3 ms·

So if they win, the US taxpayer will pay for it?

tantalic 8mo ago
If they win, the US government collected taxes they shouldn't and those would be returned. Saying the "US taxpayer will pay for it" is equivalent to saying the US taxpayer pays for your tax refund. (And also, Nintendo is a "US taxpayer.")
- johnnyanmac 8mo ago
  The consumer did pay for it (not "taxpayers", per se) . Tarriffs went up, prices surged, and consumers paid that. Now companies get a refund and probably won't lower prices unless they feel there was extremely adverse effects. I don't see how the consumer won in any of this.
  - hermanzegerman 8mo ago
    It's completely irrelevant if the consumer won in any of this. It's about if the United States is a country that respects the rule of law, or some failed 3rd world state, where the law is only respected if the dear leader likes it. The first one is much better for economic development
    - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
      In the lawsuit, no. But this will only further build up the low trust society when it feels like consumers only lose and never gains any of society's benefits.
      - hermanzegerman 8mo ago
        Well, their fault for voting Trump. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
        lesuorac 8mo ago
        I mean half the voters didn't vote for Trump. But I guess yes, first past the post is a stupid game.
        hermanzegerman 8mo ago
        Those who didn't vote are just as guilty of enabling him
        dietr1ch 8mo ago
        Sounds like you guys need some democracy
yibers 8mo ago
So hold on. The US taxpayer first paid the tariffs themselves. Next he has to pay compensation for the tariffs he himself paid?
- johnnyanmac 8mo ago
  We're still on a massive defecit, so yes? We didn't have that tarriffs money hanging out in a vault.
  - shagie 8mo ago
    Tariffs do hang out in a vault for a period of time when the importer can challenge the collection or the amount. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/cbp-tells-judge-it-needs-45-days-time-to-start-tariff-refunds-00816862 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/cbp-tells-judge-it-... > Under customs law, importers generally have about 314 days after goods enter the country before a tariff payment is finalized, a process known as “liquidation.” > If companies fail to challenge the duty and request a refund after the duty is finalized — or liquidated — they must file a formal protest and, in some cases, challenge the decision in the New York-based trade court to recover the funds.
    - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
      Well, fair enough. I stand corrected.
- czzr 8mo ago
  Essentially yes. Companies paid the tariff costs, largely passed this on to consumers via higher prices, and now companies are due the tariff costs back. Consumers of course won’t get anything back. Well done America.
  - we_have_options 8mo ago
    Hey, not a problem. We pay in a fiat currency we control.
tapoxi 8mo ago
The administration already lost and the tariffs were found to be illegal, this is Nintendo wanting their money back. Taxpayers already paid for it, companies raised their prices to compensate.
- theultdev 8mo ago
  Not really. The scope of the judgement was universal tariffs weren't allowed for that specific invocation of IEEPA 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 The Trump administration immediately invoked Section 122 for a 10% duty on nonexempt imports and announced expanded Section 232 and 301 investigations.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  Yes but the sleight of hand here is to just simply say "taxpayer." The taxpayer that paid the tariff was the consumer. The fact Nintendo actually wrote the check is largely accounting, this was passed on to the consumer. The taxpayer that receives the refund is Nintendo, straight into their profits. So the taxpayer paying and the taxpayer receiving are totally different. This is basically like regressive welfare where consumer paid a private but government imposed tax to corporations.
  - ndiddy 8mo ago
    Yeah the Switch 2 (launched after Liberation Day) costs $449 in the US and 49,980 yen (~$316) in Japan. I doubt Nintendo will be lowering the price of the console outside Japan anytime soon.
    - catgirlinspace 8mo ago
      the lower cost in japan is due to the low performance of the yen and that model is locked to japanese only. theres a second model in japan that is closer to the price in the US that supports all languages.
shagie 8mo ago
Most of the money that Nintendo paid and is entitled to have be returned to them has not gone into the government's coffers. The money that has passed various deadlines may be more difficult to return, however it is still money that is due to Nintendo. That may be more difficult to obtain, but it isn't the government's money in the first place. US tax payers aren't paying money to Nintendo - they're paying for the government's lawyers to try to argue against not paying back illegally collected tariffs. https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/ieepa-tariffs-struck-down-what-consumer-and-other-importers-need-to-know/#:~:text=While%20PSCs%20are%20generally%20used,and%20April%207%2C%202025). https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/ieepa-tariffs-struck-down-what...
hermanzegerman 8mo ago
You mean reimburse the money he wasn't entitled to at any time?
mcv 8mo ago
The taxpayer paid for it when tariffs increased prices, and they'll pay for it again when the government pays back the tariffs. This scheme amounts to yet another free handout for corporations. They should be required to use this money to reimburse their customers, but that would obviously going to get very complicated.

If they win, the US government collected taxes they shouldn't and those would be returned. Saying the "US taxpayer will pay for it" is equivalent to saying the US taxpayer pays for your tax refund. (And also, Nintendo is a "US taxpayer.")

johnnyanmac 8mo ago
The consumer did pay for it (not "taxpayers", per se) . Tarriffs went up, prices surged, and consumers paid that. Now companies get a refund and probably won't lower prices unless they feel there was extremely adverse effects. I don't see how the consumer won in any of this.
- hermanzegerman 8mo ago
  It's completely irrelevant if the consumer won in any of this. It's about if the United States is a country that respects the rule of law, or some failed 3rd world state, where the law is only respected if the dear leader likes it. The first one is much better for economic development
  - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
    In the lawsuit, no. But this will only further build up the low trust society when it feels like consumers only lose and never gains any of society's benefits.
    - hermanzegerman 8mo ago
      Well, their fault for voting Trump. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
      - lesuorac 8mo ago
        I mean half the voters didn't vote for Trump. But I guess yes, first past the post is a stupid game.
        hermanzegerman 8mo ago
        Those who didn't vote are just as guilty of enabling him
        dietr1ch 8mo ago
        Sounds like you guys need some democracy

yibers 8mo ago

So hold on. The US taxpayer first paid the tariffs themselves. Next he has to pay compensation for the tariffs he himself paid?

johnnyanmac 8mo ago
We're still on a massive defecit, so yes? We didn't have that tarriffs money hanging out in a vault.
- shagie 8mo ago
  Tariffs do hang out in a vault for a period of time when the importer can challenge the collection or the amount. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/cbp-tells-judge-it-needs-45-days-time-to-start-tariff-refunds-00816862 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/cbp-tells-judge-it-... > Under customs law, importers generally have about 314 days after goods enter the country before a tariff payment is finalized, a process known as “liquidation.” > If companies fail to challenge the duty and request a refund after the duty is finalized — or liquidated — they must file a formal protest and, in some cases, challenge the decision in the New York-based trade court to recover the funds.
  - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
    Well, fair enough. I stand corrected.
czzr 8mo ago
Essentially yes. Companies paid the tariff costs, largely passed this on to consumers via higher prices, and now companies are due the tariff costs back. Consumers of course won’t get anything back. Well done America.
- we_have_options 8mo ago
  Hey, not a problem. We pay in a fiat currency we control.

tapoxi 8mo ago

The administration already lost and the tariffs were found to be illegal, this is Nintendo wanting their money back. Taxpayers already paid for it, companies raised their prices to compensate.

theultdev 8mo ago
Not really. The scope of the judgement was universal tariffs weren't allowed for that specific invocation of IEEPA 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 The Trump administration immediately invoked Section 122 for a 10% duty on nonexempt imports and announced expanded Section 232 and 301 investigations.
mothballed 8mo ago
Yes but the sleight of hand here is to just simply say "taxpayer." The taxpayer that paid the tariff was the consumer. The fact Nintendo actually wrote the check is largely accounting, this was passed on to the consumer. The taxpayer that receives the refund is Nintendo, straight into their profits. So the taxpayer paying and the taxpayer receiving are totally different. This is basically like regressive welfare where consumer paid a private but government imposed tax to corporations.
- ndiddy 8mo ago
  Yeah the Switch 2 (launched after Liberation Day) costs $449 in the US and 49,980 yen (~$316) in Japan. I doubt Nintendo will be lowering the price of the console outside Japan anytime soon.
  - catgirlinspace 8mo ago
    the lower cost in japan is due to the low performance of the yen and that model is locked to japanese only. theres a second model in japan that is closer to the price in the US that supports all languages.

shagie 8mo ago

Most of the money that Nintendo paid and is entitled to have be returned to them has not gone into the government's coffers. The money that has passed various deadlines may be more difficult to return, however it is still money that is due to Nintendo. That may be more difficult to obtain, but it isn't the government's money in the first place. US tax payers aren't paying money to Nintendo - they're paying for the government's lawyers to try to argue against not paying back illegally collected tariffs. https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/ieepa-tariffs-struck-down-what-consumer-and-other-importers-need-to-know/#:~:text=While%20PSCs%20are%20generally%20used,and%20April%207%2C%202025). https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/ieepa-tariffs-struck-down-what...

hermanzegerman 8mo ago

You mean reimburse the money he wasn't entitled to at any time?

mcv 8mo ago

The taxpayer paid for it when tariffs increased prices, and they'll pay for it again when the government pays back the tariffs. This scheme amounts to yet another free handout for corporations. They should be required to use this money to reimburse their customers, but that would obviously going to get very complicated.