top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 111 points 3 months ago (10 children)

If you, as a consumer, directly paid one of the illegal tariffs, you can get a refund via the shipper who acted as an agent for you.

For example, here's the form if you shipped something over the border using UPS and paid an illegal tariff to get it released from customs.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Does this mean UPS is going to stop sending me demand letters for extra money on a thing I already bought, paid for and received?

    I keep wondering if they’ll escalate, but I’m refusing on principle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If you already received your item(s) and you don't immediately need to do any more business with them, it sounds like they don't have a lot of leverage to get you to pay.

    Sounds like that might have been a screw up on their part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Neat. I paid a business that forwarded the costs to me. Who do I appeal to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Depends probably on the nature of what "forwarded the costs" means.

    If the business collected the costs from you and then forwarded them to CBP while acting as your agent, then you can demand a refund from them or sue them.

    If you agreed to purchase goods for one price while also agreeing to pay a separate "tariff reimbursement fee" in exchange for purchasing the goods, you're probably shit out of luck.

    Various shades in between might be arguable or litigatable one way or another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Yes, technically the truth. In practice the vast vast majority of consumers bought from a business that imported the item. So it's good to highlight people have options, but the broad point of the post stands, that the businesses have the option of pocketing the difference and most of them seem to be taking that option.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That doesn’t matter if you paid inflated prices on already imported goods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, the comment conveniently seems to forget that most people paid tariff costs not by directly importing something, but by simply buying the thing at a tariff inflated price in a store.

    There's no refund for those, and that is where the largest part of tariff costs has been paid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I ordered a pair of boots from Mexico, they were shipped with all of the correct paperwork and should not have been tariffed at all. It added ~$60 to the original cost of $170.

    When you submit a tariff refund request they warn you multiple times that if your submission is rejected you will be charged $100 per submission. It can be rejected for making a mistake on the paperwork even if they find the tariff was applied incorrectly. I almost didn't submit for it, and a lot of people won't but I decided to risk it. That was a few months ago and I still haven't heard back.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What in the jesus brother. I take it you're voting in november

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    We pay. Then we pay again.

    It's as simple as that and just as fucked up. Our so-called government does not work for us.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    "Pay to play? You mean the peasants get to play? Why?"

    Our Terms and Conditions have been updated, please click to agree to the new "Pay to Pay" contract.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Which is why it needs to be burnt, and then built better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago

    Fines like this should go to the consumer, but that's impossible, so they should go into the America First Fund (irony intended), which be the seed money to provide the initial funding for all the social programs we need to start - healthcare, college/trade, student loan forgiveness, pre-k, UBI, etc.

    As we investigate and prosecute MAGA crimes, any fines and confiscations, which should be harsh (including the confiscation of entire estates of treasonous families like the Trumps or the Ellisons), should be put into the America First Fund. The level of the fund should be mentioned in the evening news every night. Rich people can take note of the Dow, and workers can take note of the America First Fund.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    I'm not sure what other system is even conceivably possible in the general case. There's no straightforward universal relationship between tariffs paid by businesses and prices paid by the customers of those businesses.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I think the best system would be not to allow tariffs to be illegally implemented in the first place. But I realize that's asking a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    There were some businesses passing the fees on directly to the end consumer via tariff implementation fees, but unless you have something like that itemized on an invoice, I believe you would be correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago*

    A business that passed 100% of the tariffs on to consumers via higher prices could still be worse off after getting a refund than it would have been if there never had been tariffs, if demand is elastic enough, so I'm not sure even that sort of data could resolve the question of who deserves what.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Take the total tariff income, divide it by the number of people in the country, and send out the checks.

    It's the ONLY legitimate way to handle it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    From a fairness point of view, for non essential goods, if you paid higher prices with the tariffs you would also have paid it without the tariffs, so you weren't really harmed by it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Essential and non-essential are almost meaningless distinctions for most goods people use on a daily basis. I could LIVE on beans and water. Do I NEED toothpaste? Aspirin? How much am I allowed to enjoy something before it's a non-essential good?

    People paid more for something because they were forced to, and it wasn't for any economically necessary reason, and the cause was illegal, making it tantamount to theft, and refunds to companies equivalent to receiving stolen goods.

    Nitpicking the necessity of the good is a cheap excuse to do nothing, not a gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    If you paid the higher value with tariffs you would pay it any way. And if everyone was willing to pay the higher price then it would already have been higher. That's how capitalism works. No CEO will charge less unless they think it will increase profit through volume.

    Companies that increased prices because of tariffs probably lost customers in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (13 children)

    Let's be honest. The highest estimates I find are around $160 billion in illegal tariffs. If we split that evenly it would work out to around $640 for every person over 18 in the country.

    What good would giving 250 million people each $640 do? For 99% of them it would be gone as soon as they got it. They'd waste it on things like rent, bills, food, gas money. Temporary things. Within a month almost no one would have anything to show for it.

    But giving a relative handful of large companies hundreds of millions to several billion dollars each? For them it's pure profit. Their bills are already paid. They've already used the profits from that year for stock buybacks to get their wealthy shareholders more money and divided the rest giving their executives huge bonuses. And now suddenly they all have huge amounts more profit almost out of thin air.

    It's money to invest in AI to replace human labor so the coming years can be even better, to do even more stock buybacks so that the people who own the most stock in each company see huge increases in their net worth, or do give CEOS a second round of yearly bonus. Months and years from now there will still be amazing homes, yachts, private islands, and new faces that we'll all be able to point to as the lasting good that came from this.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Man for a second I thought you were serious and was getting my pitchfork ready. Bravo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    I mean... don't put it away. You should still take the opportunity to make sure it's nicely rusty and dull. We do need everyone to have them ready. That sarcastic message of mine is still describing what the government and corporations actually did to us. And they're not raping and killing their own kids. Well... they probably are raping their own kids too. But not killing or possibly eating them.

    Since they're now all in charge of investigating and arresting themselves and their buddies and passing laws to stop their own blatant corruption it seems that us stepping in with pitchforks might be necessary very soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What good would giving 250 million people each $640 do?

    You say that, but something a lot like that already happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

    Most taxpayers below the income limit received a rebate of at least $300 per person ($600 for married couples filing jointly). Eligible taxpayers received, along with their individual payment, $300 per dependent child under the age of 17. The payment was equal to the payer's net income tax liability, but could not exceed $600 (for a single person) or $1200 (married couple filing jointly)

    Most everyone I knew spent it on HDTVs. Economic stimulus indeed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    You think I don't rem... oh Christ, it was 18 years ago? There really are people here who wouldn't remember it.

    Yes. I know. I'm sort of surprised anyone could read my post and not see all the sarcasm. I do not really believe that spending money on food or rent is wasting it. It's needing to use that money in order to keep living. Companies getting it all to make the rich richer and buy yachts and new faces is not something I actually consider to be better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Your argument amounts to “you dont get your stolen money back because you will spend it irresponsibly.”

    Thats sovcit-level quackery.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany moment now....

    ... it's going to start to trickle down.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Those halftone rosettes bring me back to my printing days.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Which? “Those halftone rosettes” or “my printing days”?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago

    This is why I can't be angry at regular criminals, they're just mimicking the world they see at the top.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    They should go to Free Parking, and if someone happens to land directly on the square, they get the refunds. Life is just a massive game of Monopoly, ain't it?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    So we were all robbed. Again.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I kicked a trumper out of my D&D group after I finally got of tolerating his shit. He thought Trump would be better for our economy. No regrets.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    We should be doing a lot more than kicking them out of social groups. They're traitors to our nation who are degrading our quality of life.

    But we do what we can on an individual basis. I applaud you. I've removed all of them from my life as well. One of the best moves I've ever made.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The civilised world has always sneered at 'Murica

    But now we look upon the disaster with great pity for those who have been unfortunately born there who deserve better

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Please and Thank You.

    I want better for us, and I'm fighting for it, but I have very limited personal power to enact change.

    The way "we" looked at those "third-world" countries when I was a child feels like how everyone should be looking at us. Our squalor is not that of unclean water (but that is still true in places) or of systemic violence by the government (but that is still true in places) or of lack of reliable food (but that is still true in places). We have cellphones and internet, cars and roads, and air-conditioning, so we should be happy.

    Our squalor is in the apathy and even antipathy a bulk of our fellow citizens have towards others.

    The fix is education and awareness, but the means of enacting it have been hijacked. How do I reach someone on the west coast to be kind when I can't touch them from the east coast?

    There was a post recently, and I'll link it if I can find it again, about Kevin and his truck, and how helping others builds community. Very wholesome. Community has been lost here outside of the uber-wealthy (they all know each other), or the "poor" who need it to survive. The "middle class" has lost the plot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    This was so obvious that anyone paying attention could see this coming a mile away. I'm probably the unpopular opinion, but I think the government should have just not issued any refunds. I would rather the government get funds to potentially use for social welfare than to give it back to businesses. The only problem is that would create an incentive for the government to try it again for another quick payday. Some mechanism would have to be put into place to stop this. Take away the power from the president to issue tarrifs on his own. Which we should probably do anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Don't buy anything not entirely necessary until this shit is done. As usual consumers hold the bag.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Just wondering how many more times in my life I'm going to watch dipshit Republicans make dipshit moves that require dipshit bailouts that aren't for the people paying for the dipshit bailouts.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    That's wealth redistribution.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

    They are available to anyone who imported and paid a tariff. If you did that, you can get a refund. Being ‘a business’ or ‘a consumer’ is completely irrelevant.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    The issue being that when these companies imported their goods they passed on the cost of tariffs to the consumer. And then they were reimbursed for the tariff by the government. So essentially this is the consumer giving those companies more money, but with extra steps to try to trick consumers into believing they didn’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Most don't even directly pass the cost to the consumer, they pass them down the line to retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, etc.

    Then those companies add the additional cost to the product as the sell them .... So only the importer is getting the refund, and only a handful of very large resellers are actually importers. Most small businesses buy from importers or wholesalers, and they won't get anything back either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    But those small businesses have the option to pass those losses onto the consumer, and with blanket effects like tariffs it happens across the board. I own a small construction business, this is what happens when inflation goes crazy for my pricing anyway and it has never made my business not competitive for pricing before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Absolutely. ...

    I own a software company, but we sell computer hardware to about half of our clients as well. We passed the increase in hardware to our clients as our suppliers passed it down to us.

    But I'm not an importer, and my main supplier imports about 50% of what we buy from them. The rest they buy from manufacturers that import their own product, or importers (or possibly even wholesalers that buy from importers), and we buy some stuff at retail, since we just don't buy enough to justify wholesale.

    We absolutely struggle to be competitive, and more so now than before. We don't have VC money, or credit card processor backing that many of our competitors do, so can't give hardware away at below cost, or for free. At the end of the day, we decreased our markup to help keep prices down, knowing that we'll ultimately make it up on software licensing over the next few years.

    Even then, our customers are all businesses that paid the increased tariff at the end of the day, so how do they get their taxes back, since most people are suggesting returning taxes to individuals.

    The whole thing is a freaking mess, without any real good answer that will actually make everyone happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah your situation sounds a lot more frustrating than mine my friend. And you’re right, it’s more complicated than how I laid it out. But its the long form version of what the core concept I put forward was; the wealthiest of us utilizing the tariff situation to squeeze more money out of small business and working class interests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    There's no doubt that some super wealthy companies paid the tariff, raised prices, sold directly to consumers, and get the tariff back as pure profit.

    But there's also a lot of layers and nuance that people are missing outside of those dozen or so companies.

    Most retailers (especially small ones) don't import anything, and a lot of those tariffs were on raw materials (like steel or aluminum), or small parts that get imported by the container or ship load, and then broken up and sold through a dozen layers of wholesalers / resellers to eventually get to a machine shop or a manufacturer, that then gets added to other material to become a component or product, and sold to wholesalers, etc and passed through the same layers again, and possibly even exported as a complete product.

    All of this is what makes the prospect of refunding all of the illegal tariffs directly to consumers a real mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    if you wanted a refund you could have purchased the goods from another country and impoted them, accepting the risk that there is no refund.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Well I don’t live in the US so I don’t have to do that stupid shit. Bit for american consumers, that wasn’t what was fucking promised. What was promised was a cheque from the government as a reward for enduring the tariff situation. Instead what they got was screwed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think that the government ever promised a tariff rebate to residents directly.

    The rapist or Musk may have offhandedly suggested on social media that they would, but anyone that believes anything they say is a fool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    They really are speedrunning how fast were gonna Bastille their asses

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    2 comments in c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world view that post