Executive Summary

The history of the United States’ federal revenue policy is a narrative of profound transformation, shifting from a near-total reliance on tariffs to a modern system dominated by income and payroll taxes. The analysis presented in this report confirms several key propositions regarding this evolution and the contemporary resurgence of protectionist measures. The first is a historical one: tariffs were, for a long period, the primary source of federal funding, a reality exemplified by the Andrew Jackson administration. The user’s observation that this government was fiscally minimal is accurate, although a closer examination reveals a more complex reality regarding its structure and operations. The second proposition relates to the fundamental shift of 1913, which was driven by a progressive political movement that correctly identified tariffs as a regressive tax on the working class. This transition was a direct response to a fiscal system that placed a disproportionate burden on average Americans.

The report further validates the user’s astute understanding of modern tariff economics. The widely-held belief that foreign nations bear the cost of U.S.-imposed tariffs is contradicted by economic evidence, which demonstrates that the burden is almost entirely passed on to domestic businesses and, ultimately, consumers. This reality is compounded by other, less obvious economic consequences, including increased supply chain uncertainty, reduced domestic productivity, and the risk of retaliatory trade wars that harm American exporters.

Finally, the report addresses the fundamental paradox at the heart of modern tariff advocacy: the notion that tariffs can simultaneously serve as an effective protectionist tool and a viable replacement for the Internal Revenue Service. A detailed fiscal analysis, grounded in current budget and trade data, shows this to be a mathematical and economic impossibility. The analysis demonstrates that a tariff rate far exceeding any proposed measure would be required, and such a high rate would inevitably eliminate the very imports it seeks to tax, collapsing the revenue stream. The dual goals of protection and revenue are therefore mutually exclusive, rendering a tariff-based economy a fiscal relic of a bygone era with an entirely different set of governmental priorities and scale.

Part I: The Historical Foundation: From Revenue Pillar to Fiscal Relic (1830s – 1920s)

1.1. Tariffs as the Primary Engine of Government Revenue (Pre-1913)

For the first century and a half of the United States’ existence, the federal government operated on a fiscal model that would be unrecognizable today. The primary source of public funds was not a broad-based tax on income or wages but rather a series of customs duties, or tariffs, on imported goods. This system served the dual purpose of generating revenue and protecting nascent domestic industries from foreign competition. The high tariffs that characterized this period were a mainstay of the Republican Party, which dominated the political scene after the Civil War. This fiscal approach was, in large part, a necessity, as the infrastructure required for a modern, direct taxation system was absent.

The user’s reference to the Andrew Jackson administration is particularly insightful, as it represents the zenith of this tariff-based economic model. In his eighth annual message, President Jackson detailed a fiscal reality that is unparalleled in American history. For the year 1836, he reported federal revenues of approximately $47.7 million, with more than half of that—around $22.5 million—derived from customs duties and a significant portion from land sales. With expenditures estimated at only $32 million, the government ran a substantial surplus. This era’s unique fiscal discipline culminated in the unprecedented achievement of paying off the entire national debt by January 1835, for the first and only time in the nation’s history.

While this data confirms the user’s assertion that the government was fiscally minimal, a more comprehensive view reveals a complexity often overlooked. The government was, in many ways, far less “simple” than a cursory glance at the budget would suggest. An examination of the Post Office Department during this period reveals a large, politically-charged enterprise that operated with alarming deficits. Research indicates that the Post Office was not only a central bank of patronage for Jacksonian Democrats but also a debt-ridden entity that owed hundreds of thousands of dollars to state banks and private contractors. This demonstrates that even in an era of a small federal budget, key government functions could operate with significant fiscal and political complexities, using public money for purposes that were far from simple and efficient. The idea of a simple, purely revenue-driven government during this time is therefore a political and fiscal simplification of a much more nuanced reality, where even low-cost postal services were a tool of political control and operated at a loss.

1.2. The Progressive Movement and the Case Against Tariffs

As the United States industrialized and its economy grew, the reliance on tariffs as a primary revenue source came under increasing scrutiny. The progressive movement, particularly during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mounted a sustained critique of the system. The central argument was that tariffs were a regressive and fundamentally unfair tax on the working class and the poor. By artificially raising the prices of imported goods, tariffs effectively subsidized domestic industries at the expense of consumers, forcing everyday people to pay more for necessities and household items. The progressive argument was that a more equitable system would be one where wealthy individuals and large corporations, who had benefited most from the nation’s economic growth, would bear a greater share of the fiscal burden.

This intellectual and political shift was not merely a debate over tax policy; it was a debate over the very nature of government itself. Proponents of the income tax argued that it was a far superior method for generating revenue and would allow the federal government to finance its growing political and military power. Opponents, on the other hand, feared that a direct income tax would centralize too much power in the federal government. The eventual passage of the income tax, therefore, did more than just change the government’s funding mechanism; it transformed the federal institution from one that was “just slightly above the many states” into a “more powerful, centralized institution” with vast quantities of funding at its disposal. This fundamental change laid the groundwork for the modern administrative state and its far-reaching programs.

1.3. The Great Fiscal Transition of 1913: The Underwood-Simmons Act and the 16th Amendment

The long-standing political and constitutional struggle over income tax reached a climax in 1913. A key legal obstacle was the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., which had ruled that an income tax on rents, dividends, and interest was a “direct tax” and therefore unconstitutional unless it was apportioned among the states based on population, a politically unfeasible requirement. The progressive solution was not to challenge the ruling directly but to amend the Constitution itself.

The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1913, granted Congress the explicit power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”. With the constitutional barrier removed, the new Democratic-controlled Congress and President Woodrow Wilson moved swiftly to enact the new fiscal policy. The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood-Simmons Act, was the pivotal piece of legislation. It simultaneously re-established a federal income tax, a one percent tax on incomes above $3,000 per year, and substantially lowered the average tariff rates from 40 percent to 26 percent. This act marked a permanent and important shift in federal revenue policy, signaling the end of the tariff-based economy and setting the stage for government revenue to increasingly rely on income taxes. The magnitude of this shift is best illustrated by a comparison of the fiscal scales of the two eras.

Table 1: Historical U.S. Federal Government Revenue and Spending (1836 vs. 1913)

---

The data in Table 1 illustrates the stark difference in the scale of the federal government before and after the 1913 fiscal transition. The hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and spending in the early 20th century were a prelude to the multi-trillion-dollar budgets of the modern era, a scale that would have been unimaginable to a government funded by tariffs and land sales.

Part II: Contemporary Tariffs: Policy, Persona, and Economic Reality

2.1. The Reintroduction of Tariffs and the Navarro Thesis

In recent years, the United States has seen a modern resurgence of high tariffs, a policy shift championed by former President Donald Trump. This approach has a clear intellectual foundation rooted in the work of his trade advisor, Peter Navarro. Navarro’s 2011 non-fiction book, Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action, served as a central text for the administration’s trade policy. The book, and a documentary film based on it that was endorsed by Trump, argues that China’s “unfair” trade practices—including currency manipulation, illegal export subsidies, and intellectual property theft—are responsible for the erosion of American manufacturing jobs and economic dominance .

The policy’s stated goal is to protect domestic industries and workers from this perceived threat. However, a deeper examination of the book’s origins reveals a crucial underlying dynamic. Death by China was financed by a steel corporation, Nucor. This corporate backing suggests that the policy was not born from a purely academic or economic critique but was, at least in part, a response to lobbying from specific industries seeking protection from foreign competition. Furthermore, Navarro’s credibility has been questioned after the revelation that he invented a fictitious economist, “Ron Vara,” to cite in his works, including Death by China. The creation of a fabricated source to buttress a policy argument highlights a reliance on questionable methods to advance a specific economic agenda, raising concerns about the objective basis of the policy.

2.2. Deconstructing the “Who Pays?” Question

A central tenet of the Trump administration’s tariff policy, often articulated in public discourse, was the claim that foreign nations would pay the tariffs. The user’s query correctly identifies this as a significant economic misconception. Economic analysis and recent studies have consistently demonstrated that this claim is inaccurate and that the costs are predominantly borne by American consumers and businesses.

Tariffs are, in effect, a tax paid by U.S. importers to the U.S. government on purchases from abroad. While it is theoretically possible for foreign exporters to lower their prices to absorb some of the tariff burden, recent studies on the Trump-era tariffs have found a “near complete pass-through” of the costs. This means that U.S. firms and final consumers ultimately bear the full cost of the tariff in the form of higher prices. This effect extends far beyond just consumer goods; because of global supply chains, a tariff on an imported raw material like steel or a component like a semiconductor can increase the cost of a finished product manufactured domestically. The final cost is then either passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the domestic business, resulting in lower profits. This process is sometimes referred to as a “hidden tax” on American consumers and firms.

Beyond the immediate increase in prices, the imposition of tariffs has far-reaching and complex ripple effects on the broader economy. First, by shielding domestic industries from competition, tariffs can lead to a decrease in productivity and innovation. Research on U.S. tariffs from the late 1800s found that a 10 percentage point increase in tariffs reduced domestic productivity by 25 to 35 percent. The removal of competitive pressure can make domestic companies complacent and less inclined to invest in research and development to improve their processes. Second, from the perspective of global corporations, the greatest threat posed by tariffs is not the immediate increase in supply chain costs but the economic uncertainty they create. This uncertainty can disrupt the supply-demand balance and weigh heavily on long-term investment decisions, potentially stalling capital expenditure and hindering economic growth. Third, the imposition of tariffs often provokes a retaliatory response from other countries, which in turn hurts American exporters. The net result of this back-and-forth is a reduction in international trade that harms businesses and consumers on both sides of the exchange, further complicating global supply chains.

Part III: The Inherent Paradox of Tariffs as a National Fiscal Strategy

3.1. The Fundamental Conflict: Protection vs. Revenue

The central premise of the user’s query—the conflict between using tariffs as a tool for protection and as a source of revenue—is a fundamental paradox in economic policy. A clear distinction exists between a protective tariff and a revenue tariff. A protective tariff is a high tax imposed on imported goods with the explicit goal of making them so expensive that domestic alternatives become more attractive to consumers. If this policy is perfectly effective, it would successfully reduce or eliminate imports, and in doing so, it would generate no revenue for the government. The tax is not designed to raise money but to reduce a specific activity (importing).

Conversely, a revenue tariff is a low, broad-based tax on many imported goods. Its primary purpose is to raise funds for the government, and its designers would ideally want it to have as little effect as possible on the volume of imports. This highlights the core contradiction: if a tariff is successful at protecting domestic industries by making imports too expensive, it will fail to generate significant revenue. If it is successful at generating revenue, it will, by definition, fail to be a truly effective protectionist tool because the goods continue to be imported. The idea that tariffs could achieve both maximum protection and maximum revenue is an economic impossibility, an inconsistency that is often exposed in policy debates.

This paradox is further explained by the concept of a “tariff Laffer curve,” which suggests that beyond a certain point, raising tariff rates will actually decrease the total revenue generated. This occurs because the increase in the tax rate is more than offset by the drastic reduction in the volume of imported goods, as consumers and businesses choose to buy domestically or substitute with other products.

3.2. A Fiscal Feasibility Analysis: Replacing the IRS with Tariffs

The user’s final point, that it is fiscally impossible to replace the Internal Revenue Service with tariffs in the modern era, is entirely correct. The scale of the contemporary U.S. federal budget is fundamentally incompatible with a tariff-based revenue model.

As the data in the tables below demonstrates, the shift from a budget measured in millions to one measured in trillions represents a change in magnitude that is not only immense but also irreversible under a tariff-based system.

Table 2: Modern U.S. Federal Government Revenue and Spending (FY 2024)

According to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government collected approximately $4.92 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2024. The vast majority of this revenue—approximately 93.7%—comes from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, and Social Security and Medicare taxes, the very sources of revenue that would have to be replaced. The total value of U.S. imports (goods and services) for 2023 was approximately $3.87 trillion.

To illustrate the user’s point, a simple calculation can demonstrate the impossibility of a tariff-based fiscal policy. If the United States were to replace the revenue from income, corporate, and Social Security taxes—a total of approximately $4.56 trillion—with tariffs, an average tariff rate of nearly 118% would be required across all imports.

Table 3: Hypothetical Tariff Rate to Fund Modern Government

This calculation, which assumes a static volume of imports, underscores the sheer absurdity of the proposition. Such a high tariff rate would be a catastrophic protective measure, causing the volume of imports to plummet and, in doing so, cause the tariff revenue to collapse. The user’s proposed 30% tariff, while punitive, would be entirely insufficient to fund the modern federal government. The analysis shows that the shift away from tariffs was not a policy choice based on political whim but a fiscal necessity driven by the increasing scale and complexity of the modern American state.

Conclusion

The analysis of U.S. tariff policy reveals a complex and often paradoxical history, affirming the user’s key observations while providing deeper context and economic nuance. The historical narrative confirms that tariffs were once a sufficient revenue source for a government of an entirely different scale and purpose, as exemplified by the minimal fiscal outlays of the Andrew Jackson administration. The user’s intuition that the subsequent shift to an income tax in 1913 was a response to the regressive nature of tariffs is also fully supported by the historical record of the progressive movement.

In the contemporary era, the reintroduction of tariffs is shown to be rooted in a specific and often self-serving political agenda. The economic reality behind the popular rhetoric is that the burden of tariffs is not paid by foreign nations but is, instead, passed on to American consumers and businesses. The broader economic consequences—including a chilling effect on investment, a decrease in domestic innovation, and the threat of retaliatory trade wars—demonstrate that tariffs are a blunt and often counterproductive tool in a globalized economy.

The central paradox remains: tariffs cannot simultaneously be an effective protectionist measure and a viable source of revenue. The fiscal feasibility analysis in this report conclusively demonstrates that the scale of the modern federal budget is simply too vast to be funded by tariffs. The historical era when tariffs were a principal revenue source is fiscally and politically a relic of the past, and any attempt to return to such a system would prove to be a mathematical and economic impossibility. While tariffs may have a strategic role in addressing specific unfair trade practices, they are not a substitute for a robust and comprehensive tax system designed to meet the multi-trillion-dollar needs of the American government and its populace.

Sources:

• Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 16 – “Income Taxes” – Ronald Reagan Library
• Milestones: 1921–1936: Protectionism in the Interwar Period – Office of the Historian
• Eighth Annual Message – The American Presidency Project – UC Santa Barbara
• History of the Debt – TreasuryDirect
• A Vast Political Corporation: The Power of the Post Office in the Bank War – We’re History
• Postage Rates for Periodicals: A Narrative History – Who we are – About.usps.com
• Mailing a letter in the early 1800s was expensive | HSQAC
• Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia
• What Is a Protective Tariff? Definition, Benefits & Examples – General Discussions – CallHub
• Revenue Act of 1913 – Wikipedia
• Death by China – Wikipedia
• Did fictional character Ron Vara ‘craft’ Trump’s tariff policies? • FRANCE 24 English
• Who Pays Tariffs? Americans Will Bear the Costs of the Next Trade War – Tax Foundation
• Explainer: How do tariffs work and how will they – Harvard Kennedy School
• How Could Tariffs Affect Consumers, Business and the Economy? | UC Davis
• Trump tariff impact: ‘Bigger effect on investments’, says Shell; global economic uncertainty a factor
• US tariff effect: Shell says uncertainty a big threat
• Tariffs—Everything you need to know but were afraid to ask | Economic Policy Institute
• Understanding Tariffs – History, Mechanisms, and Economic Theory And At The End… Touching on Today’s Tariff Policy – HUDSONPOINT Capital
• More on Revenue Tariffs Versus Protective Tariffs – Cafe Hayek
• Historical Perspectives on US Trade Policy | NBER
• Government Revenue | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
• U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES, JULY … (PDF)