• GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Because businesses are the ones that pay the tariff, not customers of the business. Did the extra tariffs give some companies an excuse to raise prices? Definitely. Does that mean the customer deserves a refund? Definitely not.

    • MrShankles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You sweet summer child

      So you’re saying businesses should now cut deep discounts for buyers, because the (already imported) products’ tariffs have been paid (AND the business is being refunded for it). Are they going to drop prices now? Are they acting upon market pressures or taking advantage/manipulating them?

      If you think a wealth-class has to pay any mind to the invisible hand of the free market… I’ve got a nice ass bridge to sell ya, at a tarrif-free + ultra-discounted price!

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 minutes ago

        You’re just making shit up.

        I’m saying that the business is the one who was invoiced for the tariff. The customer wasn’t. The business increased the price to cover their extra cost, probably even added some extra profit on top as well, but that still doesn’t mean the customer actually paid the tariff. They didn’t. The tariff is paid on import, not sale.

    • Rothe@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Why on Earth would that not mean the customer deserves a refund? The entire cost of the tariffs has been placed on the customer. No business sold their imported goods at the same price after having paid the tariff fees, they all raised their prices.

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        Because the customer didn’t pay the tariff, the business did - unless of course the business flat out added a “tariff surcharge” or something of the like to the total that the customer can see.

        Increasing the cost of an item by the amount of the tariff is not the same as making the customer directly pay the tariff. The business was charged the tariff. They were invoiced and they paid it. The customer didn’t. The customer just bought an item at shelf price.

    • thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Business has to pay tariffs

      Business raises price to offset tariffs

      Customer pays increased price

      Tariffs are deemed illegal

      Business receives refunds for tariffs

      Customer pays the refund via taxes

      How is this anything but a transfer of wealth from citizens (the customers) to businesses?

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 minutes ago

        I mean, simply buying anything from a business is a “transfer of wealth from citizens (the customers) to businesses”, isn’t it?

    • ab60753@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yes… buuuut they forward that cost to the consumers. The buisneses dont go:“Wops, we need to pay more for items, lets keep the prices the same for the consumers.” They increse the cost for the consumers.

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 minutes ago

        Sure, but the customer isn’t paying the tariff. The customer is just paying more for a product. The business is paying the tariff.

        It’s a “technically correct” thing, sure, but it’s why customers aren’t owed the refund. Businesses can increase prices whenever they want.

    • Epzillon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Correct me if im wrong. If businesses raise their prices to reduce the impact of tariffs on profits then the person actually paying the tariff (atleast to some extent) is the end customer, no? Is it not then only fair for the person who actually paid for this to be compensated appropriately when it is deemed unconstitutional?

      To me it seems insane that the people who already tossed away the problem further down the chain is to be compensated at all when they are not the ones who have primarily suffered the effects of it. Even if they where first in line to deal with it.

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 minutes ago

        Unless they specifically included a new tariff fee or charge, they’re just charging the price they think people will pay.

      • MrShankles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        And then the refunds come from public tax dollars. So the customer has paid the unconstitutional tariffs twice. It’s a blatant transfer of wealth upwards, no other way to really cut it

        • Epzillon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          46 minutes ago

          I did not specify where the money comes from. But you are correct in that scenario. However, it would not necessarily have to go that route. If a company pays the government for tariffs, then proceed to get that money back, that money should then be returned to the end-customer that in the meanwhile has paid more. I fall to see how this is paid by public tax money although I am also not american nor do I know the specifics of the US tax system.