American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Who Actually Pays the Tariffs (and How They Work)

  • Broad agreement that tariffs function as a tax on imports paid to the importing country’s government, not by foreign exporters.
  • The cited study’s estimate that ~96% of the burden falls on US buyers and ~4% on foreign exporters is seen as directionally unsurprising but numerically debated.
  • Multiple comments explain tax incidence: who bears the cost depends on demand/supply elasticity and availability of substitutes; in current US–China trade, consumers are relatively inelastic, exporters have other markets, so Americans pay most.
  • Exporters are still harmed indirectly via reduced volumes and sometimes lower margins; trade volumes for some countries collapsed rather than prices falling.

Intended Goals vs. Actual Effects of Tariffs

  • Supporters frame tariffs as tools to:
    • Encourage reshoring and domestic manufacturing.
    • Reduce strategic dependence on China and other rivals.
    • Correct “global imbalances” and persistent US trade deficits.
  • Skeptics counter that:
    • Tariffs raise consumer prices (often with full pass-through, plus “me-too” price hikes by non‑tariffed competitors).
    • They rarely spark large-scale US investment when policy is erratic and politically driven.
    • Past cases (e.g., washing machines) show high consumer cost per job created and higher prices for related goods.

Politics, Messaging, and Misinformation

  • Many comments focus on how tariffs were sold politically as “other countries paying,” despite basic economics implying otherwise.
  • This is tied to a broader “post-truth” and anti‑intellectual dynamic: distrust of experts, partisan media ecosystems, and voters prioritizing tribal identity over factual accuracy.
  • Some see tariffs as a hidden regressive tax on poorer Americans, rebranded to bypass anti-tax rhetoric.

Institutional and Legal Concerns

  • Strong worry about tariffs imposed unilaterally via executive authority (IEEPA, delegation questions), with Congress sidelined.
  • Discussion of the nondelegation doctrine and whether the Supreme Court will curb presidential tariff powers; concern that courts have already normalized past actions by not intervening.

International and Long‑Run Consequences

  • Non‑US commenters note that other regions (EU, Canada, Mercosur, China) are deepening trade ties while the US makes itself a less reliable partner.
  • Some argue others benefit from cheaper Chinese exports redirected away from the US; others emphasize long-run global reconfiguration that could permanently erode US influence and export markets.

Reception of the Study Itself

  • Some trust the German institute as a serious research body; others question bias, data coverage (e.g., missing EU/UK/Canada detail), static modeling, and ignoring exchange-rate and VAT dynamics.
  • Even critics of the methodology generally accept the core qualitative point: American importers and consumers shoulder most of the immediate tariff cost.