Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 02, 2025

Amazon this week denied a report that it would display tariff charges on imported goods for sale on its platform after the White House denounced the move as a "hostile and political act." But other retailers are breaking out the import duties on customer receipts -- sometimes causing shock among shoppers.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

That $119 swimsuit? With tariffs it will cost you $360. Some retailers have started breaking out the cost of tariffs on customer purchases, highlighting the impact on consumers.

[image or embed]

-- CBS News (@cbsnews.com) May 1, 2025 at 5:40 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

$360=price of one doll.

No problem.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2025-05-02 08:31 AM | Reply

letmegooglethat.com

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-05-02 08:37 AM | Reply

2 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Thanks but it's more complicated than that, isn't it?

Everyone recognizes that American swimsuit manufacturers (as one example) will also take this opportunity to raise prices.

And why not? There's about to be a swimsuit shortage.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2025-05-02 08:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The great US made swimsuit price gouging conspiracy.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-05-02 08:54 AM | Reply

This one is made for r/doomercirclejerk

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-05-02 08:55 AM | Reply

The great US made swimsuit price gouging conspiracy.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg

I thought it was called supply and demand?

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2025-05-02 08:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I thought it was called price gouging when you charge $119 for 5 square inches of bikini.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-05-02 09:13 AM | Reply

That's who the actual headline is about, Triangl. A price gouging bikini company lol.

If you've got kids that competitively swim, you're buying performance Speedo stuff, which is portugal made with italian fabrics, tarriffs are 10% more than before.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-05-02 09:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think this calls for a Trump Tariff Protest by going naked!*

*Only applies to attractive ladies.

#9 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-02 11:47 AM | Reply

The great US made swimsuit price gouging conspiracy.
#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg
I thought it was called supply and demand?

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2025-05-02 08:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Zed, I'm sure the guys at the bar you frequent won't care if your thong is American or Chinese made.

#10 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-02 12:10 PM | Reply

That $119 swimsuit -- With tariffs it will cost you $360

no it won't. you're using tds math. female tds math even.

By Megan Cerullo
Edited By Anne Marie D. Lee

Triangl, an online swimwear company, announced that as of April 30, orders from U.S.-based customers will include tariff charges at checkout. On Thursday, a one-piece woman's swimsuit sold on the site with a retail cost of $119 was subject to tax of $12.35, while shipping costs ran $20. Import duties on the item amounted to $211.11, raising the final price to $362.46.

211.11/119=1.774033613 suddenly 177%?

#11 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-02 12:27 PM | Reply

Daddysfist,here's your tds.

#12 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-05-02 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 | Posted by chiligordo

Hey, shrimptacodan! How long you going to stick with the ChiliGordo sockpuppet? Until you get that one up to 26 plonks too?

#13 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-02 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

FatDork proves AI is retarded.

#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-05-02 07:10 PM | Reply

Good. The intended consequence will be NOT BUYING Chinese made crap. Those that still do are not paying a tariff - they are essentially paying a 'stupid liberal tax'.

Also, we are on pace to collect about 4x more in tariffs than the bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay in federal income taxes.

#15 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 07:19 PM | Reply

"we are on pace to collect about 4x more in tariffs than the bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay in federal income taxes."

From Americans. Tariffs are taxes.

Also, you're cherry-picking taxes, avoiding the type of federal taxes most people pay most over their lifetimes.

Now just do payroll taxes, and watch how the conclusions flip.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 08:38 PM | Reply

"Now just do payroll taxes, and watch how the conclusions flip.
#16 | Posted by Danforth"

Throw in payroll "taxes" - which aren't taxes as they are transfer payments for direct future benefits (benefits will account for ~$800B per year, 4x what this group pays into the system) - and tariffs will still bring in more than the bottom 50% pay in all taxes, including your fake ones.

But on to more important things - ready to post your link now to back up your ridiculous claim that the top .1% received over 50% of the Trump tax cut? Or, still gonna run home crying to mommy.

#17 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 08:55 PM | Reply

" payroll "taxes" - which aren't taxes "

I stopped there.

"ready to post your link "

I've posted it several times. I also realized your initial link only addressed the FRONT END costs of $1.8 Trillion, not the front AND BACK end costs of $2.3 Trillion.

How much of the interest payments on the new debt went to the world's wealthiest .1%?

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 08:58 PM | Reply

"transfer payments for direct future benefits"

At a rate of return MUCH LOWER than the markets, meaning SS folks are subsidizing the tax cuts.

The comparison is the equivalent of a 2% bond with an average maturity of 25 years (SS), versus "constructive use" of the upfront money (tax cuts) returning a compounded 8-10%.

Someone is benefitting from that spread, and it's NOT the SS participant.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 09:02 PM | Reply

"tariffs will still bring in more than the bottom 50% pay in all taxes"

No they won't. Not according to Actual Math. Of course, it's obvious you're not an adherent.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 09:04 PM | Reply

""ready to post your link "
I've posted it several times."

No - you haven't because no such link exists because your statement is ridiculous.

"I also realized your initial link only addressed the FRONT END costs of $1.8 Trillion, not the front AND BACK end costs of $2.3 Trillion."

What the F are you even trying to claim now dipshit? You lied about your first claim - don't try to move the goalposts now. Post to a link explicitly stating that the top .1% got more than 50% of Trump's tax cut or admit you lied.

"How much of the interest payments on the new debt went to the world's wealthiest .1%?
#18 | Posted by Danforth"

LOL, you are really getting desperate now, aren't you. The truth will set you free dipshit. Just admit that you lied.

#21 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 09:09 PM | Reply

"At a rate of return MUCH LOWER than the markets,
The comparison is the equivalent of a 2% bond with an average maturity of 25 years (SS)
#19 | Posted by Danforth"

Is your brain broken dipshit? I am the one who informed you of this fact - YOU are the demanding that SS stays invested in this shit investment. But don't worry, in under a decade the 'trust fund' will be gone anyway so there was will 0% return because there are no funds to invest - it will just be a straight transfer from payroll deduction to current retirees at between 70-80 cents on the dollar of what SS promised to pay.

#22 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 09:12 PM | Reply

"No they won't. Not according to Actual Math. Of course, it's obvious you're not an adherent.
#20 | Posted by Danforth"

The bottom 50% pays in ~$170B in payroll taxes and another $30B or so in income taxes. Tariffs in April were $17B - annualized, that is $204B (and this is before the full tariffs kick in) - or, roughly the same as what the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid in real and fake taxes.

As I am alway truthful, here is my link:
finance.yahoo.com

#23 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 09:15 PM | Reply

"we are on pace to collect about 4x more in tariffs than the bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay in federal income taxes."

Collect from whom?
How much from the bottom 50%?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-02 09:26 PM | Reply

Social Security is not an investment.
It's a welfare program.

If you want to invest for retirement,
that's what 401K and Roth IRA are for.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-02 09:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Social Security is not an investment.
It's a welfare program.
#25 | Posted by snoofy"

Well, it is not really an investment if you are forced into a 2% return that will disappear entirely when the "Trust Fund" is exhausted. You are correct that it is welfare and will flow back to the poor people at 70 to 80 cents on the dollar.

#26 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 09:58 PM | Reply

" As I am alway truthful, here is my link"

Your analysis sucks. You were comparing the new monthly tariff to zero, instead of the regular monthly tariffs paid before Trumps tariffs kicked in. The higher tariffs don't even account for half of the $17 billion number.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 10:35 PM | Reply

" Is your brain broken dipshit? I am the one who informed you of this fact - YOU are the demanding that SS stays invested in this shit investment"

No dumbfuck, I knew it before you ever did. I'm just talking about the difference between a 2%, 25 year bond, versus "constructive use of money". Do you know what that phrase means?

If so, what compounded annual percentage would you assign?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 10:38 PM | Reply

" you are really getting desperate now, aren't you."

Admit, you left out the back end of the equation, without using those specific words.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 10:39 PM | Reply

Most Trump voters don't swim.

Or bathe.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-02 10:40 PM | Reply

#30: In addition to Trumpf hominids, apes can't swim either: e.g. gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. But these snow monkeys (non-apes) in Japan enjoying bathing in the warm springs: cdn.cheapoguides.com

#31 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-02 10:51 PM | Reply

"No dumbfuck, I knew it before you ever did. I'm just talking about the difference between a 2%, 25 year bond, versus "constructive use of money". Do you know what that phrase means?
#28 | Posted by Danforth"

Sure you did dipshit - that is why you were crying when the GOP wanted to invest the money in the market. But, it is a moot point anyway as the 'trust fund' is almost gone. Soon, it will be in default and paying 70 to 80 cents on the dollar.

#32 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 11:00 PM | Reply

"Admit, you left out the back end of the equation, without using those specific words.
#29 | Posted by Danforth"

Still waiting for a single link you can post to support your ridiculous claim - of course, you were unable to so far so I suspect you will be running home to cry to mommy, AGAIN. So, post the link Danbitch.

#33 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 11:01 PM | Reply

"In addition to Trumpf hominids, apes can't swim either
#31 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS #31 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS"

"A 2017 study by USA Swimming and the University of Memphis indicated that 64% of Black children in the U.S. cannot swim."

www.fastcompany.com

What % of black people voted for the Democrats again?

#34 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-02 11:04 PM | Reply

"Still waiting for a single link"

I've given it to you multiple times. It's not my fault you can neither read it nor understand it.

"you were crying when the GOP wanted to invest the money in the market."

I'd read Dubya's equation. Explain the part about how you'd have to give back some of your investments, if they did too well. The more people understood it, the less people supported it. By the end, GWB was forced to admit his "fix" wouldn't address the problem.

I love how you keep admitting you don't understand ANY large equation. Keep failing and flailing!

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 11:10 PM | Reply

"Soon, it will be in default and paying 70 to 80 cents on the dollar."

Only if cowards won't address the actual issue. Currently, one point on both the employer and employee sides would put the equation in balance. And frankly, it's a short-term fix, since the BB bubble will have passed in a decade.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-02 11:14 PM | Reply

""Still waiting for a single link"
I've given it to you multiple times."

Lie some more dipshit. You can't link and you know it because you stated an outright lie and were called out on it. Now, link up or admit that you lied (per usual)

"Explain the part about how you'd have to give back some of your investments, if they did too well. The more people understood it, the less people supported it. By the end, GWB was forced to admit his "fix" wouldn't address the problem."

I have no idea what you are talking about because the proposal never went far enough to actually define it. As soon as Democrats heard 'invest in the market' you immediately started crying how Wall Street would get rich and you demanded your 2% return like the bunch of retards that you are.

"I love how you keep admitting you don't understand ANY large equation.
#35 | Posted by Danforth"

Just more lies for you getting called out. Now provide the link to back up your claim that the .1% got 50% of the Trump tax cuts which explicitly states what you claim. Or, be Danbitch and go cry to mommy.

#37 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-03 12:16 AM | Reply

"Only if cowards won't address the actual issue. Currently, one point on both the employer and employee sides would put the equation in balance.
#36 | Posted by Danforth"

Lol, you moron promised the current funding would be sufficient and now you want 2% more of someone's income just to make whole on your original promise. No thanks. Let the ponzi scheme fail. Now provide the link to back up your claim that the .1% got 50% of the Trump tax cuts which explicitly states what you claim. Or, be Danbitch and go cry to mommy.

#38 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-03 12:18 AM | Reply

Is the tatiff based on list or cost price?

#39 | Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-03 01:29 AM | Reply

"#39 | Posted by visitor_"

Depends. For fashion products sold through retail (first sold to a store in the US and then the store sells to you), the gross margin is usually 70%+, so a $100 dollar product sold to the consumer has a cost of $30. The tariff is then based on the $30 cost. In the case of a TEMU, YOU are the end customer so the entire amount would be subject to the tariff - so, based on the selling price. In the case of TEMU, the object is to make the price so high, the products simply no longer sell and that is exactly what we are seeing now.

#40 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-05-03 01:37 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort