- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For those who claim tariffs are cost passed onto the consumer....
Posted on 2/24/26 at 9:52 am to TrueTiger
Posted on 2/24/26 at 9:52 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Your answer is to give taxpayer money to businesses that may have incurred no losses whatsoever.
That would be an injustice on top of another injustice. In what universe is that a righteous thing?
That's why you refuse to see this properly, because you are insisting on seeing this through populist-trending-socialist glasses.
The reason that they are due a refund isn't because they did or didn't suffer losses, or feel sad, or have bad dreams about it. This isn't a civil case where someone has to show damages—although those may arise as well if some companies were forced out of business due to the illegal tariffs.
They are due a refund simply because the government took money from them that they were not legally authorized to take.
That's it. Nothing else factors into this refund question.
How the company reacted to the government taking money it wasn't legally authorized to take is completely irrelevant.
Whether the situation was complicated or simple doesn't make any difference to the fact that the government took money it wasn't legally authorized to take.
Whether the government anticipated the court's decision doesn't make any difference to the fact that the government took money it wasn't legally authorized to take.
Again, this is the whiffle ball thinking again. You're grasping at every tiny straw you can reach and pivoting and pivoting...for what?
Seriously, this time answer this question: why are you working so hard to try to justify and excuse responsibility for the government fricking up like this?
Look what it's doing to you. Look at your post to me. You sound like AOC or Bernie Sanders.
All you populists on the thread sound like AOC or Bernie Sanders. "It's economic injustice!" You're just a tiny step away from, "The corporations need to pay their fair share!"
The.
Government.
Took.
Money.
It.
Wasn't.
Legally.
Authorized.
To.
Take.
If someone had told me pre-Trump that the Republican base would be clamoring for the federal government to keep money that the SCOTUS ruled that it collected illegally, I wouldn't have believed it.
Look where y'all are at this point.
0
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:02 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
The tariffs were not ruled illegal, only that Trump quoted the wrong law
Stop listening to people in the administration try to explain the ruling. The SCOTUS opinion ruled POTUS did not have the legal authority to impose the "Liberation Day" (reciprocal) tariffs, or the tariffs purportedly related to fentanyl imports.
I heard Secretary Bessent say the SCOTUS opinion did not invalidate the tariffs. That is false. The SCOTUS opinion expressly affirmed the Federal Circuit opinion in the case. The Federal Circuit expressly affirmed the opinion of the CIT, while remanding for further consideration of the injunction entered.
The CIT ruled unequivocally the tariffs were illegal, and vacated every excutive order regarding the tariffs (yes, Federal courts have the authority to vacate executive orders the court finds unconstitutional).
As I posted above, POTUS has other statutes he can rely on to Impose tariffs, but not the same type of tariffs he tried to impose under IEEPA.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:03 am to lake chuck fan
Tariffs are taxes on consumers. Period.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:06 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
Here’s what happened in many cases
Company A receives goods from overseas and absorbs the tariffs on whole or part.
Company B receives goods from overseas and passes tariffs onto the consumer.
The difference in the companies is that company A is large national company - (think Walmart)
Company B is small mom and pop - (think local hardware store or other retailer)
No, that's not how it's working from my experience. Those company A's are tacking on a tarriff surcharge on items to the end user, but their prices were low anyway due to volume. In the more niche markets, they can get by with the surcharge because everyone else in the industry is passing it along too. These publicly traded companies aren't going to just erode their margins over tarriffs, get real.
Now, who is getting screwed here besides the end user:
Well it's company B. They can't pass on the tarrifs in many cases because it will price them out of the market, they aren't getting the volume discount. A good friend of mine has a family business that manufacturers OEM vehicle parts. They have 1 factory in the US and 1 factory in China. So it's not a mom and pop hardware store, but it's not a megacorporation either. They are getting raped on tarrifs- because their contracts with the major manufacturers didn't stipulate terms on when they had to be paid. They submit the information quarterly and then AP at the mega corps disputes half of them, so they end up floating the cost for 8-16 months in some cases. That wrecks cash flow.
I think the tarriffs help in the long run, but the small business and the end user are getting screwed in the meantime. I also don't think they working in the spirit of "bringing manufacturing jobs back to americans" either. These plants that importing from china and manufacturing in the states have had to hire low wage workers to cut costs. Guess who those are, immigrants
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:13 am to lake chuck fan
It really is this simple.
Tariffs are taxes on foreign goods.
Taxes are always ultimately paid by the people. All taxes, not just Tariffs.
Tariffs put pressure to reduce foreign trade as it tilts the playing field to in house production.
Short term companies may choose to lower margins.
Long term IF other taxes are reduced the affect on the consumer can be a net zero.
Depending on the country and their resources the shift towards tariffs can be net positive or a net negative.
Tariffs are taxes on foreign goods.
Taxes are always ultimately paid by the people. All taxes, not just Tariffs.
Tariffs put pressure to reduce foreign trade as it tilts the playing field to in house production.
Short term companies may choose to lower margins.
Long term IF other taxes are reduced the affect on the consumer can be a net zero.
Depending on the country and their resources the shift towards tariffs can be net positive or a net negative.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:37 am to BarnHater
quote:
Consumers shouldn’t see a single cent of a “tariff refund”. This is more lazy bullshite made up by the left who want the fed government to take care of them.
Why do you feel different about this than a tax refund?
I don't know what to think about the tariffs. I generally trust Trump so I am not opposed to them. But your position is that they should not be refunded if they were not supposed to be collected, which does not make sense to me.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:38 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
So, since Trump can levy tariffs (taxes to you) and taxes can be backdated, then where is the problem?
I missed this and did not include it with my earlier response.
So,yes, SOME taxes can be backdated, but there are limits. Backdating Incime taxes is usually limited to the calendar year, and other taxes are limited to the day the legislation was introduced. I'm not sure if tariffs can ever be backdated.
However, the problem with the tariffs Trump imposed under section 122 is they have a time limit of 150 days. If you backdate them, they will expire.
Also, the rates of these new tariffs are different from the IEEPA tariffs, so the US still might owe refunds.
This post was edited on 2/24/26 at 10:40 am
Posted on 2/25/26 at 3:08 pm to meansonny
Tariffs, imo, are a good way to curb our reliance on imports and protect our industry. They’re not in any way suitable as a sole source of taxation to run a country of our size.
Most economists place a range of 150-300 billion a year that can be had through tariffs. For the past 12 months, the amount is below 200billion.
We will never replace the income tax with a tariff based system. We’re also not going to build our manufacturing base back through tariffs. Heck, manufacturing jobs have declined since trump started with tariffs.
Ideally, I prefer a consumption tax
It’s far more fair way to levy a tax.
It invites capital
For those that care about the environment, it can have big impacts on greenhouse gas, landfill, and other waste byproducts of consumption
Most economists place a range of 150-300 billion a year that can be had through tariffs. For the past 12 months, the amount is below 200billion.
We will never replace the income tax with a tariff based system. We’re also not going to build our manufacturing base back through tariffs. Heck, manufacturing jobs have declined since trump started with tariffs.
Ideally, I prefer a consumption tax
It’s far more fair way to levy a tax.
It invites capital
For those that care about the environment, it can have big impacts on greenhouse gas, landfill, and other waste byproducts of consumption
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:08 pm to lake chuck fan
This is a funny argument to have, because who pays tariffs has long been known given the supply and demand curves for a tariffed product or service.
In the short term anything can happen, but once things settle out the tariff cost will be paid by both the supplier and the consumer in proportion to the relative elasticity of their respective curves (supply and demand). This is, unless one is totally elastic, in which case the cost will be 100% paid by the other.
And the percentage of the tariff paid by the consumer (or the supplier) will change from product to product. As an example, let’s take a cheap Chinese made trinket for kids. It’s not something anyone needs, so if the price jumps up the demand might fall to near zero. A product like this will see the tariffs paid almost completely by the supplier and the number of these sold will drop.
On the other hand, imagine a Chinese made part that goes into a large piece of equipment that is assembled in America. The part does not have an American made competitor. The assembler needs those parts. The demand curve is very inelastic, but the supplier could sell them to European customers instead of American, so the supply curve is more elastic. In that case, the assembler will pay most of the cost and presumably pass it along to the consumer.
In the short term anything can happen, but once things settle out the tariff cost will be paid by both the supplier and the consumer in proportion to the relative elasticity of their respective curves (supply and demand). This is, unless one is totally elastic, in which case the cost will be 100% paid by the other.
And the percentage of the tariff paid by the consumer (or the supplier) will change from product to product. As an example, let’s take a cheap Chinese made trinket for kids. It’s not something anyone needs, so if the price jumps up the demand might fall to near zero. A product like this will see the tariffs paid almost completely by the supplier and the number of these sold will drop.
On the other hand, imagine a Chinese made part that goes into a large piece of equipment that is assembled in America. The part does not have an American made competitor. The assembler needs those parts. The demand curve is very inelastic, but the supplier could sell them to European customers instead of American, so the supply curve is more elastic. In that case, the assembler will pay most of the cost and presumably pass it along to the consumer.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:41 pm to lake chuck fan
BOOM.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:42 pm to BeeFense5
quote:
Cool. Then repay the consumers. This isn’t a gotcha. The government Keeping illegally seized funds is never acceptable.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:43 pm to Go_Dawgs
quote:
Hey, I voted for Trump, but
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:48 pm to i am dan
quote:
quote:
illegally seized funds
How are they illegal?
A biased Never Trumper SCOTUS majority said they were, so... That's all he needs to know. Never mind the other Justices who said they were not illegal. No need to consider their arguments or the history of tariffs before this ruling. Just trust John Roberts and majority. They're being completely objective. Mmm hmm. Yup.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:49 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
Government printers
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:52 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Tariffs are taxes on consumers. Period.
They're optional. Don't buy the tariffed goods in favor of other non-tariffed goods. It's not difficult. How is wanting to push back on foreign countries fleecing U.S. citizens and businesses with unequal tariffs, a bad thing?
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:53 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
A biased Never Trumper SCOTUS majority said they were, so... That's all he needs to know.
From a legal perspective that is all he needs to know.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:58 pm to Flats
quote:
From a legal perspective that is all he needs to know.
K.
Maybe examining their rationale for their ruling versus those of the Justices in the minority could be worth it to understand why they are "illegal." Unless you believe no Supreme Court rulings have ever been questionable and later overturned.
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:59 pm to wackatimesthree
You are full of shite. Your argument is literally dumb.
You act as if everybody is now agreeing with you and thats not even the topic.
The topic is if ... read the word "IF", companies passed these on to consumers, then how do they think they are owed a refund.
This isnt hard.
You act as if everybody is now agreeing with you and thats not even the topic.
The topic is if ... read the word "IF", companies passed these on to consumers, then how do they think they are owed a refund.
This isnt hard.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 5:01 pm to lake chuck fan
Don't try to use logic with liberals. It doesn't work. You can give them irrefutable evidence and they still can't process it.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 5:09 pm to lake chuck fan
It would be a windfall to corporations and Gov Pritzker agrees it should be refunded to citizens.
Trump should announce every American citizen will receive a $1,776 tariff rebate - The Trump/Pritzker Tariff Rebate.
Trump should announce every American citizen will receive a $1,776 tariff rebate - The Trump/Pritzker Tariff Rebate.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News