4 ms·

> They were free to not buy items if they didn’t like the price. Customers (had to) accept prices under the assumption that the money went to the government, w

> They were free to not buy items if they didn’t like the price. Customers (had to) accept prices under the assumption that the money went to the government, who are supposed to use it for the public good. You can easily argue that they would not have accepted the same price, knowing that it would benefit a for-profit corporation.

louisbourgault 7mo ago
Yes, once I would have agreed. But lately, I'd prefer my money to be going to Costco by far over the us government, and I imagine quite a lot of Costco's members (they are known for being Democrat donors, and a well liked company) feel the same. Massive caveat that I'm not American, it just seems like public sentiment doesn't broadly think that all the money going to the US government is used for "public good "
- matt-attack 7mo ago
  Then why do they continue to lobby for higher taxes, etc. You cannot do that if you simultaneously feel the government is the not the best custodian of those marginal dollars.
lsaferite 7mo ago
Did your receipt say anything about a government tariff? The government was busy telling the hoi polloi that foreign companies were paying the tariff. They fought US companies that wanted to list the tariffs on receipts. They were actively suppressing clarity on the matter to end buyers. Your claim that customers assumed the higher prices was going to the government is specious or simply misinformed.
- laughingcurve 7mo ago
  Wait are you saying that because the Government lied and blocked corporations from exercising freedom of speech and commerce that therefore the government couldn't possibly be seen to be collecting the funds? Your logic is that if the Government lies we are assumed to have believed it and therefore have no recourse. Most people (not all) are nowhere near as dumb as you seem to think they are.
  - lsaferite 7mo ago
    I'm saying that semantically a business that simply raised base prices to cover their increased costs cannot be attacked by using the logic that "I assumed the price increase was going to the government" unless that was specifically enumerated on your receipts. What you assume is on you. Had the business been listing tariffs directly on receipts it would be a very different conversation.
- mothballed 7mo ago
  Costco explicitly itemized in their public earnings call that part of the price increase was the tariff. "When we looked at -- we also source flowers from Central and South America. We looked at that item and decided that while we were able to offset some of the tariffs through similar activity that we did increase some price there because we felt that, that was something that the member would be able to absorb and it was more of a discretionary item there." So Costco was straight up telling the public that when they raise price part of that is to pay these government tax. You keep talking about assumptions but want us to ignore that you're asking us to make alternative assumptions about the factual representations made by Costco in order to find parity with your argument.
  - lsaferite 7mo ago
    Costco was telling it's investors why they had to raise prices. That's a conversation with investors about business costs. Customers purchasing from them are on the revenue side and there was no line item on receipts listing tariffs, just increased prices. As a customer if you assumed that 100% of a price increase is because the business is paying tariffs, then you are almost certainly mistaken. Even if the price increase was 100% because of the tariff, the business made the decision to internally absorb the fees and not directly involve the customer. They absorbed that extra cost of business by increasing prices as needed to maintain business margins within acceptable ranges. TL;DR: A customer paid a unit price for a good from a vendor. The cost the vendor paid or any future refunds they may receive on those costs do not factor into the transaction.
    - mothballed 7mo ago
      >That's a conversation with investors about business costs. Paid prices are revenue to the business, not cost. >Costco was telling it's investors why they had to raise prices It told everyone. They were public. There was zero limitation at all that it go to investors, nor a ban from investors being a customer. It might have been targeted to investors but it was an earnings call broadcast to customers, indeed publicly made available to ~all their customers. >Customers purchasing from them are on the revenue side and there was no line item on receipts listing tariffs, just increased prices. They line itemed in their earnings call that part of it was to pay for tariffs. Not saying an exact amount doesn't unbind you from this and if no tariffs are paid it is a false representation (though in this case, not wittingly so, though they should still pay to rectify this false covenant). I think this is even more obvious if you remove the political bias here by just saying something like "part of our prices are increased to donate to charity." If it turns out the charity was paid but for whatever reason had to return the money and no charity was actually paid, it would be obvious the business must repay the customers for this breach of agreement the portion of price raised to pay the charity even though there was no fraud or intentional deceit and even if they never told the customers the exact amount of the increase actually initially paid to charity. > Even if the price increase was 100% because of the tariff, the business made the decision to internally absorb the fees and not directly involve the customer. They absorbed that extra cost of business by increasing prices as needed to maintain business margins within acceptable ranges. Costco did absorb part of the cost, which turned out to be no tariff owed. They are in a position now though where the customers are simply asking the company to do what they promised the public in their earnings call which was for the tariff increases to be zeroed since the company promised and itemized out they would be used to pay for tariffs which are zero. A non-zero increase based on a promise to pay a tariff but with a tariff of zero obviously breaches this covenant made in the earnings call, as it can't be simultaneously true that a non-zero amount was actually collected in payment of a tariff while zero being owed in tariff. This isn't a moral failure or even a case of fraud, just customers asking the company to fulfill the promise they made to the public.
iAMkenough 7mo ago
You know what they say about assumptions. They don’t hold up in court. Kind of like assuming tariffs are used for public benefit.
- mothballed 7mo ago
  Then the court is full of shit and double facing. They sure do when it is a conspiracy charge, as long as it is one of the plebs.
  - hluska 7mo ago
    You may almost think that criminal and civil cases are handled differently.
    - mothballed 7mo ago
      Ah yes we can only rely on assumptions when someone's freedom rather than money is on the line.
      - iAMkenough 7mo ago
        We could rely on facts when making determinations. Like the fact the government said foreign countries were paying for the tariffs.
        mothballed 7mo ago
        Fact: Costco explicitly told the public that part of the price increase in some of their goods was having the customer "absorb" (pay) the price of the tariff.[] "When we looked at -- we also source flowers from Central and South America. We looked at that item and decided that while we were able to offset some of the tariffs through similar activity that we did increase some price there because we felt that, that was something that the member would be able to absorb and it was more of a discretionary item there." [] Q3 2025 earnings call
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
bloppe 7mo ago
Sure, you could argue that counterfactual, but how is Costco actually implicated? Does Costco have a contract with its members that sets a limit on the margins they can charge? If so, then I suppose they could get sued for breach of contract. If not, as I suspect, then on what grounds could you actually sue them? Just because you feel like a business charges too much doesn't mean you get to sue them.

louisbourgault 7mo ago

Yes, once I would have agreed. But lately, I'd prefer my money to be going to Costco by far over the us government, and I imagine quite a lot of Costco's members (they are known for being Democrat donors, and a well liked company) feel the same. Massive caveat that I'm not American, it just seems like public sentiment doesn't broadly think that all the money going to the US government is used for "public good "

matt-attack 7mo ago
Then why do they continue to lobby for higher taxes, etc. You cannot do that if you simultaneously feel the government is the not the best custodian of those marginal dollars.

lsaferite 7mo ago

Did your receipt say anything about a government tariff? The government was busy telling the hoi polloi that foreign companies were paying the tariff. They fought US companies that wanted to list the tariffs on receipts. They were actively suppressing clarity on the matter to end buyers. Your claim that customers assumed the higher prices was going to the government is specious or simply misinformed.

laughingcurve 7mo ago
Wait are you saying that because the Government lied and blocked corporations from exercising freedom of speech and commerce that therefore the government couldn't possibly be seen to be collecting the funds? Your logic is that if the Government lies we are assumed to have believed it and therefore have no recourse. Most people (not all) are nowhere near as dumb as you seem to think they are.
- lsaferite 7mo ago
  I'm saying that semantically a business that simply raised base prices to cover their increased costs cannot be attacked by using the logic that "I assumed the price increase was going to the government" unless that was specifically enumerated on your receipts. What you assume is on you. Had the business been listing tariffs directly on receipts it would be a very different conversation.
mothballed 7mo ago
Costco explicitly itemized in their public earnings call that part of the price increase was the tariff. "When we looked at -- we also source flowers from Central and South America. We looked at that item and decided that while we were able to offset some of the tariffs through similar activity that we did increase some price there because we felt that, that was something that the member would be able to absorb and it was more of a discretionary item there." So Costco was straight up telling the public that when they raise price part of that is to pay these government tax. You keep talking about assumptions but want us to ignore that you're asking us to make alternative assumptions about the factual representations made by Costco in order to find parity with your argument.
- lsaferite 7mo ago
  Costco was telling it's investors why they had to raise prices. That's a conversation with investors about business costs. Customers purchasing from them are on the revenue side and there was no line item on receipts listing tariffs, just increased prices. As a customer if you assumed that 100% of a price increase is because the business is paying tariffs, then you are almost certainly mistaken. Even if the price increase was 100% because of the tariff, the business made the decision to internally absorb the fees and not directly involve the customer. They absorbed that extra cost of business by increasing prices as needed to maintain business margins within acceptable ranges. TL;DR: A customer paid a unit price for a good from a vendor. The cost the vendor paid or any future refunds they may receive on those costs do not factor into the transaction.
  - mothballed 7mo ago
    >That's a conversation with investors about business costs. Paid prices are revenue to the business, not cost. >Costco was telling it's investors why they had to raise prices It told everyone. They were public. There was zero limitation at all that it go to investors, nor a ban from investors being a customer. It might have been targeted to investors but it was an earnings call broadcast to customers, indeed publicly made available to ~all their customers. >Customers purchasing from them are on the revenue side and there was no line item on receipts listing tariffs, just increased prices. They line itemed in their earnings call that part of it was to pay for tariffs. Not saying an exact amount doesn't unbind you from this and if no tariffs are paid it is a false representation (though in this case, not wittingly so, though they should still pay to rectify this false covenant). I think this is even more obvious if you remove the political bias here by just saying something like "part of our prices are increased to donate to charity." If it turns out the charity was paid but for whatever reason had to return the money and no charity was actually paid, it would be obvious the business must repay the customers for this breach of agreement the portion of price raised to pay the charity even though there was no fraud or intentional deceit and even if they never told the customers the exact amount of the increase actually initially paid to charity. > Even if the price increase was 100% because of the tariff, the business made the decision to internally absorb the fees and not directly involve the customer. They absorbed that extra cost of business by increasing prices as needed to maintain business margins within acceptable ranges. Costco did absorb part of the cost, which turned out to be no tariff owed. They are in a position now though where the customers are simply asking the company to do what they promised the public in their earnings call which was for the tariff increases to be zeroed since the company promised and itemized out they would be used to pay for tariffs which are zero. A non-zero increase based on a promise to pay a tariff but with a tariff of zero obviously breaches this covenant made in the earnings call, as it can't be simultaneously true that a non-zero amount was actually collected in payment of a tariff while zero being owed in tariff. This isn't a moral failure or even a case of fraud, just customers asking the company to fulfill the promise they made to the public.

iAMkenough 7mo ago

You know what they say about assumptions. They don’t hold up in court. Kind of like assuming tariffs are used for public benefit.

mothballed 7mo ago
Then the court is full of shit and double facing. They sure do when it is a conspiracy charge, as long as it is one of the plebs.
- hluska 7mo ago
  You may almost think that criminal and civil cases are handled differently.
  - mothballed 7mo ago
    Ah yes we can only rely on assumptions when someone's freedom rather than money is on the line.
    - iAMkenough 7mo ago
      We could rely on facts when making determinations. Like the fact the government said foreign countries were paying for the tariffs.
      - mothballed 7mo ago
        Fact: Costco explicitly told the public that part of the price increase in some of their goods was having the customer "absorb" (pay) the price of the tariff.[] "When we looked at -- we also source flowers from Central and South America. We looked at that item and decided that while we were able to offset some of the tariffs through similar activity that we did increase some price there because we felt that, that was something that the member would be able to absorb and it was more of a discretionary item there." [] Q3 2025 earnings call

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

bloppe 7mo ago

Sure, you could argue that counterfactual, but how is Costco actually implicated? Does Costco have a contract with its members that sets a limit on the margins they can charge? If so, then I suppose they could get sued for breach of contract. If not, as I suspect, then on what grounds could you actually sue them? Just because you feel like a business charges too much doesn't mean you get to sue them.