
Tariffs: What They Are, How They Work, Who Pays The Bill
Concept: Trade protectionism by the United States of America by implementing tariffs. A security ... More fence built around a 3d map of the USA with signs "Tariffs" and 10%, 30%, 80%, 100%. Gray Background
Tariffs are a hot topic these days. We will discuss in simple terms what they are, how they work, and who pays the bill. We'll also look at the trade imbalance of the United States during the past 78 years. In short, you will see when the U.S. had a trade surplus and when there was a trade deficit. Hint: America has had a trade deficit in about 90% of the years since 1947. Understanding tariffs and who pays is crucial these days.
Tariffs are a tax imposed by one country on goods and services imported from another country. One purpose of tariffs is to protect domestic businesses from lower-priced foreign competition. This is a key reason why Shawn Fain, President of the U.A.W., voiced his support for Trump's tariffs. If you'd like to know more, here's an article I wrote on March 10 entitled, 'UAW President Shawn Fain Supports Trump's Tariffs. Here's Why.'
Tariffs are sometimes called duties. If you've ever returned to America from a trip to Canada, you may have had the option to buy certain products 'duty free.' In essence, this means no tax (tariffs).
Tariffs may be imposed on all imports from a specific country or on targeted items. In addition to protecting domestic businesses, tariffs can raise revenue for the importing country, helping to reduce a budget deficit. Tariffs may also cause a reduction in economic growth (GDP) as consumers no longer have the option to buy the previously lower-priced, foreign-made product. In response to a higher priced import, consumers may choose to reduce spending, which raises the risk of recession.
In today's global economy, there is a downside risk with tariffs. Many U.S. companies are highly dependent on foreign-made components to make their products. When the U.S. imposes high tariffs on those components, it raises the cost of production, which increases the cost of the product. To keep production costs down, the U.S.-based company must find the required components from another source.
The U.S. company may be able to find what they need from within the U.S., but the cost is often higher than from its foreign supplier. Why? Primarily because the average annual wage in the U.S. in 2023 was about $65,470 per year, significantly higher than China's $39,218 (USD) or Mexico's $20,090 (USD). Since wages are one of the largest expenses for many companies, all else being equal, the higher the wage, the more expensive it is to manufacture. Even though the average wage can vary based on location, industry, etc., a higher average wage can be a good indication of the general standard of living for a given country. In short, the standard of living in the U.S. is much higher than in most foreign countries, making it more expensive to produce products.
If a domestic source is available for the components needed, buying from within the country can help boost GDP, assuming the materials needed for production are reasonably priced.
In addition to a financial strategy, tariffs can be used to facilitate foreign policy goals. For example, tariffs can be a tool to motivate foreign countries to reduce tariffs on U.S. products or services, which would help boost U.S. exports. Tariffs can also be used as leverage to get other concessions from a foreign country.
Tariffs are collected at the U.S. border by the Customs and Border Protection agency. Tariffs imposed by the U.S. on imports are paid by the importing company. As mentioned, tariffs raise the cost of the products and services, which may be passed on to the consumer. At least one company, General Motors, recently announced that it would absorb the cost of tariffs on its imports to the tune of $4-5 billion. Thus, if a major U.S. company has a substantial profit margin and can afford to offset the cost of tariffs on its imports, their consumer would not face a price hike. However, small to medium sized businesses in America are not as financially able and will likely pass the increase to consumers. In short, there will likely be price increases on many products until new supply chains are up and running and/or tariffs are significantly reduced or eliminated.
Tariffs have been a staple in the U.S. since its founding. In fact, until the modern income tax was installed in 1913 with the ratification of the sixteenth amendment, tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the federal government.
While trade is vitally important, it is not a major factor for the U.S. economy. It should be noted that the U.S. economy in 2023 – as measured by GDP, consisted of consumer spending (68%), business spending (18%), government spending (17%), and net exports (-3%). Thus, closing the trade deficit by boosting exports will have a positive effect on GDP.
The following chart shows the trade surplus or deficit for the past 78 years, on a quarterly basis, from January 1947 to January 2025. There were 313 calendar quarters during this period. The U.S. had a trade surplus in 31 of the quarters and a trade deficit in 282 quarterly periods. Thus, the U.S. had a trade deficit about 90% of the time. The chart also reveals that the deficits have worsened considerably in recent decades, which helps explain why tariffs have been front-and-center recently. Also shown is the largest trade surplus, which was $50 billion in the second quarter of 1980 and the largest deficit of $1.374 trillion during the fourth quarter of 2024.
U.S. Trade Surplus-Deficit from Jan 1947 to Jan 2025
Trade is an important part of the U.S. economy. After losing 90,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of jobs in the past 33 years, President Trump has decided to install substantial tariffs to increase domestic manufacturing and create more favorable trade deals between the U.S. and its trading partners. Will it work? Will inflation rise? How long will it last? How much pain will American consumers have to shoulder before the issue is resolved? Good questions, but questions that cannot be easily answered at this point.
Understanding tariffs and who pays is important. While the consumer will most likely pick up the tab, in some cases, the importing company will pay the tariff. If you'd like to learn more about tariffs, please read, 'Trump's Tariffs Loom. There's More To It Than Most Understand' or 'Trump's Tariffs And Inflation – Who Pays?' or 'Trump's Tariffs: What Every American Should Know'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
5 minutes ago
- UPI
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."


The Onion
7 minutes ago
- The Onion
Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing
LOS ANGELES—Responding to escalating clashes between civilian activists and militarized immigration authorities, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass publicly urged protesters Monday not to give the Trump administration any pretext for what they're already doing and will keep doing no matter what. 'Angelenos—don't engage in violence and give the administration an excuse to inflict all the damage they have been inflicting carte blanche for months on end,' said Bass, adding that Trump and his team are just looking for a reason to respond with violence, as they would have done whether or not any of this happened. 'Don't fan the flame that has been fanned behind the scenes at the White House since day one of Trump's term in office. You wouldn't want them to start abducting people in broad daylight and deporting them, would you? No, so let's not become scapegoats for the horrific violations of civil liberties that would have eventually landed at our doorstep regardless.' At press time, Bass warned that Trump was using the actions of protesters to justify sending in the National Guard that had been pre-deployed to the conflict days before it even began.


Time Magazine
8 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare— and controversial —exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.'