re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion

quote:

---

So you can't even answer?

---

That's absolutely an answer.

Are you autistic?

There is your answer.

quote:

---

Point out what's incorrect, if you even have the balls to now that you're reduced to just tossing out insults.

---

Look your reading comprehension is shite, you've only wanted to talk to yourself this entire time about what you wanted to talk about.

You misread what others wrote to you.

Why should I even bother retelling you things I've already told you?

I know you are going to throw your fits anyway like you are doing now.

And is it an insult? or is it true? Because that's how you are acting.

quote:

---

Instead, you pivoted to insults.

---

No I very clearly stated everything you needed to know, then you went off to lala land purposely ignoring what I wrote.

Then I pivoted to mocking you, since until you actually bother to read what I wrote there is no point of me taking you serious.

quote:

---

Trump is just throwing some grief towards SCOTUS.... deservingly so. The countries that matter won't attempt to collect refunds because they understand what the consequences will be.... higher tariffs next time around.

---

No. SCOTUS is too often having to do Congress’s job. If Congress wanted the President to have clear tariff powers they could have granted the Presidency the clear right to do so.

You’re putting blame on SCOTUS for something that is Congress’s remit. Congress is failing so we’re looking to the Exec/Judiciary to take actions they shouldn’t have to.

quote:

---

you are unwilling to read my words

---

Unwilling to read your words? Here they are quoted. I won't even ask you to defend them. You can just answer true or false or agree or disagree.

quote:

---

quote:
The refunds would be owed to businesses , not governments.

Unlikely, they passed the costs onto the consumers.

---

true or false

quote:

---

They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.

---

true or false

quote:

---

quote:
Even if a company passes the cost on to consumers, higher prices typically mean fewer units sold. You can “pass it downstream” and still be worse off because total sales drop.

Try proving those lost sales in court.

---

agree or disagree

quote:

---

So yes, the importer paid the tariff. And yes, if there are any refunds, it goes back to them.

Nope, every article in the last few months about the pass through to the consumer.

It's cute though you think these companies are going to rip off the taxpayer.

---

agree or disagree

quote:

---

You can just answer true or false or agree or disagree.

---

No, I provided more than enough context to this if only you had more reading comprehension.

You still don't get it, you totally lost the plot.

You don't see how stupid it is for you to be asking that.

For your information, it's very.

quote:

---

Trump is showing you we can generate funds without robbing your income.

---

This might be closer to the Fair Tax than anything we've seen or tried to date.
Tariff costs are passed on to producer and/or consumer. So those paying taxes are directly involved with a purchase. Not just taking money from people's earnings and efforts.

Nope, he used a different , less broad act the first go round. They corrected it in less than 60 minutes and upped it just to stir the pot and show them who's boss. Research will help you in your future arguements, try it

quote:

---

But you entered the thread with assumption people were arguing tariffs are illegal, so I can't say it's surprising you're so confidently uninformed.

---

Shocking! You, the ignorant fool talking about assumptions.

I guess its time to school you on assumptions.
I had explained to your autistic arse that my points were only about an initial case that is going to happen

I was very clear that I was talking about something you weren't talking about.

quote:

---

That said I think we are both assuming each other's positions are broader than stated, as you seem to now be saying that if a future case demands the return of payments to the group that wrote the check to customs (Which has not happened), and I am focused on the court case to happen, where the plaintiffs need to gain standing.

---

You even admitted that my topic wasn't something you cared about.

You said

quote:

---

On the Supreme Court point, you’re putting words in my mouth. The discussion I've been involved in here has been about the mechanism of potential tariff refunds. That's obviously conditioned on it actually happening. Whether that happens or not does nothing to invalidate my points.

---

I was speaking only of how the initial case goes, something that you literally use as your starting point.
I told you

quote:

---

You've been arguing with yourself this entire time based on some imaginary case in your head that you admit hasn't happened.

You've ignored what I was talking about when you first responded to me. You seem to want to have a different conversation with me that we still aren't having.

---

I even gave you a link that agreed that if a court ordered a payback to the import companies then they would be the ones paid back, though they would need to sue, and many wouldn't get paid for various reasons like in 1998.
However you refused to even consider that Ive never said if a court rules that a tariff has to be paid back to the importers that it wont be.

Your entire point to me is a nothing, if the courts ordered a payback then there will be a payback. I've been clear about this.

quote:

---

Yes about standing, someone needs to show legal harm to win in court.

The court is going to have to deal with cases where the entire tariff was a direct B2B pass through, where the importer suffered no damages.

---

Courts are not required to rule the same way as before when the situation is different, you admitted that so it didnt seem worth saying. Its like you saw the 1998 case and latched onto it assuming exports are imports, and

I was hoping you were just drunk last night as you acted like an aggressive drunk. I hoped you would sober up and cool off.

And I was going to just give you a pass, but here again you are attacking yet another and aggressively and badly strawmanning their posts.

We will see how this future case winds up and if many of the things I pointed out are used in the government's case to keep the tariff.

In which case I can confidently say I was correct this entire time as the courts will have to evaluate things such as windfall profits, and that the case will have to explain specifically who and how any money is distributed.

You harping on the previous case meant nothing to me, and me speaking of the case about to happen means nothing to you.

We spoke of two completely different things.

Maybe now that you are sober you can see that.

quote:

---

I already told you we're done.

---

Looks like you lied...