• SGG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The wording I would say is correct more than it is wrong.

    Companies did pay tariffs directly, and because of this I would say nearly all increased consumer pricing for effected goods, so indirectly people paid for those tariffs.

    With the refunds going out, while ideally it would be a simple refund, the cost is performing the refunds (in man hours and potential transaction fees) which is the additional cost to taxpayers.

    I would also say the number of companies deciding to send those refunds on to consumers is extremely low, they’re just keeping the refund.

    So it is definitely not regular people being “double dipped”, which is what the original line may imply, but yeah, it’s seemingly been used as a way for companies to make extra profit from people at the taxpayers expense.

    • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The wording I would say is correct more than it is wrong.

      This wording? The wording I replied to:

      WE PAID THE TARRIFS AND WE PAID FOR THE REFUNDS

      People absolutely paid for the tariffs in increased pricing.

      The ovehead of the refunds would be insignificant.

      The companies don’t have to send any money to consumers to cancel us paying twice, because we paid once in high prices. If they hold on to the refunds, we will have still only paid once… with higher prices.

      So it is definitely not regular people being “double dipped”, which is what the original line may imply,

      So basically, what I said you don’t even disagree with. And yet I got downvotes. Lemmy is quite irritating. People seem to prefer emotions over facts.