- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:49 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:49 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
As a lawyer, you are more aware of the tendencies than I, so sure. That could also happen.
It's more psychology than legal analysis.
If Thomas is going to vote that way, it's almost assured Gorsuch, ACB, Kav, and Roberts will. Alito is a big government shill, but I don't think he wants to be the lone dissent in a 6-3 court. 7-2 is more palatable, or maybe they can convince Kav (who likes big fedgov and defends actions giving more power to the federal government) to come over for a 6-3.
0
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:49 am to PurpleCrush
quote:Defacto, yes. So are traffic tickets, regulatory fees, restrictions etc. Likewise, were Trump to outright ban all Chinese imports prices here would rise, hence a tax on consumers. But none of that differentiates between a fine and a tax. Choosing between a fine and a tax might be a distinction w/o a difference, had Roberts' not previously used it to shite on the American public.
Name an economist thats says tarrifs are not a tax? They are
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:49 am to dgnx6
quote:
If you all want to go back to how things were I am totally cool with that. But you only want to do that with Trump. You didn’t with Clinton, Bush, Obama or Biden.
TDS is real AF, brah.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:50 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
The tax is on the shareholders / ownership of the company. It decreased their net income by $1k (or $1k minus income taxes).
But in this scenario, the company is a foreign entity, so why do we care?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:51 am to JimEverett
Admin contends that the IEEPA grants it authority merely by the fact that the Executive declares an emergency. So thus the argument that the Executive can impose a tariff on imported cars to combat Climate Change.....if the President were to say that it is an emergency.
So far guidance from Gorsuch, at least is that he thinks that goes too far.
In the past tariffs were seen as taxes, and no one argued that point. Then at some point the argument is that a fee=/= tax. Then Roberts said, of course it is a tax.....and Congress can pass taxes so fees = taxes.
Manufacturers are not eating taxes, the importer (Wal Mart, etc,) is. Right now they are avoiding passing it on. But the American side is absolutely paying the ....FEE
So far guidance from Gorsuch, at least is that he thinks that goes too far.
In the past tariffs were seen as taxes, and no one argued that point. Then at some point the argument is that a fee=/= tax. Then Roberts said, of course it is a tax.....and Congress can pass taxes so fees = taxes.
Manufacturers are not eating taxes, the importer (Wal Mart, etc,) is. Right now they are avoiding passing it on. But the American side is absolutely paying the ....FEE
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:52 am to FizzyPop
quote:
My standing is just fine with presenting facts.
Nah.
It makes you look stupid and undermines your credibility.
It's a pretty mindless cultish thing to do. That's why.
I get it that you think it's insulting to SFP when you call him that, but that only deepens the embarrassment.
Because:
1. It communicates that you really do think that a proper definition of a "leftist" is anyone who opposes Trump on any issue (when Trump has embraced several leftist and even completely socialist mechanisms himself.)
2. It reveals that you would be insulted by it. And that's a pretty stupid thing to be insulted by. Because it's got an objective meaning—you either know it's true, in which case you'd be proud of it, or you know it isn't, in which case you wouldn't care.
So it communicates that you don't realize that it has an objective definition and you think it's a more subjective insult, like calling someone a doofus.
I suggest you stop. It's for your own good.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 8:53 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The "tax" issue is a digression of that issue. I think it's being blow up by people being "clever" making the ACA ruling reference (as I predicted yesterday in real time) and wont' be a significant factor in the decision. It's going to be a Major Question Doctrine decision, I bet, which won't need this level of pedantry.
I think it is going to be a substantial reason for finding the President does not have the power to tariff under the IEEPA.
The President's argument rests on the language that it has the power to regulate importation and exportation. If that power means the power to tariff and a tariff is essentially a tax then that would render the statute unconstitutional, and the Court will not read a statute as unconstitutional unless it has to. Here, they can just rule that the power to regulate that was granted by Congress does not include the power to tariff.
Or, like I wrote earlier - I may be missing some other reason to go down this road.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:54 am to jb4
quote:
Why does anybody listen to the cal bear named slow whatever.
No one does... but that doesn't stop him.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which?
I doubt this is true.
Passport fees, tourist visa fees, H1B fees, and many others. These are imposed at the agency level and/or by executive action.
I can go on and on. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of fees imposed by the government that are not approved by congress.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:57 am to JimEverett
quote:
The President's argument rests on the language that it has the power to regulate importation and exportation. If that power means the power to tariff and a tariff is essentially a tax then that would render the statute unconstitutional,
No. It just makes the admin's actions illegal. The court doesn't have to declare the IEEPA unconstitutional when they can just rule the behavior is, for violating the IEEPA.
Or, to be more specific, they don't have to rule that the broad regulations in the IEEPA grants the power to tariff (" If that power means the power to tariff "). That's all they have to do. And that would fall under the MQD, as he's taking the authority too far using broad language and usurping Congress.
There is no reason the court needs to expand its ruling past the admin's actions.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:57 am to KiwiHead
I don't see the "emergency" issue as being important. The Court historically defers to the President on whether something is an "emergency" or not. I guess there is some wiggle room for the Court to interject, but I doubt it plays much of a role one way or another.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:58 am to Padme
I have to pay taxes, or be fined and/or imprisoned. I do not have to buy anything that totes a tariff. So how is a tariff a tax on me?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:59 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Passport fees, tourist visa fees, H1B fees,
Passport fees: 22 U.S.C. § 214 and 31 U.S.C. § 9701
Tourist fees: Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA) for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) and the recently enacted "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA)
H1B fees: Immigration and Nationality Act
quote:
These are imposed at the agency level and/or by executive action.
Only by authority granted by Congress, via statute (see above).
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:01 am to JimEverett
quote:
I don't see the "emergency" issue as being important.
Doubtful. You can see my digression with NC who is focusing on this, too.
Just as Biden was given broad authority with the Student Loan Forgiveness cases, Trump will be given it here, too (although his claim is weaker, that weakness is irrelevant, ultimately)
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The court doesn't have to declare the IEEPA unconstitutional when they can just rule the behavior is, for violating the IEEPA.
Yes, that is exactly what I wrote.
Roberts seems to be arguing that the President's interpretation of the IEEPA would make the statute unconstitutional.
He will disagree with that interpretation because the Court will not take the view that a statute is unconstitutional unless it has to. Here, all they have to do is find that the power to "regulate importation and exportation" does not include the power to tariff.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:01 am to Padme
GROK:
quote:
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the primary authority over tariffs under Article I, Section 8, which states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." Tariffs, as a form of duties or imposts on imports, fall squarely within this legislative power. However, Congress has delegated significant authority to the President through various statutes, allowing executive action under specific conditions such as national security threats, unfair trade practices, or economic emergencies. These delegations are generally upheld by courts as constitutional, provided they include an "intelligible principle" to guide presidential discretion, as established in cases like J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928).
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:03 am to JimEverett
quote:
Roberts seems to be arguing that the President's interpretation of the IEEPA would make the statute unconstitutional.
I think he's just showing that it violates the statute, not that the statute itself is an issue. If Trump's admin cannot institute tariffs, that cleans all of that up.
quote:
Here, all they have to do is find that the power to "regulate importation and exportation" does not include the power to tariff.
But part of that MAY include the tax issue, because the statute doesn't authorize the Executive that power (which tariffs will likely be labeled as).
It's the same "admin's actions are outside of the statute" just in another way.
*ETA: the "tax" angle is just another way to describe the tariffs as violating the authority of the statute, not an attack on the statute itself.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 9:05 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:03 am to JimEverett
quote:
Here, all they have to do is find that the power to "regulate importation and exportation" does not include the power to tariff.
They can "find" whatever they want to and no one can contest it.
Who are the "kings" again?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:03 am to keks tadpole
quote:
I have to pay taxes, or be fined and/or imprisoned. I do not have to buy anything that totes a tariff. So how is a tariff a tax on me?
You might have to pay income taxes, but anybody who doesn't make a certain threshold of income doesn't.
That's a choice too. Or at least involves a strong element of choice.
Also, do you have a choice about whether to pay taxes on gasoline or cigarettes?
So it would seem that taxes are of varying types and some are qualified based on choice and other aren't.
Finally, I'll bet there are legal penalties for importers who do not pay tariffs as required.
So we also learn that they can be a tax even if they aren't a "tax on me."
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 9:04 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:04 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Who are the "kings" again?
The people who struck down Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness scheme for similar reasons.
Page 15 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News