this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
1661 points (99.0% liked)
solarpunk memes
3726 readers
298 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you sure that's how it works? Seems like a huge loophole to avoid the tariffs
Tariffs are a fee you pay to import something. The assumption of the meme is that you're buying something second hand that was imported before the tariffs (or after, it doesn't matter, you're not importing it).
I mean, 99% of the time you're not the one doing the importing anyway so you don't actually pay the tariff but the company you're buying from will, and will almost certainly increase the price to make up for the higher cost to supply.
Corporate sellers are going to add tariffs prices regardless of whether that product was impacted by a tariff or not whenever they possibly can.
This is a contradiction. Yes, the end consumer may not be directly be responsible for paying the tariffs, but we’re still paying it when a company passes on the costs to us.
...
It's absolutely not a contradiction, it's a technicality. You as a person will almost certainly not ever pay a tariff in your life. And there's a very small chance that a supplier might partially or entirely cover the tariff, either to retain customers during what they might hope is a temporary policy, or to undercut competitors.
I get why you want to say what you're saying though.
I feel like this could easily devolve into a circular debate. I see you as on the side of “technically correct”, while I’m looking at it from an “all roads lead to Rome” aspect.
Regardless, the end result is the same: people like me and you are the ones who are paying higher prices.
God you two are both idiots you're saying the same thing you're just arguing for arguing sake.
Myself and @[email protected] are not the enemy here. There is absolutely no reason to attack each other. If you want to get angry at someone, get angry at the oligarchs.
You will never pay a tariff, but you will pay more (about exactly the cost of the tariff if not a little more for a bit of extra profiteering) is a distinction without a difference. It’s not even meaningfully pedantic.
We are specifically discussing the situation in which it makes a significant difference: items which were already imported. Someone asked a question if second hand items were somehow a loophole which indicated they needed an actual understanding of how tariffs are applied, not your vibes-based fluff.
Yeah on second hand goods, I’m not disputing the point. “You will never pay a tariff in your life” is not qualified by this discussion.
You will (probably) not pay a tariff in your life in much the same way that will not pay the Suez Canal fee, carbon tax, employers tax or municipal rates.
We get it, you're very clever and have figured out the absolutely bare minimum of economics that higher costs lead to higher prices. The original commenter was asking a technical question about a loophole and it's been answered. You don't actually have to contribute if you don't have anything relevant to say.
it doesn’t really take a super big brain to stay away from a phrase like “You’ll never pay a tariff in your life” when tariffs will directly cause the price of imported goods to rise by the exact cost of the tariff or more to the end consumer.
It also doesn’t take a super big brain to know that the cost of things like traversing the suez canal (or not, when things like oil tankers can’t) IS ALREADY FACTORED INTO THE PRICE OF GOODS. You’re making my point already. Stop arguing with me.
“You’ll never pay a tarrif in your life” is like saying Johnny Knoxville has never been kicked in the dick in his life because technically his pants have been shoved into his dick by the clown shoe. Please.
I import wine. The entirety of the tariff is not being assigned to all products equally so that wine we want to hit the shelf at $12 isn’t getting a massive increase as we will take the hit to move the product. What we won’t do is bring that wine back again because next time it can’t be $12 and it isn’t worth $15-17.
There’s an example of the customer not paying the tariff and the business
If I want to buy wine from you it will now cost $15-17 if I wanted to get that wine and if you wanted to supply it. How is that cost not being passed directly to the consumer and ultimately being paid by the consumer? If you paid the tariff price and kept the retail price the same then that would be a whole different situation, but that isn’t going to happen. The end customer will pay the excess.
We are eating the tariff on the boat that’s in the water and refusing to carry it after that.
And what will you do when there is no boat coming that doesn’t offer a tariff-ridden bottle of wine? Like, maybe a month or two from now? Will you never carry international wine or will you add a markup to it? If anyone carries an international product do you expect they will eat the extra cost or add a markup to it? If they add a markup to it, who is paying for it? YOU.
I gave you an example of what you said. no one is doing. We are doing just that. I dn’t need to engage with your hypothetical situation to show that in some cases the full value of the tariff is not being passed on.
Yeah ok that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not a hypothetical, you’re just not capable of seeing literally a foot in front of you. Your one boat of wine you’re going to eat the costs on is your answer for how it’s going to be. Got it. Thanks for the great insight. Problem solved.
“If you make everything more expensive for suppliers, don’t you think the costs will get passed on directly to consumers?”
“Whoa bro quit hitting me with random hypotheticals.”
You said no one will ever eat the tariff. I gave an example of that exact thing happening. You are now trying to create hypothetical situations where your statement could still be correct rather than facing the reality that you made a too broad and inaccurate statement.
Why are you trying to make this personal?