6 ms·
Tariffs Raised Consumers' Prices, but the Refunds Go Only to Businesses
- duxup 6mo agoFree gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/us/politics/companies-consumers-tariff-refunds.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dVA.IOEL._CdDn4hfb_EO&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/us/politics/companies-con...
- ycombinatornews 6mo ago[flagged]
- skybrian 6mo agoIt doesn't seem obvious. How can you tell?
- RankingMember 6mo agoI think it's real, just post-processed to look like Costco from the perspective of someone dreaming about it
- rafram 6mo agoAn image having a bit of bloom doesn't make it AI generated. If the Times started using undisclosed AI-generated images, it would be a huge scandal, and a violation of their own policies: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/12/reader-center/new-york-times-photography-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/12/reader-center/new-york-ti...
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- strathmeyer 6mo ago[dead]
- quickthrowman 6mo agoI initially thought the same thing, but there is a human listed as the photographer, Mark Abramson. The photo has been processed, but it’s not AI generated.
- connorboyle 6mo agoWow, there is a (seemingly non-official) account on here with the username `ycombinatornews`. Somehow, they joined in 2018 and only have 60 karma.
- skybrian 6mo agoAlso true of any other refund a business might get for any other expense the business was overcharged for. Not sure why anyone is surprised.
- krustyburger 6mo agoMany businesses added specific surcharges to final sales to offset the tariffs they paid. While they have no legal obligation to refund those surcharges they imposed, it would be straightforward to do so and it would be the right thing to do.
- addaon 6mo agoOr keep it as a rainy day fund against the next time one of their major markets goes insane with attempted extortion, possibly successfully next time? Their customers paid a price they were comfortable with —- if a company returns part of that to the customer, they disadvantage themselves compared to their competitors who do not do so in the next round of tariffs, since their competitors can use the rainy day fund to delay price rises, capturing customer spend (which is to say, competitor-voluntary-donation-to-customer spend).
- bigfatkitten 6mo agoWhy would they do that when they could fund share buybacks, or pay it out to shareholders as dividends?
- Paul-Craft 6mo agoThe ghost of Milton Friedman speaks!
- phil21 6mo ago> While they have no legal obligation to refund those surcharges they imposed, it would be straightforward to do so and it would be the right thing to do. I'm actually interested to see how this goes legally. I haven't seen an actual attorney who understands the subject chime in on it yet. But I could see a case being made that a line item like that could have a basis of being refunded if the company charging them itself received a refund. Certainly a long shot, but I'm guessing someone will bring a case at some point to see what happens. Ironically companies that broke out tariffs charges as line items were lauded for "doing the right thing" and are the only companies who could possibly be remotely on the hook here - any other company simply adding it to general margins is quite obviously in the clear.
- 0xy 6mo agoThis would be a valid concern if businesses got $1 in additional tariff costs and passed on $1 in price increases. This categorically did not happen, and businesses absorbed the vast majority of the blow through both stockpiling and taking the bullet. Prime example is Mercedes. The RRP for post-tariff Mercedes vehicles was identical to the pre-tariff RRP. Food prices also rose significantly less than the tariff increases. Importantly, journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis, implied that 10% tariff = 10% RRP rise. They never corrected themselves, nor for the economists who falsely claimed the economy would collapse. When you pay $10 for a widget at the store, the cost price of that widget is likely $2. A 10% additional tariff (if passed along fully, it wasn't) would mean the widget goes from $10.00 to $10.20.
- krunck 6mo agoZero businesses passed on the additional costs onto the consumer? None?
- gruez 6mo ago>Zero businesses passed on the additional costs onto the consumer? None? That wasn't the claim made. OP said: >and businesses absorbed the vast majority of the blow through both stockpiling and taking the bullet. Which so far as I can tell, is approximately correct, even if the "vast majority" part is suspect. A goldman sacs from last year estimated consumers will pay 55% of the tariffs by end of 2025. However that only includes the tariffs paid, whereas OP also included "stockpiling". https://abcnews.com/Business/new-tariffs-effect-us-consumers-footing-half-burden/story?id=126504280 https://abcnews.com/Business/new-tariffs-effect-us-consumers...
- travisporter 6mo agoOP also says "This would be a valid concern if..." so, no need to defend these poor massive businesses who also screwed us with shrinkflation for five years.
- 6mo ago
- orev 6mo agoPricing for any item is set by one thing: what people are willing to pay for it. If a business raised prices because of tariffs, and consumers paid the higher price, that was a successful test that consumers are willing to pay that higher price for the item. Once that’s been established, the business has little incentive to lower prices once the tariffs go away. Prices only go down if competition with other companies pushes them down, but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
- bitshiftfaced 6mo agoOversimplification. Businesses can exist when the the cost of a good is less than the price they can get. There are many possible prices that this might be true, and there is some price that maximizes net profit. When an item's margin becomes large, the risk/reward equation becomes favorable for new competition to come in. That puts downward pressure on prices. For a given good, let's say that tariffs increased the business's cost for that good. If that cost goes away and the price stays constant, then the margin increases. That triggers more competition.
- bryanlarsen 6mo agoPricing for almost every item is set by the lowest price the producer is willing to accept, not by what people are willing to pay. It's the "one price rule" in economics. Everybody is willing to pay different prices. If you're starving, you're probably willing to pay "all my money" for food. But you don't, you pay the same price as everybody else who aren't willing to pay that much. The seller can't set the price to "all your money" because somebody else will be willing to sell for less. > but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits. In that case any producer willing to defect from this implicit pact and lower their prices slightly will be able to make all the profit. Anti-trust should be ensuring there are enough producers that there's always somebody willing to goose their profits at the expense of their competitors by lowering prices. It should be, but isn't.
- rileymat2 6mo agoYou are describing theory, which is fine as a model but it is an imperfect model. There are a host of reasons this falls apart in reality.
- Scoundreller 6mo agoI’ve also sold things to US and pre-paid tariffs to my shipping broker. I’m doubting myself or my buyer will be getting a refund. Same for my buyer that bought items via eBay, paying the tariffs, through the EIS/eBay International Shipping service where the buyer pays for it and I ship the item to eBay in Canada whom trucks it over the border.
- skybrian 6mo agoIt may be doubtful, but it seems like it would be worth looking into to see if you qualify for a refund?
- Joeri 6mo agoActually, a sizable chunk of the refunds will go to companies like Cantor Fitzgerald, the company of the commerce secretary Howard Lutnick (or his sons, which is the same thing), that bought the tariff refund rights last year for 20% of the refund value. While Lutnick was ostensibly pro-tariff, his company was betting against the tariffs being legal, and now will collect refunds paid by the American taxpayer. So in reality, the tax payer is on the hook twice: once for paying the tariffs through increased prices, and once for the debt created by the people disbursing refunds to themselves.
- tailscaler2026 6mo agoNo worries, DOJ is no doubt already on the case, as we saw with the polymarket arrest. No way they'd let blatant self dealing propelled by inside information slide right?
- cosmicgadget 6mo agoAnakin stare
- Ferdinandpferd 6mo agoActually, I think that is 3 times. These people have the vote that matters in US democracy (and law).. The Cash majority.
- altairprime 6mo agoThat’s a “Furthermore”, not an “Actually”. There are multiple layers of corruption here, not exclusive reasons that conflict.
- stogot 6mo agoSource?
- lobsterthief 6mo agoJust Google it yourself; numerous legitimate publications have reported on it.
- nekusar 6mo agoWe can play the same at this game. Im game at throwing $1000 in to Polymarket at the "Walmart CEO leaving the role in any method" Im naturally not going to request anything unbecoming or illegal. Buuuuuuuuuuut im not going to frown either if if happens. Prediction markets == assassination markets.
- seqizz 6mo agoDon't worry, it'll trickle down to consumers. It always did. /s
- eduction 6mo agoBusinesses that raised prices to cover tariffs also saw reduced demand — axiomatically, that is what happens when you raise prices - and almost certainly made less total profit (since the rise went toward higher cost not margin expansion). I know we’re all supposed to be at each other’s throats these days but the tariffs were a shared burden.
- pixelpoet 6mo agoIt's almost as if electing a notorious conman to the highest office, for a second emboldening time, isn't such a great idea. I'm sure America will learn from this and elect responsible leaders in future.
- ku-man 6mo ago"I'm sure America will learn from this and elect responsible leaders in future." Assuming you are not being sarcastic, I would expect actually the opposite.