Trump faces a trillion-dollar tariff disappointment
In the early 20th century, before America introduced an income tax, tariffs paid many of the government's bills. President Donald Trump wants to revive that approach. He has repeatedly floated the idea of an 'External Revenue Service", under which Uncle Sam would scrap income taxes and instead rely on levies at the border, with foreigners, at least in theory, funding the American government. 'It will be a BONANZA," Mr Trump posted recently on his social-media site, claiming that tariffs could all but eliminate income taxes for people earning less than $200,000 a year.
There is plenty to dislike about tariffs. Economists bemoan the distortions they impose on commerce. They are often paid not by 'external" firms but by domestic consumers. In 2020 Mary Amiti of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and colleagues found that nearly all of Mr Trump's first-term levies were ultimately borne by American companies, in the form of lower margins, and buyers, in the form of higher prices. Moreover, agreements with Britain and China have reduced overall tariff levels from recent highs, which will cut the revenue they raise. Levels will continue to fall as America inks more deals.
Yet Mr Trump's tariffs will still bring in large sums. Quite how large? Last year just $100bn of the total $4.9trn that the federal government collected came from customs duties. Already, though, that figure is rising. Daily data from the Treasury show a spike. By May 13th gross tariff collections had reached $47bn since the start of the year, about $15bn more than last year.
Disentangling how much of this is a result of Mr Trump's latest levies and how much represents firms rushing to bring in goods ahead of further hikes is tricky; much is likely to be the latter. A number of economists have nevertheless attempted to forecast tariff revenues. Peter Navarro, Mr Trump's trade guru, claims that border levies could generate more than $6trn over the next decade, or $600bn a year. His arithmetic is brazenly simple: take last year's $3.3trn in merchandise imports and apply a 20% effective tariff.
Such an approach ignores basic economic dynamics. Higher tariffs reduce demand for foreign goods, shrinking the tax base. They also depress income and payroll-tax receipts, offsetting as much as 25% of the gains, according to most estimates. Factor in retaliation and levy-dodging, and anticipated revenue falls further. Mr Navarro's trillion-dollar projections rest on a fantasy of stasis, in which buyers, sellers and trading partners shrug off price signals.
Independent estimates of tariff revenues are much lower. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that the full suite of proposed tariffs, including the 'reciprocal" levies currently on pause, would raise around $290bn a year over the next decade. Its calculations account for weaker import demand, as well as the effects on corporate-income- and payroll-tax receipts. Other forecasts are lower still. The Budget Lab at Yale, a non-partisan research centre, forecasts annual revenue of $180bn; the Tax Foundation, a think-tank, puts the number closer to $140bn.
There is an oddity to such calculations, however. The cut in the levy on Chinese goods—from 145% to 30%—does not do much to alter their results. At 145% the tariff was on the wrong side of the peak of the 'Laffer curve", the point at which higher rates reduce, rather than lift, revenue. It would have prompted imports from China to plummet, meaning tax revenues would have fallen despite the sky-high levy on goods still coming into the country. According to Penn Wharton, a levy of 145% on Chinese imports would raise only $25bn more a year than the current rate of 30% will.
Even with this small mercy, the president's tariffs will not enable the large tax cuts he so desires. Last year America's personal-income tax brought in $2.4trn—an amount forecast to grow to $4.4trn over the next decade. The Tax Foundation estimates that eliminating income taxes for people earning less than $200,000 would cost $737bn in 2025, or two to three times what tariffs could conceivably raise. In theory, a revenue-neutral swap could cover those earning around $80,000 or less, who account for just 10% of income-tax receipts. But eliminating taxes for low earners would, in practice, mean cutting the lowest marginal rate, which applies to all taxpayers on their initial income, and so would mostly benefit high earners. A tax bill proposed by Republicans in the House of Representatives is stuffed with other giveaways, including raising most tax-bracket thresholds, which by itself would dwarf tariff income.
Tariffs were able to sustain the federal government in the early 20th century because its spending came to just 2% or so of GDP, being largely confined to debt service, defence and infrastructure. Today that figure is ten times higher. Imports are a narrow and volatile tax base, making them ill-suited to funding a modern state. The irony is that tariffs would make American spending reliant on Chinese production. Most politicians do not try to return to the early 1900s for a reason.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
B-2 bombers move from US, refueled shortly after take-off: Where are they headed as Trump weighs Iran options?
All eyes are on the B-2 bombers whether they move toward Diego Garcia from Guam. Flight tracking data revealed that several B-2 bombers appear to have taken off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri Friday night in a massive development on US's part in the escalating Israel-Iran tension. President Donald Trump has set a two-week deadline to decide whether the US would join Israel in striking Iran, but the movement of the bombers, which are the only plane capable of carrying the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, indicates that an operation may be imminent. Take off, refuel, heading to Guam On Friday night, eight US Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers took off from Altus, Oklahoma, according to data from FlightRadar24. Over Kansas, the tankers refueled two groups of planes, identified on air traffic control audio by their callsigns MYTEE11 FLT and MYTEE21 FLT, CNN reported. The callsign MYTEE has previously been associated with special activity flights by B-2 bombers, and multiple flight trackers on social media said the planes being refueled were B-2 bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. No order for moving forward A US defense official confirmed to CNN that there has been no order given to move forward with any kind of operation against Iran using the bombers. According to insiders, the movement does not necessarily indicate that an operation is imminent; it can be a show of force. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kia Sportage, unidades limitadas KIA Undo From Guam to Diego Garcia? All eyes are on the forward movement of the bombers. If they move toward the Diego Garcia military base, then it would be certain that they are planning for attack. Surrounded by water on all sides, the Diego Garcia military base is the most advantageous for the bombers for their launch. Satellite imagery taken on Thursday showed six KC-135 refueling planes stationed at Diego Garcia that could be used to refuel the bombers if they continue onward to Iran. B-2 bomber has previously launched missions to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq from this military base.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump ‘BETRAYS' Thousands Of Stranded Afghans As Pakistan Scales Up Deportations
/ Jun 22, 2025, 02:08AM IST Afghan refugees stuck in Pakistan are waiting to move on to a third country. DW met one family who thought they were about to head to the US before this month's abrupt shift in US policy and President Trump's travel ban for Afghans. Pakistan, meanwhile, is scaling up deportations.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Third world war': MAGA star Steve Bannon says it's a big weekend for Israel-Iran unfolding
Steve Bannon called this a big weekend in the unfolding aspect of a 'third world war'. Donald Trump 's former aide and MAGA star Steve Bannon Saturday said 'the party is on' and it's another weekend in this unfolding aspect of the third world war. "I'm just reporting what I'm hearing from pretty good sources," Bannon said while several B-1 bombers moved to Guam. It was not known whether the bomber deployment was connected to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved. Experts are now closely watching whether the B-2 bombers will move forward to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, which is an ideal position to operate in the Middle East. 'Steve Bannon playing outsized role in Trump's Iran decision' According to an ABC News report, Steve Bannon sat down for lunch with Donald Trump Thursday as Bannon has been playing an outsized role in Trump's Iran decisions. Before Thursday, Trump reportedly approved a plan on how the US might attack an Iranian nuclear facility. The USS Nimitz – an aircraft carrier that can carry some 60 fighter jets – was set to arrive in the Middle East by the weekend with several smaller ships by its side. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Officials said the extraordinary show of force would be needed if Trump pulled the trigger on the military option, both to strike Iran's nuclear facility and to protect the some 40,000 US troops. Bannon was the chief strategist to Trump during his first administration and now on the Israel-Iran issue, Bannon sides against authorizing military action against Iran. Bannon believes that Israelis have to finish what they started. 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' Bannon, however, said he is aligned with the White House on the issue.
