re: Tariff refunds being given to companies, consumers SOL?

That is between you and the company.

quote:

---

have seen several companies saying a portion of the refunds will be used to keep prices lower, at least temporarily. Others are paying down debt, which in the long term should also help to lower prices.

---

Color me skeptical

quote:

---

Tariff refunds being given to companies, consumers SOL?

---

I'm reliably told by SealTeam45 that consumers do not pay tariffs.

Big win for SFP

quote:

---

Wow, I am shocked they are including interest. I would be very pleasantly surprised if many companies do that

---

The government is required by law to pay interest on the refunds. It wasn't Fed Ex being nice; it was passing along the money it received from US Customs.

quote:

---

Y'all can't have it both ways.

---

I have never claimed that consumers wouldn't have to pay for at least part of the tariffs. It's a political talking point and a dumb one at that but we see every day that some voters are naive enough to believe it

The point of tariffs isn't to somehow shield consumers from their increased cost but to incentivize domestic companies to manufacture more products and employ more people at home with higher demand due to their goods being cheaper than foreign, tariffed goods. Whether that is ever going to work out in a benefit to domestic consumers/workers remains to be seen but it obviously is not something that can happen over night. After all the bullshite that has not been tried to help the American worker it was nice to see this given shot even if it ends up not working out. I imagine like most things we as a country won't have the patience to wait for any true benefits to emerge

quote:

---

The point of tariffs

---

I was told here (repeatedly) that the point of tariffs was (in no particular order):

1. To replace the income tax
2. To force other countries to drop their tariffs
3. To leverage negotiations
4. To reshore manufacturing

Whatever the latest throwaway line Trump had tweeted out last, that's what we were told here was the purpose of the tariffs, and I don't mean that the cretin cult members here had a favorite one of those that they claimed was the "real" purpose (like you just did), I mean that they believed that all of them were true simultaneously (nevermind that at least three of those four reasons contradict at least one other reason.)

My point is that you've come to a place bereft of logic—at least on the issue of tariffs—asking for a logical answer to a question about tarrifs.

My question to you is this: Who was the tariff collected from by law (or in this case, executive order)? Who did the government receive the money from? Another way to ask it is, who would have been breaking the law by not paying the tariff?

That's who is due the refund.

There were some cases in which a tariff was itemized as part of a contract between an importer and a wholesaler, who would have technically been a "customer" or a "consumer." In that case, per the contract, the itemized portion needs to be refunded.

But I don't think that's what you mean. I think you mean, "Company X imports whoopie cushions from China and they had to pay a 30% tariff on them last year, so they raised the price of whoopie cushions by 35% (the extra 5% because they could do so and blame it on tariffs, another great side benefit of tariffs) and all the young people (and young at heart) who ordered the marked up whoopie cushions are now due a refund."

If I've got that right, that's asinine to expect. Alfred E. Neumann didn't have a contract with a supplier nor was subject to paying a tariff to the government. He just bought a whoopie cushion at a price set by a retailer who has the right to set prices wherever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases (as long as it doesn't run afoul of 'emergency gouging' laws).