Political rhetoric surrounding tariffs often promotes a deceptively simple narrative, along the lines of: “They’re taxes on foreign countries that fill our Treasury.” This line appeals to the public imagination, conjuring images of wealth flowing into national coffers at the expense of overseas competitors. However, this claim misrepresents how tariffs function and obscures the real economic consequences—consequences that economists have long warned about and that recent empirical research has clearly confirmed.
The Reality Behind Tariff Revenue
To understand the real role of tariffs, it is important to begin with their function as a source of government revenue. Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected at the border. In the United States, they have historically played a minimal role in revenue generation, accounting for about 1–2% of total federal income prior to 2018.
This figure rose during the U.S.-China trade war from 2018 to 2020, with net tariff revenue peaking at 3.15% of total federal receipts by October 2019 (author’s calculation). Economic studies confirm that newly implemented tariffs contributed to this uptick, sometimes comprising more than half of all collected tariff income in particular months.
Yet this increase, while technically real, remained modest in the broader fiscal picture. And it leads to a more critical question—who actually bore the cost of these tariffs? Contrary to popular belief, it was not foreign governments or exporters footing the bill.
Who Pays? The Domestic Burden of Tariffs
In practice, tariffs are paid by American importers—businesses that bring in goods from abroad. These importers, facing elevated costs, typically pass them down the supply chain. That means downstream firms and ultimately consumers shoulder the burden in the form of higher prices.
A wide body of empirical evidence supports this. Studies by Amiti et al. (2019, 2020), Fajgelbaum et al. (2020), and Cavallo et al. (2021) analyzed tariff pass-through using granular import data. Their conclusions were consistent and clear: the vast majority of tariff costs were absorbed domestically, not by foreign exporters.
Supporting this view is the fact that export prices from China (measured free-on-board, or before tariffs) stayed largely unchanged after U.S. tariffs were introduced. Chinese exporters didn’t cut prices to compensate—likely because their margins were already thin, or because fixed contracts made adjustment impossible. American businesses—for example, large retailers like Best Buy—initially tried to absorb these increases. But this strategy proved unsustainable.
For another example, consider washing machines. A detailed study by Flaaen et al. (2020) found that tariffs on washers led to price hikes of over 100%, far exceeding the actual tariff rate. They showed a 1% tariff caused more than a 1% increase in price—clear evidence that the costs were passed through with interest.
Beyond Revenue: The Broader Economic Costs
Focusing only on revenue gains misses a larger truth: tariffs act as economic disruptions with widespread consequences. The most immediate effect is higher consumer prices. This hits lower-income households the hardest, as they spend a larger portion of their income on imported goods.
For businesses, especially manufacturers relying on global supply chains, tariffs increase input costs and reduce competitiveness. Some firms warned that they might relocate operations overseas due to unmanageable price pressures.
Another consequence is reduced consumer choice. Higher prices or unstable supply chains limit the availability of certain goods, shrinking options for households and reducing overall consumer welfare.
Tariffs also create unintended losers. While they aim to shield specific industries, they often provoke retaliation. In the U.S.-China trade war, farmers and manufacturers reliant on exports were hit with retaliatory tariffs, suffering price drops and market losses.
In addition, policy uncertainty around tariffs further undermines investment and innovation. Businesses faced with unpredictable trade conditions delayed capital expenditures and scaled back research and development. Multiple studies show a strong correlation between trade tension and reduced business confidence.
These effects ripple across borders. Tariffs distort global trade flows, forcing countries to reroute exports, reconfigure supply chains, and incur additional logistical costs. While some may benefit marginally from diverted trade, the broader result is inefficiency and global welfare loss.
Underlying all these effects is a core economic principle: tariffs cause deadweight loss. By encouraging inefficient domestic production and discouraging imports where they make the most sense, tariffs lead to a misallocation of resources. The losses in consumer and producer surplus are greater than the government revenue collected, making the overall impact negative.
Rethinking the Narrative
The evidence from the 2018–2019 trade war paints a consistent picture. The minor uptick in government revenue during the tariff escalation was real but fleeting. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers and businesses bore the costs in the form of higher prices, reduced income, and economic uncertainty.
And this is not just an ideological critique—it’s a data-driven assessment. Across dozens of studies and datasets, the conclusions are remarkably consistent: tariffs are paid by Americans, not by foreign competitors. In effect, they operate as a domestic tax, one that falls hardest on those least able to bear it.
Conclusion
The idea that tariffs bring easy money from abroad is more than a simplification—it is a distortion. At best, tariffs delivered a fleeting increase in government receipts, peaking at only 3% of federal revenue. At worst, they imposed widespread economic harm. While the rhetoric may be politically potent, the economic evidence tells a different story.
The path to real economic strength lies not in punitive trade measures, but in sound, evidence-based policymaking. The facts are clear: tariffs are not a windfall. They are a self-imposed tax on American prosperity.
Ph.D., Research Fellow, New Trade Strategy Team
Department of International Trade, Investment and Economic Security
KIEP Opinions_no_317_최종.pdf
(172.39KB / Download 957회)