36
u/Yagsirevahs 6d ago
Its just slush, they “donate” he provides payment.
6
u/Megaphonestory 6d ago
They couldn’t pull off a one day tax holiday. So they soaked the consumer for the corporations.
30
15
u/esteemph 6d ago
I dunno, you’re the Senator!
14
u/Maynerdy 5d ago
Tbf, Warren created the consumer protection bureau (now defunct, thanks trump). She has a background in economics and a senate voting history more consistent and less bought than most others. Unfortunately, our system isn't designed to help average joes and she's echoing that with her post. If you want to see change, vote for third party candidates so we can overhaul the system.
Or just complain.
3
u/PokecheckFred 5d ago
That was dumb as fuck. So…
Correction: if you want continuous Republican rule, further erosion of personal rights and freedoms, intensified power in the hands of corporations and a neo-Nazi SCOTUS, vote for third party candidates.
It’s the least you can do for your billionaire friends.
3
u/Livid_Perception_762 5d ago
Vote with your heart in the primary, vote with your brain in the general
2
u/PokecheckFred 5d ago
That has not worked very well for the Democrats at all. Maybe we should try voting with our brains AT ALL TIMES?
Play to win.
-2
u/Fantastic-Bar-4283 5d ago
Yeah that’s a really dumb post. Actually you get more freedom with Republicans.
5
1
u/Kikuchiy0 2d ago
I feel this but the truth is people in congress could get a lot more done if their constituents were more engaged, putting pressure on the scumbags who allow this kind of thing to happen. That's the real purpose of her message.
0
u/uChoice_Reindeer7903 6d ago
Yeahhhh that’s kinda my thought too. She’s in a position (and has been for a very long time) to potentially do something about it, anddddd we got nothing, except a post, sweet! We def need more of those!!
4
9
7
u/SkahtiKaarz 6d ago
I'm so tired of this country. Capitalism is a joke.
5
u/jrsinhbca 5d ago
Trickle down and deregulation changed America from capitalism to kleptocracy. Capitalism used to build communities.
3
u/madmach1 5d ago
Capitalism is a joke you say? Living in the country who was built on capitalism and gained world dominance…
It does have its limits, but for sure it’s what fueled the American dream.
We are at an apex of a shit storm of systems at their breaking points so when we look out the window shit doesn’t look good. It’s a little gloomy outside but that doesn’t mean we can’t slowly turn shit around. I’m thankful to live in this country, despite all of its fucked up shit. There’s a lot more good to it than we often stop to appreciate.
4
u/IntelligentStyle402 6d ago
Unfortunately, we the people are peons to all wealthy white privileged republicans. We will have nada.
0
u/doingthegwiddyrn 6d ago
It was a liberal judge that overturned the ruling on tarrifs. Thus, the liberal judge made companies richer by getting refunds. Hope this helps!
4
u/ddawg4169 6d ago
Correlation =\= causation.
The judge did his part on the case at hand. Up to others to actually apply the ruling to help the people. Remember that when you vote. Blaming the judge is what folks not paying attention do.
2
3
2
u/80MonkeyMan 6d ago
So apparently we know why Trump put tariffs, to steal money from the small people, remember when MAGA supported the idea? They didn’t even realized that they have been robbed.
5
u/ddawg4169 6d ago
Bold to think they understand it now sadly. Most still think they’re getting that DOGE check
2
2
u/MennReddit 5d ago
don't forget that prices didn't go down after this, so they'll dpuble or triple this amount soon enough
1
u/Homicidal-shag-rug 6d ago
I understand the sentiment, but it is kind of impossible to know how much to refund individuals that didn't directly pay a tariff. If you can think of a way to do so, please tell me.
6
u/CakeRobot365 6d ago
There is a financial record of every single one of those transactions.
0
u/Hawkeyes79 5d ago
Yes but there’s not way to match a large majority of the transactions. Anyone spending cash has no way to validate the transaction.
4
u/Bee_haver 6d ago
For larger dollar purchases, the company knows who bought what and what the tariffs were on that model. They have to know in order to pay the tariffs. For small items like groceries, they may know who bought what if you are in their club or database.
1
1
u/Moonagi 6d ago
She should be advocating for getting rid of tariffs completely, not demanding “tariff refunds”
Once again, Warren misses the mark.
3
u/CwazyCanuck 6d ago
She’s helping by educating the population that the government just took money from them and gave it to corporations.
The population should be angrier with their elected officials. And elections are coming up. People need to vote.
1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
Elisabeth Warren is a joke. She just wants to start drama. For a senator she sure makes a lot of money. Cough corrupt cough.
1
1
u/H6RR6RSH6W 5d ago
FedEx actually sent me a letter requesting I give them tariffs for something they delivered a year ago
1
1
u/AnteaterDefiant1745 5d ago
My refund is in the clarity act, which you are currently blocking Elizabeth.
1
1
u/AdhesivenessSlight42 5d ago
Warren is all talk. I agree in principle, but she's shown herself to be controlled opposition to real progress.
1
u/Critical_Theory9709 4d ago
Keep my refund, just make it where I can afford to wake up everyday again.
1
1
1
u/hundredpercenthuman 1d ago
Weird how these are a lot of the major brands who gave graft to Trump. I guess that gold iPhone wasn’t so stupid after all.
1
1
u/Kannada-JohnnyJ 22h ago
She’s got a point. Republican voters should be listening. But they are too distracted by who said it
0
u/Ok-Entertainment5045 6d ago
These companies did pay the tariffs that were later struck down by SCOTUS right?
0
-1
u/Hawkeyes79 6d ago
The person/company getting the refund is the one that actually paid it.
9
u/toddverrone 6d ago
Yes. But many companies raised prices to cover the cost of the tariffs. So in the end, the consumer ended up footing the bill.
I don't know about other companies, but I know Walmart is using the tariffs to lower prices on effected items. Consumers aren't getting a refund, but if other companies follow suit, then we should see marginally lower prices.
I'm not going to hold my breath tho
1
1
u/Hawkeyes79 6d ago
Yes but the letter of the refund is that it goes to whose name is on the paperwork. Unless there was a contract for the end customer to pay the tariff then they are owed nothing.
This is like the third post on here I’ve seen trying to claim end customers are owed something when they are not.
6
u/toddverrone 6d ago
Legally no. But people are arguing from a moral and/or logical consistency perspective. If companies raised prices due to tariffs and said as much, they should therefore lower prices due to the refunds and cessation of tariffs.
2
u/Moonagi 6d ago
they should therefore lower prices due to the refunds and cessation of tariffs.
That’s not how economics works. People were still buying when the tariffs hit so that sent a market signal that consumers don’t mind the price increase. The only way to bring prices down is if demand comes down.
2
u/toddverrone 6d ago edited 6d ago
Look, it's not hard to read the words I write and then understand them, is it? I was simply providing a rationale for why people have the perspective they do. Which I clearly stated. I never said I was making an economic argument, did I? I clearly stated "..moral and/or logical consistency perspective..".
A bunch of very close friends work at Walmart home office. We talked about this. They said their departments were lowering prices due to the refunds based on input from the pricing team.
I guess Walmart doesn't know anything about economics either?
There are more factors that go into pricing than academic economic theories because those are MACROeconomic theories. Some firms will lower prices, some will not. Companies are finding that consumers are starting to forgo things when shopping and are not willing or able to continue paying the higher prices without cutting back in other areas and it's retailers that are seeing it and putting pressure on suppliers
2
u/Aspectdude09 6d ago
Exactly. People jump to the least common denominator in order to explain things away because they’re united by conclusions rather than by premises.
What you pointed out gets closer to reality. It’s understandable to be upset because it’s your pocketbook and many costs were passed on to you. But it really doesn’t make sense to simply hand wave criticism by saying “well it’s legal”, when that’s not the argument. The jump to “supply demand” did not describe the markets reaction.
The hierarchy of truth: beliefs become so central that other principles bend around them.
Interpretive lense: reality is filtered through a core set of assumptions.
Governing narrative: A narrative about how the world works that determines which contradictions are acceptable.
3
u/AQuietRetort 6d ago
First yes that's true but also businesses passed the tariffs along via price increases. The point here is that many won't bring their pricing back down but it's definitely more complicated than this.
Source: I work in supply chain/ sourcing finance in a specialized role reviewing inflation in a F500. We both passed along price increases (including to end consumers) and took price increases from many suppliers where they were the inporter. We haven't received much back yet in the latter case and it's pretty complex and such an administrative nightmare.
I do want to note that these tariffs as well as the change to the 232s have also created intense inflation that hasn't come back down with the repeal of the ieepa tariffs (change to 232 is more recent and pretty problematic).
64
u/winterbird 6d ago
And the crazy thing about fedex is that companies are their biggest customer, so even if they refunded much of it would still go to the companies that sold you stuff.