- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:15 am to Steadyhands
quote:
If the tariff rates were agreed upon and paid by these other countries, who gives a shite how we got there.
That's not how it works... look up a CBP 7501.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:17 am to LSUShock
quote:
I'm all for the refunds for importers, but let's not get carried away.
f that. Are the importers going to refund the extra money you paid due to the tariffs?
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:19 am to boosiebadazz
Given that the Federal Assignment of Claims Act expressly forbids these assignments the Importer of Record would have to be the litigant before the Court of International Trade. But as you say, I guess a deal could be worked out via private contract that would allow an assignee to pay litigation and other costs in return for a certain percentage of recovery.
Whole thing seems risky given the uncertainty of downstream payers seeking compensation for importers, among other things.
Whole thing seems risky given the uncertainty of downstream payers seeking compensation for importers, among other things.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:22 am to Ingeniero
quote:
What's stopping you and everyone else from buying American-made right now?
Other countries have cheaper labor costs, some use child labor, lack of governmental controls like the EPA allow for cheaper manufacturing, lack of safety regulations in foreign countries. When you factor things such as these, American companies have fled the US to build their products elsewhere or have shut down completely because they can't compete on the uneven playing surface.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:24 am to jnethe1
Yea, you would think we're going to be pretty well in the black on the tradeoffs. We've been screwed for decades, so the United States should be getting a lot more back than we're giving.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:24 am to Ten Bears
quote:
Please make the stupid stop. The government cannot collect money under an improperly used statute, and then get to say, “my bad, we will use the correct statute now, and we will retroactively apply it so we don’t have refund improperly acquired funds.”
So statutes are critical, right? Then tell us all exactly what statue did Obama use to transport several pallets of cash to Iran?
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:31 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
If you agree with the refunds, then you simply care more about the process of the law then the law itself and the actual results. It's so mind-numbingly stupid to think that way.
Agree!
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:46 am to udtiger
quote:
they are going to have to very clearly and convincingly show they didn't pass any of it onto their customers (and exactly how much tariff they paid) to even submit a claim.
I dont believe that is accurate at all. I kerp seeing that assertion on this board and I wonder where its coming from. Trump himself has said the Supreme Court ruling will result in 100s of billions in refunds.
But I won't argue with you about it, because I think the CIT will rule in this relatively quickly.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:50 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
Trump himself has said the Supreme Court ruling will result in 100s of billions in refunds.
He said could.
A party seeking damages has to prove:
a) they suffered the damage
And
b) the extent of that damage.
This is not hard.
Some businesses didnt pay full tariffs (exporter/foreign manufacturers ate some or all of it). Some businesses passed on some or all of the tariff to their customers. Thisnwould reduce or eliminate their claim for refund. This is more complex than is being represented.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 9:53 am to udtiger
quote:
This is more complex than is being represented.
Its really not, as we will all soon see.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:11 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This is so fricking retarded. Trump has the authority to enact tariffs, but because he said he was using statute A instead of statute B, then they are null and void even though he has the authority under B.
Common sense says the solution is to just roll them over to B and carry on. Issuing refunds when Trump has the authority to tariff just because Trump said the wrong number is the height of stupidity.
It is far more complex than that. There is NO statute that gives POTUS authority to enact random tariffs on products from every country in the world, and then adjust those tariffs based on how he was feeling that day. Trump did not just "rely on the wrong statute"; he exercised a power he did not have.
There are statutes that give POTUS tariff power, but not the sweeping type of power he tried to use.
He is currently using section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to issue different tariffs than the ones that were ruled illegal. The current tariffs are 15%, which may be higher or lower than the tariffs previously enacted, depending on the country. He is also required to exempt products from Canada and Mexico that comply with the USMCA agreement.
The current tariffs will expire in 150 days unless Congress extends them. They also cannot go any higher than 15%.
These tariffs are also probably illegal, since they cannot be based on trade deficits, but instead must be based on "balance of payment" deficits. Trump is reading that as meaning our national debt, but I dont think that's accurate. But im really not sure what Congress meant by "balance of payment deficit".
POTUS has broad tariff authority under section 301 of the Trade Act, though still not as broad as what he tried to use under IEEPA. Before he can use section 301, though, he has to receive a report from the USTR setting forth illegal, unfair, or descriminatory trade practices by the target nation(s).
I have no doubt Trump will receive the reports he needs from USTR to trigger section 301. In fact, Im curious as to why he doesn't already have them. But until he does have them, he cannot use section 301 to enact tariffs.
TLDR: the tariffs imposed by POTUS throughout 2025 were not just based on the wrong statute. POTUS had no authority to enact them.
Caveat...some of the tariffs are directed toward national defense, and those are still in place.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
I see you created an alter.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:14 am to LawTalkingGuy
Cry more SlowMo. Do better in creating an alter.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:14 am to udtiger
quote:
This is not hard.
This is the correct answer, however,
quote:
A party seeking damages has to prove:
a) they suffered the damage
And
b) the extent of that damage.
OK...here is the receipt, I mean "damages" I incurred through your executive order.
What I paid the exporter for the good, or what I charged to the customer has ZERO bearing on the matter.
The only thing that matters is what I paid, and also, when I paid it because there will be interest attached to this.
This is very simply folks.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:17 am to boosiebadazz
quote:One of SEAL Team 47 members said it would be good for the economy. Which prompts the question 'what did it do for the economy when they got collected?" I think the response was something about voting for Kamala.
Trump should embrace this as a backdoor stimulus right before midterms.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:20 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
One of SEAL Team 47 members said it would be good for the economy. Which prompts the question 'what did it do for the economy when they got collected?" I think the response was something about voting for Kamala.
Brother tariffs are magic money. When collected they can eliminate the income tax, return manufacturing, and provide for direct refunds to the PEOPLE.
However, the true genius is when they are refunded and put back into the economy as a stimulus.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I *think* he was referring to Lutnick's arbitrage play, not Trump-cope.
Why do y'all always do this weird cope-pivot to try to turn absolute frickups into some version of x-D backgammon?
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Oh I get he's doing the Lutnick conspiracy theory/corruption angle, but the underlying mechanics of the scheme are spinning frickups into some plan when it was just a huge error.
Take your head out of your arse before you speak.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 10:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Every dollar paid was lost profit.
especially for companies which can show little to no profit loss, or those who passed costs on.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News