Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Don’t Count on Tariff Revenue to Cover the “One Big Beautiful Bill”

by May 27, 2025
May 27, 2025
Don’t Count on Tariff Revenue to Cover the “One Big Beautiful Bill”

Scott Lincicome

In the May 26 Washington Post, I provide six reasons why—contra the White House spin—Republicans can’t and shouldn’t count on President Donald Trump’s new tariffs to provide a steady stream of federal revenue to offset the 10-year cost of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that just passed the House of Representatives:

Because all the tariffs were implemented via executive action, the next president could reduce or eliminate them as quickly as Trump imposed them, just as President Joe Biden did to some of the tariffs Trump imposed unilaterally during his first term.
Because the largest tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on dubious legal grounds, an adverse court ruling in one of the several pending lawsuits would mean trillions less in revenue, and it could come in as little as 18 months. (For more on these legal challenges, check out today’s Cato event on the same subject.)
Trump himself will likely change the tariffs’ scope and application, as he has already done in recent trade deals with the UK and China and other deals during his first term. As long as tariffs are a bargaining chip, they can’t be considered reliable government revenue.
The administration also will likely exclude various products from the tariffs, as it’s already done for goods that qualify for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement and consumer electronics (and also during Trump 1.0).
As almost all economists agree, the tariffs will reduce economic growth and thus offset much, if not all, of the increase in GDP caused by the OBBB’s tax cuts. Just as tax cuts can stimulate economic activity and boost future government revenue, Trump’s tariffs will have the exact opposite effect.
High and variable tariffs will encourage private parties to reduce or evade these taxes by rearranging their supply chains, exploiting legal loopholes, or smuggling. Various estimates show that these actions reduced US tariff revenue by billions of dollars during Trump’s first term, and economists expect even larger losses this time around. (Indeed, it’s already happening.)

Congress should pursue tax reform, but it should do so honestly by closing loopholes and cutting federal spending. My Cato colleagues Adam Michel, Romina Boccia, and others have provided several excellent ideas in this regard. For good reason, however, none of those ideas involve tariffs.

You can read the entire Washington Post piece here.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
What Is Copy Trading and How T4Trade Makes It Work for You
next post
FBI reopening investigation into cocaine found at Biden White House

You may also like

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things...

March 1, 2024

Polling Shows the President’s Tariffs Are Unpopular, Sentiment...

April 29, 2025

Will Rivian Automotive Last Long Enough to Use...

October 17, 2024

Are Bump Stock Bans Useful?

June 28, 2024

Javier Milei’s Inaugural Promise

December 13, 2023

Reviewing the Case Against a Border-Adjusted Corporate Income...

October 17, 2024

Questioning the Housing Crisis: Crisis or Consumer Preference?

December 12, 2024

Court’s ICWA Ruling Doesn’t Reach Individual Rights Claims

June 15, 2023

Maybe Most People Do Not Want Teacher-Led Public...

June 27, 2025

The FDA Causes Harm

April 2, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • ThinCats hits record lending levels with £381m despite challenging UK business climate

      July 8, 2025
    • Flight of the non-doms: how worried should Labour be about the super‑rich leaving the UK?

      July 8, 2025
    • UK house prices stall in June as stamp duty change and weak economy hit confidence

      July 8, 2025
    • Elon Musk connects with indie Andrew Yang on billionaire former Trump ally’s third party push

      July 8, 2025
    • Data Security Posture Management – The Next Big Data Solution Your Business Needs (And How to Get Started)

      July 7, 2025
    • Bondi under siege after DOJ reveals no Epstein client list

      July 7, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,413)
    • Investing (2,105)
    • Politics (15,958)
    • Stocks (3,192)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved