- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who pays the tariffs?
Posted on 2/24/26 at 9:36 am
Posted on 2/24/26 at 9:36 am
The Federal Reseve Bank of NY says we are... LINK
The premise...
The result....
Another study came to similar conclusions: LINK
There's a CBO study out there that comes to about the same conclusion, but I can't find it.
So a couple of notes: Tariffs tend do to one of several things, depending on pricing power. If you hold pricing power, tariffs are awesome! We clearly do not -- beacuse we do not have spare capacity.
NC_Tigah has been correct in his assertion that tariffs would cut demand for imports
However, this seems to only apply for nations with the highest tariffs, and imports have shifted to other countries to fill the gaps. (the second study goes into detail nicely with this).
Ultimately, if tariffs are going to "work" for re-shoring manufacturing, they will need to be much higher (like 200-300%), across-the-board, and collect a lot more money from US businesses and consumers in the interim. Otherwise they are just a tool for generating jingoistic headlines at the expense of US citizens.
The premise...
quote:
Who Bears the Cost of Tariffs?
Tariff incidence is the technical term for how the costs of a tariff are split between foreign exporters and domestic importers. While importers pay the duty, the “economic burden” of the tariff can be shifted onto exporters if they lower their export prices. We illustrate this effect through a simple example: Suppose foreign exporters charge $100 for a good, and the importing country decides to levy a 25 percent tariff on it. If the foreign price remains unchanged at $100, the duty paid is $25, increasing the import price to $125. In this case, the tariff incidence falls entirely on the importer; in other words, there is 100 percent pass-through from tariffs to import prices, and therefore on U.S. consumers and firms.
In contrast, the exporter might lower its price in order to avoid losing market share. If foreign exporters respond to the tariff by lowering their price to $80 (i.e., $100 divided by 1.25), the price paid by importers will remain $100 (with $20 in duties paid to the government). In this case, 100 percent of the tariff incidence falls on foreign exporters, who now receive $20 less for the same good; in other words, there is zero pass-through from the tariff since the import price is unchanged.
The result....
quote:
We highlight two main results. First, 94 percent of the tariff incidence was borne by the U.S. in the first eight months of 2025. This result means that a 10 percent tariff caused only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices.
Second, the tariff pass-through into import prices has declined in the latter part of the year. That is, a larger share of the tariff incidence was borne by foreign exporters by the end of the year. In November, a 10 percent tariff was associated with a 1.4 percent decline in foreign export prices, suggesting an 86 percent pass-through to U.S. import prices. Given that the average tariff in December was 13 percent (see the first chart), our results imply that U.S. import prices for goods subject to the average tariff increased by 11 percent (13 times 0.86) more than those for goods not subject to tariffs. These higher import prices caused firms to reorganize supply chains, as suggested by the findings presented in the two charts above.
Another study came to similar conclusions: LINK
quote:
Table 1 reports our baseline estimates across all trading partners. The coefficient on log tariffs in the unit value regression (column 3) is -0.039, statistically significant at the 10% level. This implies that foreign exporters absorb less than 4% of the tariff burden; the remaining 96% passes through to US importers.
quote:
• The 2025 US tariffs are an own goal: American importers and consumers bear nearly the entire cost. Foreign exporters absorb only about 4% of the tariff burden—the remaining 96% is passed through to US buyers.
• Using shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions valued at nearly $4 trillion, we find near-complete pass-through of tariffs to US import prices.
• US customs revenue surged by approximately $200 billion in 2025—a tax paid almost entirely by Americans.
• Event studies around discrete tariff shocks on Brazil (50%) and India (25–50%) confirm: export prices did not decline. Trade volumes collapsed instead.
• Indian export customs data validates our findings: when facing US tariffs, Indian exporters maintained their prices and reduced shipments. They did not “eat” the tariff.
There's a CBO study out there that comes to about the same conclusion, but I can't find it.
So a couple of notes: Tariffs tend do to one of several things, depending on pricing power. If you hold pricing power, tariffs are awesome! We clearly do not -- beacuse we do not have spare capacity.
NC_Tigah has been correct in his assertion that tariffs would cut demand for imports
Ultimately, if tariffs are going to "work" for re-shoring manufacturing, they will need to be much higher (like 200-300%), across-the-board, and collect a lot more money from US businesses and consumers in the interim. Otherwise they are just a tool for generating jingoistic headlines at the expense of US citizens.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 9:57 am to Taxing Authority
I can tell you how tariffs are handled in our business.
We are able to very marginally increase sales price, but we eat the vast majority of tariffs and our margins are reduced significantly because of it.
It's particularly painful because our primary raw material cannot be sourced domestically, so we have little choice in the matter. It's not like we can simply choose to "buy American."
All that said, I'm still not opposed to tariffs. There's a much bigger picture here that extends beyond our business. It's about more than just us.
We are able to very marginally increase sales price, but we eat the vast majority of tariffs and our margins are reduced significantly because of it.
It's particularly painful because our primary raw material cannot be sourced domestically, so we have little choice in the matter. It's not like we can simply choose to "buy American."
All that said, I'm still not opposed to tariffs. There's a much bigger picture here that extends beyond our business. It's about more than just us.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:13 am to Longhorn Actual
quote:
All that said, I'm still not opposed to tariffs. There's a much bigger picture here that extends beyond our business. It's about more than just us.
I'm far from a tariff expert but it seems like it really comes down to the point you make here. There are tradeoffs that come with tariffs but are Americans willing to take some of the good with the bad? It would seem like the "tariffs are the worst" and the "tariffs are the greatest thing ever" baws are both not painting the bigger picture.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:10 pm to Longhorn Actual
quote:Often the case.
It's particularly painful because our primary raw material cannot be sourced domestically, so we have little choice in the matter. It's not like we can simply choose to "buy American."
quote:I’m not against them either, as long as they accomplish something. Unfortunately, all they seem to be doing, is collecting money for the government at the expense of business and consumers.
All that said, I'm still not opposed to tariffs. There's a much bigger picture here that extends beyond our business. It's about more than just us.
There’s absolutely a time-and-place for tariffs. The US just doesn’t have any of them.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:12 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
There are tradeoffs that come with tariffs
Most of the disagreements about tariffs here stem from the fact that a large number of people can't or won't grasp that.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:50 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
There are tradeoffs that come with tariffs but are Americans willing to take some of the good with the bad? It would seem like the "tariffs are the worst" and the "tariffs are the greatest thing ever" baws are both not painting the bigger picture.
I think this is the over all picture of people here.
- All of us wish the world was a perfect place and we were all on the same level playing field where free trade could be what it was sold to be. But time has proven that it's not.
- One group promotes tariffs being an evil communistic tool. This group of people ignore our history. They have never be able to rectify that thought with the fact that the USA has always had tariffs nor that it was the way the Fed Gov was funded. It just simply an evil communist thing because that's the talking point they believe will win people to their side.
- The other side are those that have looked at the complete picture. They se the bad to tariffs and the good of tariffs and have reached a conclusion that they are needed to some degree. That degree is up for debate. This group seems deeply concerned about the future of the USA and it's ability to survive.
Personally, I do not mind tariffs. My reasons are simple. Protect the interests of the USA. That means all things related to national security and jobs. We are going to need them. With automation, robots, and AI, we are either going to have to have jobs re-shored or universal income. I do not want the later.
I also have gone deep into the cultural shift that is 100% due to free trade. Perfect example is everything that China has purchased within our own boarders. They made John Cena apologize for saying Taiwan is a nation.
All of that goes back to the 45 stated goals of communism for the USA. Read them. Look at the differences it has made due to those goals being accomplished.
Group 1 says free trade is the most efficient while ignore the massive shift in our nation.
Group 2 says certain free trade has caused more harm than good. Yes we got cheaper products but at what cost?
Group 1 says that job losses don't mater because other jobs opened up.. like box store jobs.
Group 2 says those jobs pale in comparison and it did not have to be 1 or the other. We did not have to lose jobs to invent tech. That's just a stupid argument.
ETC ETC
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:50 pm to Flats
There are trade offs that come with free trade.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 1:46 pm to Flats
quote:
There are tradeoffs that come with tariffs
Most of the disagreements about tariffs here stem from the fact that a large number of people can't or won't grasp that.
We know. We've been telling you guys since the beginning, but you still push the "there is no good from tariffs" narrative. We've told you from the start what the benefits would be but you kept ignoring it and only focused on the cost increase.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 1:48 pm to Longhorn Actual
quote:
All that said, I'm still not opposed to tariffs. There's a much bigger picture here that extends beyond our business. It's about more than just us.
It's a long-game, for sure.
The blame is on who outsourced all our labor and forced us to do so much importing of goods.
Those who sold us out many decades ago are to blame.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 1:52 pm to Taxing Authority
Retailers have absorbed some of the cost.
End users such as myself are now on the hook
End users such as myself are now on the hook
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:33 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
but you still push the "there is no good from tariffs" narrative.
You've never seen me make that claim or anything close to it.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:35 pm to Taxing Authority
I really wish people would be as disgusted with the income tax as much as they are with with tariffs.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:36 pm to GumboPot
quote:Know what the top income tax bracket was when "America was great" through the 1950s? 91%
I really wish people would be as disgusted with the income tax as much as they are with with tariffs.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:41 pm to Harry Caray
quote:
Know what the top income tax bracket was when "America was great" through the 1950s?
The normal income tax rate was only 1% when they first introduced the income tax constitutionally in 1913.
Then they started boiling the frog and still boiling it.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:42 pm to GumboPot
quote:And then we had the worst economic crisis in American history a decade and a half later.
The normal income tax rate was only 1% when they first introduced the income tax constitutionally in 1913.
Whereas with top level tax brackets being over 90% this country grew and thrived at unprecedented and since unmatched levels. Curious.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:43 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I really wish people would be as disgusted with the income tax as much as they are with with tariffs.
A decent chunk of this forum is a repossessed center console away from printing their own "eat the rich" signs. There has been support here for increased taxes coming from rich, whether that's "greedy" corporations or wealthy individuals.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:47 pm to Harry Caray
quote:
Whereas with top level tax brackets being over 90% this country grew and thrived at unprecedented and since unmatched levels. Curious.
The code was VERY different back then. You could deduct nearly every dollar you spent. The effective rate hasn’t changed dramatically. Also…those taxes were raised to fund the war.
quote:
Harry Caray
Love your steakhouse.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:49 pm to Harry Caray
quote:
Know what the top income tax bracket was when "America was great" through the 1950s? 91%
The top bracket was 91%, but they weren't paying it.
During the 1950s, the top federal marginal income tax rate was famously high, peaking at 91% or 92% for income over $200,000 (roughly $2 million today). However, the actual effective tax rate (the percentage of total income paid after deductions) for the top 1% was much lower, averaging around 42% for all federal, state, and local taxes, or ~17% for federal income tax alone, due to loopholes.
Tax Foundation
Tax Foundation
+3
Key 1950s Tax Data Points
Top Marginal Rate: 91%–92% (on income over $200,000).
Top 1% Effective Rate: ~42% (total federal/state/local)
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:50 pm to frogtown
quote:So how does that compare to the 2020s?
During the 1950s, the top federal marginal income tax rate was famously high, peaking at 91% or 92% for income over $200,000 (roughly $2 million today). However, the actual effective tax rate (the percentage of total income paid after deductions) for the top 1% was much lower, averaging around 42% for all federal, state, and local taxes, or ~17% for federal income tax alone, due to loopholes.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 3:51 pm to Taxing Authority
I am aware that tariffs are a form of consumption tax.
What I'm most excited about is that this experiment has brought in billions of dollars to the treasury without the general public having to fill out a single form and endure the April 15th humiliation ritual.
It is a proof of concept that consumption taxes can replace the income tax.
Popular
Back to top


11











