Tariffs Have A Laffer Curve, Too

It's probably impossible to calculate the crosswinds at play. Supply constraints are a big factor; the United States has a skilled labor shortage, as TSMC discovered while building its Arizona chip fabrication plant. The US now imports most of its capital goods, moreover, which means that US manufacturers can't replace imported goods with made-in-USA alternatives without first importing more machines and production imports.

The Laffer curve represents a common-sense idea, but a powerful one: Too much taxation stifles growth. The location of the maximum point on the curve isn't self-evident by any means, but it frames the problem handily. I'm one of the original supply-siders; I have written a dozen papers over the years for Laffer's consulting firm, and between 1988 and 1993 I was chief economist for the consulting firm of the late Jude Wanniski, the publicist who made Laffer famous.

The supply-siders argued that the economic growth generated by tax cuts would more than cover the cost of issuing new government debt to cover a transient shortfall in revenues, back when US government debt was just 30% of GDP, compared to 125% today, and the top marginal tax rate was 70%, vs. 37% today.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called the current national debt“a disaster,” with good reason. The US needs new sources of revenue and tariffs are an important part of the policy mix.

A“Laffer curve” for tariffs might look something like the chart above. Unlike the original Laffer curve for personal income tax rates, revenues don't fall to zero; tariffs are a levy on price, not income. The right side of the curve remains above zero, although a very high tariff is likely to lose revenue as imports disappear and economic activity shrinks.

A 10% tariff would yield $300 billion on America's $3 trillion of goods imports. Some part of that would be paid by foreign exporters rather than American purchasers, either through currency devaluation or lower profit margins. If foreigners pay half (rough guess), the price of imports would rise by just 5%, barely a speed bump.

That $300 billion in revenues is real money. If spending cuts generate $200 billion in savings and slightly lower interest rates save $200 billion in interest costs, the deficit will fall by $700 billion, or more than half. That would leave room to extend the 2019 personal income tax cut and avoid higher marginal tax rates that would impair economic growth.

Imports would fall (as in the red line on the chart), so a 15% tariff would produce a smaller increment in revenue, to $350 billion. As noted, foreign exporters can bear a great deal of the burden at a 10% tariff rate. As tariff rates rise, foreigners will pay a lower share. They can only cut profit margins so far or devalue their currencies so much. Devaluation on the part of trading partners, moreover, isn't what America wants: It makes US goods less competitive and tends to raise the trade deficit.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

One study estimates that a 10% increase in import prices would raise the Producer Price Index by 1%. A Boston Federal Reserve report published in Feb. 2025 states,“A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico combined with a 10% tariff on China could add 0.5% to 0.8% to core PCE inflation.”

A tariff of 15% or higher would raise costs for US business significantly. US imports of capital goods (not including autos) exploded after Covid, rising by nearly 50% during the Biden administration. The US can restore capital goods manufacturing, but it would have to import capital goods to do so, which means that imports would first have to rise in order to fall in the future.

There are arguable exceptions. The Trump Administration is proposing a 25% tariff on autos, not because it expects American consumers to pay nearly 25% more for new cars, but because it wants foreign auto producers to build plants in the United States. The impact of tariffs above the 10%-15% level is terra incognita for economists. But it is a reasonable assertion that tariffs in the 10%-15% range will generate significant amounts of new revenue without much damage to economic activity.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)