• Bazoogle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    The money the companies would be getting back would be opportunity cost, not any actual money. The companies didn’t pay tariffs, the only people that do are end consumers. So if it was just about actually dollar amounts, they are just getting even more of the consumers money in the end.

    What could be argued is the opportunity cost. People may have been less likely to buy the product due to increased costs. Fewer sales, less profit, etc, etc. But there is no way to get an actual number since we can’t know exactly how much they would have had.

    Despite that also being a logistical nightmare, guess who is putting in a shit ton of time and resources into ensuring the rich get their money? It would be pretty easy to just do a tax credit for consumers, and likely a lot more accurate. The companies would get the money back in the end anyway, so what’s it matter.

    • GideonD@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I agree that the best way to do this would be a tax rebate. It’s a convoluted chain of credits to pass the refund back down the line the same way it was charged with no guarantee it will ever make it to the consumer in any meaningful way. Let the government be liable instead of forcing every company in the chain to take on liability. The consumer and small business will always be the loser in the chain while the lawyers get richer.