Subscriptions

No ideology, no agenda, just a straight take on breaking economic data.
Each week as we scrutinize incoming data, we will send you a graph and a concise note on anything new that’s worth your time, 4 – 5 times a week. Our perspective allows you to make intelligent decisions no matter what political or economic outlook you embrace.
Subscribe for $27 a month >

Archive
- January 2025 (1)
- November 2024 (1)
- October 2024 (1)
- August 2024 (1)
- June 2024 (1)
- May 2024 (1)
- March 2024 (3)
- November 2023 (1)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (2)
- August 2023 (1)
- May 2023 (2)
- April 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (3)
- December 2022 (1)
- November 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (2)
- February 2022 (1)
- November 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (2)
- May 2021 (5)
- April 2021 (3)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (2)
- January 2021 (5)
- June 2020 (2)
- April 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (4)
- February 2020 (3)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (9)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (4)
- September 2018 (7)
- August 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (2)
- April 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (2)
- November 2017 (2)
- October 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (9)
- August 2017 (3)
- July 2017 (2)
- June 2017 (2)
- April 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (2)
- September 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (3)
- July 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (3)
- May 2016 (7)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (3)
- January 2016 (2)
- September 2015 (7)
- July 2015 (1)
- May 2015 (5)
- March 2015 (1)
- February 2015 (2)
- December 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- October 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (2)
- March 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (5)
- June 2008 (9)
- May 2008 (1)
Tariffs over time—in words and pictures
As we were wrapping up this issue, the president-elect announced the creation of an “External Revenue Service” (ERS). It will, as he put it, demonstrating his idiosyncratic understanding of trade, “collect our Tariffs, Duties, and all Revenue that come from Foreign sources. We will begin charging those that make money off of us with Trade….” Almost no one aside from him and his circle of advisers thinks that foreigners, rather than US consumers, pay tariffs, but let’s set that aside for now.
Instead, let’s look at tariffs over the long sweep of history. According to a useful factsheet from the Congressional Research Service, tariffs were an easy way to collect revenues in the early history of the country, which didn’t have a developed administrative structure. There were only so many ships sailing to unload goods in so many harbors, so taxing those goods was not much of a technical challenge. The government was small and didn’t need that much revenue anyway.
The tariff and revenue histories are illustrated in a quartet of graphs below. From 1792 to 1930, federal revenue averaged less than 3% of GDP. (Obviously those old GDP figures are guesses, but let’s take them as a decent approximation of reality.) From 1792 to the eve of the Civil War, 1860, tariffs provided an average of 86% of total federal revenue. (There were some bumps before the Civil War, notably the War of 1812, which juiced expenditures and savaged imports.) Besides borrowing heavily, the federal government increased excise taxes, reducing dependence on tariffs and leaving them accounting for just over half of federal revenues in the last third of the 19th century. With the introduction of the personal income tax (PIT) in 1913, tariffs receded in importance; since 1945, the PIT has accounted for 45% of federal revenues.
(Speaking of federal revenues, the popular notion that taxation has been growing like Topsy can’t survive fact-checking. As the graph shows, federal revenue as a share of GDP has been nearly flat for the last seven decades; in fact, the 2024 share, 17.1%, is below the 1951 share, 18.4%.)
With the growth of the PIT, and federal revenues generally, tariffs (or customs duties, to use the technical term) have largely disappeared as source of federal revenue. (In the graph on the lower left, you can see a spike around 1930, the time of the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which many, though not all, economists believe contributed to the Great Depression.) Customs receipts barely cracked 1% of total revenue in the 1990s and 2000s. With the tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration, and preserved by Biden, that share doubled to 2% in 2019–2022, but they’ve eased back to 1.6% in 2024. That looks poised to change
Since Trump has floated the idea of replacing the PIT with tariffs—switching from “taxing our Great People using the Internal Revenue Service,” as he said in the Truth Social announcement of the ERS—it’s interesting to experiment with how large those tariffs would have to be to plug the revenue gap. In the first three quarters of 2024, goods imports were $3.3 trillion at an annual rate, and the PIT brought in $2.5 trillion. Matching that would require a tariff rate of 70%. The effective tariff rate last year—revenues divided by the value of goods imports—was under 3%. Obviously a 70% tariff would decimate imports, but we’re not even considering that.
It all seems like a stretch.