Those reimbursements go to the importers, whereas the cost burden was on consumers, so really this has been a (successful) avenue for siphoning money from the poors to the rich.
I don’t even see how that’d be possible. Prices consumers paid were higher, but it wasn’t (in most cases) directly paying the tariffs - it’s just that the importer’s costs were higher because of the imports, so they raised their prices, too. Figuring out exactly what the reimbursement should be to each individual consumer would be functionally impossible even if they did mandate it.
Those reimbursements go to the importers, whereas the cost burden was on consumers, so really this has been a (successful) avenue for siphoning money from the poors to the rich.
I wouldn’t be surprised if AGs bring suits to reimburse the people as well. I guess we’ll see.
I don’t even see how that’d be possible. Prices consumers paid were higher, but it wasn’t (in most cases) directly paying the tariffs - it’s just that the importer’s costs were higher because of the imports, so they raised their prices, too. Figuring out exactly what the reimbursement should be to each individual consumer would be functionally impossible even if they did mandate it.
Some importers/companies tracked tariff costs (Ubiquiti) per item/order.
Some importers/companies ate the cost and shielded the consumer (Costco).
But I suspect you’re right in the vast majority of cases.