Study Finds Tariffs Cost Consumers More Than the Government Takes In
The new report examined prices of French wine after Trump imposed tariffs in 2019.
Tariffs on foreign imports have been a consistent theme of President Donald Trump's terms in office; he even says tariff is "the most beautiful word in the dictionary." But despite his consistent claims to the contrary, tariffs are taxes borne by American consumers, as a new study confirms.
A working paper out this month from the National Board of Economic Research (NBER)—conducted by researchers from Duke University, the University of Chicago, and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors—seeks to understand what portion of tariffs American consumers actually bear through higher prices.
The authors note that after tariff increases in Trump's first term, "a wide range of studies" reached different conclusions on when and how tariffs "pass through" and increase the cost of an imported product. "This paper seeks to resolve this disconnect by tracing the tariff impact on prices of an imported product throughout its journey from the foreign producer—via the importer, wholesaler, and retailer—to the final consumer."
The study "examines the effects of tariffs along the supply chain using product-level data from a large U.S. wine importer in the context of the 2019-2021 U.S. tariffs on European wines." In October 2019, during his first presidential administration, Trump imposed 25-percent tariffs on a variety of European food products, including French wine.
The NBER report found these duties were a bad deal in multiple ways. For one thing, "in an example of tariff engineering, products switched their alcohol content to avoid the tariffs, and new products were introduced that were not subject to the tariffs," the authors found.
For products still subject to tariffs, the report adds that even when prices don't go up by the full amount of the tariff, "we find that it is possible that domestic consumers fully pay for these costs." This is because although "foreign producers partially absorb the tariff by lowering their prices" and "domestic importers only pass about a 5% price increase (out of the 25% tariff) to their distributors," it turns out "markups actually expand between distributors and final consumers: despite an additional stage of markups, prices increase to the consumer by close to 7 percent relative to before tariffs were imposed."
It turns out the tariffs were a bad deal both for consumers and the government. "Our estimates indicate that U.S. consumers paid more than the government received in tariff revenue, because domestic markups amplified downstream price effects," the authors note. "Despite a significantly smaller percent increase in prices than the percent applied in new tariffs, multiple markups resulted in the dollar increase in what consumers paid ($1.59 per bottle, in our example) that was ultimately greater than the increase in tariff revenue ($1.19 per bottle)."
As a result of tariffs, consumers pay more in higher prices than the government collects in additional revenue, and distributors and retailers see the rest in higher profit margins, while producers who make the product actually see lower margins.
Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly said other countries would pay higher tariffs, not Americans.
"A tariff is a tax on a foreign country. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not," Trump said at a campaign rally in August 2024. "A lot of people like to say it's a tax on us. No, no, no. It's a tax on a foreign country." This was his position throughout his first term, saying in September 2018, "China is now paying us billions of dollars in tariffs."
This is simply wrong, and at times, Trump has even seemed to admit it. In May 2025, when Walmart suggested it may raise prices in response to tariffs on China, Trump threatened that the retail giant "should, as is said, 'EAT THE TARIFFS,' and not charge valued customers ANYTHING." If foreign countries truly paid tariffs, there would be nothing for Walmart to "eat."
The NBER report only focused on one product category during Trump's first term, but its findings are consistent with many other studies. "Going back to the last episode with rising tariffs in 2018, research showed that the cost of the tariffs was almost entirely passed through onto domestic prices," the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta wrote in June, noting that according to its research, most companies surveyed "anticipate sacrificing demand should they choose to fully pass a tariff-related cost increase on to customers."
It also affirms what consumers can plainly see. "Eight months into President Trump's latest trade war," writes Alex Durante of the Tax Foundation, "the evidence shows that tariffs have raised overall retail prices by about 4.9 percentage points relative to the pre-tariff trend."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Sorry, Joe. My bottle of 1923 Do Not Give a Shit merlot is empty.
Screeching that "tariffs are gonna kill us all" and pointing to a study of french wine imports as proof is so tone deaf it's beyond parody.
A study on one luxury product defines all of economics?
Do you guys realize how ignorant you fucking sound?
And it gets even more retarded the more you think about it. It uses a singular country product to find effects in order to ignore supply shifts and competitors from non French wine competitors. It is set up in a way to beg the literal fucking question it wants.
This is too dumb even for Eric to try.
At the end they say in 2018 almost all tariffs were passed through to the consumer without noting any product type or industry the products belonged too.
To suggest consumers paid more than the amount of revenue the gov took in on the tariffs is completely disingenuous. Companies raise prices, especially when government mandates for shut downs and the ships are not being offloaded at the ports. Using stats from the Covid era for this study shows they are grasping at straws.
Studies show that experts reveal that people say.
Don't forget bespoke bow ties.
I think I actually blocked that article from my mind it was so dumb.
Great example!
Because everyone has to buy imported wine instead of drinking Kentucky Bourbon.
One of the major points of tariffs is to change what people buy.
No, it's to make things cheaper for unemployed people.
This is as big a sob story as the one that a high end boutique distillery in Vermont was having trouble because they couldn't import bottles from Europe via Canada when the distillery was less than 100 miles away from 2 glass plants that make, you know, bottles or the one where some place, again in New England, that couldn't find boxes for their product when they were a days drive from several box manufacturers.
" . . . conducted by researchers from Duke University, the University of Chicago, and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors . . . "
As fair and impartial a group as you will ever find?
More whining about tariffs.
Study finds.....whatever you paid to find.
How many times do I have to go over this?
Trump's taxes are magic. Ok?
Everyone agrees that Democrat taxes are a burden on businesses, but Trump taxes aren't. Because magic.
Everyone agrees that Democrat taxes raise prices, but Trump taxes don't. Because magic.
Everyone agrees that Democrat taxes slow the economy, but Trump taxes don't. Because magic.
Anyone who says Trump taxes cost anything at all is a lying leftist Marxist with TDS. Because magic.
*sigh*
I see the Maine democrat with the Nazi tattoo is yapping about shit he doesn't understand. Again
He confirms his idiocy further down.
A small glimpse at the truth.
"This is because although "foreign producers partially absorb the tariff by lowering their prices" and "domestic importers only pass about a 5% price increase (out of the 25% tariff) to their distributors,"
I import widgets. I complete with a US widget manufacturer. I sell my foreign made widgets for 6% less than the US competition for the same product in my business model and compete well for market share.
A 50% tariff is applied. First question, is this a 50% tariff applied directly to the product or is it a 50% increase of the tariff already applied to the product? This is important but ignored. Trump's 25% tariff on Aluminum and Steel is actually a 25% increase of the existing tariff. The actual price increase works out to around 5% increase of the product price.
We must assume the product already has a tariff applied and Trump is increasing the tariffs by this amount, not the total cost of the product itself. This is not stated in any of the Trump's tariffs are destroying the world articles.
Back to my widgets. I can't increase the price on them because then I will not be competitive with the US made widgets and I don't want to lose market share which could put me out of business completely.
As my profit margins are much higher than the US manufacturers margins are because I have such cheap labor and overhead that the 25% increase to the tariff, approximately 5% to the actual product, still leaves me profiting at a high margin. And still leaves me profiting at a higher margin than my US competition.
In the case I am a importer/wholesaler and the distributor is competing against US made products they can't raise their price for the same reasons I could not. As the importer I might add the 5% to the price but in the end the distributor is going to have to eat it or lose market share. But we may negotiate and come to an agreement where we split the tariff cost and the product price to the consumer never increases.
This is what we have seen. The approximate 4% inflation on some goods could be from operation costs or other reasons for inflating a product price versus being from tariffs which is most likely what occurred with the French wine.
my profit margins are much higher than the US manufacturers margins are
Assuming facts without evidence.
Regardless it's a very leftist argument. Taxes are fair because those rich businesses have an unlimited pool of profits to squeeze. Taxes simply cannot be too high on those businesses. And if they are, and the company can't afford it? Fuck 'em. They shouldn't be in business anyway.
You would make Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren proud with that argument. So very proud. Trumpist economics is pure leftism.
Am I? How do you know?
Why did Nike move it's manufacturing to China? And once there, why did they continue to move to less expensive, potentially slave, labor? Have you compared the costs to manufacture a shoe in China versus South Korea versus Viet Nam? Is it possible the shoe manufactured in one of these countries costs less than the other?
When they left the USA, was it to make their shoes cheaper or was it to increase profit margins? I don't remember prices dropping...
I will ignore your comments regarding my post being leftist as it is your typical reply when you don't have a coherent comment to make.
Am I? How do you know?
I know that you're not providing any evidence.
You are just assuming, as a basic premise for your argument, that businesses you want to tax have this big pool of obscene profits that the government can just tap into whenever it wants. Do you know who else makes that a premise for their economic policies and arguments? Leftists. Yeah, leftists. Leftists like Warren, AOC, Sanders, and the rest of that ilk. They all agree with your defense for taxing businesses you don't like. Where you guys would differ is on which businesses you hate and why you hate them. But you both agree that they can afford it with all their illegitimate, unfair, and unjust profits.
Add that to the looooong list of things that Trump defenders have in common with the leftists they hate.
Wait, are you saying that the importers profit margins aren’t higher than the American manufacturers? Wouldn’t that negate the whole point of comparative advantage attracting the company to offshore?
Why must the margins be higher? They could be the same. Or lower even. Long as they're in the black.
He is simply assuming that their margins are higher. Why make that assumption? Because that makes it unfair. Unfair unfair unfair. This unfairness justifies using the government to take some of those unfair profits away. Because they're unfair. The whole point is that they're unfair. That means the the company needs to be punished for this unfairness. Now the taxes aren't even about revenue. They're about fairness. Fairness based upon an assumption that may or many not even be valid. But it feels valid. Oh yeah, it feels unfair. And that unfairness needs to be punished.
That's a leftist argument dude. Pure emotion based upon assumptions that are true because they feel true, regardless of what the facts say. Can't get any more leftist than that.
The cost of offshoring itself is too high to move to a country where the profit margins aren't greater.
It's clear you leftists don't understand economics-- but it's becoming more and more apparent that you don't understand basic math as well.
He once told us he refused to work overtime because he would take home less pay.
I can get the argument that they might be the same or similar, but I don’t buy that someone is going to spend money to upend their production to move over seas (or across a border) if it’s not going to translate to at least that. The idea they’d do it and decrease their margins seems ludicrous.
What if offshoring allows them to lower prices and gain a greater market share, with the same profit margin? Make more money on volume. There, I just disproved the premise with a counterexample.
The argument though, it is indeed pretty much the same. And it's leftist to the core. It assumes that the money was ill-gotten, that the company has too much of it, and it's the duty of the government to relieve them of it. Doesn't get much more leftist than that. How many times have you heard leftists say that a company shouldn't be in business if it can't afford some new expense forced upon it by the government? It's pretty standard. Eat those taxes! Eat those regulations! Eat the new minimum wage! You can afford it with your unfair profits! Pure leftism. And now Trumpians are using it to defend tariffs.
“What if offshoring allows them to lower prices and gain a greater market share, with the same profit margin? Make more money on volume.”
I already said that I could understand the argument for doing so if the profit margin stayed the same or close to it.
It just doesn’t make a lot of sense, to me, if it’s going to be a wash (And 0 sense if it’s going to lower your margin). Neutral’s premise for his hypothetical makes sense and I didn’t see where he supported it so much as tried to explain why we haven’t seen dramatic price increases.
What if offshoring allows them to lower prices and gain a greater market share, with the same profit margin? Make more money on volume.
Because it can't.
Even if they keep the main business open while offshoring, the cost of building, hiring, training and equipping will eat into the profit margin and will continue to do so until the offshore business can exceed the original.
The people you are talking to, sarc, myself included, have had to deal with this in real life. We know. You conjecture.
"I can't increase the price on them because then I will not be competitive with the US made widgets and I don't want to lose market share which could put me out of business completely."
Why aren't you competitive. You said you import and sell them for 6% less than a competitor so have an unfair trade advantage. If, as you say, tariff's will increase the cost of the product 5% then you still have a 1% cost advantage. Is your widget so shitty that it can't compete head to head with the American sourced one?
Does this study take account of the reduced competition which causes other prices to rise?
People who don’t even buy the imported products will also be paying higher prices.
I would expect the total additional amount paid by all consumers to be more than 100% of the government revenue.
Date: Feb 5, 2024:
You see, it was just hip-swiveling free markets everywhere, until that damned Trump got into orifice!
Date: 25 August 2023
There Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises were, running their un-subsidized, unregulated, untouched by grubby government fingers- vineyard when... ALL OF A SUDDEN!
Date: Feb 2023
Date: 2015:
The world's free markets were a well-oiled machine until that lying sonofabitch Trump!
Hell in 2013, the Heathen Chinee were upset with the French subsidies on wine!
Research comes out and cultists know exactly whether to believe it based purely on its conclusions, no further analysis needed.
Not surprised youre too dumb to understand why this research has literally zero worth and is meaningless. Maybe scream Hastert and out yourself again shrike.
"Show us some data! Show us some analysis!"
*is shown data and analysis*
"Your data and analysis is stupid! You're stupid!"
Exactly!
Who cares about the consumer - as long as "the man" gets his pound of flesh.
Can you really stick a dollar value on shoving our thumb into China's eye and keeping it there?
You have to admit that's something we can all enjoy.
OMG! Taxes!!!!
The specific kind of Tax the US Constitution originally instated to fund the Union of States government???
How UN-American can you get!
Using the correct taxing method setup by the USA founders!
Heaven-Forbid the International Market pay for an International Affairs government!
/s
You finally admitted that tariffs are taxes. Good for you.
Now you should read the Constitution you claim to defend but know nothing about, and see which branch of government has the power to levy those taxes you like so much. Go ahead. You can do it. I'll wait.
It's not the president, is it. Nope.
But keep on defending Trump. You'd grow hair on your palms and go blind if you stopped.
Do you think Trump wrote/pushed the legislation for E.O. Tariffs?
Sure would be nice if Congress would take the powers they gave away over the last 100 years back.
Then a lot of this stuff wouldn’t even be debatable.
Indeed. If nothing else the [R]s sure could muster-up a lot of respect trying. While also making all the crying [D]s look like the full-of-BS scam-artists they are when they vote against it.
Yep.
I find myself unconvinced by a single study focusing on a single luxury item as proof tariffs are destroying America. Next we are going to read a story that monkey shit coffee import prices has skyrocketed because of tariffs and no one is buying the product anymore as proof. It has nothing to do with Americans outside of a few elites are interested in drinking coffee that comes from beans shit out by monkeys and the elites taste is always moving to the latest greatest fad.