logo
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain

Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain

Boston Globe6 hours ago

The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money.
By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
So it's basically a wash.
Advertisement
That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated.
Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department.
Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue.
Advertisement
'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.''
Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.''
For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them.
'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said.
Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system.
Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs.
Advertisement
Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%.
'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.''
She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts.
Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy.
Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically.
Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings.
Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do.
Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026.
Advertisement
'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York.
Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says he thinks the government has a 'very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Trump says he thinks the government has a 'very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says he thinks the government has a 'very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia

President Donald Trump on Saturday said that it wasn't his decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S. to face federal charges, saying the 'Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' 'That wasn't my decision,' Trump said of Abrego Garcia's return in a phone call with NBC News on Saturday. 'It should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors, the president added. Trump added that he did not speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia's return, even though the two men spoke about Abrego Garcia during an April meeting in the Oval Office. His remarks came after Abrego Garcia arrived back in the U.S. on Friday and was charged in an indictment alleging he transported people who were not legally in the country. The indictment came amid a protracted legal battle over whether to bring him back from El Salvador that escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court. Abrego Garcia's family and lawyers have called him a family man, while Trump and his administration have alleged that he is a member of the gang MS-13. The case drew national attention amid the Trump administration's broader push for mass deportations. After Abrego Garcia's deportation, lawyers for the Trump administration said he was deported in an 'administrative error,' as Abrego Garcia had previous legal protection from deportation to El Salvador. Still, the Trump administration did not attempt to bring Abrego Garcia back, even as the Supreme Court ruled that it had to 'facilitate' his return to the U.S. Democrats, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., had for weeks said that Abrego Garcia was denied due process when he was detained and deported, arguing that he should have been allowed to defend himself from deportation before he was sent to El Salvador. Trump on Saturday called Van Hollen, who went to visit Abrego Garcia in jail in El Salvador in April, a 'loser' for defending the man's right to due process. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear,' the president said about Van Hollen. 'He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular. No, he's a total loser, this guy.' On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia 'was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country.' In a statement Friday, Abrego Garcia's lawyer called Bondi's move 'an abuse of power, not justice.' This article was originally published on

Elon Musk Deletes His Explosive Donald Trump Claim Tied to Jeffrey Epstein amid Their Public Feud
Elon Musk Deletes His Explosive Donald Trump Claim Tied to Jeffrey Epstein amid Their Public Feud

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk Deletes His Explosive Donald Trump Claim Tied to Jeffrey Epstein amid Their Public Feud

Elon Musk has deleted his X post claiming that President Donald Trump's name is mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein files Musk's claim came after the two men clashed about a new budget bill backed by the president The tech billionaire's decision to take down the post may be a sign of de-escalation in their highly publicized feudElon Musk has taken down his explosive claim that President Donald Trump's name is in the Jeffrey Epstein files — a move which may be a step toward de-escalation in the public feud between the two men. In the since-deleted post, which Musk shared on X on Thursday, June 5, the tech billionaire claimed that Trump appears in the high-profile case files, writing that it was the 'real reason' the files had not been made public. "Have a nice day, DJT!" he added sarcastically. Trump responded to the claim on Friday, June 6, by reposting a statement on Truth Social that was originally written by Epstein's former lawyer, David Schoen, on X. In the statement, Schoen claimed that his client 'had no information to hurt President Trump.' "I was hired to lead Jeffrey Epstein's defense as his criminal lawyer 9 days before he died,' the statement began. 'He sought my advice for months before that. I can say authoritatively, unequivocally, and definitively that he had no information to hurt President Trump. I specifically asked him!" Trump's name has previously been publicly linked with Epstein. His name was mentioned in flight logs released earlier this year by Attorney General Pam Bondi a total of seven times. However, the appearance of Trump's name in the flight logs does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing, as many of the individuals named could have been on Epstein's plane for legitimate reasons. The president was friends with the disgraced financier and pedophile for many years, but the two had a falling out in the mid-2000s, Trump told reporters shortly before Epstein died by suicide in 2019. Musk's deleted claim came on the heels of a number of verbal jabs with the president following the release of a controversial new budget bill. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk posted to X — which he owns — on Tuesday, June 3. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." During an Oval Office press conference on Thursday, June 4, Trump responded to Musk's criticisms. "Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anyone sitting here," Trump told reporters. "He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the [electric vehicle] mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars." Trump also predicted Musk's attacks would get personal after saying he was "very disappointed in Elon." The war of words also came just days after it was announced Musk would be leaving the Trump administration. Read the original article on People

Bill O'Reilly Bats for Trump to Pardon to 4-Year-Old Immigrant With Serious Illness: ‘Has to Be Exceptions'
Bill O'Reilly Bats for Trump to Pardon to 4-Year-Old Immigrant With Serious Illness: ‘Has to Be Exceptions'

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Bill O'Reilly Bats for Trump to Pardon to 4-Year-Old Immigrant With Serious Illness: ‘Has to Be Exceptions'

Even Bill O'Reilly knows when enough is enough. The conservative commentator who has long supported strong border security went to bat this week for President Trump to issue humanitarian pardons to certain undocumented immigrants, using the example of a young child with a serious illness being treated at a Southern California hospital who was granted a pass by Homeland Security. 'I was happy to see this story,' the 'No Spin News' host said Friday. But first, some Biden-bashing: 'Thanks to President Biden, the FBI has spent more than a million manpower hours investigating problems stemming from the open border,' he said. 'Now, on Tuesday of this week alone, 2,200 illegal migrants were taken into custody,' he continued. 'That's a lot for one day. That's a 37% jump from the week prior. So, they're stepping up. ICE is stepping up its raids and … keeping them contained. They're not out on the street anymore. The White House is pleased. Trump wants this. That's why it's happening.' He also noted that since Trump has been president, there have been 67,000 undocumented migrants taken in and about 65,000 deported, but 'there are exceptions, or there should be, and there are.' 'Homeland Security, which controls ICE, has to make exceptions here,' he said. 'One of them is little Sophia Vargas, a four-year-old Mexican girl with a very serious illness. She's being treated in Southern California in a hospital there. Her mother, who took her across the border illegally in 2023, has been detained by ICE. But ICE is now giving the family a humanitarian waiver, which is the right thing to do. All right? We have to save this girl's life. 'Now, I would, if I were President Trump, pardon her. I'd say, 'You can stay on a humanitarian basis.' Nothing wrong with that. Sophia and her mom do not pose any danger to us, and it's a humanitarian thing.' Watch the monologue in the video above. The post Bill O'Reilly Bats for Trump to Pardon to 4-Year-Old Immigrant With Serious Illness: 'Has to Be Exceptions' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store