Day Lila
Day Lila

Sunday, 20 September 2026

20 Sept · Money · In brief

Money · Sunday, 20 September 2026

Money, in brief

26 stories · 35 sources

Swipe up for the day in brief ↑Scroll down for the day in brief ↓

What is moving · 1 of 4

Money going back to the name on the form

High ↑

US Customs is paying tariff refunds to importers, not to the shoppers whose prices went up. [1] The US Supreme Court ruled in June that a foreclosed owner in Michigan is owed what his house fetched at auction, $76,008, and not its assessed value of about $194,400. [6]

What is moving · 2 of 4

Prices set where nobody is comparing

Building ↑

Pet owners in Britain pay 16.6% more at large vet groups than at independent practices. [16] Private dental consultations across the UK rose 23% in two years, to about GBP 80. [18]

What is moving · 3 of 4

Rules about what a price must show

Steady →

Britain's competition regulator softened the rule on naming who owns a vet practice, and a group of vets has threatened to take it to court. [16] Britain's telecoms regulator has banned mid-contract price rises written as inflation plus a fixed percentage. [33]

What is moving · 4 of 4

Cash counters leaving town centres

Building ↑

Alnwick and Prudhoe in north-east England opened shared bank counters, giving Northumberland three. [28] York and North Yorkshire has set up a fund for seven towns, among them Whitby and Settle, where the bank has gone. [26]

American shoppers paid most of the tariffs. The $166bn refund is going to importers instead.

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on 20 February 2026 that emergency powers do not let a president impose broad tariffs. [6][7]

Who is involved

Who is involved

Why it matters

Watch the class actions against Costco and Nintendo: they are the only route a shopper has, and Nintendo has already asked a judge to throw its case out.

What's really going on

The US Supreme Court cancelled Trump's emergency tariffs in February, and US Customs and Border Protection now owes about $166bn.

What's really going on

The money is going to the importers named on the customs paperwork, including Walmart and Home Depot, while the households that paid the tax through higher shop prices cannot file a claim at all. [1][3]

Why it works on people

The word refund makes it sound like money returning to where it came from. Here it returns to whoever wrote the cheque to the US government, and that is a different set of people. [1]

Who gains

They billed the tariff as a separate line, so they can both reclaim it and prove what each customer paid, which turns a messy refund into an accounting exercise. [3]

Who pays

Estimates put the tariffs' cost at $1,000 to $1,500 a year each, and there is no claim form for them at any stage. [2][1]

Nobody knows yet

How much of the $166bn ever reaches a shopper.

Nobody publishes it. Only the shipping firms itemised the tax on invoices; retailers folded it into prices and say they cannot work out what any one customer paid. [3]

Nobody knows yet

How much the whole bill actually is.

The Associated Press put the unanswered sum at $133bn on the day of the ruling, US Customs later estimated $166bn, and a Penn Wharton model says more than $175bn of tariff revenue was collected. Neither the agency nor the courts have published a reconciliation. [15][1][2]

Good news

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in February that a president cannot impose broad tariffs under emergency powers. By 14 July the US government had paid back $81bn of the money it had collected.

The short version

That's the story in short.

The whole story has 13 more parts.

or swipe up for the next storyor scroll on for the next story ↓

The whole story, in 13 parts ↓

Part 1 of 13 · Who else is involved

Part 1 of 13 · Who else is involved

Part 2 of 13 · How it unfolded

Part 2 of 13 · How it unfolded

Part 3 of 13

US Customs and Border Protection has put the refund bill at about $166bn. [1][9]

Part 4 of 13

By 14 July the US government had paid back $81bn of it. [5]

Part 5 of 13

Only companies that paid customs directly may claim.

Part 5 of 13

People who paid the tax through higher shop prices have no route to it. [1]

Part 6 of 13

A study by the New York Federal Reserve in February put about 90% of the tariffs' cost on US consumers and importers rather than on foreign sellers. [2]

Part 7 of 13

Estimates put the cost at $1,000 to $1,500 a year for a typical US household, on goods from clothing to appliances. [2]

Part 8 of 13

More than 3,000 companies sued to secure their refunds, among them Skechers, Revlon, Toyota, Nintendo of America, FedEx and Costco. [1]

Part 9 of 13

FedEx, UPS and DHL billed the tax as a separate line on each invoice, so each can work out what a customer was charged, and all three say they are returning it. [3]

Part 10 of 13

Retailers mostly folded the tax into prices instead, and say they cannot work out how much of any one receipt was tariff. [3]

Part 11 of 13

Walmart said it had received most of the $2.9bn it was owed and would put it into lower prices.

Part 11 of 13

Home Depot took about $730m and told investors it would go on higher fuel costs. [3]

Part 12 of 13

Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary, said in February he had a feeling the American people would not see the money. [8]

Part 13 of 13

A claim takes 60 to 90 days from filing to the cash arriving. [1]

Shoppers sue Costco and Nintendo for a share

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Matthew Stockov, a Costco member in Illinois, sued the US warehouse chain in a federal court, asking it to hand back the price rises it made to cover the tariffs, plus interest.

The suit seeks class-action status for Costco shoppers across the US, and says buyers cannot claim from the US government because they are not the importer of record. [12]

Nintendo of America faces a similar suit and has asked a judge to dismiss it, saying its customers chose to buy at the price on the label and got the goods they ordered. [3]

Why it matters

These suits are the only route a US shopper has to the money. US Customs will not accept a claim from anyone but the importer. [1][12]

How it works

Why a shopper cannot claim back an import tax they paid

How it works

An import tax is billed to the company bringing the goods in. Customs holds that company's name and no one else's, so only it can claim the money back.

How it works · step 1 of 6

A government charges a tax on goods at the border

How it works · step 2 of 6

The importer pays it and raises its prices to cover it

How it works · step 3 of 6

Shoppers pay the higher prices, with no tax shown on the receipt

How it works · step 4 of 6

A court cancels the tax

How it works · step 5 of 6

The refund goes to the name on the customs entry

How it works · step 6 of 6

The shopper gets money back only if a company chooses to give it

The twist

US Customs can name every importer that paid it and can name no shopper at all. The shopper's money arrived inside a shelf price, where nobody wrote it down.

The picture

  • Carried by US consumers and importers90%
  • Carried by foreign sellers10%

The New York Federal Reserve's estimate of who bore the 2025 tariffs. The refund is paid only to importers, who are one part of the larger share.

Seen the same day

Shoppers sue Costco and Nintendo for a share

the same step, one stage later: because the shopper's money is inside the price and not on a customs form, a court is the only place left to ask

Seen the same day

Some firms sell their refund rights cheap

a claim written down on a customs entry is a thing that can be sold to an investment firm; the shopper's share was never written down, so there is nothing to sell

Seen the same day

US court: the auction sets what a foreclosed owner is owed

what comes back to the owner is set by a number in the official record, the $76,008 the auction raised, rather than by what he actually lost

Seen the same day

Small shops paid the tariff and cannot claim

the hardware store one link below the importer is in the shopper's position exactly, because its payment also went through a price and not through customs

The catch

Some companies do pass it on.

The catch

FedEx, UPS and DHL itemised the tax on every invoice, so they can work out what each customer paid, and all three say the money is going back.

The whole

Nobody in this chain designed it to end here.

The whole

The court struck down a tax it found unlawful, the customs agency paid whoever its records named, and a retailer genuinely cannot say how much of one shopper's receipt was tariff.

The whole

Each of them can see their own step clearly. Not one of them can see the whole route the money took, from the border to the till.

Nobody knows yet

Whether the class actions against Costco and Nintendo succeed.

Nintendo has asked a judge to dismiss, saying its customers chose to buy at the price on the label and got the goods they ordered. No court has ruled on whether a shopper can recover a price rise. [3][12]

Walmart cuts prices, Home Depot pays fuel bills

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Walmart, the biggest US retailer, told investors it had received most of the $2.9bn in tariff refunds it was eligible for, and that the money would go into lower prices rather than cheques to shoppers.

Home Depot, a US home-improvement chain, received about $730m in refunds in a single quarter.

What two US chains have taken back so far. Walmart says its share goes into lower prices; Home Depot says its share goes on fuel costs.

Its finance chief, Richard McPhail, told a call that the cash would cover higher petrol and diesel costs, which he expected to fully offset the refunds over the year. [3]

Why it matters

Two chains raised prices for the same tax and made opposite choices about the money coming back. No shopper was asked about either. [3]

Who gains

It took about $730m back in one quarter and told investors the cash would cover higher fuel costs rather than go to customers. [3]

Some firms sell their refund rights cheap

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Rather than wait or litigate, some importers have sold their tariff refund rights to investment firms, often at a deep discount, reasoning that something now beats a chance of nothing later. [10]

The total owed runs to about $166bn, a claim takes 60 to 90 days to pay out once filed, and companies whose goods are tied up in anti-dumping or other customs disputes cannot file at all in the first phase. [1]

Peter Crabb and Alison Graham-Larson, professors of finance and law who have followed the cases, describe the remedy as a mess. [10]

Why it matters

A claim on a government can be bought and sold. The higher price a shopper paid in a shop cannot, because it was never written down as a claim. [10]

How it works

Some firms sell their refund rights cheap

a claim written down on a customs entry is a thing that can be sold to an investment firm; the shopper's share was never written down, so there is nothing to sell

The idea, in story 2: Why a shopper cannot claim back an import tax they paid →

Who gains

Importers who did not want to wait or litigate sold their refund rights at a deep discount, and the buyer collects the full amount. [10]

FedEx sued for its money and will pass it on

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

FedEx, one of the world's biggest delivery companies, filed a claim in the US Court of International Trade three days after the ruling.

It asked for a full refund plus interest on everything it had paid under the emergency law, and did not say how much that was. [13][14]

FedEx, UPS and DHL each billed the tax as a separate line on the invoice, so each can say what a customer was charged, and all three are returning it. [3][4]

Terence Lau, dean of the law school at Syracuse University, calls keeping it unjust enrichment. [3]

Why it matters

FedEx can name the customer and the amount, because the tax sat on its own line.

Why it matters

A shop that raised its shelf prices instead kept no such record, so nobody there can be repaid. [3]

The refund portal opened, and jammed

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

US Customs and Border Protection opened an online portal in April for importers to file, having built the system from scratch, including a way to pay money into company accounts. [9][1]

Aaron Powell, who runs the electric bike maker Bunch Bikes, filed for about $120,000 minutes after it opened.

Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources, the toy maker whose lawsuit brought the tariffs down, got an error saying the system was busy. [8]

Customs told a judge most eligible importers had signed up for electronic payment and were owed about $127bn. [9]

Why it matters

The company that won the case could not file on the morning the money opened. [8]

Small shops paid the tariff and cannot claim

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Alfred Mai, whose San Francisco firm ASM Games makes family card games in China, estimates he paid more than $150,000 in tariffs the court struck down, and spent days asking trade groups and lawyers where to go for a refund.

US Customs kept collecting the same tariffs for several days after the ruling before saying it would stop. [11]

Joe Kimray, who owns B & W Hardware in North Carolina, paid the tax indirectly through higher wholesale prices and has no claim on anyone.

He says he will ask his manufacturers to share. [9]

Why it matters

The claim belongs to whoever cleared the goods through customs, so a shop one link down the chain is in the same position as a shopper. [9]

How it works

Small shops paid the tariff and cannot claim

the hardware store one link below the importer is in the shopper's position exactly, because its payment also went through a price and not through customs

The idea, in story 2: Why a shopper cannot claim back an import tax they paid →

Who pays

Joe Kimray of B & W Hardware in North Carolina paid the tariff through higher wholesale prices, so he is not the importer of record and has no claim on anyone. [9]

New US tariffs arrive under a different law

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Within days of losing the case the US government imposed a 10% tariff on almost all imports under Section 122, a trade law that had never been used, and Donald Trump then said it would rise to 15%.

Section 122 allows up to 15% for 150 days, after which the US Congress has to act.

Industry tariffs on steel, aluminium, lumber and cars sit under a separate law and were untouched by the ruling. [7]

A further round of duties of 10% to 12.5% was being prepared in July. [5]

Why it matters

The refund is a single payment. The prices it came from can be put back by another route, and the beginning of that has already happened. [7]

Nobody knows yet

Whether the new tariffs take back more than the refunds return.

The 10% to 15% duties under Section 122 last 150 days before the US Congress must act, and a further round of 10% to 12.5% was being prepared in July. Nobody has published the two figures side by side. [7][5]

A New York study put the bill on US shoppers

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Researchers at the New York Federal Reserve found in February that about 90% of the cost of the 2025 tariffs was carried by US consumers and importers rather than by foreign sellers.

Earlier academic work had found the same for electronics, household goods, car parts and clothing.

Officials in the Trump administration attacked the study, and one called for its authors to be disciplined.

A Penn Wharton model put total tariff revenue collected since 2025 at more than $175bn. [2]

Why it matters

It is the closest thing to a count of who actually paid, and it is disputed by the US government that collected the money. [2]

US court: the auction sets what a foreclosed owner is owed

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Michael Pung fell about $2,200 behind on the property tax on his home in Isabella County, Michigan.

The county foreclosed and sold the house at public auction for $76,008, against an assessed value of roughly $194,400, and kept the difference above the debt.

The house that settled the case. The owner's surplus is now measured against the middle bar, not the right-hand one.

On 23 June 2026 the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the surplus owed to a foreclosed owner is measured by what the auction actually raised, not by an estimate of the property's worth. [6]

Why it matters

It sets how much of their own equity an owner loses when a small unpaid tax bill takes the house, and the answer is whatever the sale room paid that day. [6]

How it works

US court: the auction sets what a foreclosed owner is owed

what comes back to the owner is set by a number in the official record, the $76,008 the auction raised, rather than by what he actually lost

The idea, in story 2: Why a shopper cannot claim back an import tax they paid →

Who gains

It keeps the gap between a $76,008 auction and a $194,400 assessed value on a debt of about $2,200, and the US Supreme Court confirmed 9-0 that it may. [6]

Who pays

He lost roughly $118,000 of equity in his Michigan home over about $2,200 of unpaid property tax, because the county now owes him only what the auction raised. [6]

US tax office can reopen a fraudulent return decades on

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Stephanie Murrin received a notice from the US tax office nearly 20 years after filing her returns, after it found her tax preparer had inserted false items that cut her bill.

A federal appeals court held that the usual time limit does not apply when a return contains fraud, even where the taxpayer acted in good faith and knew nothing about it.

The US Supreme Court declined to review that decision, so it stands. [6]

Why it matters

The name on the return carries the liability, whoever committed the fraud and whoever kept the money. [6]

Britain softens who a vet must name

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Britain's Competition and Markets Authority investigated the country's GBP 6.3bn vet market and found pet owners pay 16.6% more at large groups than at independent practices.

Six groups own all or part of more than 60% of UK practices, five of them held by private investment firms.

Draft rules would have required a practice to name the corporate group that owns it; the wording was changed to network or group, which lets it keep trading under its original name.

The Progressive Veterinary Association has threatened a court challenge. [16]

Why it matters

Whether an owner can find out who sets the prices at their local surgery now turns on one word in a regulator's order. [16]

Who gains

The softened disclosure wording lets a practice trade under its original name instead of naming the corporate owner. [16]

Who pays

They pay 16.6% more than at independent practices, in a market where six groups hold more than 60% of practices. [16]

Nobody knows yet

Whether Britain's competition regulator will be taken to court over the vet ownership wording.

The Progressive Veterinary Association has threatened a judicial review after the wording moved from corporate vet group to network or group. No claim has been filed. [16]

UK vet prices rose 63% in seven years

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Average vet prices across the UK rose 63% between 2016 and 2023, well ahead of general inflation, on the competition regulator's figures.

Corporate ownership went from 10% of practices in 2013 to 60% now.

Louise Burns of Thundersley in Essex was billed GBP 7,783.77 after her Boston terrier needed an emergency operation to breathe, and her insurance covered the first GBP 3,000.

UK pet owners spent GBP 6.3bn on vet and pet care in 2024, about GBP 365 for each pet-owning household. [17]

Why it matters

An emergency is the one moment a buyer cannot go and get a second price, and it is when the largest vet bills are agreed. [17]

Private dental prices climb as NHS access shrinks

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

About a third of people having dental treatment in the UK now pay privately, and fewer than a fifth of those chose to, on General Dental Council figures.

A UK-wide analysis by MyTribe Insurance found first consultations up 23% in two years to about GBP 80 and simple extractions up 32% to GBP 139.

Root canal charges reach GBP 660 in some places against a GBP 400 average. Britain's competition regulator has opened an investigation into dental pricing. [18]

Why it matters

Treatment that is capped or free for some patients becomes an open-market price the moment no NHS dentist will take them. [18]

Who pays

Private first consultations rose 23% in two years to about GBP 80 and simple extractions 32% to GBP 139. [18]

Nobody knows yet

What Britain's investigation into dental pricing will find.

The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at price rises and at how practices explain costs and options to patients. It has not reported. [18]

UK annuity sales hit a record

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Sales of annuities in the UK reached a record, with the average pot used to buy one passing GBP 80,000, on figures from the Association of British Insurers.

An annuity turns a pension pot into a guaranteed income for life.

Rates have risen sharply: Fidelity International said a healthy 66-year-old with a GBP 300,000 pot could buy GBP 22,440 a year, about 7.5%, against roughly GBP 13,500 five years ago. [19]

What a healthy 66-year-old in Britain could buy with the same pension pot, then and now, on Fidelity International's figures.

In the US, a 67-year-old man paying $100,000 in January 2026 would get about $7,800 a year for life. [20]

Why it matters

A product left for dead by the 2015 UK pension rules is selling again because the income it buys has roughly doubled. [19]

Who gains

Sales hit a record as rates roughly doubled, with a GBP 300,000 pot now buying GBP 22,440 a year against about GBP 13,500 five years ago. [19]

Good news

A healthy 66-year-old in Britain with a GBP 300,000 pension pot can now buy a guaranteed income of GBP 22,440 a year for life. Five years ago the same pot bought about GBP 13,500.

The US starts taxing cash sent abroad

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

From 1 January 2026 a 1% US excise tax applies to certain money transfers abroad where the sender pays with cash, a money order or a cashier's cheque.

Transfer companies have to collect it, make deposits twice a month and file quarterly returns with the US tax office, with the first deposit due on 29 January 2026.

Treasury and the tax office have granted penalty relief for the first three quarters of 2026 to providers who get the deposit amounts wrong. [21]

Why it matters

The tax applies only when the sender pays in cash, a money order or a cashier's cheque, and not when the money leaves a bank account. [21]

Who pays

A 1% excise tax applies from 1 January 2026 to transfers paid for with cash, a money order or a cashier's cheque. [21]

Tens of millions in the US may be owed penalties back

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

A US federal claims court held in Kwong v United States in November 2025 that tax filing and payment deadlines were postponed for the whole 3.5-year COVID-19 disaster period plus 60 days, to 10 July 2023.

On that reading the US tax office should not have charged late-filing or late-payment penalties, nor interest on them, in that window. [22]

The National Taxpayer Advocate said tens of millions may be owed money, that it is not automatic, and that most had to claim by 10 July 2026. [22][23][24]

Why it matters

Relief that exists but has to be claimed by a date reaches the people who have an accountant first. [22]

Nobody knows yet

Whether the COVID-era penalty refunds survive.

The claim deadline for most US taxpayers was 10 July 2026, the Justice Department is expected to appeal the Kwong decision, and the National Taxpayer Advocate says it may take years to settle. [22]

US federal payments go fully electronic

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Under Executive Order 14247, signed in March 2025, the US Treasury and the tax office are moving federal payments in both directions onto electronic transfer.

Paper cheques and money orders are being withdrawn, on the grounds that they are far more often lost, stolen, altered or delayed than electronic payments.

The tax office published an updated set of questions and answers on the switch in January 2026. [25]

Why it matters

A payment made this way needs a bank account, and the US agencies are withdrawing the paper alternative. [25]

Yorkshire towns get a fund where the bank has gone

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority has set up a fund for places left with no branch, naming Bentham, Filey, Leyburn, Haxby, Settle, Tadcaster and Whitby as the first targets.

It will pay for cash withdrawals and deposits, business banking and day-to-day account help.

Fiona Whittet, a councillor in Bentham, said reaching a branch in Skipton is hard without a car. [26]

In south Devon, the closure of the last bank in Totnes left a 13-mile round trip. [27]

Why it matters

Money that can only be reached by bus carries a travel cost that appears on no fee table. [26]

Two more English towns get a shared counter

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Shared banking counters opened in Alnwick and Prudhoe in Northumberland, giving the county three; Cash Access UK is still looking for a permanent home for the Prudhoe one. [28]

Stamford in Lincolnshire opened one in its arts centre in early September, weekdays from 09:00 to 17:00, a month before the town's Lloyds branch closes on 13 October. [29]

The hubs are paid for by the big high-street banks, set up by Cash Access UK and run by Post Office managers, and a customer of any bank can use one. [30]

Why it matters

A hub is only proposed once the last branch in a town has already gone, so every town gets the gap first. [30]

Nobody knows yet

How many towns lose their last bank before a shared counter replaces it.

A hub can only be proposed after the final branch closes, and LINK assesses each case against criteria that Totnes in Devon did not meet. No running count is published. [30][27]

Good news

Alnwick and Prudhoe in north-east England opened shared bank counters this year, giving Northumberland three. Stamford in Lincolnshire opened one in its arts centre in early September, a month before the town's Lloyds branch closes on 13 October.

UK savers moved GBP 12bn into ISAs in April

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Households in Britain put a net GBP 5.8bn into banks and building societies in April, after GBP 5.6bn in March, on Bank of England figures.

Inside that total, GBP 12.0bn went into ISAs, savings accounts with an annual limit whose returns are not taxed, and GBP 1.3bn into accounts paying no interest.

At the same time GBP 13.1bn came out of easy-access accounts that do pay interest, and GBP 0.3bn out of fixed-term accounts. [34]

Why it matters

Money moved between account types rather than into or out of saving overall: the net inflow was GBP 5.8bn while GBP 12.0bn went into ISAs. [34]

Meta ordered to pay $375m in New Mexico

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

A jury in the US state of New Mexico found Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, liable under the state's Unfair Practices Act in a case brought by the attorney general, Raul Torrez, over child exploitation on its platforms.

The jury applied the maximum in the law, $5,000 for each violation, which came to $375m in civil penalties.

Internal documents showed staff and outside child-safety experts had warned repeatedly about the risks. Meta says it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal. [31]

Why it matters

The size of the award came out of a per-violation formula written into state law, not from a judgment about the harm done. [31]

Memory chip prices double, and devices follow

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

The price of computer memory, the RAM that holds whatever a device is working on, has more than doubled since October 2025, because data centres running AI are buying it in bulk.

Steve Mason of the UK computer builder CyberPowerPC said the firm was being quoted costs around 500% higher than a couple of months earlier.

Danny Williams of PCSpecialist said increases ran from about 1.5 times to five times, depending on how much stock a supplier held.

Memory sits in phones, laptops, televisions and medical devices. [32]

Why it matters

A shortage created by AI data centres reaches a household as the price of a replacement phone. [32]

Britain bans inflation-linked contract rises

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Britain's telecoms regulator, Ofcom, has banned mid-contract price rises written as inflation plus a fixed percentage.

Researchers writing in The Conversation argue the same approach could be applied to energy, insurance and public contracts, where escalation clauses raise prices automatically each year.

They also say regulators could make suppliers show the base price separately from the part added for inflation.

Britain's Competition and Markets Authority has separately opened a drive on how companies present and justify prices online. [33]

Why it matters

A clause that raises a price by itself removes the moment at which a customer would otherwise have decided. [33]

Brazil starts a single VAT with cashback for the poorest

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Brazil began rolling out a reform in 2026 that merges five taxes on goods and services into one value added tax plus a separate excise, finishing in 2033.

The headline rate is 28%, with a zero rate on most basic foods.

A cashback system partly repays VAT to the poorest households, and at federal level repays water, sewage, cooking and natural gas, energy and telecoms in full.

The excise covers alcohol, sweet drinks, cigarettes, combustion engines and lottery tickets. [35]

Why it matters

The cashback part sends money back to the household that bore the tax, rather than to the firm that handed it over. [35]

A wheelchair buyer waits for her $3,500

Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓

Sandra Alonso bought a powered, folding wheelchair to get around Tampa, Florida, after her old one wore out.

It is made in China, and when she bought it the US tariff on Chinese goods stood at 145%, so she paid an extra $3,500.

She imported it through UPS, which emailed to say her refund was in the works and that it takes up to 90 days to pass money on once US Customs pays.

At the end of August she had still received nothing. [4][3]

Why it matters

She is one of the few shoppers with a route to the money at all, and only because a shipping firm, not a shop, cleared the chair through customs. [4]

The truth, across the day

Swipe up for the truth ↑Scroll down for the truth ↓

Nobody knows yet

How much tariff each shopper actually bore.

The New York Federal Reserve put about 90% of the cost on US consumers and importers, and Trump administration officials disputed the study publicly. There is no per-household measurement, only estimates in a $1,000 to $1,500 range. [2]

That's the whole Money day.

26 stories, 35 sources.