this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
365 points (99.7% liked)

politics

26404 readers
2261 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If Donald Trump loses his Supreme Court fight over tariffs, the US may be forced to return “tens of billions of dollars to companies that have paid import fees this year, plus interest,” The Atlantic reported. And the longer the verdict is delayed, the higher the refunds could go, possibly even hitting $1 trillion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gilindoeslemmy@lemmy.world 157 points 5 days ago (3 children)

What percentage of that money refunded to companies will be given back to the consumers that they passed the costs onto? Hmmmmmmmmm

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 94 points 5 days ago (3 children)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (2 children)

But surely the companies would lower their prices once tariffs went away, right?

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You mean to tell me that companies would take advantage of a temporary disruption in the markets to justify a permanent price increase? That the rules of our economic model even forbid the lowering of costs? Surely you've been mistaken

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

We're not mistaken and don't call me Shirley.

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Unfortunately…

They would be “derelict in their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders” to charge less than we will pay, and what we will pay changed.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

And I'm supposed to believe that "I give you fish because you're hungry and you give me a jacket because I'm cold" is a less-advanced, more primitive model than this?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Okay but to be fair how would companies even go about doing that? I know they won't want to, but even if they did it's not possible.

What's more damning is that even if the tariffs are reversed they will keep the tariff related price hikes and pocket the difference. As we saw companies wil use any excuse to increase prices

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

I mean yes, exactly. All reasons the tariffs were indefensible to begin with. The damage largely cannot be undone so it was never even excusable as something to try even if done in good faith

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Everything you said is correct.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

TrIcKLE dOwN tHo

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's when we just steal their products for a while until we feel whole.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 9 points 4 days ago

until we feel whole.

I mean, I'm down to keep stealing shit until I die.

[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Why do you think Republicans want people talking about dividend checks?

What percentage of that tariff tax hasn't already been spent on bunkers and ballrooms?