A year ago, I had this to say:
The progressive left will never be able to achieve their dream of a Euro-style welfare state by taxing the rich. If you read the smarter progressives, they all know this. They understand that the US would have to add a large tax on consumption in order to get government spending up to 45% of GDP. Until now, that idea has been a complete non-starter, because of intense opposition from the GOP.
But now, Trump is proposing a big new tax on consumption, indeed a tax that is even more regressive than a VAT. He’s advocating a 10% tariff on all imports (and 60% on China.) Yes, that falls far short of a 20% VAT on goods and services. But it’s the foot in the door. The next step is when the Dems reclaim power and complain that tariffs hurt the poor because the consumption basket of the rich is skewed toward services. “Why should services be exempt?” They switch us from a 10% tariff to a 10% VAT. Then, when more money is needed, it becomes a 12% VAT. Rinse and repeat . . . we are on the way to becoming a Euro-style welfare state.
A few days ago, Noah Millman observed in the NYT that proponents of tariffs:
sometimes proclaim these as a great source of revenue, but in reality even very high tariff rates won’t do much to fill our fiscal hole because trade, while economically crucial, is still only a modest percentage of the American economy (imports of goods totaled approximately 12 percent of our G.D.P. in 2024). Furthermore, higher tariffs would reduce the volume of trade.
But tariffs are a tax on consumption, and higher taxes on consumption are almost certainly going to be part of any serious attempt to solve America’s looming fiscal crisis. Our federal tax revenues are already unusually skewed toward income taxes, which are themselves unusually progressive compared with those of other O.E.C.D. countries. The gap between American tax receipts and the O.E.C.D. average can be almost entirely accounted for by the fact that America doesn’t have a value-added tax.
Under normal circumstances, passing a VAT — a regressive tax on consumption — would be political suicide for either party. But in the context of a fiscal emergency, and with the cost partly offset by cuts to even more regressive tariffs, it just might be a plank that both parties could agree to walk together.
A recent post by Matt Yglesias shows that the rate of capital taxation in Europe isn’t much different from in the US; it is European consumption taxes that are much higher than in the US. Although tariffs are a tax on consumption, they are not a true “consumption tax“, as they also apply to investment goods. A value-added tax is a true consumption tax and is thus generally considered by economists to be more efficient than a tariff.
As time goes by, I am becoming more and more convinced that a high tariff policy will eventually lead to a big VAT, which is the sine qua non of a European-style welfare state. We are still a long way from that outcome, but the door has been cracked open and I believe that we can already see how this will play out in the long run.
READER COMMENTS
MarkW
Jul 15 2025 at 5:36pm
Maybe. But Democrats still seem firmly wedded to the idea of ‘tax the rich’, and for Republicans, a national VAT would be a non-starter, so I’m not sure I see a way, politically, to get from here to there.
Don Geddis
Jul 15 2025 at 7:27pm
You do the switch (politically) my making it revenue neutral (but more efficient): you swap the new VAT for eliminating existing tariffs. Then it’s not a “new” tax, instead it is simple a change in the style of an existing tax.
MarkW
Jul 16 2025 at 6:04pm
Yes, I get that, but Democrats have already been claiming that the tariffs are the largest tax increase in history and one that unfairly hits working Americans. I just don’t see them saying, well, you know, on second thought, a VAT will be just like the tariffs in falling heavily on the middle class BUT, hey, it’ll apply to American companies too as well as foreign ones! I think the focus group results on that message would be pretty brutal.
Robert EV
Jul 18 2025 at 2:09pm
I agree. The progressive messaging, to the extent I have paid attention, seems focused on growing wealth and income inequality (Gini index). A VAT, alone, doesn’t deal with this. I think they’d be focused on the inequality first.
David Seltzer
Jul 15 2025 at 6:28pm
Scott: “But tariffs are a tax on consumption, and higher taxes on consumption are almost certainly going to be part of any serious attempt to solve America’s looming fiscal crisis.”
Looming crisis: My real worry, the DEBT BOMB. Will bond buyers (lenders) be at risk for default or restructuring contracts? Back of the envelope calculation. In ten years US unfunded promises are about $100 Trillion. To achieve the identity NGDP = Debt, US NGDP would have to grow at nearly 12% compounded for ten years. IF NGDP grows at 3% compounded for ten years there will be $55 Trillion short fall. More taxes on consumption undermines 3% compounded growth. If there is restructuring, lenders and investors will surely demand higher yields.
Matthias
Jul 17 2025 at 8:00am
Where does ‘debt = NGDP’ come from?
David Seltzer
Jul 17 2025 at 12:38pm
I used it loosely to make a point.
Andrew_FL
Jul 15 2025 at 6:58pm
I do agree that we are going to end up with a VAT but it is not as clear to me how tariffs are leading there. I think the fiscal-political realities just point there. Americans insist on no cuts to entitlements, and the only way to raise sufficient revenue for Social Security and Medicare is going to be large, broad tax increases. So we’ll get a VAT.
Arqiduka
Jul 16 2025 at 5:14am
It’s seems to me that you guys already are a welfare state, might as well adopt the only tax that takes back with the Left hand what the right hand has given through welfare.
Alan Goldhammer
Jul 16 2025 at 7:07am
VAT is self-executing and cannot be gamed in the same manner that income taxes can. I have long been a proponent of a modest VAT in return for a simplified tax system and lower rates, especially for corporations. Some years ago Victor Fuchs and Zeke Emanuel proposed a VAT as a way of providing healthcare vouchers to everyone so they could purchase a basic insurance policy. In return, Medicare, Medicaid and corporate funded policies would go away. Individuals who wanted more coverage could purchase additional insurance on the secondary market the same way they do today under Medicare. This would be one use of a VAT that makes sense politically as it moves to a ‘government supported’ health plan but NOT a single payer. I thought it a good approach at the time and had Emanuel down to give a talk at PhRMA where I worked. More is HERE.
I would like to see more proposals for solving the budget problems rather than kicking the can down the road.
robc
Jul 16 2025 at 10:00am
Re: your last sentence
Single Land Tax and a 2/3rds cut in spending across all levels of government.
Robert EV
Jul 18 2025 at 2:25pm
I don’t like LVT. It seems that it would encourage centralization, with consequent externalities such as the ever extending rush hour.
To Alan: I’d like to see more health savings accounts, tax funded at a minimal level (but capable of being added to by the recipient), paired with catastrophic/chronic plans. To an extent this would help bust through the “not in network” effect of private insurance plans (barring HMOs), and would also encourage shopping around for better services per price point.
SK
Jul 16 2025 at 8:53am
Not likely to happen any time soon and I would prefer a tax system that taxes consumption, but not income, but too is not around the corner and far less likely than a VAT tax on top of the income tax system.
The well know issue is entitlements; the Fed Gov has become an institution that hands out entitlements(SS and Healthcare) and engages in serving past indebtedness. Americans want this while at the same time want to not pay higher taxes, probably of any kind they can see.
Not a pretty picture and no politician to push back against these views as not being consistent with each other; cannot have on going high payouts without raising taxes of some kind or another to pay for them.
Matthias
Jul 17 2025 at 7:36am
Apropos welfare state:
The US already spends more on social welfare per capita than eg France.
TY
Jul 18 2025 at 5:22pm
Funny how few seem to notice that this country had a revolution because England imposed a tax (tariff) on tea!
dmm
Jul 25 2025 at 7:48am
As I understood it in junior high school, the problem was not the tax persay, but taxation without representation.
Comments are closed.