3 ms·

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 fou

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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.

laughingcurve 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.