3 ms·
Refunds to business, but unless they have to refund to consumers it's free capital to importers
by anjel 8mo ago
Refunds to business, but unless they have to refund to consumers it's free capital to importers
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoIt is a return of their capital illegally acquired by the federal government.
- clayhacks 8mo agoNo the consumers paid the price of the tariffs. These refunds are going to businesses who just passed the price along
- toomuchtodo 8mo 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 8mo agoIf 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 8mo agoIt'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 8mo agoSome 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 8mo agoThey’re aware.
- bigbadfeline 8mo 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 8mo agoThat 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.
- mothballed 8mo agoThere 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.
- munk-a 8mo agoYou don't think Target is going to send me a check? I had assumed it would arrive by mail in the next few days.
- mmooss 8mo 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 8mo agoThere'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.
- muwtyhg 8mo agoAnd that fee was likely passed almost directly onto the consumer. I think I read... 90%?
- warkdarrior 8mo agoPrices will keep increasing, as US consumer spending was resilient in 2025 and kept going up irrespective of tariffs. Consumers can be charged even more than previously assumed.
- munk-a 8mo agoBut I was certain that now that the tariffs were overturned the merchants would voluntarily lower their prices to pre-tariff level and not just hope the consumer doesn't notice that the only direction prices go is up.
- e844dbe8fb 8mo ago[dead]
- rstuart4133 8mo agoThere are Non-Resident Importers, which are foreign companies that import goods into the USA, but do not have a presence in the United States. About 15% of USA imports come through NRIs. For them this reversal sets up a true irony. Trump effectively forced US citizens to pay more the imported goods. He thought that money would go to the USA treasury. Now the US treasury has to pay it back, so it is a free gift to the exporting countries. Like China. Truly delicious.