CEOs Want Tariff Refunds As Earnings Take a Hit (cnbc.com) 103
Companies including Philips and Pandora say they plan to seek tariff reimbursements after the Supreme Court ruled Trump's sweeping duties illegal, with the U.S. potentially facing up to $175 billion in refunds. Many firms say tariffs hurt earnings, but CFO survey results suggest companies applying for refunds are unlikely to pass savings back to consumers through lower prices. CNBC reports: Companies across Europe are flagging disruption from tariffs as a factor contributing to a skewed earnings picture. "We will ask for a rebate of tariffs in line with the government policies," Roy Jakobs, CEO of healthtech firm Philips, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Wednesday morning. "We have been saying that of course we prefer a world without tariffs, without trade barriers, because we want to serve patients." Philips included the cost of tariffs within its full-year guidance and did not assume the impact from any potential refunds. Danish jeweler Pandora also announced its intention to apply for a rebate on Wednesday, with CEO Berta de Pablos-Barbier telling CNBC that tariffs were a "headwind" to earnings in the first quarter. "We have no news yet, so we cannot count on any of that refund," she told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe." "Let's wait and see."
De Pablos-Barbier noted that the biggest factor impacting Pandora's profit this quarter is the cost of silver, which more than quadrupled in the last 18 months. She reiterated the firm's pivot from pure silver to platinum as a way of reducing costs. BMW, Daimler, Renishaw, Smith & Nephew and Continental all flagged tariffs as negatively impacting results in a slew of earnings updates on Wednesday, but the companies did not say whether they are applying for rebates. Businesses often bear some of the cost of tariffs, with some costs passing on to consumers through price hikes. Tariffs have had an overall inflationary impact on the economy, economists have told CNBC.
Despite the refund process potentially covering more than 330,000 importers on roughly 53 million entries, per court documents, consumers are unlikely to benefit, according to the results of the latest CNBC CFO Council quarterly survey. Twelve of the 25 chief financial officers interviewed said their company plans to apply for tariff refunds, however, none intend to lower prices in response.
De Pablos-Barbier noted that the biggest factor impacting Pandora's profit this quarter is the cost of silver, which more than quadrupled in the last 18 months. She reiterated the firm's pivot from pure silver to platinum as a way of reducing costs. BMW, Daimler, Renishaw, Smith & Nephew and Continental all flagged tariffs as negatively impacting results in a slew of earnings updates on Wednesday, but the companies did not say whether they are applying for rebates. Businesses often bear some of the cost of tariffs, with some costs passing on to consumers through price hikes. Tariffs have had an overall inflationary impact on the economy, economists have told CNBC.
Despite the refund process potentially covering more than 330,000 importers on roughly 53 million entries, per court documents, consumers are unlikely to benefit, according to the results of the latest CNBC CFO Council quarterly survey. Twelve of the 25 chief financial officers interviewed said their company plans to apply for tariff refunds, however, none intend to lower prices in response.
Re: FIRST! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not forget that this nation's government works for the billionaires.
Prices are sticky (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone expecting corporations to not try to make a profit and extract maximum value for their shareholders ignore that that's their fiduciary duty. If they don't reward their customers, then maybe they'll lose out to a competitor. But otherwise they have no incentive to give it back.
For both Phillips and Pandora, their products are bigger ticket items. So not refunding some cost on a CPAP, defibrillator, or wedding ring isn't likely to cost them too much repeat business as long as they keep their prices competitive by the time the next hospital capital expenditure or anniversary rolls around. Whereas a place like Costco undercutting with the rebate might be able to ride customer sentiment into a bunch of new memberships in the next cycle.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Anyone expecting corporations to not try to make a profit and extract maximum value for their shareholders ignore that that's their fiduciary duty.
Fortunately they're exempt from any ethical duty.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone expecting corporations to not try to make a profit and extract maximum value for their shareholders ignore that that's their fiduciary duty.
Fortunately they're exempt from any ethical duty.
There are specific "ethical funds" which you are free to put all your personal pension savings into.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, in our money-obssessed world "ethics" is opt-in for businesses.
Re:Prices are sticky (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anyone expecting corporations to not try to make a profit and extract maximum value for their shareholders ignore that that's their fiduciary duty."
It is not. That's just a lie that sociopaths say. A company has no inherent duty, a company's values and responsibilities are only what its owners say they are. You are just assuming that everyone believes exploitation is all that matters because you personally believe that. Family-owned businesses traditionally don't prioritize "extracting maximum value".
"If they don't reward their customers, then maybe they'll lose out to a competitor. But otherwise they have no incentive to give it back."
Yes, they do, you just think ethics aren't a thing. The problem here is you.
Re: (Score:1)
Family-owned businesses
These aren't privately owned businesses. They are corporations who officers have a responsibility to their shareholders. And I am not their shareholder nor an executive acting on their behalf. Nor am I naive enough to think that their shareholders will see it in their best interests to return a paycheck that they don't have to.
Re:Prices are sticky (Score:4, Informative)
They are corporations who officers have a responsibility to their shareholders.
There is no legal duty of responsibility to your shareholders beyond a) not lying to them, and that's actually it. I was about to say: b) accepting shareholder voted decisions on the makeup of the board, but a quick google shows that is entirely advisory and it is very much possible to ignore your shareholders when they vote to fire the board of directors as well.
There's literally countless examples in the world of companies simply ignoring shareholders. There's literally countless examples in the world of public companies not maximising share holder profit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legal duty of responsibility to your shareholders beyond a) not lying to them, and that's actually it. I was about to say: b) accepting shareholder voted decisions on the makeup of the board, but a quick google shows that is entirely advisory and it is very much possible to ignore your shareholders when they vote to fire the board of directors as well.
The duties, outside of the fraud and voting related, come from case law and not statute. That means the companies aren't strictly required to follow. However, companies usually prefer not to leave themselves open to a lawsuit, unless they feel the risk is worth it.
Re: Prices are sticky (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NO one said that.
"There is no legal duty of responsibility to your shareholders beyond a) not lying to them"
Read the entire sentence next time.
And it's an accurate Or to be more specific:
In a normal for-profit corporation, especially under Delaware-style corporate law, directors, and officers generally have fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders. That means they are supposed to act loyally, carefully, and in good faith for the corporation’s benefit, which usually means long-term shar
Re: (Score:2)
NO one said that.
They said that.
Read the entire sentence next time.
I did read the entire sentence. I also carved out that exception in my reply to them. Maybe you need to do a better job of reading?
And it's an accurate Or to be more specific: In a normal for-profit corporation, especially under Delaware-style corporate law, directors, and officers generally have fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders. That means they are supposed to act loyally, carefully, and in good faith for the corporation’s benefit, which usually means long-term shareholder value..
They were saying those duties don't exist. So, are you siding me me... or them? Because, from that, it looks like you're siding with me.
Re: (Score:3)
There is still no general case law requiring this. The problem ultimately is people, those without any legal expertise, applying the results of a case in any kind of generality rather than addressing the specifics of a judgement that can often run into 100s of pages that limit the results to one specific case.
You would do well not to ever generalise any case law. And again, what you say is ultimately completely irrelevant. The reality is that there are countless examples of corporations running right now no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're still wrong. Duties don't exist in any general case applying to everyone. Specific duties may be shoehorned into specific legal arguments that may apply to a specific example in one specific company. And you can identify if that company and example is you by comparing case law and seeing if you match all the same conditions of a 100+ page judgement against another company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prices are sticky (Score:4, Interesting)
It's very common for companies, even big tech companies like Amazon, to say "we are deliberately going to show lower profits this quarter because we are planning to maximize profits over a longer period of time". This is so common as to be universal. You can just as easily say "We value our company's reputation and believe in our strategy, so we are not going to engage in (unethical practice X) because we legitimately believe it's in the best interest of the company long-term".
This is not to say that moral hazards exist, and most of those moral hazards can be blamed on regulatory environment that creates them. But whenever somebody says "we have no choice but to maximize quarterly profit", it normally translates to "I get a bonus next quarter if quarterly profit is up, and I don't care what happens to the company in 5 years because I'll be gone by then".
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. [yahoo.com]
You might have also heard the names like Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. They weren't called "robber barons" for nothing.
Re:Prices are sticky (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they do, you just think ethics aren't a thing. The problem here is you.
I used to believe like you do and I still behave that way; however, is 'ethics' really a thing anymore? All day, every day, I see unethical actions that nobody addresses. Look at how Bin Laden was captured. Nary a peep out of anyone. Look at how Supreme Court justices are somehow fortunate enough to be able to have 'friends' who gift them things a common person could only dream of. I will not even mention 'he who should not be named'. Congress is a mess of unethical actions that they can not even be investigated for anymore. ABSCAM anyone? What about the straight up looting of the Social Security fund. Yeah, yeah, I know, it is all safe in government bonds... and yet somehow or another, even just 10 years after the law passed that allowed it, there were cries about how the Social Security fund would be insolvent. When that law was passed, the Social Security fund had 300 billion dollars in excess funds. Once that money became part of the General Fund (through Bonds), it all evaporated.
No, there is nothing ethical about this world. I feel like a sucker for trying to be ethical within it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ethics are a thing. Your observation bias comes form the fact that unethical things are when makes the story.
Re: (Score:2)
A company has no inherent duty, a company's values and responsibilities are only what its owners say they are.
Kinda. A company has an inherent duty to do what the owners say to the shareholders they are doing, in its charter. That charter says something about serving the interests of shareholders, or investment does not occur. Once that's in the charter, they are bound to obey it.
So while a corporation does not legally automatically have first duty to the shareholders, in practice, yes it does.
Re:Prices are sticky (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone expecting corporations to not try to make a profit and extract maximum value for their shareholders ignore that that's their fiduciary duty.
"this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: 'Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.'"
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo... [nytimes.com]
"We ... show that [the Shareholder Primacy Norm] is not a legal requirement, at least under the guise of shareholder value maximization. This is in contrast to the common assertion that managers are legally constrained from addressing corporate social responsibility issues if doing so would be inconsistent with the economic interests of shareholders."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... [ssrn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Maximize shareholder value" is a late 20th century myth about corporations.
It is simple not true, and in fact many CEO have backed away from it.
And of course pass those onto the customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, that is $175 billion of US TAX Payers money, not the government money.
When worded like that it assumes the US Gov creates money to pay stuff with. It receives or creates money from you and me, the tax payer.
As Lindsey Gram said about Iran, "When this regime goes down, we are going to have a new Middle East, and we are going to make a tonne of money." (the we here does not include you or me)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news... [aljazeera.com]
As with everything about this administration squeeze the poor / midd
Re: (Score:2)
no, government money is correct.
The government dictates how it's spent, it's government money. Only the dimmest of the dim would think government money does come from a tax pool.
And saying tax payer money is too broad any conversation the requires details because which tax pool it comes from matters.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the tariffs weren't always paid by consumers.
About 50% of the tariffs collected were absorbed by suppliers cutting their prices - are you saying those suppliers should be repaid? Or that they should jack up the prices they now charge customers to make up for the losses they incurred?
About 25% were absorbed by the business themselves - they were not passed on.
The remaining 25% were passed on.
Now, it's likely easy if it was a product manufactured in China and sold as is, but if it's a more com
Itâ(TM)s should be refunded without needing a (Score:5, Informative)
These were illegally applied tariffs. They have no grounds in sanity. There should be zero need to explain why itâ(TM)s s needed.
Trump pushed these out to anyone out anywhere that dared challenge the omniscience of the current president and his current whims. Itâ(TM)s was never based in genuine unfairness
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh there was a formula, it was ChatGPT. The original plan had tariffs placed on an uninhabited island.
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
And
https://www.theverge.com/news/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:1)
It's probably the biggest single transfer of wealth from you to corporations in US history.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard what's going on now compared to the free-for-all during all the covid cash giveaways. Everyone from street-level scammers to big business to churches scrambling to get a cut.
All the detectives who work these cases were just fired from the FBI, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ridiculous. Tariffs come with records (copious amounts) on both sides. The government knows exactly who paid them, and those people have a nice receipt from the relevant authority.
There might be some squabbling over exactly which payments fall under the specific tariff regimes that were ruled illegal, and getting your current government to actually follow the law is dicey, but there's nothing that needs to be investigated.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know whether there's anything to investigate. The purpose of not-investigating is to keep it that way. Wilful ignorance.
That said, the government does "know" plenty of things, which they refuse to act upon. Some of it's a matter of prioritization. Fighting white-collar crime is what the FBI deprioritized last year. They don't have the capacity to investigate it. The need is very much growing, and these government programs are no less in need of policing than private contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but not who they were passed on to.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there are lots of records for that too. You know that little white bit of thermal paper you get when you buy something? You probably threw it away but lots of people keep them, and the guy on the other side of the transaction definitely keeps them.
Not that that's relevant though. You refund illegal taxes to the entity that paid them and those are all very much documented.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... more than that.
Everyone... Every, Single, Person... who played any part in ordering, planning, setting, implementing, or collecting them needs to be prosecuted and imprisoned. Theft, fraud, official misconduct, services fraud, the Hobbs Act, wire fraud, malfeasance in office... whatever it takes to make those fuckers BURN!
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. Give it up. The money was stolen and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it (FSLIC anyone?). Stop whining and start stealing. Everyone else is.
So, ignoring this, um, threat... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess they'll be ignoring this: Trump says he will 'remember' companies that don't seek tariff refunds [reuters.com]
"It's brilliant if they don't do that," Trump said in a phone conversation with CNBC anchors that was aired live. "If they don't do that, I'll remember them. I will tell you that, because I'm looking to make this country strong," the Republican president said.
Trump, who has characterized the payment of tariffs by U.S. importers as patriotic, on Tuesday appeared to characterize American companies that are pursuing refunds as the "enemy."
As he does with anyone who does and doesn't do what he wants.
Trump said the Supreme Court "could have helped us" by upholding his sweeping global tariffs.
By ignoring the laws governing those tariffs and the fact that Congress has the power over most/those tariffs.
Re:So, ignoring this, um, threat... (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing would give me greater joy than to watch him attempt to draw the face of a clock on live tv. No way he could pass that cognitive test.
Re: (Score:1)
Without enough practice, many Alzheimer's patients can learn to get good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: "With enough". Damn, I hope such simple typos are not a sign of Heimalzers, or whaddever itz called.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing would give me greater joy than to watch him attempt to draw the face of a clock on live tv. No way he could pass that cognitive test.
To be fair, the way things are going with time-keeping devices being digital, it won't be long before no one understands an analog clock - or phrases like (counter) clockwise. In other similar areas, there's anecdotal evidence that the best two words to prevent auto theft now are: stick shift. :-) -- Which both of my Hondas are, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Numerous teenagers look at the analog clock on the wall in my business and then ask me what time it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there.
I approve.
Re: (Score:3)
Who pays the tariffs? Who gets the refund? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any rational person would understand who pays for the tariffs. That group of course excludes all MAGA.
However it is a grey area as to which domestic entity pays the tax. The importer might pay it by paying the tax and not raising the price to they sell to. Given the margins most importers work with that is not likely. I don't think many of them make more than 10% on their imported goods, and 5% of tariff would make their business unsustainable.
So mostly the consumer pays in the form in higher prices. Morally, they should get the refund but there is little to no way to account for it. So rather than pay the refund to nobody the person who did the paperwork get sthe credit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It just seems chaotic and unfair.
That sums up the current administration policy succinctly.
Re: (Score:3)
The tariffs were designed to be chaotic and unfair. There's no way to wind that back which is not also unfair, but it's not at all chaotic. The tariffs were paid by the importers, anything other than giving the money back to them would be chaos.
The importers will know for the most part how much extra they paid. They could give back the money to their customers. Businesses which don't get that money back will be looking to switch to different importers.
Re:Who pays the tariffs? Who gets the refund? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any rational person would understand who pays for the tariffs.
Or anyone who does a quick Google search, or reads the Wikipedia page, for Tariffs. It's an *import* tax, paid by importers.
The importer might pay it by paying the tax and not raising the price to they sell to. Given the margins most importers work with that is not likely. I don't think many of them make more than 10% on their imported goods, and 5% of tariff would make their business unsustainable.
Expanding on that, importers and/or retailers may absorb these types of tariffs, at least for a bit, if they're small and they think they will be short-lived, but Trump is being capricious and vindictive with them. Trump is using tariffs in the wrong way, as a simple cudgel to get things he wants w/o going through the more-normal route of actual negotiations and/or punish countries that displease him, and not as they're generally intended -- to protect a more expensive domestic product, like sugar, or punish a (sometimes subsidized) foreign producer trying to flood the market, like Chinese steel back in the day. They can be used to encourage on-shoring of production, but some things just wouldn't ever be profitable for that now and others are almost impossible -- like growing (enough) bananas and coffee. Trump has an obsolete mindset, to put it kindly. I can't believe he graduated from the Wharton School of Business.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe he graduated from the Wharton School of Business.
There is a recorded statement somewhere from one of his professors who stated he was the stupidest student he ever encountered.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe he graduated from the Wharton School of Business.
There is a recorded statement somewhere from one of his professors who stated he was the stupidest student he ever encountered.
I read that. I think it's an unconfirmed, second hand account from a professor who worked with one of trump professors, who said it and is now deceased. Still, I have absolutely zero doubts that both the statement and assertion are true. I believe the phrase "lacks intellectual curiosity" was also mentioned, either there or elsewhere - also totally believable. The fact that Trump has gotten so far and so much boggles the mind. It helped that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- which must h
Re: (Score:1)
I can't believe he graduated from the Wharton School of Business.
There is a recorded statement somewhere from one of his professors who stated he was the stupidest student he ever encountered.
I read that. I think it's an unconfirmed, second hand account from a professor who worked with one of trump professors, who said it and is now deceased. Still, I have absolutely zero doubts that both the statement and assertion are true. I believe the phrase "lacks intellectual curiosity" was also mentioned, either there or elsewhere - also totally believable. The fact that Trump has gotten so far and so much boggles the mind. It helped that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- which must have been hard on his mother. (to quote some comedian) :-)
Sadly, it has become the American way. I would argue it is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended; an entrenched royalty not beholden to the laws or the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump convinced his MAGA followers that China and other Countries would be paying all of these tariffs.
If only Trump had imported his wall from Mexico. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't trust he could remember anything but the name of his daughter by now. He definitely doesn't reward anything other than crossing his palm. Though there is some merit to what you're saying, because he clearly considers all of our money to be his money now — therefore, asking for tariff refunds is asking him for some of his money.
prost! (Score:2)
land of the free!
FWIW (Score:2)
The process is such that the IEEPA refunds will proceed with the liquidation of the imports.
Customs basically finally closes a file (liquidates) about 315d after the entry. So if something was imported on July 1 2025, then May 12 2026 it would liquidate.
Importers having filed their CAPE data (which was super easy, took me about 15 mins for more than 1200 entries), those entries will be flagged for the return of the IEEPA duties plus interest, which is a usual customs thing.
Note that 'issuing the refund' an
Funny how these things play out, isn't it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, most everyone's mad at Trump over implementing these tariffs (and rightfully so, IMO, if only because of how haphazardly it was implemented). But now, you've got companies demanding a refund when it was mostly the consumer who really paid them. (I didn't see many places eating the cost of the tariffs and holding prices where they were? If that had happened, the typical consumer wouldn't have cared so much about them.)
Knowing these companies have no plans to cut prices, it makes it sort of accurate f
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, most everyone's mad at Trump over implementing these tariffs (and rightfully so, IMO, if only because of how haphazardly it was implemented). But now, you've got companies demanding a refund when it was mostly the consumer who really paid them. (I didn't see many places eating the cost of the tariffs and holding prices where they were? If that had happened, the typical consumer wouldn't have cared so much about them.)
Knowing these companies have no plans to cut prices, it makes it sort of accurate for Trump to praise the ones who won't try to claw back the money. At least as additional revenue to the U.S. government, it technically goes towards servicing the national debt as opposed to tax increases.
It depends on your view point. Personally I do not think illegal acts are acceptable just because you benefit personally from them.
As for the second part, servicing the national debt doesn't seem likely anyway since the current administration blew all the funds and then some on expanding the military complex. More likely this was money that would eventually be siphoned off into a Trump personal account.
Ha ha you paid Trump's tax (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point you got to start wondering when you're going to learn.
I don't know what you traded for real cash money out of your wallet in exchange for getting Trump as president a second time but was it worth it? Do you even have the guts to list out what it was?
Who am I kidding nobody who supports Trump is going to go anywhere near this thread or any other thread that could potentially be critical of Donald Trump. A few llm chatbots will come in here and comment under my comment if I get a upvote.
The Trump voters were already in their own reality but they used to occasionally step outside of it and yell TDS that those of us living in the real world. They don't even do that anymore because even a glimpse of reality risks breaking the illusion and turning them into woke sjw soy boys...
So these days the Trump voters just kind of hide themselves in safe spaces where none of their views are ever challenged.
You still have the trolls and bots and you still have the professionals recruiting like how Jeffrey Epstein started gamergate in order to recruit angry young men who had lost jobs under Republican presidencies.
But the actual rank and file stick to their own forums and their own special news sources because things are so fucking insane that even a brush up against reality risks turning them against Donald Trump and they really really don't want that.
Eventually reality will come crashing down on them but thanks to survivors by us a few of them will survive and continue to cause trouble for the rest of us and a little bit of voter suppression means that minority gets to make the rules. Hell who am I kidding a lot of voter suppression.
Re:Ha ha you paid Trump's tax (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I like your ideas on this matter but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Something incredible would have to happen to get the rich to some how want to grow the middle class again.
Only thing I can come up with is something that ultimately destroys global trade and then we would have the arduous task of rebuilding our manufacturing industry to source things local. We use to do that before the globalist figured out they could export all those jobs to dirt poor countries and import the stuff back, thereby reducing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did our prosperity not come at the cost of someone else though? As you say, our political systems have done this.
Really, out technology progression is what is lifting us up and it's also what may very well kill us.
If you believe in global warming, all this growth and wealth of America is quite literally coming at the expense of our biosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Our prosperity literally lifted the world up until about bush. When we started really feeling the impact of reaganomics.
The cost to ship calories of food is cheaper then ever, and that's due Americas investing around the globe.
20th century engineering an science benefitted billions of people. from vaccines, to ag.
So yes, we use to.
Then we stopped tacking properly, then conservative started attacking science, and now we are gutting are own farmers.
Thanks to conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Exactly that's what you voted for so have (Score:4, Interesting)
It also requires unwinding tax loopholes and extensive corruption of public officials.
Notably we have to start prosecuting wage theft. How are we going to have more people get into the middle class if their bosses keep stealing from them? I should have another $15k in the bank right now, as I was paid less than the legal minimum wage to the point where the amount makes it grand theft in this state, but no DA prosecutes such cases unless they think there's a political win in it for them. I was able to get a settlement for half of it through the labor board, but any more would have required me to get a lawyer and struggle and I might have wound up with nothing.
Re: Exactly that's what you voted for so have (Score:1)
Ok coward bot troll.
Re: Exactly that's what you voted for so have (Score:2)
Oh look it got mad I insulted its sock puppet
Re: (Score:2)
JFC, are you still trolling people with nonsense? Two decades? I guess being a person who barley got an AS, then ending up a TV Repair man makes you sad and you just take it out on others with your trolling and rage baiting. It's a really unhealthy way to try and make your self feel like you have value.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been spent... on you.
The people of the United States, represented by their duly elected representatives, illegally collected this money, and then spent it. Mostly on the military, to judge by the latest funding requests. So yeah, the perpetrators of the crime have to pay the restitution. It doesn't matter that you hired someone else to do the crime on your behalf.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So we're back to blaming voters for everything. As if we really had a say in how things were going to run. It's not the monyed elite buying public perception with ads or the news media/entertainment industry's fault for manipulating us. No, it's the voters fault for being manipulated.
The whole point of democracy is so we can blame the voters while the rich continue to control the government. Much as it's always been.
Re: lol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't act like this mess all started 2 years ago. This has been decades in the making.
Re: lol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
50 years ago the problem was just starting. Globalization makes local problems global problems. Also, even 50 years ago, what happened in America still had ripple effects across the globe. 80 years ago Europe was causing a lot of problems, but then most of us were not alive then. I'm quite sure my grandparents were not able to just ignore Europe's problems 80 years ago.
No man is an island, as they say. Even islands aren't immune to global affairs.
Re: (Score:1)
So we're back to blaming voters for everything. As if we really had a say in how things were going to run. It's not the monyed elite buying public perception with ads or the news media/entertainment industry's fault for manipulating us. No, it's the voters fault for being manipulated.
The whole point of democracy is so we can blame the voters while the rich continue to control the government. Much as it's always been.
Are you stupid? Yes, you did have a say. You voted for a convicted felon, a known grifter and pedophile. You are bloody well responsible for the havoc.
Re: (Score:2)
And when you let every single moron vote, what did you expect?
Re: (Score:3)
So we're back to blaming voters for everything. As if we really had a say in how things were going to run.
We do, but we don't get it until we swap the thoughts and prayers for torches and pitchforks. As long as we spend our time fighting over scraps while the billionaires feast, we will deserve the nothing we get.
Re: (Score:2)
You are (nominally) a democracy. The voters are responsible. That's what it means.
Voting is important. Maybe stop treating it like a football game. You bet, a first good step would be getting rid of the paid sponsorships in the stadium.
They'd ask, won't they? (Score:2)
But the customer pays for tarriffs, right? So if the business paid for an illegal tariff, and passed it down the chain, shouldn't their customer get the refund?
If not, why not pass a law saying so?
This could fund the stimulus/grant/tax refund that Trump wants to give common folk
Re: (Score:1)
But the customer pays for tarriffs, right? So if the business paid for an illegal tariff, and passed it down the chain, shouldn't their customer get the refund?
If not, why not pass a law saying so?
This could fund the stimulus/grant/tax refund that Trump wants to give common folk
Because nothing of that exists on record. There are no records for how much prices increased as a result of tariffs specifically. Some businesses did this in the beginning, but Trump threatened those businesses with reprisals if they showed customers how much the Trump stupidity was costing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I call BS on this. These companies know exactly how much that raised prices on exactly which products due to tariffs. Otherwise they would not be able to forecast profit margins.
They also have a record of all CC transactions and which products were purchased and at what price. So they also know exactly who bought what, how many, and how much extra they paid in tariffs.
The companies could pay the customers back but never will.
Maybe next year we could give them a bigger tax break so they can con
Re: (Score:2)
This could fund the stimulus/grant/tax refund that Trump wants to give common folk
So it could fund nothing? Why didn't you say so up front to save time?
CEOs want wealth transfer gift bags (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"The Epstein class"
What is that, former Math teachers?
Randomly charge customers pass through effectively federal taxes that end up as corporate rebate kickbacks.
What are you talking about? Did you get distracted halfway through typing that and lose your thought? What do you mean "Randomly charge customers pass through"?
I hate to point this out to you but poor people, by definition, don't have money - they are poor. And the poor don't pay taxes (at least not in America) - the lower 47% of income tax filers (and as a reminder, more than half of Americans don't even file income taxes) either pay zero net income taxes or collect a ref
147 Ballrooms? (Score:2)
Only 12 out of 25? (Score:1)
Twelve of the 25 chief financial officers interviewed said their company plans to apply for tariff refunds, however, none intend to lower prices in response.
Only 12 out of 25 CEO even plan to apply for tariff refunds? Why would a CEO choose not to seek reimbursement for tariffs they paid previously?
That doesn't sound right.
As for the "none intend to lower prices in response" comment, why would they?
First off, half the CEOs aren't even planning on requesting the tariff refunds, so why would they lower prices? As for the other half of the CEOs, let's understand what we are talking about:
a) Tariffs were only charged for a defined period, a fraction of a year, if y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
MAGA cultist: "Oww, my balls... but I'm sure owning the Libs!"
Re: (Score:2)
How was that a lie in any world other than your insanely poor reading comprehension?
That must be why Europe has always had tariffs and trade barriers with the US.
Yeah, tariffs and trade barriers codified in trading agreements and stable over the course of many years. Not at all the same as a knee jerk tariff applied by the Poop-tweeter in chief who picks a number based on the colour of his mood ring.
The USA has also always had tariffs on Europe. If you don't understand why the situation before was different to the situation now, then I highly recommend getting your nurse to check if
Re: CEO lies (Score:3)