Goldman has the consumer share at 55 percent by the end of the year. Then what?
Goldman Sees US Consumers Paying More Than Half of Trump Tariffs
Yahoo!Finance reports Goldman Sees US Consumers Paying More Than Half of Trump Tariffs
- US consumers will likely shoulder 55% of tariff costs by the end of the year.
- American companies pay 22%
- Foreign exporters would absorb 18% of tariff costs by cutting prices for goods,
- while 5% would be evaded
Corporate Share
For now “US businesses are likely bearing a larger share of the costs” as it takes time to raise prices, economists Elsie Peng and David Mericle wrote in the note.
Goldman’s latest report doesn’t include Trump’s most recent threat to increase levies on China to 100% and add restrictions on “critical” US software exports. “We are not assuming any changes to tariff rates on imports from China, but events in recent days suggest large risks,” the analysts wrote.
Goldman cost estimates are through the end of the year.
In 2026, I expect the corporate 22% share will increasingly fall on consumers.
Intermediate Production Use
A recent analysis from 2025 found that 51% of goods imported into the United States are intermediate goods, according to Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).
For every direct job in steel, aluminum, or copper production, there are hundreds of users of those metals.
Related Posts
February 11, 2025: Trump’s Steel Tariffs Now Will Work as Good as the First Time
Q: How’s that? A: Very poorly.
March 13, 2025: The Amazing “Success” of Trump’s 2018 Aluminum Tariffs in One Picture
I hope you can take a bit of headline sarcasm because the true story follows.
The only way costs won’t go up is if there is a recession that kills demand. And don’t rule out stagflation.
It’s not just a matter of who pays the tariff because there are other economic costs, especially small business layoffs and bankruptcies.
consumers won’t pay it, they will simply stop spending.
even the top 20% earners that spend 80% of the money now== are pulling in their reins
“We’re done spending” …….”we will wait it out now and watch what happens when we do on fox news “…echo in the hallways at the country clubs.
Believe me, I hear it everyday.
Goldman Sachs’ analysis shows that most Trump tariff costs are ultimately paid by U.S. consumers and businesses, making tariffs a hidden tax that drives up prices and impacts the whole economy. said by aswajithm.com
Having the reserve currency might be the biggest problem, but it’s too expensive to manufacture in America. Land, capital, and labor are more expensive here, taxes are too high, and we’re over-regulated. Putting tariffs on imports isn’t going to fix those problems.
having the reserve currency means you can’t be out inflated by other currencies.
trumps plan will break the euro or the euro will surrender and lower tariffs
to save the euro ,the e/u will surrender and bend- or collapse=there is no way out
(that’s the plan and why he’s doing it)
Outsourced manufacturing withdrawal.
Net positive for robots! Advanced economies advance, they do not regress. Americans do not want to work in low-value-added manufacturing. If we bring that type of manufacturing back onshore, businesses will need to leverage the most advanced technologies to automate what Americans will not do for a globally competitive wage.
Yeah, we in-source third-world labor as a strategy, but you can even see automation coming to crop harvesting.
That is precisely what we were doing by necessity. This “third world labor” was not taking jobs from native born Americans; they were doing work that native born Americans did not want to do.
Hasn’t stopped at harvesting produce. Roofers, construction work, car maintenance, factory work, etc…. Citizens will do these jobs.
Give it time! Magic thinking will not change simple math.
Sure, all the stuff that comes with automation (e.g., sensors, motors, low grade IO processing modules, etc..) come from China.
Sorry, way too late. Ain’t gonna’ happen for a large number of reasons.
Adam Rossi
@rossiadam
In 35 years we flipped the US map from manufacturing being the largest employer in most states to healthcare being the largest employer.
Absolute shit trade.
We need to flip the map back.
[maps]
5:02 AM · Oct 21, 2025 · 505.1K Views
https://x.com/rossiadam/status/1980590538886881641
A Wall Street trustee group wants to kill a new $40 million investment fund that refuses to invest in the companies who import risky H-1B visa workers to take jobs from American professionals.
Grok:
The Azoria Investment Fund, specifically its flagship Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF (ticker: SPXM), is being delisted as part of a broader decision by the Board of Trustees of Tidal Trust III to liquidate and terminate two Azoria-managed exchange-traded funds (ETFs): the SPXM and the Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF (TSLV). Trading for both will cease on the Cboe BZX Exchange on December 8, 2025, with liquidation occurring shortly after and final distributions to shareholders by mid-December. Assets will be returned pro-rata to investors, though brokerage fees may apply.
Official Reason
The trustees’ SEC filing states that the decision was made “after considering all relevant information” and is “in the best interest of each Fund and its shareholders.” Tidal Financial Group, the white-label provider facilitating the ETFs, has not publicly elaborated on specific factors, with co-founder Michael Venuto noting he was unaware of the precise rationale.
Alleged Reason and Controversy
Azoria Capital CEO James Fishback has publicly accused the trustees and regulators of politically motivated retaliation. On October 6, 2025, Azoria submitted a memorandum to Tidal requesting approval to exclude from the SPXM any S&P 500 companies that “fire and sideline American workers in favor of foreign H-1B visa holders from countries such as India and China.” Just nine days later, on October 15, the trustees voted to delist both funds. Fishback claims this timing—coupled with the funds’ modest $40 million in assets under management—indicates reprisal against Azoria’s “meritocracy” investment thesis, which prioritizes companies committed to hiring based on merit rather than visa programs he views as displacing U.S. workers.
Goldman’s economists can plausibly estimate just about anything in the future, to serve their corporate interests. Serving the truth is not in their job description.
Meanwhile, it’s been 6 months since the April tariff panic. Surely there ought to be some hard data by now. Where’s the hard data?
“where’s the hard data?”
It’s everywhere especially when you go to the grocery store, pay for insurance, or pretty much do anything that requires money. A fake inflation report will be out soon so we’ll see how badly they lie about the whole thing.
Anecdotal price changes in your personal stores might be hard on you, but are not hard data for the nation as a whole.
If Goldman had hard data that suited their purposes, they’d have used that.
Most of the hard data I’ve seen shows less than 1/3 of tariff impact borne by consumers.
I don’t care. I’m too old to buy anything. Let the young’uns pay. Besides, isn’t it the bourgeois liberals who have been forever telling everyone to consume less? LOL
Yeah, we know. Meanwhile, the British Columbia Supreme Court gave a large part of land (along with the houses on it) to a native tribe. Letters to homeowners specifically state that this “could negatively affect the title to your property” (meaning the houses Canadians bought are no longer theirs in that area).
https://www.bdplaw.com/insights/bc-supreme-courts-recent-cowichan-decision
You should read other pages about it too, because this makes Canada a big no-no for any investments (property rights are being cancelled). When you take a break from “Trump” articles, take a look at it – it’s a major event.
I wonder how many politicians are buying gold?
A listener to the show wrote saying he agreed with me that Trump doesn’t have tariff authority but he likes tariffs anyway because “Somebody Else Pays Them”. Uh, oh-kaaay.
Trump does not really care who pays tariffs. Tariffs are the low-hanging fruit of levers that Trump can use to “negotiate.” The problem is that Trump does not negotiate in good faith because, to do so, he would need to work toward a win-win outcome, which, for him, equals losing. He needs to win, and the other side needs to lose; thus, he always has to threaten and break things to achieve the result he desires.
@ Mish
Want a hoot? It’s more than a year old but still relevant (unfortunately).
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2024/02/23/ukraine-is-winning-selling-the-mendacious-official-narrative-by-every-available-channel/
Here’s what just reminded me of the older video:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/10/eu-nato-retreats-from-ukraine-is-winning-to-begging-for-a-ceasefire.html
And then there’s this:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/media-reveals-trumps-private-inversion
What’s he doing with a sword?
Those Goldman numbers sound very much mainstream. The basic point, that our president Poo@ (on Americans) doesn’t get, is that tariffs are a tax on Americans,
The basic point is that no one really knows the impact of tariffs on anything other than the U.S. Treasury.
I am seeing general inflation in services costs, but not in items that have tariffs.
I’m not convinced that the corporate share will increasingly get pushed to consumers. Corporate profit margins are extremely elevated. 22% doesn’t seem like an especially large hit in that environment given consumers would already be paying more than half.
Hmm, since when have our benevolent corporate ever not eventually passed the costs on?
Its how they have profits-sell it for more than what it costs.
Their bonuses are not based on how much they saved for the consumer.
Pricing is not based on benevolence. Its based on supply and demand. If there weren’t limits on their ability to set prices you’d already be paying $800 for a candy bar, not that uncle sugar’s printing press isn’t trying to get us there.
Nobody limits big candy from setting the price at $800. They are free to do so. If I am factually erroneous you will be able to name the limiting entity and existing law preventing them from doing it. Everyone here knows the basics of supply and demand, hopefully you were not just being pedantic.
Sincerely,
Milton Friedman
I think that this means that ultimately US consumers will pay 77%, if you subscribe to the idea that “corporations (or American companies) do not pay taxes, consumers do” that is often stated about corporate tax rates.
WTH?
Corporations pay about 10% of all federal taxes. In addition, they pay ~6.4% of the payroll taxes that make up 30% of all taxes paid. So corporations pay about 15% of all taxes paid to the federal government.
Now is the enough & how much of tariffs they’ll be paying in 2026 are entirely different matters. It’s interesting that the article doesn’t include data about how Goldman determined the different tariffs absorption rates.
FYI – corporate profits are humming along at $3.3T, so they’ve got a lot of room to absorb tariffs, since there’s no guarantee that a very stretched consumer can absorb 55% or more.
If you think about it payroll taxes are taxes on the employee paid by the worker. They are collected by the company.
The consumer does. Simply put, this is just a value-added tax at the federal level.
They exist around the world; Canada GST = 5%; UK VAT is 20%; Australia GST = 10%; Japan Consumption Tax = 8% etc etc. They exist at the state level with Louisiana at the highest rate of 12% in some places.
Trump could not tell the country he was going to collect a value-added tax to everything. Hence the almighty ‘Tariff’ with the rhetorical illusion that it would be paid by the people selling these items, not the people buying them. Absolute horseshit.
One huge difference between the USA and they other countries mentioned.
Canada, the UK, Japan, and Australia all have state-sponsored, universal healthcare systems that are primarily funded through taxes, though some private options exist. It’s often referred to as “free” at the point of service, but it’s paid for through taxes rather than direct user fees, and coverage specifics vary by country and service.
The taxes collected actually make the life of all citizens better, not so in the USA.
Whenever someone says “simply put” about anything involving human behavior in economics, I start laughing out loud.
Simply put, tariffs are a tax on imported goods. Nothing beyond that can be simply put because it depends on supply and demand, competitive positioning, logistics, profitability, and whether or not the CEO is capable of thinking beyond “simply put” nonsense…
The last president caused prices to soar, the current president is causing prices to soar, and the next president will cause prices to soar. The only question should be how much.
Nobody is working for you or me. Policicians work for their own special interests.
Politicians work for their constituents, CORPORATIONS and the 1% rich elites. Wake up America how stupid are we to allow 1% of the population control the other 99%?
You misspelled “Politicians typically disrespect their constituents”
I’m ready. I stocked up on imported stuff for a year now. My mortgage is paid, car paid off. I’m ready to buckle down. I’m microscopic, but this is not a good portent for the economy. Will the tax cuts inspire enough trickle-down effect to shower wealth on us all? I would think anyone smart and wealthy might consider buckling down too. With asset prices prone to go all over the place with all this tinkering and foolishness, with he dollar and financial system and markets, it would pay to diversify.
The last three people I have spoken to have all complained about high prices everywhere but especially grocery stores.
And then the trade insurers expect bankruptcies to rise 9% due to tariffs.
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/global-insolvencies-to-peak-in-2026-amid-trade-shifts–allianz-553700.aspx
Hey Trumpers, please tell us when the golden age is supposed to start…
And it looks like Trump is throwing US ranchers under the bus by buying Argentina beef over US beef. Make Argentina Great Again!
It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans favored free trade and Democrats wanted tariffs in ill-considered gambits to protect US industry. Not that long ago at all…
They also supported freedom, peace and prosperity,
Now? Republicans support infinite debt, war and corporate fascism.
freedom, peace and prosperity? bush crime family? i don’t think the repugs have wanted that stuff since Ike. and even he flipped persian election and helped install the shah of iran, a brutal dictator.
It was always about “freedom and democracy”. There was never a mention of “peace and prosperity”. Must be the Mandela effect.
good point. the repugs and dimwits are both warmongering nuts. we are just a crumbling world wide imperial war monger now.
funny how we are an empire which the people all vote for. quite exceptional in relation to the soviets, spanish…..roman empires.
Where did Frosty name the Bushes?
The odd thing is that neither the traditional republican nor democrat party exist anymore. We now have two Frankenstein political parties that serve themselves and extremists at the margins.
It makes me wonder what both will be in 2030. Looks like the socialist in New York is way ahead and people are terrified. Maybe they should have let Bernie win the nomination because now they have someone far left of Bernie.
The system grows unstable. Our elections are frequent enough to set up a wild oscillation from one extreme to the other. Other nations have figured out this means we have no credibility, as there is no durable center to maintain it. Promises on both sides will surely be torn up, as fragile as executive orders.
I suspect the only difference between Mandhani and Bernie is that Bernie is practical enough to not express some of his more radical views out loud.
Hate those radical views like universal healthcare, like already exist in almost all industrial countries.
Eliminate the gerrymandering of “safe” districts and all of this goes away.
Currently most politicians only need to cater to their primary-voting extremists in order to get re-elected. Once they win the primary, they’re in no danger from the other party in the general election.
So, eliminate the “safe” districts and force politicians to go back to appealing to centrist voters in order to win competitive general elections. You’ll end up with a different crop of leaders with a much different attitude.
This is no different from other cases of “monopoly power needs to be broken up”.