There are three main arguments for customs advocates: The first is to make money. The second is to revive the domestic industry. And the third is a diplomatic negotiation tool. These arguments are not only not themselves, they are contradictory to each other.
It is true that the government is taking a lot of money. Currently, the main source of income other than debt is income tax, which is projected to bring about around $2.5 trillion this year. Another $1.7 trillion will be supplied from payroll tax and again will be earned from payroll. Can customs duties be replaced by this?
The simple answer is no. President Trump has already announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico’s major trading partners. (For all the exaggeration surrounding it, our trade with China accounts for much less imports.) Estimated revenue from these tariffs is relatively just $110 billion this year.
There is not enough trade to bridge the gap between tariff revenue and income taxes to allow tariffs to become the main source of income in modern times. When tariffs were last a major source of government funding, in the golden age (called it to give the impression of true, incomplete wealth), the federal government was small, and even military spending was minimal by today’s standards.
Furthermore, the hope that tariff revenues are large and sustainable is hampered by one of the other rationales advanced by tariff enthusiasts. If we argue that tariffs will revive industries lost to other countries, Americans will be able to purchase fewer imports, thanks to the higher prices caused by tariffs, domestic industries can thrive thanks to higher price levels. So if that happens, tariff revenues need to be reduced as people buy less from overseas and the economy adapts to new price levels.
This argument that tariffs protect domestic industries from competition may seem intuitive. Certainly, that is probably why vampire-like enthusiasm for tariffs survives after it appears to have been dead and buried. However, the theory requires that all other things be equal when they are not the most explicitly.
For example, not just President Trump, but iron tariffs have been tested before. Every time, they certainly increase employment in steel companies. However, Steel is a valuable input for many domestic manufacturers. By increasing the cost of this input, tariffs reduce the profitability of other manufacturers and reduce employment there. He steals Peter to save Paul.
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephenly newsletter
Columnist Stephanie Hayes shares thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.
You’re all signed up!
Want more free weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
Check out all options
A similar 2018 steel and aluminum tariff impact was to reduce manufacturing employment by 75,000 people, according to a Federal Reserve survey. Meanwhile, the increase in steel and aluminum production and employment increased to just 1,000 people. This looks like a rather poor deal for American workers.
So, what about the third bill if the tariffs cannot replace the tax and in fact cannot help the workers? Could the threat of tariffs lead to better US outcomes in international negotiations? There is also a subarchment that tariffs could lead to “strategic decoupling” as businesses remove their supply chains from strategic enemies like China to places like Vietnam.
This is also difficult to prove. To begin with, it is rare to roll over and die after tariffs are threatened. They will often invoke retaliatory tariffs that hurt American exporters. They may also engage in new trade alliances and separate America from the photographs. In some cases, such as emerging markets in Southeast Asia, US trade policies seem to be pushing the country towards China rather than leaving it. After the president’s recent tariff proposal, even the concessions from Canada and Mexico may have speeded up the actions they take anyway.
Of course, if tariffs are a negotiation tactic, they cannot become a long-term solution to recover lost industries, and certainly they cannot certainly be a substitute for income tax. Most of the time, they make the situation worse and raise prices for the middle class. Free trade, on the other hand, tends to make the country better. That is a lesson that you must relearse every few decades.
Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He writes this for Insidesources.com and is being rerun with permission.
