Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

United States trade cargo container hanging against clouds background

Getty Images//Iskandar Zulkarnean

During the recent election season, there was much talk of Trump’s plan to lay tariffs on the importation of foreign goods. Pundits, politicians, and journalists to the left of center consistently referred to them as a tax on the American people. Many of those to the right of center, especially those of the MAGA contingent, seemed to imply they are a pain-free way for the federal government to raise money.

Some correctly said that the country essentially ran on tariffs in its early history. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary and arguably the godfather of our initial financial system, successfully proposed and implemented a tariff system with two goals in mind. Fund the young American government and protect young American businesses against competition from established foreign companies. The second bill signed by President George Washington was a broad tariff bill.


While an income tax was imposed during the Civil War and repealed in 1872, the Supreme Court eventually ruled it unconstitutional in 1895. The modern income tax did not come into effect until after the 16th amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, granting Congress the power to levy and collect taxes on incomes without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the U.S. Census. Until then, for over 120 years, tariffs had been the federal government's primary source of income.

While the concept of free trade and the related idea of each nation pursuing its own “comparative advantage” has been around for a long time, it did not become normalized in the United States until the mid-20th century.

Trump’s tariff proposals obviously have some protectionist sentiment about them and thus are contrary to the idea of free trade. However, he has also suggested extreme tariff proposals intended to influence the behavior of other countries, including on issues such as immigration control, and in retaliation for unfair trade practices.

Tariffs require approved legislation, but there are laws on the books that would allow Trump 47 to increase tariffs. These same laws were used by Trump 45 and Biden to impose tariffs on specific goods.

Perhaps I missed it, but I never heard a pundit, politician, or journalist providing basic information and understanding about tariffs and how they work. Contrary to those on the left, tariffs are not a direct tax on Americans, and contrary to the MAGA element of the right, they are not pain-free. Taken to an extreme, they would likely provoke similar tariffs by other countries in retaliation and could ultimately cause a global depression.

But where do they fall on that current political spectrum of being a direct tax on you versus a pain-free revenue source?

Tariffs are not a direct tax on the American consumer. They are a government-imposed cost to doing business with foreign producers. They are paid directly by the importer of applicable products, typically an American company, and not the foreign producer. At extreme levels (not just the 100% level Trump has mentioned in some cases, but even at lower rates, depending on the product), the importer will simply stop bringing the product in because it will be too expensive.

If the foreign company was able and willing to sell the affected product to the importer for, say, $100 and make a reasonable profit, while the domestic distribution system (importer, transportation, warehousing, retailing, etc.), was able to also make a reasonable profit with that core cost of $100, the entire scenario breaks down if the importer must suddenly pay $200.

If those foreign products are no longer imported, the American consumer demand will shift to competitive and substitute products made here in America. This demand applied to a lower supply will, in the short term, cause an increase in the price. It is not a tax on the consumer, but it is not pain-free either. Over time, some of this price increase will be tempered because American producers will increase their volumes in response to the higher price (and by extension, new jobs may be created). However, in the end, American consumers will pay more. [Note that essentially all government activity increases costs to the consumer, be it taxing, spending, regulating, or levying tariffs.]

What would happen with a less extreme increase in the tariff rate on a particular product? If Trump implements a 10% tariff on all foreign-produced “widgets” (or on particular widgets produced by one particular foreign country), what will happen?

Within economics, there is a concept called the price elasticity of demand. Very simplistically stated, the idea is that changes in price cause changes in consumer demand. Those changes in demand range from highly inelastic (a relatively small change in demand relative to the change in price), to highly elastic (a relatively large change in demand relative to the change in price). A product would have “unitary” elasticity if a given percentage change in price (say 10%) would cause a similar percentage change in demand. This measure is different for each product depending on its nature and depending on other market conditions. And, of course, price increases result in demand decreases (and vice versa).

It is hard to say what will happen with any given product but let’s look at a highly simplified hypothetical for a particular widget that has unitary elasticity if a 10% tariff is applied. Assuming the importer and the rest of the domestic distribution system, including the retailer, pass this increase in cost along to the consumer, demand will decline by 10%. However, foreign manufacturers do not like how this affects their volumes and profits. They may reduce their price to the importer by 3%, resulting in a net increase of 7% to the importer.

If this is passed on to the consumer, the demand now will only decrease by 7%. But the importer and the rest of the distribution system are not happy with this either and they collectively reduce their prices by 4% such that the net increase to the consumer is only 3%. Consumers then buy 3% less product, while paying 3% more for it. None of the participants in these adjustments are happy. But they all share in the cost, and yes the government collects that 10% in revenue. Domestic producers also likely increase their prices a bit and make a little more profit. We might like to think the government will reduce our taxes accordingly but don’t count on that.

In the end, reasonable tariffs are neither a direct tax on you nor a pain-free way to protect domestic companies and raise money for the government. They are a tool used by nation-states for several purposes. Any given tariff can have both positive and negative impacts.

Let's not let pundits, politicians, or journalists on either side of the aisle force their narrow views on us.

Read More

Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished’ Hype Is Just That

In an aerial view, a container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025, in Oakland, California.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/TNS

Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished’ Hype Is Just That

On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” He was standing below a giant banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn’t cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted.

We’re in a similar place when it comes to President Trump’s experiment with a new global trading order.

Keep ReadingShow less
Back to School Shopping? Expect Higher Prices, “Invisible” to the Consumer

AI-driven "surveillance pricing" hides the price increases from stressed-out parents.

Getty Images, Isabel Pavia

Back to School Shopping? Expect Higher Prices, “Invisible” to the Consumer

For families with school children, the summer is coming to a close, and it’s time to start thinking about—school shopping! New clothes, shoes, daypacks, and school supplies are topmost of mind, making sure your little Einsteins and Rembrandts are ready to take on the new school year.

But this year, it’s coming with a twist—not only are prices higher in the stores and online, but the price increases are seemingly “invisible” due to deceptive uses of new technologies and what is known as “surveillance pricing.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Celebrating National Black Business Month

National Black Business Month is about correcting an imbalance and recognizing that supporting Black-owned businesses is suitable for everyone.

Getty Images, Tara Moore

Celebrating National Black Business Month

Every August, National Black Business Month rolls around, and for a few weeks, social media lights up with hashtags and well-meaning posts about supporting Black-owned businesses. You'll see lists pop up—restaurants, bookstores, clothing lines—all run by Black entrepreneurs. Maybe your favorite coffee shop puts up a sign, or a big brand launches a campaign. But once the month ends, the noise fades, and for many, it's back to business as usual.

This cycle is familiar. It's easy to mistake visibility for progress or to think that a single purchase is enough. But National Black Business Month is meant to be more than a fleeting moment of recognition. It's a moment to interrogate the systems that got us here and to put our money—and our intent—where our mouths are. In a better world, Black business success would be a given, not a cause for annual celebration.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Abnormal Are the Revisions in This Month’s Jobs Report?

Seasonally adjusted data. Graph excludes March to August 2020, initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the reported jobs numbers were especially volatile. Shows difference between the preliminary estimate and the final revision for each month. Includes initial revision for June 2025 (BLS often issues a second revision).

How Abnormal Are the Revisions in This Month’s Jobs Report?

On Friday, President Trump announced that he was firing Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Earlier that day the BLS had issued its monthly national jobs report, which showed lackluster growth in employment, and a slight uptick in the unemployment rate.

The report showed a relatively small increase in employment for July: +73,000 nonfarm payroll jobs. The BLS also included revisions to the preliminary jobs numbers reported earlier, stating: “Revisions for May and June were larger than normal. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000.”

Keep ReadingShow less