7 ms·

No the consumers paid the price of the tariffs. These refunds are going to businesses who just passed the price along

toomuchtodo 7mo ago
"Vote better next time I suppose" is the message to the electorate, because it would be impossible to return the funds to them due to diffusion. The best you could do is perhaps model the additional per household cost (which has been done) and issue them checks from the Treasury (stimulus check style), but who is going to pay for it? The taxpayer! There is no way to incur this economic cost on the people who incurred the harm (this administration). You could potentially get the funds back from companies through higher corp taxes. Is Congress going to pass that? Certainly not. Them the breaks of electing Tariff Man. Does exactly what it says on the tin. > ....I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN 9:03 AM · Dec 4, 2018 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208 | https://archive.today/BBEmH https://archive.today/BBEmH Historical lesson in governance failure. Can't change history, the outcome is regrettable, we can only try to do better in the future. Onward. Let the lesson not be for naught.
- htek 7mo ago
  If there was a functioning DOJ, they could bring RICO charges against the whole administration, their business associates and involved family members, all of whom are co-conspirators to corruption of government and bribery. But that would never happen, of course, because Americans don't riot en masse and demand accountability for corrupt government officials.
  - duderific 7mo ago
    It's the job of the Congress to hold the executive branch accountable, with the ultimate endpoint being impeachment and removal if necessary. Unfortunately, the Senate republicans are completely sold out to the cult of Trump so there will be no relief from that quarter.
    - fuzzfactor 7mo ago
      Some of them are lawyers, some even with law enforcement background. They should be well aware of what extortion is. If Trump did it on his own that's one thing if not it's a conspiracy.
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        They’re aware.
- bigbadfeline 7mo ago
  > it would be impossible to return the funds to them due to diffusion. It's very much possible if money isn't (or only partially) returned to the companies and used for targeted investment benefiting the public. Of course this won't help much if government spending priories and legislative objectives aren't revised, but that's unlikely because there's nobody in government or academia with anything close to a good idea about it.
  - kasey_junk 7mo ago
    That allows the illegal tax to continue. The tax has to be returned to the people it was collected from, and that’s the importers. Otherwise it’s the same as just leaving the illegal tax in effect.
    - bigbadfeline 7mo ago
      > Otherwise it’s the same as just leaving the illegal tax in effect. The SCOTUS didn't say that in their decision. No matter how you call it, the tariffs were found in breach with simple law passed by Congress - that is, the undoing of tariffs can be legislated by Congress and it can take any shape they like - it will be legal. Anyway, fine-tuning this is a waste of time, the big problems are elsewhere.
      - tptacek 7mo ago
        They don't have to say it in their decision. Their only remit was to determine whether the tax was legal or not. It is not. Lower courts will then hear cases about disbursement of the illegitimate takings; those cases will almost certainly not make it up to the Supreme Court. The money is getting "returned", at least in some fashion. The parent commenter is right.
  - _DeadFred_ 7mo ago
    Without these tariffs Trump and his advisors' already legislated and approved agenda adds 2 trillion dollars to our national debt. Step one is the Republican Congress rolling back the big beautiful bill that is no longer funded, if they truly are the fiscally responsible political party. But we all know they are actually the party of unsustainable debt (with the political agenda of it blowing up the country as they lay out in their 40+ years of starve the beast policy). They then come to threads like this and talk about...the unsustainable debt that their 40+ years of policymaking has created and how government doesn't work (because of their 40+ years of policy making) and we need to get rid of it. 40+ years of destroying the country via starve the beast policy and placing the country in unsustainable financial peril all for a political agenda they can't reach any other way.
munk-a 7mo ago
You don't think Target is going to send me a check? I had assumed it would arrive by mail in the next few days.
- apparent 7mo ago
  With Donald Trump's signature right across the bottom, right?
  - sigwinch 7mo ago
    I’m betting on that
mothballed 7mo ago
There must be a mind boggling amount of profit going to these importers to get basically all of the tariff proceeds back on already completed transaction with zero expectation that it be paid back to the people bearing the cost. I can't imagine their margins are usually very high, the tariff rates are astronomical compared to their usual margins. Hopefully someone here has more information than me because to my naive mind this basically absolutely explodes the free cash reserves of importers from high volume high tariff countries creating a lottery winnings for a business sector of epic proportions rarely seen.
mmooss 7mo ago
> the consumers paid the price of the tariffs. These refunds are going to businesses who just passed the price along This story is often repeated, especially by businesses advocating against taxes, but transparently false if you think about it: Taxes and tariffs are costs for a business, no different than an increase in the cost of hops for Budweizer, or an increase wholesale cost of M&M's for the corner store. When hops' cost increases, Budweizer doesn't just pass it along to consumers; the corner store also doesn't just raise the price of M&Ms. Everyone knows that if you raise the price, fewer people buy your beer/candy and your profits may drop overall, while your scarce assets (money) will be sunk in products sitting on the shelves when you need those assets elsewhere. They can't just raise prices arbitrarily: if Budweizer charged $20/can they'd have zero profit. As we know well, some companies even sell products at a loss because that is the best outcome for their profits - e.g., car manufacturers, rather than have a hundred million in assets 'lost' indefinitely to unsold cars, and having no pricing that is more profitable, will sell at a loss to get what they can out of it. The clothing store puts last season's unsold clothes on sale around now. In economics the tradeoff between price and quantity sold is called the demand curve. There's a theoretical point on the curve, hard to identify precisely in reality, which maximizes your profit. So when costs increase, businesses still want to maximize profits: They decide how much of extra cost to pay directly out of their profits, and how much to raise the price and have consumers 'pay' for it. The consumers don't always go along with the plan: For products that are easy to forgo, such as M&Ms, consumers won't pay much more and businesses tend to eat cost increases. For products that are more unavoidable, such as gas for your car, consumers are compelled to pay more (until they buy more fuel efficient cars, or take a bus or ride a bicycle).
- mothballed 7mo ago
  There's a bit of truth to what you say, but also truth in the fact ultimately the consumer pays for everything. You're right that in effect the business might absorb the loss to profit, but ultimately ~100% of the revenue is from receipts from customers in the business model you proposes of things like selling a simple business of merely producing and selling M&Ms. Thus both of you are really right. The tariff is paid 100% by consumer receipts if you track the flow of money, but this might also still be reflected in reduced profits. The actual flow of money might be $X revenue from customers, out of the $X paid from customers $Y is taken out for tariffs. $Y comes from the dollars received from customers but still reflects lowered potential profit if $X rose by less than $Y after tariffs started.

"Vote better next time I suppose" is the message to the electorate, because it would be impossible to return the funds to them due to diffusion. The best you could do is perhaps model the additional per household cost (which has been done) and issue them checks from the Treasury (stimulus check style), but who is going to pay for it? The taxpayer! There is no way to incur this economic cost on the people who incurred the harm (this administration). You could potentially get the funds back from companies through higher corp taxes. Is Congress going to pass that? Certainly not. Them the breaks of electing Tariff Man. Does exactly what it says on the tin. > ....I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN 9:03 AM · Dec 4, 2018 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208 | https://archive.today/BBEmH https://archive.today/BBEmH Historical lesson in governance failure. Can't change history, the outcome is regrettable, we can only try to do better in the future. Onward. Let the lesson not be for naught.

htek 7mo ago
If there was a functioning DOJ, they could bring RICO charges against the whole administration, their business associates and involved family members, all of whom are co-conspirators to corruption of government and bribery. But that would never happen, of course, because Americans don't riot en masse and demand accountability for corrupt government officials.
- duderific 7mo ago
  It's the job of the Congress to hold the executive branch accountable, with the ultimate endpoint being impeachment and removal if necessary. Unfortunately, the Senate republicans are completely sold out to the cult of Trump so there will be no relief from that quarter.
  - fuzzfactor 7mo ago
    Some of them are lawyers, some even with law enforcement background. They should be well aware of what extortion is. If Trump did it on his own that's one thing if not it's a conspiracy.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      They’re aware.
bigbadfeline 7mo ago
> it would be impossible to return the funds to them due to diffusion. It's very much possible if money isn't (or only partially) returned to the companies and used for targeted investment benefiting the public. Of course this won't help much if government spending priories and legislative objectives aren't revised, but that's unlikely because there's nobody in government or academia with anything close to a good idea about it.
- kasey_junk 7mo ago
  That allows the illegal tax to continue. The tax has to be returned to the people it was collected from, and that’s the importers. Otherwise it’s the same as just leaving the illegal tax in effect.
  - bigbadfeline 7mo ago
    > Otherwise it’s the same as just leaving the illegal tax in effect. The SCOTUS didn't say that in their decision. No matter how you call it, the tariffs were found in breach with simple law passed by Congress - that is, the undoing of tariffs can be legislated by Congress and it can take any shape they like - it will be legal. Anyway, fine-tuning this is a waste of time, the big problems are elsewhere.
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      They don't have to say it in their decision. Their only remit was to determine whether the tax was legal or not. It is not. Lower courts will then hear cases about disbursement of the illegitimate takings; those cases will almost certainly not make it up to the Supreme Court. The money is getting "returned", at least in some fashion. The parent commenter is right.
- _DeadFred_ 7mo ago
  Without these tariffs Trump and his advisors' already legislated and approved agenda adds 2 trillion dollars to our national debt. Step one is the Republican Congress rolling back the big beautiful bill that is no longer funded, if they truly are the fiscally responsible political party. But we all know they are actually the party of unsustainable debt (with the political agenda of it blowing up the country as they lay out in their 40+ years of starve the beast policy). They then come to threads like this and talk about...the unsustainable debt that their 40+ years of policymaking has created and how government doesn't work (because of their 40+ years of policy making) and we need to get rid of it. 40+ years of destroying the country via starve the beast policy and placing the country in unsustainable financial peril all for a political agenda they can't reach any other way.

munk-a 7mo ago

You don't think Target is going to send me a check? I had assumed it would arrive by mail in the next few days.

apparent 7mo ago
With Donald Trump's signature right across the bottom, right?
- sigwinch 7mo ago
  I’m betting on that

mothballed 7mo ago

There must be a mind boggling amount of profit going to these importers to get basically all of the tariff proceeds back on already completed transaction with zero expectation that it be paid back to the people bearing the cost. I can't imagine their margins are usually very high, the tariff rates are astronomical compared to their usual margins. Hopefully someone here has more information than me because to my naive mind this basically absolutely explodes the free cash reserves of importers from high volume high tariff countries creating a lottery winnings for a business sector of epic proportions rarely seen.

mmooss 7mo ago

> the consumers paid the price of the tariffs. These refunds are going to businesses who just passed the price along This story is often repeated, especially by businesses advocating against taxes, but transparently false if you think about it: Taxes and tariffs are costs for a business, no different than an increase in the cost of hops for Budweizer, or an increase wholesale cost of M&M's for the corner store. When hops' cost increases, Budweizer doesn't just pass it along to consumers; the corner store also doesn't just raise the price of M&Ms. Everyone knows that if you raise the price, fewer people buy your beer/candy and your profits may drop overall, while your scarce assets (money) will be sunk in products sitting on the shelves when you need those assets elsewhere. They can't just raise prices arbitrarily: if Budweizer charged $20/can they'd have zero profit. As we know well, some companies even sell products at a loss because that is the best outcome for their profits - e.g., car manufacturers, rather than have a hundred million in assets 'lost' indefinitely to unsold cars, and having no pricing that is more profitable, will sell at a loss to get what they can out of it. The clothing store puts last season's unsold clothes on sale around now. In economics the tradeoff between price and quantity sold is called the demand curve. There's a theoretical point on the curve, hard to identify precisely in reality, which maximizes your profit. So when costs increase, businesses still want to maximize profits: They decide how much of extra cost to pay directly out of their profits, and how much to raise the price and have consumers 'pay' for it. The consumers don't always go along with the plan: For products that are easy to forgo, such as M&Ms, consumers won't pay much more and businesses tend to eat cost increases. For products that are more unavoidable, such as gas for your car, consumers are compelled to pay more (until they buy more fuel efficient cars, or take a bus or ride a bicycle).

mothballed 7mo ago
There's a bit of truth to what you say, but also truth in the fact ultimately the consumer pays for everything. You're right that in effect the business might absorb the loss to profit, but ultimately ~100% of the revenue is from receipts from customers in the business model you proposes of things like selling a simple business of merely producing and selling M&Ms. Thus both of you are really right. The tariff is paid 100% by consumer receipts if you track the flow of money, but this might also still be reflected in reduced profits. The actual flow of money might be $X revenue from customers, out of the $X paid from customers $Y is taken out for tariffs. $Y comes from the dollars received from customers but still reflects lowered potential profit if $X rose by less than $Y after tariffs started.