Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
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.
This wording? The wording I replied to:
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 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.