1056
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (europe.pub)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
215 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 2 months ago (17 children)

I'm not sure what other system is even conceivably possible in the general case. There's no straightforward universal relationship between tariffs paid by businesses and prices paid by the customers of those businesses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I think the best system would be not to allow tariffs to be illegally implemented in the first place. But I realize that's asking a lot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    There were some businesses passing the fees on directly to the end consumer via tariff implementation fees, but unless you have something like that itemized on an invoice, I believe you would be correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago*

    A business that passed 100% of the tariffs on to consumers via higher prices could still be worse off after getting a refund than it would have been if there never had been tariffs, if demand is elastic enough, so I'm not sure even that sort of data could resolve the question of who deserves what.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Take the total tariff income, divide it by the number of people in the country, and send out the checks.

    It's the ONLY legitimate way to handle it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    From a fairness point of view, for non essential goods, if you paid higher prices with the tariffs you would also have paid it without the tariffs, so you weren't really harmed by it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Essential and non-essential are almost meaningless distinctions for most goods people use on a daily basis. I could LIVE on beans and water. Do I NEED toothpaste? Aspirin? How much am I allowed to enjoy something before it's a non-essential good?

    People paid more for something because they were forced to, and it wasn't for any economically necessary reason, and the cause was illegal, making it tantamount to theft, and refunds to companies equivalent to receiving stolen goods.

    Nitpicking the necessity of the good is a cheap excuse to do nothing, not a gotcha.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    If you paid the higher value with tariffs you would pay it any way. And if everyone was willing to pay the higher price then it would already have been higher. That's how capitalism works. No CEO will charge less unless they think it will increase profit through volume.

    Companies that increased prices because of tariffs probably lost customers in the process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent