Rendered at 17:40:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Joeri 4 days ago [-]
Actually, a sizable chunk of the refunds will go to companies like Cantor Fitzgerald, the company of the commerce secretary Howard Lutnick (or his sons, which is the same thing), that bought the tariff refund rights last year for 20% of the refund value. While Lutnick was ostensibly pro-tariff, his company was betting against the tariffs being legal, and now will collect refunds paid by the American taxpayer.
So in reality, the tax payer is on the hook twice: once for paying the tariffs through increased prices, and once for the debt created by the people disbursing refunds to themselves.
tailscaler2026 4 days ago [-]
No worries, DOJ is no doubt already on the case, as we saw with the polymarket arrest. No way they'd let blatant self dealing propelled by inside information slide right?
cosmicgadget 3 days ago [-]
Anakin stare
altairprime 4 days ago [-]
That’s a “Furthermore”, not an “Actually”. There are multiple layers of corruption here, not exclusive reasons that conflict.
Ferdinandpferd 4 days ago [-]
Actually, I think that is 3 times. These people have the vote that matters in US democracy (and law).. The Cash majority.
stogot 3 days ago [-]
Source?
lobsterthief 3 days ago [-]
Just Google it yourself; numerous legitimate publications have reported on it.
Also true of any other refund a business might get for any other expense the business was overcharged for. Not sure why anyone is surprised.
krustyburger 4 days ago [-]
Many businesses added specific surcharges to final sales to offset the tariffs they paid. While they have no legal obligation to refund those surcharges they imposed, it would be straightforward to do so and it would be the right thing to do.
phil21 4 days ago [-]
> While they have no legal obligation to refund those surcharges they imposed, it would be straightforward to do so and it would be the right thing to do.
I'm actually interested to see how this goes legally. I haven't seen an actual attorney who understands the subject chime in on it yet. But I could see a case being made that a line item like that could have a basis of being refunded if the company charging them itself received a refund. Certainly a long shot, but I'm guessing someone will bring a case at some point to see what happens.
Ironically companies that broke out tariffs charges as line items were lauded for "doing the right thing" and are the only companies who could possibly be remotely on the hook here - any other company simply adding it to general margins is quite obviously in the clear.
addaon 4 days ago [-]
Or keep it as a rainy day fund against the next time one of their major markets goes insane with attempted extortion, possibly successfully next time? Their customers paid a price they were comfortable with —- if a company returns part of that to the customer, they disadvantage themselves compared to their competitors who do not do so in the next round of tariffs, since their competitors can use the rainy day fund to delay price rises, capturing customer spend (which is to say, competitor-voluntary-donation-to-customer spend).
bigfatkitten 4 days ago [-]
Why would they do that when they could fund share buybacks, or pay it out to shareholders as dividends?
Paul-Craft 4 days ago [-]
The ghost of Milton Friedman speaks!
mindslight 4 days ago [-]
It's not a matter of "surprised", rather it's outraged over the lack of accountability. The administration acted illegally, which caused harm to consumers. It's reasonable to expect consumers to be made whole from the results of those illegal actions - the same as if corpos were found to be illegally colluding to raise prices without Grump spearheading it.
(although honestly I wouldn't be surprised if such a push ended up with the profligate spendthrift in chief sending more paltry "stimulus" checks with his ugly-ass signature on it right before midterms)
duxup 4 days ago [-]
Depending on the relationship it’s totally normal to say hey we want to adjust what you builded us.
Not every business the business relationship works that way, but it’s not unusual.
As for a surprise goes, I don’t know about surprised, but certainly it’s worth noting that after a massive illegal tax …. voters get no justice.
Eridrus 4 days ago [-]
The actual incidence of tariffs is mostly on consumers, so giving remedies to businesses doesn't actually make any sense.
I'm not surprised, but I think this is a miscarriage of justice.
skybrian 4 days ago [-]
You knew what the price was when you paid for it. You weren't misled. What's the injustice?
Yes, it's a windfall for the business, and it would be nice for them to pass it on, but unless they promised to do it, that wasn't the deal.
Paul-Craft 4 days ago [-]
I don't know what world you live in where an arbitrary and illegal price increase on essentially everything is "just."
Eridrus 2 days ago [-]
The injustice isn't that consumers were harmed (this is just the nature of public policy with both winners and losers), but that our legal system does not accept that tax incidence exists and is giving taxpayer funds to businesses for no reason.
adampunk 2 days ago [-]
"this is all just business as usual" is a specific kind of deflection which serves a master.
orev 4 days ago [-]
Pricing for any item is set by one thing: what people are willing to pay for it.
If a business raised prices because of tariffs, and consumers paid the higher price, that was a successful test that consumers are willing to pay that higher price for the item. Once that’s been established, the business has little incentive to lower prices once the tariffs go away. Prices only go down if competition with other companies pushes them down, but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
bryanlarsen 4 days ago [-]
Pricing for almost every item is set by the lowest price the producer is willing to accept, not by what people are willing to pay.
It's the "one price rule" in economics.
Everybody is willing to pay different prices. If you're starving, you're probably willing to pay "all my money" for food. But you don't, you pay the same price as everybody else who aren't willing to pay that much. The seller can't set the price to "all your money" because somebody else will be willing to sell for less.
> but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
In that case any producer willing to defect from this implicit pact and lower their prices slightly will be able to make all the profit. Anti-trust should be ensuring there are enough producers that there's always somebody willing to goose their profits at the expense of their competitors by lowering prices.
It should be, but isn't.
rileymat2 4 days ago [-]
You are describing theory, which is fine as a model but it is an imperfect model. There are a host of reasons this falls apart in reality.
bryanlarsen 4 days ago [-]
In reality these work very well for many of the important things. Ask any farmer who sells a 60 pound bushel of wheat for $6, producer of $10 blue jeans or maker of those $400 60" TV's. They're not swimming in profit.
The exceptions are far fewer, but far more noticeable. Housing and health care don't follow the one price rule. The exceptions dominate our mindshare because they're so painful, but the non-exceptions outnumber the exceptions.
phil21 4 days ago [-]
One price rule for commodities isn't super relevant for consumers though? Commodified markets are well understood so long as there is decent competition.
What we are increasingly seeing on the consumer side of the market - even on grocery items - is price segmentation. Grocery stores (moreso their suppliers) learned that many (most?) consumers are willing to pay much more for staple food items that are not commodities but quite common buys. Like chips or soda or branded packaged foods. They set a regular retail price to 50% more than it was a few years ago over time, and then to capture more of the price sensitive consumers they offer incentives like coupons, in-app deals, random sales, etc. to induce those consumers to purchase.
This is getting to be extremely aggressive and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Uber/Instacart for example have plenty of whistle blower insider types who have written about how price segmentation on an individual basis based on personal information and habits happens. Such as the type of credit card on file (Amex holders get charged more), how much gift card credit balance you have, your trends like accepting higher prices once from a given location/destination pair and time, etc.
If you go to the McDonalds drive-thru and simply order at the window you will be likely paying considerably more than the person who has the app installed and orders through that method.
Airline tickets perhaps follow this model as well - browser history and cookies will present a higher price to one consumer vs. another for the same book at exactly the same time. Some court cases are attempting discovery on this recently, so it will be interesting to see if true.
The price of an individual consumer transaction is absolutely set to what the company charging it believes the market will bear. Increasingly that "market" is the size of exactly one consumer.
I listened to a few earnings calls for fast food and consumer staple companies during COVID. Executives were absolutely incredulous that they could continue to increase prices and have it not impact volume of sales much if at all. What was taught in MBA school simply was not reality on the ground, and COVID times exposed this fact. The US consumer at least as a whole has simply lost the ability to price shop and is not as price sensitive as the textbooks say. This may change, but it's the current state.
About the only thing producer prices set is a pricing floor.
platinumrad 4 days ago [-]
Not a single post in this comment thread isn't just describing theory.
NooneAtAll3 4 days ago [-]
double negative, so... every comment does?
platinumrad 4 days ago [-]
Yup.
halJordan 4 days ago [-]
Yeah but, that vagary is literally the exact same wording that can be applied to "prices are set according to what consumers no; not it's value" that sparked this thread.
mpalczewski 4 days ago [-]
only true for commodities
foobarchu 4 days ago [-]
I don't see why this matters a single bit. You can easily flip it around and say that the businesses were clearly fine with all this because they kept importing, so why shouldn't the entirety of the tarriff refund go to consumers?
bitshiftfaced 4 days ago [-]
Oversimplification. Businesses can exist when the the cost of a good is less than the price they can get. There are many possible prices that this might be true, and there is some price that maximizes net profit.
When an item's margin becomes large, the risk/reward equation becomes favorable for new competition to come in. That puts downward pressure on prices.
For a given good, let's say that tariffs increased the business's cost for that good. If that cost goes away and the price stays constant, then the margin increases. That triggers more competition.
seanmcdirmid 4 days ago [-]
> Pricing for any item is set by one thing: what people are willing to pay for it.
Pricing is set by two things: supply and demand. Tariffs make supply more expensive, less supply is brought in, therefore the consumer must either pay higher prices or go without. Yes, they can just choose not to buy, and then the importer can choose not to import.
jfengel 4 days ago [-]
Every player has an incentive to lower the price: it attracts customers away from the other players.
They were able to raise their prices all at once because of tariffs. If they'd done that by simply agreeing to raise prices, it would be collusion.
Once the tariffs go away, prices would be naturally expected to fall back to their previous equilibrium because the same forces apply.
It's even more complicated than that, of course. But if there was competition before tariffs then there is competition after tariffs and you'd expect them to act similarly.
altairprime 4 days ago [-]
Only for optional goods! Exploitative inelasticity for necessary goods usually leads to investigations, regulations, and occasionally jail time. So it’s important to be sure to lower prices in a timely manner if you’re e.g. an egg wholesaler/retailer, otherwise you start having to declare new material risks to the SEC.
eduction 4 days ago [-]
> if… consumers paid the higher price
It’s not binary. Some customers were willing and some weren’t. Even if the company was able to keep selling the item profitably, it may have reduced its total profits at the higher price point (fewer sales) and would gladly revert once the tariff is gone.
akabul0us 3 days ago [-]
This is why when the price of oil goes up, so does the price of gasoline, but when the price of oil comes down, well... When's the last time you remember gas suddenly costing a whole lot less?
0xy 4 days ago [-]
This would be a valid concern if businesses got $1 in additional tariff costs and passed on $1 in price increases. This categorically did not happen, and businesses absorbed the vast majority of the blow through both stockpiling and taking the bullet.
Prime example is Mercedes. The RRP for post-tariff Mercedes vehicles was identical to the pre-tariff RRP.
Food prices also rose significantly less than the tariff increases.
Importantly, journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis, implied that 10% tariff = 10% RRP rise. They never corrected themselves, nor for the economists who falsely claimed the economy would collapse.
When you pay $10 for a widget at the store, the cost price of that widget is likely $2. A 10% additional tariff (if passed along fully, it wasn't) would mean the widget goes from $10.00 to $10.20.
krunck 4 days ago [-]
Zero businesses passed on the additional costs onto the consumer? None?
gruez 4 days ago [-]
>Zero businesses passed on the additional costs onto the consumer? None?
That wasn't the claim made. OP said:
>and businesses absorbed the vast majority of the blow through both stockpiling and taking the bullet.
Which so far as I can tell, is approximately correct, even if the "vast majority" part is suspect. A goldman sacs from last year estimated consumers will pay 55% of the tariffs by end of 2025. However that only includes the tariffs paid, whereas OP also included "stockpiling".
OP also says "This would be a valid concern if..." so, no need to defend these poor massive businesses who also screwed us with shrinkflation for five years.
UncleOxidant 4 days ago [-]
Yeah, that was quite a claim. I didn't realize that businesses were were so altruistic?
twoodfin 4 days ago [-]
Why those particular five years and not always?
toraway 4 days ago [-]
> Importantly, journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis, implied that 10% tariff = 10% RRP rise. They never corrected themselves, nor for the economists who falsely claimed the economy would collapse.
This is irrelevant to the discussion in the article, which is specifically about refunding a portion of whatever amount a company receives back from the government to customers.
It's also pretty vague without any examples of what specifically deserves corrections.
4 days ago [-]
quickthrowman 4 days ago [-]
> Prime example is Mercedes. The RRP for post-tariff Mercedes vehicles was identical to the pre-tariff RRP.
If your prime example is a luxury car with a ton of margin built in, you need a better example. Tariffed commodities absolutely had the costs passed on, and far more of those are sold than high margin luxury products where manufacturers had the option to compress margins vs passing on the cost.
Also, there are lots of products that go through multiple middle men, the tariffs were included and marked up at every stage. Very few things go from manufacturer to retailer with no middlemen.
I’d guess about 1/4 to 1/3rd of tariff costs were absorbed and the rest passed along to the eventual end consumer.
I suspect you work nowhere near the money at work, the closer you get to the money, the more you realize exactly what is built into a price.
WillPostForFood 4 days ago [-]
"I’d guess about 1/4 to 1/3rd of tariff costs were absorbed and the rest passed along to the eventual end consumer."
Where do you see that in the inflation numbers - I expected a noticeable impact, but it just isn't there in the data.
Substitution with lower cost items happens when prices go up and that is factored into CPI data. I’m not sure how the basket of goods has changed over the past year, but substitution of goods does happen when prices go up.
Corporate profits grew throughout the tariffs, if they were absorbing the majority of the tariff cost instead of passing it on, it would’ve affected publicly traded company earnings, but it hasn’t.
> Importantly, journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis, implied that 10% tariff = 10% RRP rise. They never corrected themselves, nor for the economists who falsely claimed the economy would collapse.
Lovely strawman.
unyttigfjelltol 4 days ago [-]
> journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis
It’s just the NYT. Let’s not demean the rest of the media for the faults of the NYT.
eduction 4 days ago [-]
Businesses that raised prices to cover tariffs also saw reduced demand — axiomatically, that is what happens when you raise prices - and almost certainly made less total profit (since the rise went toward higher cost not margin expansion). I know we’re all supposed to be at each other’s throats these days but the tariffs were a shared burden.
Scoundreller 4 days ago [-]
I’ve also sold things to US and pre-paid tariffs to my shipping broker.
I’m doubting myself or my buyer will be getting a refund.
Same for my buyer that bought items via eBay, paying the tariffs, through the EIS/eBay International Shipping service where the buyer pays for it and I ship the item to eBay in Canada whom trucks it over the border.
skybrian 4 days ago [-]
It may be doubtful, but it seems like it would be worth looking into to see if you qualify for a refund?
nekusar 4 days ago [-]
We can play the same at this game.
Im game at throwing $1000 in to Polymarket at the "Walmart CEO leaving the role in any method"
Im naturally not going to request anything unbecoming or illegal. Buuuuuuuuuuut im not going to frown either if if happens.
Prediction markets == assassination markets.
pixelpoet 4 days ago [-]
It's almost as if electing a notorious conman to the highest office, for a second emboldening time, isn't such a great idea.
I'm sure America will learn from this and elect responsible leaders in future.
ku-man 4 days ago [-]
"I'm sure America will learn from this and elect responsible leaders in future."
Assuming you are not being sarcastic, I would expect actually the opposite.
seqizz 4 days ago [-]
Don't worry, it'll trickle down to consumers. It always did. /s
Wow, there is a (seemingly non-official) account on here with the username `ycombinatornews`. Somehow, they joined in 2018 and only have 60 karma.
RankingMember 4 days ago [-]
I think it's real, just post-processed to look like Costco from the perspective of someone dreaming about it
quickthrowman 4 days ago [-]
I initially thought the same thing, but there is a human listed as the photographer, Mark Abramson. The photo has been processed, but it’s not AI generated.
So in reality, the tax payer is on the hook twice: once for paying the tariffs through increased prices, and once for the debt created by the people disbursing refunds to themselves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/us/politics/companies-con...
I'm actually interested to see how this goes legally. I haven't seen an actual attorney who understands the subject chime in on it yet. But I could see a case being made that a line item like that could have a basis of being refunded if the company charging them itself received a refund. Certainly a long shot, but I'm guessing someone will bring a case at some point to see what happens.
Ironically companies that broke out tariffs charges as line items were lauded for "doing the right thing" and are the only companies who could possibly be remotely on the hook here - any other company simply adding it to general margins is quite obviously in the clear.
(although honestly I wouldn't be surprised if such a push ended up with the profligate spendthrift in chief sending more paltry "stimulus" checks with his ugly-ass signature on it right before midterms)
Not every business the business relationship works that way, but it’s not unusual.
As for a surprise goes, I don’t know about surprised, but certainly it’s worth noting that after a massive illegal tax …. voters get no justice.
I'm not surprised, but I think this is a miscarriage of justice.
Yes, it's a windfall for the business, and it would be nice for them to pass it on, but unless they promised to do it, that wasn't the deal.
If a business raised prices because of tariffs, and consumers paid the higher price, that was a successful test that consumers are willing to pay that higher price for the item. Once that’s been established, the business has little incentive to lower prices once the tariffs go away. Prices only go down if competition with other companies pushes them down, but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
It's the "one price rule" in economics.
Everybody is willing to pay different prices. If you're starving, you're probably willing to pay "all my money" for food. But you don't, you pay the same price as everybody else who aren't willing to pay that much. The seller can't set the price to "all your money" because somebody else will be willing to sell for less.
> but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
In that case any producer willing to defect from this implicit pact and lower their prices slightly will be able to make all the profit. Anti-trust should be ensuring there are enough producers that there's always somebody willing to goose their profits at the expense of their competitors by lowering prices.
It should be, but isn't.
The exceptions are far fewer, but far more noticeable. Housing and health care don't follow the one price rule. The exceptions dominate our mindshare because they're so painful, but the non-exceptions outnumber the exceptions.
What we are increasingly seeing on the consumer side of the market - even on grocery items - is price segmentation. Grocery stores (moreso their suppliers) learned that many (most?) consumers are willing to pay much more for staple food items that are not commodities but quite common buys. Like chips or soda or branded packaged foods. They set a regular retail price to 50% more than it was a few years ago over time, and then to capture more of the price sensitive consumers they offer incentives like coupons, in-app deals, random sales, etc. to induce those consumers to purchase.
This is getting to be extremely aggressive and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Uber/Instacart for example have plenty of whistle blower insider types who have written about how price segmentation on an individual basis based on personal information and habits happens. Such as the type of credit card on file (Amex holders get charged more), how much gift card credit balance you have, your trends like accepting higher prices once from a given location/destination pair and time, etc.
If you go to the McDonalds drive-thru and simply order at the window you will be likely paying considerably more than the person who has the app installed and orders through that method.
Airline tickets perhaps follow this model as well - browser history and cookies will present a higher price to one consumer vs. another for the same book at exactly the same time. Some court cases are attempting discovery on this recently, so it will be interesting to see if true.
The price of an individual consumer transaction is absolutely set to what the company charging it believes the market will bear. Increasingly that "market" is the size of exactly one consumer.
I listened to a few earnings calls for fast food and consumer staple companies during COVID. Executives were absolutely incredulous that they could continue to increase prices and have it not impact volume of sales much if at all. What was taught in MBA school simply was not reality on the ground, and COVID times exposed this fact. The US consumer at least as a whole has simply lost the ability to price shop and is not as price sensitive as the textbooks say. This may change, but it's the current state.
About the only thing producer prices set is a pricing floor.
When an item's margin becomes large, the risk/reward equation becomes favorable for new competition to come in. That puts downward pressure on prices.
For a given good, let's say that tariffs increased the business's cost for that good. If that cost goes away and the price stays constant, then the margin increases. That triggers more competition.
Pricing is set by two things: supply and demand. Tariffs make supply more expensive, less supply is brought in, therefore the consumer must either pay higher prices or go without. Yes, they can just choose not to buy, and then the importer can choose not to import.
They were able to raise their prices all at once because of tariffs. If they'd done that by simply agreeing to raise prices, it would be collusion.
Once the tariffs go away, prices would be naturally expected to fall back to their previous equilibrium because the same forces apply.
It's even more complicated than that, of course. But if there was competition before tariffs then there is competition after tariffs and you'd expect them to act similarly.
It’s not binary. Some customers were willing and some weren’t. Even if the company was able to keep selling the item profitably, it may have reduced its total profits at the higher price point (fewer sales) and would gladly revert once the tariff is gone.
Prime example is Mercedes. The RRP for post-tariff Mercedes vehicles was identical to the pre-tariff RRP.
Food prices also rose significantly less than the tariff increases.
Importantly, journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis, implied that 10% tariff = 10% RRP rise. They never corrected themselves, nor for the economists who falsely claimed the economy would collapse.
When you pay $10 for a widget at the store, the cost price of that widget is likely $2. A 10% additional tariff (if passed along fully, it wasn't) would mean the widget goes from $10.00 to $10.20.
That wasn't the claim made. OP said:
>and businesses absorbed the vast majority of the blow through both stockpiling and taking the bullet.
Which so far as I can tell, is approximately correct, even if the "vast majority" part is suspect. A goldman sacs from last year estimated consumers will pay 55% of the tariffs by end of 2025. However that only includes the tariffs paid, whereas OP also included "stockpiling".
https://abcnews.com/Business/new-tariffs-effect-us-consumers...
It's also pretty vague without any examples of what specifically deserves corrections.
If your prime example is a luxury car with a ton of margin built in, you need a better example. Tariffed commodities absolutely had the costs passed on, and far more of those are sold than high margin luxury products where manufacturers had the option to compress margins vs passing on the cost.
Also, there are lots of products that go through multiple middle men, the tariffs were included and marked up at every stage. Very few things go from manufacturer to retailer with no middlemen.
I’d guess about 1/4 to 1/3rd of tariff costs were absorbed and the rest passed along to the eventual end consumer.
I suspect you work nowhere near the money at work, the closer you get to the money, the more you realize exactly what is built into a price.
Where do you see that in the inflation numbers - I expected a noticeable impact, but it just isn't there in the data.
https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-pri...
Corporate profits grew throughout the tariffs, if they were absorbing the majority of the tariff cost instead of passing it on, it would’ve affected publicly traded company earnings, but it hasn’t.
FRED chart of S&P500 earnings shows a large increase in growth in 2025: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=QwW
Lovely strawman.
It’s just the NYT. Let’s not demean the rest of the media for the faults of the NYT.
I’m doubting myself or my buyer will be getting a refund.
Same for my buyer that bought items via eBay, paying the tariffs, through the EIS/eBay International Shipping service where the buyer pays for it and I ship the item to eBay in Canada whom trucks it over the border.
Im game at throwing $1000 in to Polymarket at the "Walmart CEO leaving the role in any method"
Im naturally not going to request anything unbecoming or illegal. Buuuuuuuuuuut im not going to frown either if if happens.
Prediction markets == assassination markets.
I'm sure America will learn from this and elect responsible leaders in future.
Assuming you are not being sarcastic, I would expect actually the opposite.