Tracking toy tariffs

EnigmaticClarity said:
Not sure what you're saying here. They were arguing before the Supreme Court ruling that they had the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, but the court ruled that act actually doesn't allow him to do that because the Constitution gives tax power to Congress and they can't give that away without explicitly doing so and the act doesn't mention tariffs at all. This seemed extremely clear and it's why a bunch of us in this thread have been predicting this decision since the court took the case.

He's justifying the new tariffs in the exact way he said he'd resort to back when the Supreme Court first took the case--the Trade Act of 1974. That one didn't justify a bunch of his prior tariffs because it explicitly limits the amount to a 15% tariff for up to 150 days and most of his old tariffs were well above that 15% rate. I don't think it justifies these new ones for a different reason--there's no actual emergency, and the 1974 act requires one. Most of the tariffs he changed have been unchanged for decades and trade imbalances with those nations have also been there for decades. What's new? Almost nothing. If he hasn't already been sued over the new tariffs he soon will be, and I don't see why he won't lose that case, too. He might've been able to make a case by only tariffing certain countries like China where the trade imbalance changes every year, but doing it to EVERY country makes the case against the new tariffs being due to emergency easy to prove.

My main surprise in the decision is that Kavanaugh somehow sniffed his own ass enough to convince himself that IEEPA somehow gave the president the power of the purse which is definitely does not. His reasoning is full of logical fallacy that I can't make complete sense of without a dozen or more "but you're ignoring..." thoughts as you read through his logic. I had hoped Alito and Thomas would take the same originalist view they usually do with law but hey, they've always been politicians more than judges so I'm not surprised by them voting for their team.

I'm also surprised Trump threw a tantrum and just put a blanket 10% and then 15% tariff on everyone again. You can evaluate Trump's ideas on tariffs somewhat charitably by pointing out that he actually did work out a bunch of deals with dozens of countries to get more back from them than they previously ever gave us by threatening them with tariffs that would presumably last at least three years and more likely longer than that. Several countries had given concessions to get their tariff down below 10%...and now they get punished and reset back to 15% WHY, exactly? Because Trump is pissed at the Supreme Court taking his ball away and wants to flex in the mirror while ignoring the diplomatic price of doing that? Any country that negotiated with Trump in good faith just got kicked in the nards. Why would any of them renegotiate yet again with him when he's so inconsistent? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sorry I don’t come into this thread too often so I missed the question. I am not an expert but a friend on mine that is a lawyer was explaining to me that back earlier in the whole tariff fiasco Trump’s lawyers argued that the law they are now using to justify the tariffs was no longer valid. He explained it in greater detail than that but basically they argued the justification that the law gave for placing tariffs was no longer valid and that is why they were putting the tariffs on through a different means. Now that the different means has be ruled unconstitutional they cannot go back and use the law that they said is no longer valid to put tariffs on.

The Office Micheal Scott synopsis/reenactment: “I went yah tariffs are gone to crap they are back on to my friend saying just wait these will go away to because of judicial estoppel. Judicial estoppel, what’s that? Blah, blah, blah, blah tariffs go away”

I will see if I can get him to type something up for me that explains it in greater detail than I can. I do know that so far he has been right on how most of this has played out so I am fairly confident that he is right here as well.
 
Goldbug said:
abcnews.com

Over half of Americans say health care, a weeklong vacation and a new car are unaffordable: ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll

About two-thirds who don’t own a home don’t think they’ll be able to afford one.
abcnews.com abcnews.com
Click to expand...
sddefault.jpg
 
RicksNerdLife said:
You know, I guess it's a good thing that super powers/metahuman abilities aren't real, because I would be a menace, curing a lot of the world's ills. And what would the courts be able to do to stop someone clothed in such immense power? Especially when they can barely corral an already stupid and now dementia laden octogenarian.

Just imagine someone being willing to do what Homelander does, but you know...directed the "right" way.

I think about that on occasion. Sigh. To dream a dream. It's the only thing that gives me a sense of justice in this current climate. Because Lord knows we aren't seeing it otherwise.
Click to expand...

You and I must've been twins in a previous life, because I've always said the same thing. Lots of evil muhfuckas in this world are lucky I don't have super powers.

And I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised at certain viewpoints expressed on this board. I'm generalizing, but a lot of folks (not all, but lots) in this hobby and other similar hobbies (gaming, comics, etc.) tend to lean to the right, and trash everything that doesn't fit their worldview as "woke" and "DEI", and they follow certain rightwing mouthpieces.

I love how you guys call out this bullshit from Trump and his GOP lapdogs. Of course, we won't always agree, but seeing this shit called for what it is in this kind of environment is refreshing.
 
Hasbro joined the hundreds of companies filing suits for reimbursement from the govt for tariffs.
www.reuters.com

Toymaker Hasbro joins wave of companies suing U.S. government over IEEPA tariff payments

Toymaker Hasbro on Friday joined hundreds of companies suing for refunds of tariffs paid under President Donald Trump’s emergency trade measures, which were deemed illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court last week, according to court documents.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

As they, like many companies, passed the cost of tariffs on to us and now our taxes may pay them back for the tariffs we in fact paid, this constitutes yet another massive transfer of wealth upwards. Add it to the stack of tariff-related grifts that started with how Trump initially used the 'will he, won't he?' of tariff threats to manipulate stock prices so he and his reptilian friends in the owner class could buy low, sell high.

Exhausting living in a world that is just constant grifts and gaslighting from the worst people in existence.
 
We basically floated the government an interest-free loan, which a lot of people do every year via their own taxes and collect a refund for such. I've always found it absurd that for those who wind up owing money, if you owe too much the government tacks on a penalty via interest owed, but tax refunds don't come back with such a benefit.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens. In the case of Hasbro, just looking through the lens of Marvel Legends, it would appear they were one of the leaders in absorbing tariffs as opposed to passing them onto the consumer. I don't think it has anything to do with them being charitable, but probably has more to do with not wanting to invoke the anger of the current occupant of the White House. And it would appear we're paying for it now via increased MSRP going forward. They probably did not have a blanket application of tariffs and maybe other parts of their business had consumers absorbing more. It will be interesting to see what companies like Mondo or Big Bad Toy Store do since they did itemize the tariff cost we had to pay. They may have to pay legal fees to get that money back, and in the case of BBTS they were basically splitting the total tariff fee with the buyers, so I wouldn't expect a 1:1 rebate of some kind (I wouldn't necessarily expect anything). I did see that Cards Against Humanity vowed to refund tariffs consumers paid them should they get reimbursed so at least one company is out there vowing to do something for its buyers.
 
Yeah the whole refund thing is going to be a giant mess, if it even happens. How many companies that raised prices or had direct tariff fees are the going to reimburse the buyers? It just feels like IF refunds happen, the companies that paid them are just going to pocket that and buyers are just going to end up screwed. Those tariff rebate checks aren’t sounding too bad now. At least we ought to be getting something out of that rather than the giant companies, since it was eventually us that paid all those tariffs in the end.

What a mess.
 
Buttmunch said:
Yeah the whole refund thing is going to be a giant mess, if it even happens. How many companies that raised prices or had direct tariff fees are the going to reimburse the buyers? It just feels like IF refunds happen, the companies that paid them are just going to pocket that and buyers are just going to end up screwed. Those tariff rebate checks aren’t sounding too bad now. At least we ought to be getting something out of that rather than the giant companies, since it was eventually us that paid all those tariffs in the end.

What a mess.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't think the companies are thinking that far out around this whole situation. If they were to get refunds (which I think is unlikely) they'll probably end up facing class action lawsuits from customers to get their share of the refunds. Which would probably eat away at most of the supposed tariffs refunds through litigation and whatever settlement could be reached.
 
Sadly, that’s probably true. Most of that money it just going to get bites taken out of it and we’ll all be luck to just get a few bucks back. Yeah, the rebate checks are really starting to sound like the best option for the average American but I feel that seems like an unlikely option at this stage. Best we can hope for is prices to hold for a bit before inevitably going up again.
 
You can rest assured the check may be in the mail, maybe, he hasn't decided, according to his VIP club email blast last week.

""I’m looking into these checks very seriously. I’m the only one who can do it. I haven’t made the commitment yet, but I may make the commitment. And it will be a commitment to the AMERICAN PEOPLE. But before I could make a decision, the Democrats said “NO, NO, NO.”

But realistically:

 
Alt said:
You can rest assured the check may be in the mail, maybe, he hasn't decided, according to his VIP club email blast last week.

""I’m looking into these checks very seriously. I’m the only one who can do it. I haven’t made the commitment yet, but I may make the commitment. And it will be a commitment to the AMERICAN PEOPLE. But before I could make a decision, the Democrats said “NO, NO, NO.”

But realistically:

Click to expand...
Yeah consumers can't, and won't, get refunds from the government as the article stipulates, but they can still go after companies who they directly spent money with if they do get refunds and make no attempts to pass along some kind of benefit to their customers through class action lawsuits. Will it work? Probably not but it could just be another case of the companies deciding it isn't worth fighting in court and it would be better to just offer a token settlement.

As for the rebate cheques I think Trump's idea on them is one of those times where his performative nature would work against him politically. I'm sure his thought process is like most politicians where he thinks he can buy the voters with their own money. However unlike most politicians Trump would have to take all the credit for the money and directly tie it to him personally. The problem with that is outside of his base the average voter, while appreciating the money, would be much more likely to question the motives behind the money, and the need to do a stimulus cheque when Trump's own actions necessitated the need for said cheques.

It wouldn't be like the bailouts for farmers who are more likely to vote Republican as a group because it would be a more diverse population getting cheques. Of course it is Trump and I wouldn't put it past him to try and only give cheques to those he thinks support him and screw everyone else, but that would be even worse for him politically than just giving everyone a cheque.
 
canprime said:
Yeah consumers can't, and won't, get refunds from the government as the article stipulates, but they can still go after companies who they directly spent money with if they do get refunds and make no attempts to pass along some kind of benefit to their customers through class action lawsuits. Will it work? Probably not but it could just be another case of the companies deciding it isn't worth fighting in court and it would be better to just offer a token settlement.
Click to expand...

I'm going to need to be walked through all of it.

So if I'm selling Mafex figures as a business. Trump puts tariffs on. I adjust my prices to accommodate for these tariffs.

Customers willingly spend money, what I as a consumer consider a social contract and acceptance - I want the the thing.

Why does a company owe the consumer a refund? I had to adjust my cost of doing business and they bought the product. Why do I need to settle at all? Why is any benefit intended to be passed on?

Why as a company am I owed anything by the government? The tariffs are stupid, but everything executed as capitalism works.

My Autistic Justice passive trait says yes, they owe everyone for lying and manipulating and should balance it out since they changed it up day to day anyway.

My Autistic Logic passive says, "I dunno, they told you what you were getting on the box, and the price, the whole time. Why should you get reparations?"

And the last decade says, "LOL, arguing using accountability for these fuck asses. That's like tying your hands behind your back before you go to the knife fight they repeatedly told you they're bringing guns to."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top