Trump has real reasons why he must have the revenue from tariffs and he is lying to MAGA and us all by screwing the working class economy.
Tariffs 101
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary
Tariffs can defend essential industries or correct trade abuses, but Donald Trump’s blanket tariff hikes function mainly as a regressive sales tax that fattens the Treasury to fund new giveaways to the wealthy while raising prices for MAGA households that buy everyday imports.
- Trump frames tariffs as punishment for China, yet the tax is collected at U.S. ports and passed straight to American consumers.
- Independent studies show his newest 25-60% levies would cost the median family more than $1,200 a year in higher prices.
- The Congressional Budget Office projects that a 10% universal tariff, paired with a 60% China surtax, would shave 0.6% off real GDP and lift overall prices by 1% within two years.
- A Peterson Institute brief finds the plan’s headline revenue—about $3.9 trillion over a decade—evaporates once job losses and slower growth erode income-tax receipts.
- Brookings warns tariff-driven cost spikes in autos and steel discourage U.S. investment and invite foreign retaliation, threatening industrial jobs that Trump claims to protect.
Far from reviving manufacturing, Trump’s tariffs weaponize kitchen-table goods to subsidize boardroom tax cuts, shifting wealth upward and leaving working-class voters to pay for their own political deception.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Economists across the ideological spectrum agree on one blunt fact: a tariff is a tax the home country imposes on itself. When an importer clears a shipment of Chinese steel or Mexican t-shirts, U.S. Customs collects the duty and sends the money to the Treasury—period. Trump’s branding conceals that simplicity, pretending that Beijing, Ottawa, or Brussels foots the bill. In reality, American retailers either absorb the loss or raise shelf prices, and empirical evidence shows that the latter approach dominates. A 2025 Peterson Institute chart calculates that the latest volley of tariffs—25 % on most Canadian and Mexican goods and a fresh 10 % on Chinese imports—will “tax” the typical family an extra $1,200 each year, with low-income households absorbing the largest share.
Trump defenders reply that tariffs can seed the domestic industry. That argument holds only under narrow conditions. Classic industrial policy imposes temporary duties on targeted inputs while the public simultaneously invests in research, training, and green infrastructure, enabling domestic firms to compete at scale. President Biden’s semiconductor and EV-battery credits roughly follow that model. Trump’s scheme is the opposite: uniform, open-ended, and decoupled from any strategic investment plan. According to the non-partisan CBO’s December 2024 analysis of a 10 % across-the-board tariff plus a 60% China penalty, real GDP would fall 0.6 % by 2034, and consumer prices would jump 1 % by 2026 even before allies retaliate. That macro drag undermines exactly the blue-collar manufacturing comeback Trump promises.
The revenue story is equally misleading. On paper, the tariff rush looks like a fiscal bonanza: the Peterson Institute estimates a 15-point tariff bump yields $3.9 trillion over ten years. Yet that is a static figure. Once economists model slower wage growth and reduced corporate profits, income- and payroll-tax receipts shrink, thereby slicing a significant portion of the apparent windfall. Worse, the administration plans to recycle the gross revenue into an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a move that the original bill’s authors sold as self-financing but which independent reviewers peg at roughly $1.9 trillion added to the deficit. The tariff–tax-cut swap therefore mimics Kansas-style supply-side snake oil on a national scale: raise sales taxes on groceries, slash income taxes for the top quartile, and hope voters don’t notice who is underwriting whom.
Distribution matters. Tariffs behave like sales taxes and, therefore, skew regressive. A 2017 CEPR/VoxEU study found that lower-income households devote a larger share of their budgets to tradable goods, such as clothing and housewares. The poorest decile paid an estimated $95 per year under the pre-Trump tariff schedule versus $500 for the richest, but that $95 represented a far bigger slice of disposable income. Trump’s escalations magnify that imbalance. MAGA enthusiasts, who tend to reside in rural or ex-industrial regions where “dollar” stores and Walmart anchor consumption, feel the sting first and hardest. The billionaire class, meanwhile, continues to source higher-margin luxury goods—designer apparel, European wine, bespoke software—that face lower or no duties.
Beyond pocketbook arithmetic, the policy corrodes the industrial base it purports to defend. Brookings researchers highlight the auto sector, where tariffs inflate input costs, dampen innovation, and provoke tit-for-tat barriers against U.S. exports. European countries already threaten the BMW plant in Spartanburg and unionized suppliers across the Midwest. Steel tariffs tell a similar story. Prices shot up after the 2018 rounds, allowing legacy mills to bank short-term profits while downstream manufacturers—from farm-equipment makers in Iowa to solar-panel assemblers in Texas—laid off workers or shifted production abroad. The economic pendulum thus swings against precisely those communities Trump claims to champion.
Progressives propose a smarter path. First, the tariff authority should return to Congress, ending the executive branch’s ability to weaponize Section 301 and national-security waivers for political theatrics. Second, when tariffs are justified—say, to sanction forced labor in solar components from Xinjiang—they must be paired with domestic investment, labor standards, and climate benchmarks so that the benefits flow to workers, not monopolists. Third, any tariff revenue should bolster the social safety net through direct rebates, mirroring the climate “carbon-dividend” model, rather than finance regressive tax cuts. Finally, trade adjustment programs must expand beyond token retraining grants; displaced workers deserve Medicare-for-All coverage, portable pensions, and guaranteed public employment in clean energy infrastructure.
Tariffs can, in the proper context, complement an industrial strategy focused on resilient supply chains and fair labor practices. Trump’s scattershot tariff barrage, however, amounts to a populist scam—a stealth tax hike on the very voters who chant his name at rallies, imposed to fund yet another round of boardroom bonuses. By exposing that shell game, progressives can reclaim the narrative: economic nationalism should uplift workers, not pad billionaires’ portfolios. The choice before the electorate is stark. They can subsidize their own exploitation, or they can demand trade rules that center people, planet, and shared prosperity.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
