this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
855 points (97.8% liked)

memes

22229 readers
3979 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jollyllama@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago (1 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.

[–] minkymunkey_7_7@lemmy.world 3 points 32 minutes ago

And you never will. Thanks for playing The Decline of Democracy and Sanity.

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 30 points 4 hours ago (2 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.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

"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.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

As per its original design

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com -1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Well the companies paid the tarrifs, not the consumers.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 hour ago

Yes, then (as expected) the companies passed on the cost to their customers.

If there were a competitive marketplace, retailers would be offering refunds to their customers or putting on huge deals so that annoyed customers didn't switch to a rival retailer.

But, when Amazon has some massive chunk of the market, what happens if they piss off a customer? What are they going to do, go to the mall? The mall closed a long time ago.

[–] baconsunday@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Incorrect. There was a famous trendy video of an individual who was told to receive their package they had to pay UPS at drop off for the fees from the tariffs. The delivery driver even understood people weren't happy.

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 1 points 57 minutes ago* (last edited 55 minutes ago)

This is dependent on how you order. If your buying from overseas and importing you have to pay tarrifs (most of the time, some sellers offer to sort that for you and reflect it in pricing). I have ordered many a part from the UK, India, Australia and japan. All out of country sellers required I deal with customs, except for the stuff from Australia that states they would cover the exporting for me! But yes if you bought from a us based retailer, the retailer imported and already paid the tarrifs for you. But wait, I didn't pay the tarrifs! I paid DHL to deal with the tarrifs for me so DHL actually is who gets a refund not me. Suppose I'll just go fuck myself.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 23 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (6 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.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour 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.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 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.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours 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.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

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

Thats sovcit-level quackery.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 55 minutes ago

You ate at the onion.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No, I didn't make any arguments. I posted what should be clear and glaringly obvious sarcasm.

You genuinely think people with very little money spending their portion of an equally split refund of the illegal tariffs on food, rent, and the things they need to survive would be using that money irresponsibly? Or that giving it all to the wealthiest so they can buy yachts, private islands, and new faces is the better use?

As Biden would say: Come on, man.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Sorry, that response wasn’t for this post, it was for another one. I’m not sure why it went to yours.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Even if it was $6, refunding it to us and showing a little respect for a major cash grab fuck up would work wonders.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 12 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chahn.chris@piefed.social 16 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So we were all robbed. Again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 13 points 7 hours ago

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany moment now....

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

load more comments
view more: next ›