President Donald Trump’s tariffs are bad. But even if one were opposed to the tariffs on principle, they might be seduced by the revenue they generate and the potential of that revenue to make some progress toward reducing the deficit. The tariffs are expected to collect $300 billion annually—nearly matching the amount collected by the corporate income tax ($350 billion). It’s not a small amount of money. Trump has stated that his goal is to eliminate income taxes and replace them with tariff revenue.
Last month, Trump and Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) proposed tariff rebate checks, similar to the stimulus checks that were handed out during the COVID-19 pandemic, in an amount equal to the revenue that is to be collected—or possibly more. Hawley’s legislation proposes sending at least $600 to eligible adults and dependent children, and Trump has voiced support for sending money to “people of a certain income level,” who are most likely to spend that money quickly rather than save or invest it. This is a massively inflationary impulse, much like what we saw during the pandemic, and it will expand the deficit even more. This is a bad idea layered on top of bad ideas, and it will make the tax code even more progressive by effectively creating a negative income tax for those in the bottom tax brackets while fueling inflation.
We are currently running a budget deficit of close to $2 trillion, which Trump has made practically no effort to reduce by cutting expenses. He pledges instead to cut the deficit by increasing revenue from tariffs but plans to hand out the windfall in the form of rebate checks. Our last experience with a give-back program like this was a quarter-century ago.
The government was running a fairly large budget surplus in FY 2000—totaling over $236 billion—and lawmakers made impassioned arguments about how to spend it: Some wanted new domestic programs, others pressed for tax cuts, while then–Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged paying down the debt and retiring Treasury bonds. When George W. Bush became president shortly thereafter, he proposed immediate tax relief in the form of $300 and $600 rebate checks to singles and married couples, respectively, a key piece of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
Bush prevailed, and roughly 95 million households received checks. The surplus evaporated, federal spending surged on defense and homeland security following 9/11 later that year, and that was the end of the surplus—forever.
It is possible that the tariff rebate checks will not be inflationary. No one knows all the variables that cause inflation. Milton Friedman famously argued that it was “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,” but inflation is also a psychological phenomenon—when people believe prices will rise, they often act in ways that make it happen. Trump is playing with fire, especially as he is in search of a Fed chairman who will be amenable to large interest rate cuts. The 2021–22 experience is instructive: a combination of pandemic-era stimulus checks, ultralow interest rates, and supply-chain bottlenecks helped fuel the fastest inflation in four decades, peaking at over 9 percent in mid-2022. We could find ourselves in an environment where Trump successfully creates inflation with the rebate checks and then has a captive Federal Reserve that is powerless to do anything about it.
The Bush rebate checks totaled about $38 billion. Trump’s proposal could amount to hundreds of billions. Still, the inflationary effect would depend partly on whether households spend the checks quickly or save them.
One of the criticisms of Bush’s rebate checks was that they were unevenly applied and did not go to the people who mainly paid the taxes—they went to everyone, which is a very populist approach. The argument could be made that, by aiming these proposed rebate checks specifically at lower-income households, they will benefit those who shoulder the hidden cost of tariffs, since tariffs disproportionately raise the price of basic consumer goods such as clothing, food, and household items, which make up a larger share of lower-income budgets.
It’s possible that one of the ulterior motives of the tariffs is flattening the tax code. This would shift the tax burden to people of all income levels, rather than the current income tax, which burdens half of the population while the other half pays very little or nothing. That is not something that has been articulated by the administration, however, and returning all the collected revenue seems counterproductive.
Trump has also proposed eliminating income taxes entirely for people making less than $200,000 a year, which would result in only the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying any income taxes at all. Trump is trending toward policies that would have only the wealthy pay taxes—an idea shared by the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). Fiscal conservatives, however, voted for Trump in droves on his promises to reduce the deficit and lower taxes, and they are having buyer’s remorse. We shouldn’t have tariffs, and to the extent that we have income taxes at all, they should be flat and fair. Instead, we are headed toward a hyperprogressive tax code, accompanied by growth-killing tariffs.
