• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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.

    • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That sounds fair in theory, but would not hold up as soon as the first person felt slighted and challenged those terms in court.

      • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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.

          • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day 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.

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

      The system would be not having a lunatic who implements tariffs at a whim and based purely on insider speculation and temper tantrums.

      It would at least be a start.

    • jaybone@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not sure what other system is even conceivably possible in the general case

      How about a check to taxpayers rather than a handout to businesses who had already marked up and profited from the sales anyway?