself, or the exact tariff amount for your transaction was called out on your bill, there is no possible way to trace the tariff into the price. For anyone who has ever done pricing and packaging work there are tons of inputs. Tariffs may or may not even be a line item depending on how a company handles it. It certainly can be the public facing excuse but did that 5% price increase made up of 100% tariff cost or did the business toss in a margin increase while they were at it. The business might know but they are highly unlikely to explain the whole pricing story to the customer.
This is how America's moronic idea of capitalism work. Tax the lowest class, privatize profit while losses are socialized because supply chains have become so consolidated competition is nonexistent and the economy will suffer if we dont bail out the reckless capitalist.
The tariffs were paid by middle man businesses and added as a fee or up charge to consumers. If you ordered direct from manufacturers abroad then you paid the tariffs.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the intended outcome all along for those behind this kleptomaniac government. The tariffs were always known to be illegal. This way they profit twice: first from the raised prices and second from the backpay.
Reverse Robinhood reminds me of the novel Atlas Shrugged, wherein (spoilers), a pirate robs government vessels to give the money back to billionaires. Ayn Rand was like that.
The thing is though, in reality this pirate would be wasting his time. The government takes very good care of billionaires and megacorps, at everyone else's expense if need be.
People won’t be happy that these refunds aren’t passed on through price decreases, but it’s also not that simple, especially when the firm itself eats some of the cost in the short term. These amounts will get partially “refunded” to consumers as employment and wages eventually rebound, and through higher returns to capital for shareholders
That's why many of these companies are being sued in class action lawsuits by customers. The companies paid the tariffs to the government, and customers paid increased prices to the companies. Now the companies are seeking tariff refunds from the government and the customers seeking refunds from the companies directly.
If he were smart he's announce the collected tariffs would be given directly to people and say that was repayment. Let Congress or the Court try to block it.
They will end up paying double.
Nothing stops the government from sending every American some money but the courts will laugh at the idea that it should count as a tariff refund.
If the New York Times wrote journalism, they would write of this as theft. However, the NYTimes is nothing but a conservative nonsense rag, so what you get is blather designed to make it look less like stealing. Morons such as Russ Duthat and David Brooks are useless propagandists--all gaslight, and no substance--and that's all the Times pushes now that they're about as reliable as the National Enquirer.
Nope. Robin Hood stole from the government to give back to the people. While we'd benefit from reducing our tax burden, that's unfortunately not an option here.
Who paid the tariffs? While the companies might have passed on the tariff costs, they are the ones who paid tariffs on the imports.
I wouldn't call this a "reverse Robinhood". They are going to look at the tariffs receipts and who paid them. That's mostly going to be the businesses.
Why? What legal standing do consumers have? What records do we have to prove that we paid x amount of tariffs? The importer on record is the only entity legally entitled to these refunds. It would be extremely hard to determine how much each consumer paid in excess because of tariffs.
The importer of record has no obligation to show their pre / post tarrif sales prices, and no requirement to show any loss or gain related to tariffs, no obligation to return overpaid customers, it's just free money from the treasury's general fund. All the tariff funded farmers have no obligation to return the illegal funding either.
This is still reverse Robinhood. Yes we know the businesses paid the tariffs but we also know many businesses passed those costs on to their consumers. However there’s no relief for consumers, so businesses make more from higher prices and get a refund without ever having to lower prices or pass money back to individuals.
You can try and bring your receipt and demand the business refund your portion of tariffs paid. I don’t think you’ll have much luck with it but there’s not really any alternative way that it could be done even if every entity involved wanted to
The federal government could instead not do dumbass tariffs and issues at least some direct payment to households. Yes I know, not everybody consumes the same amount but without giving money back to citizens we will just be initiating a wealth transfer to corporations.
Do an average basket of goods and average inflation of those prices over the time period of a year and issue that amount as direct payments to US households.
True, but that ship has sailed. We can't do anything about it. Making more inflation doesn't help. A better use of money would be using it to fund programs that assist people who need help.
Tariffs were paid by the companies. Companies whose costs increased increased the price of their products. Customers paid the price set by the companies.
We understand that, we don’t need wannabe economics professionals explaining that businesses paid the tariffs.
We know businesses passed the cost to us. That’s why we say we paid them. “Well actually…” is such a waste of time. We know we didn’t cut a check to the government 😂
Progressives are the single most economically illiterate group of people I have ever known. There is nothing wrong with naivety, but this aggressive confidence while sharing the absolute worst economic takes is embarrassing. Not a single consumer paid a tariff. Tariffs are exclusively paid by importers. Importers sell to suppliers and distributors who sell to retailers who sell to consumers.
Consumers have zero rights to any tariff refunds because they have zero right to any price/markup/or margin.
"Not a single consumer paid a tariff. Tariffs are exclusively paid by importers. Importers sell to suppliers and distributors who sell to retailers who sell to consumers."
See how your sentence ends with "customers." Thats why individuals are demanding a refund. They already know what youre saying, theyre just going to the end point because they can follow the extremly simple logical steps required to get there.
Tariffs were not paid by consumers. People should stop saying that because it is false.
Tariffs were paid by the importer and the importer gets the refund. Period.
If an importer then raised prices to cover the tariffs, and then they were raised to the consumer, it was rarely done on a one-to-one ratio and many importers did actually eat a good portion of tariffs. But the consumer is still not entitled to a refund or a portion of the refund, as they agreed to purchase the goods at the new price.
It is a shit burger for consumers, but that’s what they voted for and that’s why tariffs suck.
Economics-ModTeam | 9 hours ago
Submissions must be from original sources with original headlines. Memes, self-promotion and low-quality blogs are not acceptable. Source spamming is not acceptable. Further explanation.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
dominiond66 | a day ago
This is the standard operating procedure for Republicans and their corporate friends. Screw the workers and consumer and drown themselves in excess profits.
Last year Corporate America had total RECORD profits of $3.4 Trillion. There is also RECORD stock market. They have so much money they don't know what to do with it!
Record profits generated by low wages/benefits to their employees AND high prices for consumers. The rich thrive while the rest of us struggles for the basics of life.
Democrats must win BIG in November. The working class can't afford Republican Policies!
ForMoreYears | a day ago
Oh they know what to do with it. They're using it to rig the system in their favor.
Perfect example is Howard Nutlick and his son at Cantor Fitzgerald. They make money from Nutlick liberalizing crypto regulations and by buying the refund rights for tariffs. Then they take that money and do things like donate $10m to the Fellowship PAC which lobbies lawmakers to further liberalize crypto regs so they can make even more money.
People don't realize that the system is being actively rigged against them by the ultra wealthy.
littleredpinto | a day ago
>People don't realize that the system is being actively rigged against them by the ultra wealthy.
rigged...that is incorrect and part of the misdirection. What people dont realize is that the system is working correctly/almost perfectly as designed. You have to accept this fact.......it just wasn't designed to protect you or advance your demographic (your demographic has a different role in the system). Once you accept the fact, you can start to realize that any avenue the perfectly working system gives you, is not really gonna change much and in fact in just a never ending carrot and string/mirage.
please dont ask me what the solution to changing the perfectly working system is.....the system doesnt allow free thought or proven historical solutions, to this problem, to be expressed in forums owned by said Ultra wealthy.
GrayEidolon | a day ago
Aristocrats saw democracy incoming and invented conservatism to keep control.
Haggardick69 | a day ago
You’re giving too much credit to the aristocrats. They didn’t see it coming they only became willing to acknowledge its existence once heads were already rolling. Then they panicked and needed to find an excuse. They needed to find an argument that could be used to justify and preserve their exploitative way of life. Thus conservatism was born not preemptively but as a reaction to the rise of democracy around the globe.
GrayEidolon | a day ago
Thanks for the response.
Yeah thats my point.
You’re too focused on my word choice.
If I’d said “Aristocrats saw democracy occurring and invented conservatism to keep control” would you have replied?
EraseAnatta | a day ago
Yeah I don’t think “saw democracy incoming” necessarily means they saw it coming from a mile away. That person is just picking nits.
GrayEidolon | 20 hours ago
Thanks. 👍
Haggardick69 | a day ago
The reason that people say the system is rigged is because they’ve been lied too their whole lives. People believe that you have to earn money for instance. They’ve been taught that in order to obtain money they first have to create something of value and then exchange that thing for money. And they are taught that this system works because every time somebody pays you for something valuable you created they are using money earned from the creation of their own valuable things. Of course what’s been omitted is that it’s also possible to obtain money without creating anything of value by simply working to make the lives of everyone else harder. You can buy up an apartment and cut the maintenance budget while raising rents. You can buy a firm and cut employees while raising the prices customers pay claiming that there is a shortage of supply. You can buy a fish off of a fisherman for 5$ and charge them 20$ to eat it. The list goes on ad infinium but the important part is to always remember to be thankful for being given the opportunity to create something of value because how else would we know you’re bought?
YellowZx5 | a day ago
I feel like the system here was created for the people in the upper classes but each administration will tug it in a certain direction. Right now and in trumps previous term, the direction has been very hard right where businesses are making their fair share and more of record profits.
The price of oil goes up, but what’s the cost to refine it? I feel like refineries are the bottleneck and the reason for the cost since we do not consume our own oil. Building a pipeline from Canada through the states doesn’t drop the price of gas or oil. We consume other countries oil as it’s a different grade.
Now another deal is what Trump is doing for his crypto bros who have teased and enticed him on how crypto works and how it can be untraceable for the donors. People can donate a lot and not be called out. Trump has made billions in this current term, compared to the past presidents, this is what happens when you elect a conman and person who will not divest his properties. He funnels as much as he can into his businesses at the expense of the taxpayers.
razzemmatazz | 19 hours ago
🔥
ZoomZoom_Driver | 18 hours ago
This. Capitalism is working perfectly, as designed. .if we want freedom FROM corrupt oligar hs, we need democratic socialism to neuter capitalistic enslavement.
I_Love_To_Poop420 | 21 hours ago
The solution is extremely simple, but will get you banned from Reddit.
weaponjaerevenge | a day ago
I'm wondering how that CEO for United Healthcare is doing with his generous severance package.
Key-Organization3158 | a day ago
Profits are not profit margins.
Record profits can be generated by high inflation. So no, you are missing many other components of record profits.
Fearless-Feature-830 | 22 hours ago
Cope lol surely we’d see record highs in wages too right? Oh wait. Wages have stagnated relative to inflation since the 1970s. This shit is just not sustainable to have 50% of the population not be able to afford housing, healthcare and food.
draft_beer | a day ago
Yeah I’m sure the Dems are gonna turn the system right around!
needmoresynths | a day ago
Sure they won't turn the whole thing right around but we would not have this entire fucking tariff mess if it weren't for Republicans. Inflation would be lower and we'd probably have gotten more rate cuts by now.
littleredpinto | a day ago
I am will to bet that if the DEMs were in control the exact same demographic (not necessarily the same individuals) would be profiting massively.... AND the reverse robin hooding would still be going on, just at a slightly different rate. When you toss a coin, somethings its heads, sometimes its tails but every time it ends up in the hands of the person tossing it. Gosh I wonder, in a pay to play system, if its possible to amass enough capitol to simply control both sides of a duopoly? nah, thats just crazy talk
GrayEidolon | a day ago
How come "both sides are the same" is only ever used to encourage right wing votes?
littleredpinto | a day ago
its not...Plus its not both sides are the same, they clearly are not. It is just both sides have the same puppeteer. Understand?
how come when you point this out, both sides of the intentionally polarized duopoly fight it so hard and try to dismiss the peopel saying it? the indoctrination/brainwashing runs deep, real deep. So deep it puts their ........
GrayEidolon | a day ago
I have never seen anyone say “both sides are the same, therefore you might as well vote Democrat.”
I have seen people say countless times “both sides are the same, so you might as well vote conservative”.
Does that help you understand?
Also
Over the long term, both sides aren’t the same. Non aristocrats in the west are much better off than 100 or 200 years ago. And that’s because of progressive blood.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/5/21/1093478/community/A-Day-in-the-Life-of-Joe-Republican-8/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism
Conservatives now are trying to undo that progress. The problem is the Democratic Party is an umbrella party with soft conservatives and progressives. While the republicans are staunch conservatives.
littleredpinto | a day ago
no I fully understand you...do you understand what I wrote?
ps personally never heard anyone say "both sides are the same" then say they are voting for one or the other cuz of that reason...we all have anecdotal evidence of different things. so to answer your question of why you hear that? I will go with you having out in certain echo chambers and hear the same thing? I dont really know the answer, since it isnt what I am discussing in the first place..
GrayEidolon | a day ago
Yeah you’re off topic and didn’t address the historical things I brought up.
I don’t see how I’m in an echo chamber if I hear people constantly trying to change my mind.
littleredpinto | a day ago
buddy you edited your comment..hard to discuss anything when you do that, cuz you change it..
>I don’t see how I’m in an echo chamber if I hear people constantly trying to change my mind.
you asked why you hear certain things..I have no idea why.
do you know what a circular conversation is?? please dont edit your comments and then tell peopel "you dint address the historical tings I brought up". when you dont put that in the first run..anyhow, I answered your question..your turn...do you understand what I was talking about? I honestly dont think you do or are getting anywhere near the point I was making.
atreeismissing | a day ago
They will, but it will take longer than the 4 years Trump will have spent ruining it, and people like you are too cynical to understand it takes longer to repair and build things than it does to break them.
draft_beer | a day ago
And perhaps people like you dont understand that people like me have given the Democrats ample opportunities to make the changes they have promised. Make good on the “Hope and change”. And…still waiting. I’m not looking to them for answers any more. Nothing but hollow promises
It’s gotta be more than “Trump bad”. OK so yeah, what else you got? Get real
Fearless-Feature-830 | 22 hours ago
Yea but conservative policies only make things worse for the working class so what’s your answer?
Duke_of_Gurrrlz | a day ago
Republicans? How many of the top 10, heck top 50 Fortune 500 companies are from republican states/counties? Honest question since you throw the left’s favourite touchstone - corporate friends’….. haha the generational bias is so loud it’s deafening. This isn’t the 1960’s and fighting the evil corporate war machine. We already did that then. It’s what your parents/grandparents romanticize about (their formative years)…flower power, the Beatles, peace signs etc. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore. How many of the software giants - the corporate friends you speak of - how many are from lefty bastions like Silicon Valley? That’s who the evil corporations are now. How many board rooms of the SP 500 companies today -‘corporate’- could be considered republican? 1/10? Doubt it’s even 1/20
GrayEidolon | a day ago
You’re confusing labels with policies.
You’re also confusing aesthetics for politics.
Boardrooms are very conservative, ie pro hierarchy and anti worker, no matter where they’re located or what imagery their pr uses.
Duke_of_Gurrrlz | a day ago
That’s quite the sweeping generalization And you have it on good authority what board rooms are like? Or just a young kid still in school pretending to pass off experience?? lol, you have nothing to support such an assertion except being butt-hurt, or some other ridiculous anecdotal assertion.
GrayEidolon | a day ago
I mean, I’m just saying true things. Conservatism is anti worker. Corporations are anti worker. I don’t see any companies lobbying for increased pto, universal health care, more maternity leave, increase wfh. No. They want more control and desperate workers.
But if we’re going to start calling people butt hurt instead of addressing what they’ve actually said, you seem to think that the voting habits of a town are somehow the same thing as corporate behavior. Which is moronic. “Corporations that aren’t headquartered in right leaning districts can’t be conservative”. That makes literally no sense.
You’re also conflating the fight for workers rights with music choices and logos. The most square person ever can still be pro workers rights.
Duke_of_Gurrrlz | a day ago
Conservatives are anti worker? Corporations are anti-worker? Lol yaaaaaa maaaaaaan, stick it to maaaaan! The kool-aid is thick here. Wow
GrayEidolon | a day ago
It’s not about trivialisms like “stick it to the man” it’s about empowering regular people.
But yes, conservatism is anti worker. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk%29 It was conceptualized to minimize democracies ability to give regular people control as well as insulate aristocrats from that control.
Even the term “right wing” comes from the pro monarchists who would sit to the right in the French government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Aristocrats and their hyper wealthy lapdogs running large corporations all have class solidarity. You should too.
Oryzae | 19 hours ago
I mean of course it’s anti worker. Every single business cuts labor first before cutting anything else. Hell, when the execs are last on the line for what is ultimately their responsibility. Other than calling people with workers rights “kook aid drinkers” do you have anything of substance to say?
Duke_of_Gurrrlz | 18 hours ago
It’s called running a for profit business. This isn’t a fucking charity you lefty clown. They don’t owe you a job. They don’t owe you shit.
This isn’t communism. Yet. Thank god.
Oryzae | 17 hours ago
Thanks for confirming that they’re anti worker. You may go back to licking the boot.
Duke_of_Gurrrlz | 17 hours ago
You forgot the ‘rich’ element of your evil white Anglo-Saxon effigy persona you’re burning up. Which, I am. Own land and farm - hence the ‘gurrrrlz’. And I’m now the duke. Generational wealth my boy, ….and lots of work. For profit. Not for everyone else. Not a charity. I don’t lick,my boots get licked.
GrayEidolon | a day ago
I'm commenting from desktop just to highlight that your thought process here doesn't make sense, but you don't need to respond.
> Republicans? How many of the top 10, heck top 50 Fortune 500 companies are from republican states/counties?
"I don't think many large companies are from areas that vote conservative"
> Honest question since you throw the left’s favourite touchstone - corporate friends’….. haha the generational bias is so loud it’s deafening.
"its outdated to think corporations are antiworker"
>This isn’t the 1960’s and fighting the evil corporate war machine. We already did that then.
"People in the 60s opposed unchecked corporate power and supported workers rights, and its outdated."
>It’s what your parents/grandparents romanticize about (their formative years)…flower power, the Beatles, peace signs etc. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.
"Opposing unchecked corporate power and supporting workers rights was a fad in the 60s like music and wall art preference. As a fad, it had no real meaning."
>How many of the software giants - the corporate friends you speak of - how many are from lefty bastions like Silicon Valley?
"Lots of corporations have headquarters in places that vote liberal."
>That’s who the evil corporations are now.
"Corporations are left wing now because a lot of the people who live near their head quarters vote liberal."
>How many board rooms of the SP 500 companies today -‘corporate’- could be considered republican? 1/10? Doubt it’s even 1/20
"The largest companies probably aren't conservative because they aren't head quartered near groups of people who vote conservative."
now lets substitute
"How many large companies are from areas that vote liberal vs conservative?" "its outdated to think corporations are antiworker and you sound old." "People in the 60s opposed unchecked corporate power and supported workers rights and that's outdated." "Opposing unchecked corporate power and supporting workers rights was a fad in the 60s like music and wall art preference. As a fad, it had no real meaning." "Lots of corporations have headquarters in places that vote liberal." "Corporations are left wing now because a lot of the people who live near their head quarters vote liberal." "The largest companies probably aren't conservative because they aren't head quartered near groups of people who vote conservative."
now lets remove redundancy
"its outdated to think corporations are antiworker and you sound old." "People in the 60s opposed unchecked corporate power and supported workers rights, but that was a fad like peace signs and had no real meaning." "The largest companies now probably aren't conservative because they aren't head quartered near groups of people who vote conservative." "Instead, corporations are left wing now because a lot of the people who live near their head quarters vote liberal."
And there's a few things wrong with that.
Supporting workers rights is never outdated and every right you have now was won with blood by people fighting for worker's rights. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/5/21/1093478/community/A-Day-in-the-Life-of-Joe-Republican-8/ on the similar topic.
Supporting workers rights isn't a fad and isn't unique to hippie aesthetics. I mean, the Jungle was from 1904. And this English workers rights movement predates the american civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism
Large corporations chose where to have their head quarters based on tons of factors. The voting habits of the local populations has nothing to do with whether the corporation itself behaves in a conservative, antiworker, manner.
theavatare | a day ago
Without the working class having representation(either via unions or some other mechanism). Its always going to be an enrichment of the other clas.
Timmmmmyyyyyyyyyyyy | a day ago
The problem persists so badly that many prefer not join unions in fear of losing their jobs just because things have gotten so expensive that people are too scared to lose their livelyhood.
SirDaedra | a day ago
Tariffs are supported by many blue collar unions. Unfortunately, a very shortsighted view.
glencoe606 | a day ago
Yes but overall union representation has been decimated the last 40 years. You don’t have to be in a union but if we have more folks represented by them it puts pressure on non union companies to compete. I had a friend that worked at Trader Joe’s, the threat of them unionizing had Trader Joe’s raising wages asap. Actually a few stores had unionized.
SirDaedra | a day ago
I’m not disputing that, but how is that relevant to what I said?
glencoe606 | a day ago
You said a shortsighted view. His call for more employment representation through unions is spot on. If we had 30% of employees represented by unions every Americans economic situation would be better. Unions have been gutted to the benefit of no one but a few rich oligarchs in the US.
SirDaedra | a day ago
No, the blue collar workers who support tariffs have a shortsighted view.
glencoe606 | a day ago
Ok my I understand what you’re saying
theavatare | a day ago
There is a lot of confusion on the relationship of the trade deficit and the growing government debt. A lot of people thought that tariffs were the fix for it.
It’s completely senseless but people bought into it.
I know doctors and engineers that believed it for awhile
SirDaedra | a day ago
I’m not sure. I think the workers who supported tariffs did so because they thought it would protect their jobs or bring back the ones that had already been lost.
I just don’t think the working class can’t be relied upon to be the savior of our economy. There is a pretty diverse group of interests within that category. I don’t think you can expect them to vote the way that bare self interest would dictate.
theavatare | a day ago
Those are both great points.
I don’t think there is a single silver bullet to restore the current political climate and practices.
Fearless-Feature-830 | 22 hours ago
Yes but not blanket tariffs that trump has done. Strategic tariffs are good.
Dave1mo1 | a day ago
... the unions were one of the biggest proponents of tariffs for last 50 years.
Fearless-Feature-830 | 22 hours ago
Not blanket tariffs. Not all tariffs are bad.
CompEng_101 | a day ago
It depends on how you define 'working class', but the traditional blue-collar demographic shifted pretty solidly in the last decade or so to explicitly support these policies (or rather, elect the people who support these policies). Most unions didn't endorse him, but a lot of the rank-and-file members did.
This_Is_Livin | a day ago
Representation? You mean like voting? The working class has plenty of representatives, an entire chamber even.
Csquared6 | a day ago
My vote vs corporate pocket books. Guess which one has a bigger influence?
This_Is_Livin | a day ago
Your vote and your voice do.
Key-Organization3158 | a day ago
That's objectively false.
Real median personal income has increased faster than inflation for the past 50 years. You have fallen for the fixed pie fallacy.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
theavatare | a day ago
What percentage is wages vs capital. There are more people in the market than ever before.
A few graphs on this https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA
On productivity vs wages
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
On the fed opinion on the subject
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages-and-worker-productivity-the-price-measure-matters/
Easik | a day ago
Reverse Robinhood for sure. The consumers all had to pay increased prices for products, so the rich get to profit and then the same consumers get to donate their tax dollars to refunds to the same rich people. It's literally a double tap to consumers to feed the rich, it's absolute insanity.
DataDesignImagine | a day ago
Don’t worry, the tariff refunds will trickle down to us.
snoogins355 | a day ago
France figured out a solution in the late 18th century
OrneryError1 | a day ago
Turns out it's only blood that trickles down
Thegangsterle | a day ago
Trumps economic plan lol
Zef-Daytrade | a day ago
pay taxes twice = government can fund itself
then proceeds to increase the yearly budget about = to the estimated double tap to consumers.
Sometimes I dont get how the government works.....
oneWeek2024 | a day ago
tariffs weren't paid by consumers. they were paid by importers who passed the cost onto consumers.
the distinction is important. because you're never seeing a penny of those refunds.
direct your anger where it should be. Trump. and republicans in congress for enabling him/ceding their responsibility to check the executive. on these illegal tariffs.
Educational-Cat-6061 | a day ago
Yes, the corporations and importers paid the tariffs directly to the government, which is why they filed lawsuits to obtain refunds from the government.
But the corporations also passed on those costs to consumers who paid inflated prices, which is why many of those same corporations are now currently subject to multiple class action lawsuits by customers seeking refunds once the corporations get the money back from the government.
MDCCCLV | a day ago
But, the price to tariff cost isnt 1:1, and a lot of them didn't raise their prices immediately especially for consumer products and the tariffs changed constantly so figuring it out isn't easy. And a lot of stuff would be raw or semifinished goods that are repackaged in the US. So there isn't like an easy tariff percent on your actual consumer receipt. That makes it so there is lots of room for lawyers.
oneWeek2024 | a day ago
i mean that's fine.
will be interesting to see if there's any actual legal grounds for consumers to win damages.
i would imagine it's impossible to prove what if any amt of price increase is directly related to tariffs. there's no illegal activity in raising prices due to tariffs, and no legal requirement for a company to refund prices. So what damage is anyone actually claiming?
and how would any consumer claim any damage?
ie. let's take costco. they're likely getting a refund. how much of their tariffs refund is translated in cost to consumers. raw goods... how much exactly did an item go up? what about the shipping costs from trucking/parts that went up to get the goods to them. what about material costs/machines/equipment ...from everything in their stores, to warehouses, to all along the supply chain, that went up because of tariffs, and those costs were passed onto costco, which then had to hire people/have workers consider all of these price issues. to delegate costs to items on the showroom floor. or ...fertilizer/feed costs used by producers of produce/food products. Like.. if costco sells chicken, how much of the increase in chicken prices is because chicken sellers increase costs... maybe for tariffs, maybe for all the logistics in the chicken supply chain. what about coca cola? aluminum prices went up. so soda cans were more expensive. but costco buys finished soda not aluminum.... and the price of coke goes up. has nothing to do with tariffs they got a refund for. (but the price is up due to tariffs)
and costco isnt' a shitty corporation. they probably. of ANY company, resisted cost increases as much as possible. and are probably one of the companies that would lower prices if tariffs went away (they're still in place btw)
BallsInSufficientSad | a day ago
> the corporations also passed on those costs to consumers
Not always. Some companies could not raise the prices because of local competition or demand destruction.
Apple is a good example - no product price changes.
LogoffWorkout | a day ago
I thought Tim Apple showed up to the white house with a solid gold apple placque for Donald Trump and exempt cell phones from the tariffs because they thought a tax on phones would be to jolting to the public and make them realize the effects of the tariffs.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tim-cook-gifts-trump-24-023106575.html
BallsInSufficientSad | a day ago
Ok, Apple was a muddy example. The point stands though - there's no way to know which companies were able to pass on the costs vs those that could not due to local competition.
...and often, there are other muddy circumstances like Apple's where they were instead forced to build manufacturing in the US.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
We’re also paying for the refunds. They didn’t hold this money in an account.
AENM1776 | a day ago
The first intelligent comment on this post. Prepare for the backlash "corporations bad".
cicerostongue | a day ago
So this means that consumers are essentially paying tariffs twice. That’s the Trump way – steal from workers and hand over the loot to billionaires.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
Not just twice- the raised prices will not go back down. We are paying for them forever.
This was an insane wealth transfer.
WellHung67 | a day ago
Technically the business paid the tariffs and raised prices in response, which people then paid.
They may have had a tariff “line item” but the government collected from the business.
So this course of action makes sense - Trump is the criminal here. We just need to tax businesses more (big business not small) and the wealthy. Fuck Trump
Fenris_uy | a day ago
If your receipt had a tariff line item, you might win in court to get your refund. But in the case of the lawsuit against Nintendo, there isn't a tariff line item, the console just had a new price given that the costs increased.
WellHung67 | a day ago
I saw a video where like fed ex charged some lady 63 dollars for a “tariff charge” to get a package or something like that. Wonder if that is redeemable from FedEx? Or is it the government who owes you?
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
And who’s paying the refunds?
Useless | a day ago
You're telling me the Republicans said they were going to cut taxes, made a tax, then rebated that tax to the rich? I just don't believe they would do such a thing. They've usually not bothered raising the tax in the first place, and just switched to giving money to rich people.
CalligrapherNo2491 | a day ago
No it's working exactly the way it should just like the PPP loans 80% went to corporate interest and the people that actually needed it didn't get it just like everything else in this country the rich get everything and you might get a taste but not likely
tads73 | a day ago
And the repayment of those tariffs will likely be borrowed, sitting their as debt for....eternity. The money collected from the tarrifs, really just helped with interest payments on the $39 trillion in debt owed. Net loss to future generations who will be paying for this ill conceived experiment.
aji23 | a day ago
They should put all the money in a fund and send checks to the America people. They’ve done it before. Or make them tax credits.
But giving the money to the businesses is such a slap in the face.
Timmy-from-ABQ | 20 hours ago
I volunteer for a not-for-profit that builds a free product for disadvantaged people. It costs about $1500 per unit. We had to pay $15,000 tariff on a $25,000 order of metal screws from Taiwan. That means, simply, that we build ten fewer units for folks.
If we can get a refund, then we can go ahead and build those units. I wonder how many charitable organizations that use "stuff" they had to buy are in the same situation?
[OP] Hot-Addendum4703 | 19 hours ago
OK, I am good with this kind of refund!
ARATAS11 | a day ago
When slavery ended, the owners were compensated for "lost property," while the enslaved, who were denied wages and wealth, received nothing. Banks got the bailouts during the Great Recession, not the people lost their livelihoods. The current situation with tariffs reflects a long historical precedent where legal and economic systems prioritize property rights over human rights, the working class, etc., ensuring restitution flows to owners rather than those who actually bore the cost.
Salty-Treat-3697 | a day ago
Yes. We, the consumers, are paying for the tariffs twice. Once to the corporations when we buy things and once through tax dollars when the government pays them back.
BallsInSufficientSad | a day ago
That makes no sense since the same dollars paid in tariffs just reversed back to the company.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
If the US held them in an account and wasn’t spending $2b a day on war, sure!
We are paying them twice.
BallsInSufficientSad | 20 hours ago
They were held in an account - and that account is directly paying people back.
Other expenses is no relevant. Are you in the correct sub?
SunRev | a day ago
If you want to know who a government actually serves, don’t listen to politician. Just look at who the tax code gives the most advantages to.
Look at who pays the most, who gets breaks, and who has access to loopholes. Are regular wages getting hit harder than capital gains? Are small businesses paying more proportionally than huge corporations with teams of accountants finding every workaround?
Every deduction, credit, and special rule exists because someone pushed for it and a government mechanism granted it.
If most of the burden falls on people earning income through work while people making money through assets get better treatment, that says a lot. Same thing when certain industries or groups always seem to get special carve-outs.
philnotfil | 18 hours ago
It is even worse. Take a look at Lutnik's company buying up the rights to tariff refunds from businesses who wanted some cash now rather than waiting on maybe getting a refund.
VaporCarpet | a day ago
I'd expect better from this sub.
Importers paid the tariffs. Some of those companies increased their prices to cover the tariffs. Some of them didn't. Unless you specifically paid tariffs (I had a DHL shipment that wouldn't get delivered until I paid them $60), you didn't pay "tariffs"
I want to be clear that I'm not defending the tariffs. They were bullshit and we all knew it from the beginning. But bureaucratically, most customers didn't "pay tariffs" and the mechanism to make them whole is non-existent.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
It’s fine to speak colloquially. If I gave my brother $20 and he bought lunch, I bought lunch.
We don’t need 500 “well, actually…”
We understand them. I understand that I didn’t personally cut a separate check to the government when I bought toothpaste.
Jesus Christ people.
MathematicianHot8538 | a day ago
Tariffs strategically targeted to specific domestic industries coupled with investment in those same industries is appropriate. Even then they should be temporary.
gregaustex | a day ago
The only same answer is no refunds, but every cent goes into the general treasury of the United States and must be accounted for. No Trump‘s slush fund.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
There’s no federal accounting currently happening. They’re just stealing money from the people and doing whatever they want with it. Remember Trump’s $500m in Qatar?
Richandler | a day ago
The pass through was generally not very high, I don't even know why this is that big of a topic. On a few select items like coffee, ya, that was pass through, but the average pass through was super low in most analysis. I mean poeple need to put this energy into getting congress to do it's damn job.
bub166 | a day ago
Citation needed? According to this study commissioned by Congress, the "not very high" pass through costed the average household $1,700 in the span of one year. That's about 2.1% of the average household income, more than an entire week's pay gone from every family. Recall that ~60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck... 2.1% starts to seem rather significant.
Even if that is potentially at the very high end of possible estimates (and I'm not going to take a study commissioned by the opposing party as gospel by any means), if I've paid even an extra $1,000 because of a harebrained tax that was completely illegal in the first place, well, I sure wouldn't turn the check down. That could've been a whole extra mortgage payment, a vacation, long overdue car maintenance, Christmas, etc. for many families. Maybe meals, rent, bills for others. 2% may seem small on its face but in a world where most people are living in the margins, losing the margins is a big damn deal. An even bigger deal when it seems so completely unnecessary to begin with.
Reachforthesky777 | 13 hours ago
This is unfortunately what consumers in the US voted for. Our society willfully elected a POTUS who made it clear that he was going to impose these tariffs. Our society literally asked for this.
joepez | a day ago
What I don’t understand about these article is have they tried to trace the tariff money to the prices?
Unless your a consumer who paid the tariff bill yourself, or the exact tariff amount for your transaction was called out on your bill, there is no possible way to trace the tariff into the price. For anyone who has ever done pricing and packaging work there are tons of inputs. Tariffs may or may not even be a line item depending on how a company handles it. It certainly can be the public facing excuse but did that 5% price increase made up of 100% tariff cost or did the business toss in a margin increase while they were at it. The business might know but they are highly unlikely to explain the whole pricing story to the customer.
idgetonbutibeenon | a day ago
I feel you did not read the article, as you’re restating a main issue it points out.
Busterlimes | a day ago
This is how America's moronic idea of capitalism work. Tax the lowest class, privatize profit while losses are socialized because supply chains have become so consolidated competition is nonexistent and the economy will suffer if we dont bail out the reckless capitalist.
nathism | a day ago
The tariffs were paid by middle man businesses and added as a fee or up charge to consumers. If you ordered direct from manufacturers abroad then you paid the tariffs.
YesMaybeYesWriteNow | a day ago
But you’re still not getting anything back.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
We understand that. Thanks for being the 25th “well, actually…”
nathism | 17 hours ago
Do you understand? or do folks need to draw it with crayons or an interpretive dance?
NottheIRS1 | 16 hours ago
Yes, we are very aware that we did not cut a check to the government when we bought toothpaste last month, you moron.
isanabanana | a day ago
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the intended outcome all along for those behind this kleptomaniac government. The tariffs were always known to be illegal. This way they profit twice: first from the raised prices and second from the backpay.
ICLazeru | a day ago
Reverse Robinhood reminds me of the novel Atlas Shrugged, wherein (spoilers), a pirate robs government vessels to give the money back to billionaires. Ayn Rand was like that.
The thing is though, in reality this pirate would be wasting his time. The government takes very good care of billionaires and megacorps, at everyone else's expense if need be.
Obvious_Chapter2082 | a day ago
People won’t be happy that these refunds aren’t passed on through price decreases, but it’s also not that simple, especially when the firm itself eats some of the cost in the short term. These amounts will get partially “refunded” to consumers as employment and wages eventually rebound, and through higher returns to capital for shareholders
Educational-Cat-6061 | a day ago
That's why many of these companies are being sued in class action lawsuits by customers. The companies paid the tariffs to the government, and customers paid increased prices to the companies. Now the companies are seeking tariff refunds from the government and the customers seeking refunds from the companies directly.
jm15co | a day ago
Yes shareholders get most of the money.
aurelorba | a day ago
If he were smart he's announce the collected tariffs would be given directly to people and say that was repayment. Let Congress or the Court try to block it.
devliegende | a day ago
They will end up paying double. Nothing stops the government from sending every American some money but the courts will laugh at the idea that it should count as a tariff refund.
aurelorba | a day ago
Oh sure, he's bribing people with their own money - and taking a cut.
StormyPassages | 23 hours ago
If the New York Times wrote journalism, they would write of this as theft. However, the NYTimes is nothing but a conservative nonsense rag, so what you get is blather designed to make it look less like stealing. Morons such as Russ Duthat and David Brooks are useless propagandists--all gaslight, and no substance--and that's all the Times pushes now that they're about as reliable as the National Enquirer.
Key-Organization3158 | a day ago
Nope. Robin Hood stole from the government to give back to the people. While we'd benefit from reducing our tax burden, that's unfortunately not an option here.
AENM1776 | a day ago
Who paid the tariffs? While the companies might have passed on the tariff costs, they are the ones who paid tariffs on the imports.
I wouldn't call this a "reverse Robinhood". They are going to look at the tariffs receipts and who paid them. That's mostly going to be the businesses.
Mr1ntexxx | a day ago
It is baffling to see a comment like this on an economics sub.
AENM1776 | a day ago
Why? What legal standing do consumers have? What records do we have to prove that we paid x amount of tariffs? The importer on record is the only entity legally entitled to these refunds. It would be extremely hard to determine how much each consumer paid in excess because of tariffs.
schtickybunz | a day ago
The importer of record has no obligation to show their pre / post tarrif sales prices, and no requirement to show any loss or gain related to tariffs, no obligation to return overpaid customers, it's just free money from the treasury's general fund. All the tariff funded farmers have no obligation to return the illegal funding either.
Fine, don't pay us back. See you in court.
Important_Bit2139 | a day ago
This is still reverse Robinhood. Yes we know the businesses paid the tariffs but we also know many businesses passed those costs on to their consumers. However there’s no relief for consumers, so businesses make more from higher prices and get a refund without ever having to lower prices or pass money back to individuals.
sarges_12gauge | a day ago
You can try and bring your receipt and demand the business refund your portion of tariffs paid. I don’t think you’ll have much luck with it but there’s not really any alternative way that it could be done even if every entity involved wanted to
default_admin_2 | a day ago
Or you just dont give the money to corporations and just give it out to regular people preferably to those actually struggling.
Important_Bit2139 | a day ago
The federal government could instead not do dumbass tariffs and issues at least some direct payment to households. Yes I know, not everybody consumes the same amount but without giving money back to citizens we will just be initiating a wealth transfer to corporations.
AENM1776 | a day ago
I agree, prices probably won't decrease. That's an unfortunate side effect. How would you determine how much to refund to each consumer?
Important_Bit2139 | a day ago
Do an average basket of goods and average inflation of those prices over the time period of a year and issue that amount as direct payments to US households.
Nemarus_Investor | a day ago
An equal direct payment for all Americans would just increase inflation, additional payments only impact buying power when not everyone gets them.
You're just increasing the money supply without impacting supply of goods and services, does nothing.
Important_Bit2139 | a day ago
You know what else caused inflation, the tariffs to begin with.
Nemarus_Investor | a day ago
True, but that ship has sailed. We can't do anything about it. Making more inflation doesn't help. A better use of money would be using it to fund programs that assist people who need help.
Fenris_uy | a day ago
Tariffs were paid by the companies. Companies whose costs increased increased the price of their products. Customers paid the price set by the companies.
NottheIRS1 | 21 hours ago
We understand that, we don’t need wannabe economics professionals explaining that businesses paid the tariffs.
We know businesses passed the cost to us. That’s why we say we paid them. “Well actually…” is such a waste of time. We know we didn’t cut a check to the government 😂
YesMaybeYesWriteNow | a day ago
So the companies were held harmless in the first instance, then they get a windfall now. Yep, that’s Trumpanomics.
artisanrox | 15 hours ago
consumers paid your damn tariffs you voted for when you elected 47.
DontDeleteusBrutus | a day ago
Progressives are the single most economically illiterate group of people I have ever known. There is nothing wrong with naivety, but this aggressive confidence while sharing the absolute worst economic takes is embarrassing. Not a single consumer paid a tariff. Tariffs are exclusively paid by importers. Importers sell to suppliers and distributors who sell to retailers who sell to consumers.
Consumers have zero rights to any tariff refunds because they have zero right to any price/markup/or margin.
We do not live under Marxism. Figure it out.
Fickle_Goose_4451 | a day ago
"Not a single consumer paid a tariff. Tariffs are exclusively paid by importers. Importers sell to suppliers and distributors who sell to retailers who sell to consumers."
See how your sentence ends with "customers." Thats why individuals are demanding a refund. They already know what youre saying, theyre just going to the end point because they can follow the extremly simple logical steps required to get there.
DontDeleteusBrutus | a day ago
Is the refund not expected from the retailer?
BroughtBagLunchSmart | a day ago
You check about 5 or 6 of the bullshit maga buzzwords. Great job.
Spez_is-a-nazi | a day ago
Calls others economically illiterate, doesn’t even understand the basics of what Marxism is….
ztreHdrahciR | a day ago
Reworded to "the burden of tariffs was largely borne by consumers through resulting price increases". Better?
Source, working for companies that raised prices to consumers due to tariffs
Also, seeing any price reductions due to reduced or eliminated tariffs? Nope
SnooGoats7476 | a day ago
I am a consumer and I paid plenty of Tariffs directly to DHL and FedEx because Deminimis is gone.
You do realize sometimes the consumer IS the importer.
I hate when people say things and have no clue what they are talking about.
DontDeleteusBrutus | a day ago
Yes, can’t speak in absolutes. You are absolutely the consumer that will deserve a refund from the government.
reddit_user13 | a day ago
The same way the oil companies are eating the higher price of product and not passing that increase along to consumers at the pump?
LuckyPlaze | a day ago
Tariffs were not paid by consumers. People should stop saying that because it is false.
Tariffs were paid by the importer and the importer gets the refund. Period.
If an importer then raised prices to cover the tariffs, and then they were raised to the consumer, it was rarely done on a one-to-one ratio and many importers did actually eat a good portion of tariffs. But the consumer is still not entitled to a refund or a portion of the refund, as they agreed to purchase the goods at the new price.
It is a shit burger for consumers, but that’s what they voted for and that’s why tariffs suck.