"Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer cost…"

Ha ha, that's a good one. I have yet to hear about reduced profits anywhere. Instead, as I said in another comment, I have actual physical receipts with the additional tariff cost (itemized!) in a pile on my workshop (which I'll never see refunded).

> Instead, as I said in another comment, I have actual physical receipts with the additional tariff cost (itemized!) in a pile on my workshop (which I'll never see refunded).

You could ask for a tariff refund from those suppliers.

If the amounts are under the limit you might sue the company who cut those invoices in small claims court for the amounts of the tariff line items on the invoices.

The invoices give you slam dunk evidence that you paid that amount in tariffs, and the supreme court decision says the payment was illegally collected, so seems like an easy win for you.

Making people spend more money to "save" money is just a sale to increase profits even more.

> Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer

As someone who prices and sells labor and material for a living, nobody ate increased tariffs. They were passed along to the ultimate consumer of the tariffed product. Everyone was facing the same tariffs so they’re all incentivized to pass the cost along, line iteming the tariffs on the invoice would make it abundantly clear. I passed along all increased costs with a note on my proposal that said “Any and all additional tariffs will be paid for by the customer.”

That's not how capitalism works. Consumers ate the cost. Have you not bought anything in the last year?

Yeah. You're confusing capitalism and how businesses generally work with this particular tariff. Which, based on these comments, was often/always just passed through to customers.

That's what I just said

I know you're being cute, but businesses generally don't pass all the costs of increased COGS on to customers.

Not being cute, being a realist who exists in this world, so take your condescending nickname and go read up on tariffs, will ya, babe.

The Bottom Line: While the goal of a tariff is often to protect domestic industry, the immediate effect is almost always a "consumption tax" paid by the person at the end of the line: you.

So you're backtracking and now are saying that that's how tariffs work; not how capitalism works? Got it.

Pretty sure we are talking about the effect of tariffs in our capitalist economy. Glad you got it.

Be less sure and try to use your words better since you don't seem to understand the difference between:

> That's not how capitalism works.

and

That's not how tariffs work in a capitalist economy.

Dude, I said that's not how capitalism works because you claimed the tariff costs didn't get passed down to us consumers, which it did.

I then said that's not how tariffs work in a capitalist economy when you claimed consumers didn't get the costs passed down to them, which again, it sure as shit did.

I've said one single thing this entire time. The costs of these tariffs are paid for by me, you, and every other consumer, not the businesses, because capitalism, profits, shareholder value, ceo pay packages, whatever.

I've just had to say that one thing multiple different ways as you try to mental ninja me for no reason about facts. I don't care what you think, the Fact is, consumers eat the cost of tariffs with higher prices, which look around, is happening.

Maybe this will finally be the impetus for the US to go for a VAT? Hell if we get a carbon based border adjustment tax out of this like people were talking about in Trump’s first term this might be a case of broken clocks.

You're thinking way too much like a programmer

It doesn't need to be a perfect solution, you could just give everyone a flat refund similar to class action payouts.

Well that would seem like a potentially huge mess depending on the size of the purchases. Not to mention that the purchasers are not all easily tracked down. I wasn't suggesting it because it was perfect; I was suggesting it because it might be viable.