p.1 #1 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
Will people now get reimbursed, who paid higher prices for photo gear due to tariffs during the last year?
How is the process expected to materialize?
As I heard, interest on the tariffs has also to be paid: at what rate?
p.1 #3 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
Just yesterday I got a surprise tariff bill from FedEx for a shipment I received in October of last year. ($79 on a $200 Wotancraft bag!) Now I'm wondering if I should wait to pay it.
p.1 #7 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
Right now it's not open to individuals, which is bullshit unless they're eventually going to refund everyone that paid for this tax scam. There's been no announcement of individual reimbursements. I got nicked for $79 by DHL after ordering a custom microphone from the UK a couple months ago. It's been ruled illegal, everyone should get refunded. Save your receipts.
p.1 #8 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
B&H Photo must be ecstatic, with all the money they'll be making back. Of course, the next round for the Republican administration is to impose new taxes/tariffs, raising prices for all of us. In one or two years, these will again be ruled illegal. B&H Photo will get the refund, but none of us will.
p.1 #10 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
I expect companies that refuse to rebate tariffs will face class-action lawsuits as well as an avalanche of bad PR.
Costco is apparently saying that any rebated tariffs would go toward lower prices on future purchases.
Not a member, but that is a crock.
Not exactly thrilled with companies that haven't reduced prices on products introduced after the original tariffs went into effect. For example, if it's coming from China, the tariff went from 35% to 15%, but the original retail price remains the same with no hope of a rebate.
p.1 #11 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
greeneggs wrote:
B&H Photo must be ecstatic, with all the money they'll be making back. Of course, the next round for the Republican administration is to impose new taxes/tariffs, raising prices for all of us. In one or two years, these will again be ruled illegal. B&H Photo will get the refund, but none of us will.
p.1 #12 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
Consumers will probably not get any money back. It'll be interesting to see how the lawsuit against Costco on exactly this subject plays out. Interesting article about this today on the BBC
p.1 #13 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
dordek wrote:
Actually, he only won the popular vote once. His first term was the result of the Electoral College, not the will of the people.
The reason for the electoral college is so small populated states have some power, otherwise do want places like California and New York controlling everything. I suppose if you want one party rule your against it. We are a Republic not a Democracy. It was genius to only allow 2 Senators per state so the small states have the same vote as large states. Too bad most voters don't know any of this.
p.1 #15 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
campy wrote:
The reason for the electoral college is so small populated states have some power, otherwise do want places like California and New York controlling everything. I suppose if you want one party rule your against it. We are a Republic not a Democracy. It was genius to only allow 2 Senators per state so the small states have the same vote as large states. Too bad most voters don't know any of this.
That “republican not a democracy” canard is getting really, really old. One common term for our system (when it works correctly) is “representative democracy.” The ancient Greek version of democracy is not the only one.
Your “one part rule” comment is monumentally ironic, given that one part currently does currently “rule,” havingcontrol of the presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.
The electoral college — which we’ll likely never be able to change, since it is a kind of in-breeding — gives one voter in a state like Alaska or Wyoming many times the weight of one voter in a state like Texas or New York in presidential elections, despite the fact that the president represent the people of the entire nation, not the interests of states. (Unlike senators, who do represent state interests.)
Speaking of “too bad most voters don’t know any of this.”
p.1 #16 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
campy wrote:
The reason for the electoral college is so small populated states have some power, otherwise do want places like California and New York controlling everything. I suppose if you want one party rule your against it. We are a Republic not a Democracy. It was genius to only allow 2 Senators per state so the small states have the same vote as large states. Too bad most voters don't know any of this.
A republic is a form of representative democracy. Almost all democratic countries in the world have a form of representative, not direct, democracy. A direct democracy would have people vote on specific issues and legislation themselves rather than elect representatives to make the decisions for the people. Switzerland is one example with frequent referendums as examples of direct democracy. The official name of my country is Republic of Finland and we're definitely a democracy. To suggest that a republic is not a democracy suggests a lack of understanding of terminology and how societies work, or being conned into believing something that is just not true. Republicans want people to believe US is not a democracy to justify taking away power from the people.
Regions with lower population densities were given more influence in the US system because slave owners (who became former slave owners) wanted to keep their relative power in the society. That's what it's all about, not about the common people in lower populated states getting more power.
p.1 #17 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
campy wrote:
The reason for the electoral college is so small populated states have some power, otherwise do want places like California and New York controlling everything. I suppose if you want one party rule your against it. We are a Republic not a Democracy. It was genius to only allow 2 Senators per state so the small states have the same vote as large states. Too bad most voters don't know any of this.
A republic is a form of representative democracy. Almost all democratic countries in the world have a form of representative, not direct, democracy. A direct democracy would have people vote on specific issues and legislation themselves rather than elect representatives to make the decisions for the people. Switzerland is one example with frequent referendums as examples of direct democracy. The official name of my country is Republic of Finland and we're definitely a democracy. To suggest that a republic is not a democracy suggests a lack of understanding of terminology and how societies work, or being conned into believing something that is just not true. Republicans want people to believe US is not a democracy to justify taking away power from the people.
Regions with lower population densities were given more influence in the US system because slave owners (who became former slave owners) wanted to keep their relative power in the society. That's what it's all about, not about the common people in lower populated states getting more power....Show more →
I know how our system works (those who wanted slavery said "give us more power or we won't play with you"). My point was solely to point out that the majority of the people were NOT fooled twice. Only once were the majority of the people fooled into thinking it was a good idea to elect the current President. I hope there isn't a second time people are fooled into something like this.
p.1 #18 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
You don't have to tell me about one party rule, I live in Massachusetts. We voted to have the state auditor audit the legislature by over 72% vote and the elected officials refuse to carry it out. Here the legislature controls the budget of the courts and judges pay and the state auditor is trying to sue in court to make them comply. How do you think that's going?
p.1 #20 · Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supreme court pan out?
campy wrote:
The reason for the electoral college is so small populated states have some power, otherwise do want places like California and New York controlling everything.
It was the provision of two senators for each state regardless of state populations that was designed to ensure that small states "have some power."
The Electoral College was established to facilitate the continuation of slavery.
Along with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which increased the electoral power of Southern States by including people who were prohibited from voting (to apportion the number of House seats, and thus Electoral College votes, which are the total of House plus Senate seats), the establishment of the Electoral College prevented election of a president by national popular vote and allowed a string of electoral victories by Southern slaveholders and their sympathizers for the first half of the 19th century.
Photo gear: Reimbursement for tariffs - How will the ruling of the supre...
