Connect with us

Personal Finance

A sports stadium boom is coming to America. Is that a good thing?

Published

on

In recent months, a tug of war over professional sports unleashed untold sturm und/or drang upon our nation’s capital. But the end result of all that sound and fury?

(Well, nothing but the transfer of a half-billion dollars from D.C. to a dot-com billionaire. But more on that later.)

After all that noise, Washington’s Capitals and Wizards will stay put in Capital One Arena in downtown D.C. Owner Ted Leonsis will not move to a spanking new facility in Northern Virginia.

That got us thinking: Is it just us, or are fewer stadiums and arenas getting built these days?

We ran the numbers. Only six major sports facilities opened in North America from 2020 to 2024 (including the $1.15 billion renovation of Seattle Kraken’s Climate Pledge Arena, the one case of an overhaul so complete we counted it as a new facility). It’s perhaps the steepest stadium slump we’ve seen since the baby boom.


Construction of stadiums and

arenas hit lull after 2005

Sports facilities built in five-year periods

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Stadium and arena construction hit lull after 2005

Sports facilities built in five-year periods

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Construction of stadiums and arenas

hit lull after 2005

Sports facilities built in five-year periods

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

What gives? Do sports teams already have all the space they need? Have taxpayers grown reluctant to finance these monuments to the vanity of billionaire owners?

We called economist J.C. Bradbury, who helped build a database of all 220 major sports facilities constructed in North America since 1909, updating the data that Judith Grant Long gathered for her 2014 book. Billionaire owners aren’t always forthcoming, so they often base their work on “ballpark” estimates from press accounts and other public sources.

“It’s purposefully, in my opinion, obfuscated from taxpayers,” especially in more controversial cases, said Long, a professor of sports management and urban planning at the University of Michigan who first assembled the data for her PhD dissertation in the early 2000s.

Bradbury, who updated Long’s data from his perch at Kennesaw State University, outlined two great waves of sports construction. The first hit in the 1960s as television brought sports to the masses, revenue rose and newly expansionist leagues sprawled across the country.

Those first “super stadiums” were cavernous concrete buckets meant be filled with multiple sports and events — think Houston’s Astrodome or RFK Stadium in the District. Many were built with public funds and envisioned as public resources.

The second wave hit in the late 1990s: An incredible 56 facilities rose from 1995 to 2004 as owners realized they could tap into fresh fire hydrants of money by swapping their generic sports buckets — most still perfectly functional — for venues tailored to specific sports and larded with restaurants, clubs and luxury suites.

The cost to build those sports spaces more than doubled during that second surge of construction even after adjusting for inflation, from a median of $190 million in the 1980s to around $480 million in the 2000s.


Sports facility costs grew

faster than public subsidies

Median cost for stadiums opening each

decade, in 2020 dollars

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST

Sports facility costs grew faster than public subsidies

Median cost for stadiums opening each decade, in 2020 dollars

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST

Sports facility costs grew faster than

public subsidies

Median cost for stadiums opening each decade,

in 2020 dollars

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST

Costs have tripled since the 2010s as facilities become more opulent. Much of that increase has fallen on team owners. But the median public subsidy for an arena or stadium has also grown steadily, from $122 million in the 1980s to $500 million since 2020.

What is the public actually paying for? For the answer, we turned to Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado Denver economist who dredged up more than 100 lease agreements for his book, “Major League Sports and the Property Tax.” Propheter said today’s sports team leases are “complex legal artifacts” with hundreds of pages detailing byzantine financial arrangements that somehow always manage to lower owners’ operating costs and/or their tax burdens.

If you were working on one of these deals, your first move might be to take a chunk out of your property tax bill by giving the dirt under the stadium to the local government, making it — voilà! — untaxed public land. In some places, you would still owe property taxes on the building above the land and on the value of your temporary possession of the land over the term of your lease. But maybe not! Lawmakers might exempt you entirely or count your property tax payments as credit toward rent.

You might even give the building to the local government as soon as the lease is up, when its most profitable days are behind it, leaving taxpayers with “a giant paperweight,” Propheter told us. “Now they’ve got to do something with this pile of concrete and steel,” especially if the lease includes a noncompete clause with a new arena or stadium — and that something might be demolition.

Propheter’s data shows sports team leases, like bell-bottom pants and confused cicadas, are on a roughly 30-year cycle with nearly three-quarters lasting between 25 and 40 years. Since the last sports building boom started around 1995, we could be staring down the barrel of another construction wave: The leases of about 44 teams across four different leagues will expire in the next decade.


More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years

Sports facility leases for active major league teams in the U.S.

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Lease ends

between

‘25 and ’34

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities

or privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

More than half of NFL leases ending

over next 10 years

Sports facility leases for U.S. major league teams

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Lease ends

between

‘25 and ’34

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or

privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years

Sports facility leases for active U.S. major league teams

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Leases ending

between 2025

and 2034

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years

Sports facility leases for active U.S. major league teams

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Leases ending between

2025 and 2034

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

If the majority of those team owners get new facilities, it could produce one of the greatest stadium-construction frenzies in modern history, easily surpassing the Y2K era in sheer dollar terms. Even renovations can have a stunning price tag: The overhaul of Capital One Arena — built for $200 million in 1997 (about $385 million in today’s dollars) — is set to receive a $515 million infusion from D.C. on top of the more than $200 million Leonsis has paid to upgrade the arena since 2014.

You might wonder: Do we need new stadiums? Is something wrong with today’s ballparks?

Not really, unless you consider not raking in as much money as humanly possible to be a defect.

A new stadium ignites what economists call the novelty effect, as interest in the new digs enables owners to crank up ticket prices. Revenue soars in the first few years and remains higher than normal for a decade. A new stadium also lets you copy all the profit-making mechanisms your competitors invented in the decades since you last built a facility, such as spendy dining options and luxury suites with wall-consuming televisions.

The latest trend seems to be sprawling mixed-use developments that promise to create urban entertainment hubs, such as the Battery Atlanta around Georgia’s Truist Park. According to Long, owners are using venue construction “as a Trojan horse … to control larger swaths of land.” By unlocking powerful real estate development tools, a new stadium allows a team owner to create a broader development that captures even more revenue — which, in this case, once went to ordinary barkeeps and restaurant owners hoping to serve the game-day crowds.

“This is often pitched as additional economic development impact,” said Nathan Jensen, a University of Texas at Austin subsidy expert and technically an NFL owner: He grew up in Wisconsin and owns a single share of the Green Bay Packers. But as a result, “people going out for a beer before a game are captured by the developer and are subsidized.”

We may be seeing basic economics at work. New stadiums typically enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives from local governments. And when you subsidize something, you get more of it, whether you want it or not. Propheter has found that subsidized facilities also tend to be more opulent than their private peers.

Are those subsidies a wise economic investment? Reams of research show that new sports venues don’t generally create promised economic booms. A massive analysis of 42 years of professional sports teams and facilities found that the overall sports environment had an impact on wages — but, uh, not always a positive one. Data on employment and sales found similar results. For example, restaurants and bars near Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City benefited from their new neighbor, but others — including nearby entertainment businesses — suffered.

The reality is that money spent on sports doesn’t come out of thin air. It is money that fans might have spent elsewhere. Arenas and stadiums can revitalize a neighborhood by pulling spending from other parts of town, but that’s different from creating new economic activity. While every ownership group argues that their new facility will rejuvenate half the city and make a profit for taxpayers, research shows that sports subsidies simply do not generate the kind of economic benefits they promise to the public.

According to Long, predictions about job creation and sales tax revenue tend to come from the same handful of consultants reusing the same methods that have been inaccurate in the past. On top of that, teams often lowball their estimates of construction costs by covering only part of the true public price tag, leaving out unsexy essentials like sanitation services or transportation infrastructure.

Operating expenses add another wrinkle. Consider Barclays Center in Brooklyn, whose financials our new hero Propheter went through with a fine-toothed comb. Its developer, Forest City Ratner, predicted the arena would make a profit of about $35 million annually. In its first three years, revenue actually beat expectations. But Forest City Ratner’s forecasts dramatically underestimated the arena’s operating and debt-servicing costs, which were about twice as high as expected, driving profits down from $35 million to a maximum of $6 million per year.


Expenses exceeded forecasts

at Barclays Center

Expenses include operating expenses and

debt servicing

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Expenses far exceeded forecasts at Barclays Center

Expenses include operating expenses and debt servicing

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Expenses exceeded forecasts at Barclays Center

Expenses include operating expenses and debt servicing

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

So why do local officials keep shoveling out money for new stadiums and arenas? It’s partly that sports owners threaten to leave, as Leonsis did late last year, but it’s not just that. Teams have been known to get new facilities without another suitor waiting in the wings.

Data can’t really help here, but according to Bradbury, powerful people may just like sports.

“Politicians love two things: jocks and movie stars,” he told us. And it’s bipartisan: “Democrat and Republican can both agree, ‘We’ve got to have a stadium.’”

Hello there, Data Hive! The Department of Data craves questions. What are you curious about: How have major cities skylines changed over the decades? What are Wall Street’s biggest investors? How did our spending change after the coronavirus pandemic? Just ask!

If your question inspires a column, we’ll send you an official Department of Data button and ID card. This week’s button goes to Nathan Cutler in San Salvador, who asked about the economic impact of stadiums on neighborhoods.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Federal Reserve cuts rates after election. What that means for you

Published

on

The Federal Reserve Building in Washington, D.C.

Joshua Roberts | Reuters

The Federal Reserve announced it will lower its benchmark rate by a quarter point, or 25 basis points, days after President-elect Donald Trump won the 2024 election.

Economic uncertainty was a prevailing mood heading into Election Day after a prolonged period of high inflation left many Americans struggling to afford the cost of living.

But recent economic data indicates that inflation is falling back toward the Fed’s 2% target, which paved the way for the central bank to trim rates this fall. Thursday’s cut is the second, following a half point reduction on Sept. 18.

The federal funds rate sets overnight borrowing costs for banks but also influences consumer borrowing costs.

More from Personal Finance:
28% of credit card users are paying off last year’s holiday debt
Holiday shoppers plan to spend more while taking on debt
2 in 5 cardholders have maxed out a credit card or come close

Since the central bank last met, the personal consumption expenditures price index — the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge — showed a rise of just 2.1% year over year

Even though the central bank operates independently of the White House, Trump has been lobbying for the Fed to bring rates down.

For consumers struggling under the weight of high borrowing costs after a string of 11 rate increases between March 2022 and July 2023, this move comes as good news — although it may still be a while before lower rates noticeably impact household budgets.

“The Fed raised rates from the equivalent of the ground floor to the 53rd floor of a skyscraper, now they are on the 47th floor and another rate cut will take us to the 45th floor — the view is not a whole lot different,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

From credit cards and mortgage rates to auto loans and savings accounts, here’s a look at how a Fed rate cut could begin to impact your finances in the months ahead.

Credit cards

Since most credit cards have a variable rate, there’s a direct connection to the Fed’s benchmark. Because of the central bank’s rate hike cycle, the average credit card rate rose from 16.34% in March 2022 to more than 20% today — near an all-time high.

Annual percentage rates have already started to come down with the Fed’s first rate cut, but not by much.

“Still, these are sky-high rates,” said Matt Schulz, LendingTree’s credit analyst. “While they’ll almost certainly continue to fall in coming months, no one should expect dramatically reduced credit card bills anytime soon.”

Rather than wait for small APR adjustments in the months ahead, the best move for those with credit card debt is to shop around for a better rate, ask your issuer for a lower rate on your current card or snag to a 0% balance transfer offer, he said.

“Another rate cut doesn’t change the fact that the best thing people can do to lower interest rates is to take matters into their own hands.”

On the campaign trail, Trump proposed capping credit card interest rates at 10%, but that type of measure would also have to get through Congress and survive challenges from the banking industry.

Auto loans

Even though auto loans are fixed, higher vehicle prices and high borrowing costs have become “increasingly difficult to manage,” according to Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds’ head of insights.

“Amid this economic strain, it’s clear that President Trump’s promises of financial relief resonated with voters across the country,” she said.

The average rate on a five-year new car loan is now around 7%, up from 4% when the Fed started raising rates, according to Edmunds. However, rate cuts from the Fed will take some of the edge off the rising cost of financing a car — likely bringing rates below 7% — helped in part by competition between lenders and more incentives in the market.

“As Americans seek a reprieve from the relentless pressures on their wallets, even a modest federal rate cut would be seen as a positive step in the right direction,” Caldwell said.

Trump has supported making the interest paid on car loans fully tax deductible, which would also have to go through Congress.

Mortgage rates

Housing affordability has been a major issue due in part to a sharp rise in mortgage rates since the pandemic.

Trump has said he’ll bring down mortgage rates — even though 15- and 30-year mortgage rates are fixed, and tied to Treasury yields and the economy. Trump’s victory even spurred a rise in in the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield, sending mortgage rates higher.

Cuts in the Fed’s target interest rate could, however, provide some downward pressure.

“Continued rate cuts could begin to drive down mortgage rates which have remained stubbornly high,” said Michele Raneri, vice president of U.S. research and consulting at TransUnion. As of the week ending Nov. 1, the average rate for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage is 6.81%, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Mortgage rates are unlikely to fall significantly, given the current climate, explained Jacob Channel, senior economist at LendingTree.

“As long as investors remain worried about what the future may bring, Treasury yields, and, by extension, mortgage rates are going to have a tough time falling and staying down,” Channel said.

Student loans

Student loan borrowers will get less relief from rate cuts. Federal student loan rates are fixed, so most borrowers won’t be immediately affected. (Efforts to forgive student debt are now likely off the table.)

However, if you have a private loan, those loans may be fixed or have a variable rate tied to the Treasury bill or other rates. As the Fed cuts interest rates, the rates on those private student loans will come down over a one- or three-month period, depending on the benchmark, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

Still, a quarter-point cut will only cut monthly payments on variable-rate loans by “about $1 to $1.25 a month for each $10,000 in debt,” Kantrowitz calculated.

Eventually, borrowers with existing variable-rate private student loans may be able to refinance into a less expensive fixed-rate loan, he said. But refinancing a federal loan into a private student loan will forgo the safety nets that come with federal loans, such as deferments, forbearances, income-driven repayment and loan forgiveness and discharge options.

Additionally, extending the term of the loan means you ultimately will pay more interest on the balance.

Savings rates

While the central bank has no direct influence on deposit rates, the yields tend to be correlated to changes in the target federal funds rate.

As a result of Fed rate hikes, top-yielding online savings account rates have made significant moves and are still paying more than 5% — the most savers have been able to earn in nearly two decades — up from around 1% in 2022, according to Bankrate.

“Yes, interest earnings on savings accounts, money markets, and certificates of deposit will come down, but the most competitive yields still handily outpace inflation,” McBride said.

One-year CDs are now averaging 1.76% but top-yielding CD rates pay more than 4.5%, according to Bankrate, nearly as good as a high-yield savings account.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Is the ‘vibecession’ here to stay? Here’s what experts say

Published

on

How investors are viewing global uncertainty this election year

Some consumers have been weighed down by a “vibecession” for a while now — and those feelings might get worse, experts say.

A “vibecession” is the disconnect between consumer sentiment and economic data, said Kyla Scanlon, who coined the term in 2022. Scanlon is the author of “In This Economy? How Money and Markets Really Work.”

“It’s this idea that economic data is telling us one story and consumer sentiment is telling us another,” she tells CNBC.

Nearly half, 45%, of voters say they are financially worse off now than they were four years ago, and the highest rate since 2008, according to NBC Exit Poll data.

Yet economic metrics show the economy is booming. Inflation, while it’s still a burden for consumers, has slowed down significantly. While some warning signs have popped up in the job market, to some degree conditions are normalizing from the red-hot market of a few years ago.

“The economy is so extraordinarily personal, and people really hate inflation,” said Scanlon. “That’s what we saw in this presidential election.”

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential election prompts some Americans to ‘doom spend’
The next president could face a tax battle in 2025 — what it means for investors
Why voters ages 50 and up may decide the 2024 presidential election

Even if the economy stays on track, Americans will likely continue to feel a “vibecession,” experts say.

The vibes might actually get worse, depending on what policies President-elect Donald Trump enacts, said Jacob Channel, senior economist at LendingTree. High-rate tariffs on imported goods will likely wipe out progress made to reduce inflation.

“If Donald Trump as president enacts the economic policies that he proposed as a candidate, we’re not only going to have a vibecession, we’re going to have a real recession,” Channel said.

Inflation and the labor market

Inflation, or the rate at which prices for goods and service increase over time, has come down — which means prices are still rising, but at a slower pace. Prices overall remain high, said Brett House, economics professor at Columbia Business School.

“Americans’ lingering frustration with the economy and their personal circumstances appears rooted in the persistently high prices that remain post-pandemic,” he said. “This makes for daily sticker shocks when buying groceries, getting a burger, paying rent and filling up the car.”

The consumer price index, a gauge measuring the costs of goods and services in the U.S., grew to a seasonally adjusted 0.2% in September, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the Federal Reserve is still concerned about inflation, “we’re seeing these signs of weakness in the labor market,” Scanlon said.

The quits rate was 3.1 million in September, a 1.9% decrease from a month before, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. There’s also a slowdown in hiring. The economy only added 12,000 jobs in October, the BLS reported. That’s less than the forecast of 100,000 increase and lower than the 223,000 jobs added in September.

To be sure, “a lot of this is just simply normalization after the distortions that occurred after the COVID shutdowns,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst.

Additionally, the unemployment rate continues to hold steady at 4.1% and wage growth is up 4% from a year prior. “This suggests that the labor market remains firm despite signs of weakening,” J.P. Morgan noted.

‘What the bond market is telling us’

The stock market rallied after the presidential election results. Just before close on Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had surged more than 1,500 points to a record high. The S&P 500 also popped more than 2%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite jumped 2.9% — both to record highs.

U.S. bond yields also rose. The 10-year Treasury yield jumped 15 basis points on Wednesday closing to trade at 4.43%, hitting its highest level since July, as investors bet a Trump presidency would increase economic growth, along with fiscal spending.

The yield on the 2-year Treasury was up by 0.073 basis points to 4.276%, reaching its highest level since July 31.

That could be a warning sign, Scanlon said: “I don’t think the inflation story is over yet. That’s what the bond market is telling us.”

Depending on what policies are enacted under Trump’s second term, the inflation problem might get worse, experts say.

“When we see treasury yields rising [and] the possibility of another $7 [trillion] to $10 trillion added to federal debt, those are not anti-inflationary moves, nor are mass deportations,” Hamrick said.

Trump has proposed a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports across the board, as well as a rate between 60% and 100% for goods from China. Such moves “will be inflationary,” Scanlon said. On top of that, his fiscal plan could potentially add $7.75 trillion in spending through fiscal year 2035, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

“Who knows what will actually get passed from this fiscal plan, but massive tax cuts and tariffs … it’s expensive, and the bond market’s telling us that,” she said.

‘Vibecessions’ going forward

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a recession is “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months.” The last time this occurred was in the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

However, it doesn’t necessarily take for these conditions to take place for consumers to feel negative about the economy. It can be “very difficult to square” what people are feeling in their everyday lives versus national averages and medians, experts say.

“There’s still going to be that continued disconnect between how people feel and what the economy is doing,” Scanlon said.

To that point, “the vibecession will endure,” Channel said.

And if consumers end up having to deal with extra costs associated with tariffs every time they go to the grocery store, “the vibes might actually start to get a whole heck of a lot worse,” Channel added.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Here’s what President-elect Trump’s tariff plan may mean for your wallet

Published

on

Donald Trump speaks at a rally on Nov. 5, 2024 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Scott Olson | Getty Images News | Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump won Tuesday’s presidential election partly by addressing Americans’ economic anxieties over higher prices.

Nearly half of all voters said they were worse off financially than they were four years ago, the highest level in any election since 2008, according to an NBC News exit poll.

But a cornerstone of Trump’s economic policy — sweeping new tariffs on imported goods — would likely exacerbate the very Biden-era inflation Trump lambasted on the campaign trail, according to economists.  

There’s still much uncertainty around how and when such tariffs might be implemented. If they were to take effect, they would likely raise prices for American consumers and disproportionately hurt lower earners, economists said.

The typical U.S. household would pay several thousand more dollars each year on clothing, furniture, appliances and other goods, estimates suggest.

Trump tariffs would have 'staggering' impact on consumer prices, says NRF CEO Matt Shay

“It’s bad for consumers,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “It’s a tax on consumers in the form of higher prices for imported goods.”

“It’s inflationary,” he added.

He and other economists predict the proposed tariffs would also lead to job loss and slower economic growth, on a net basis.

The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC on the impact of tariffs or their scope.

How Trump’s tariff proposal might work

A tariff is a tax placed on imported goods.

Tariffs have been around for centuries. However, their importance as a source of government revenue has declined, especially among wealthy nations, according to Monica Morlacco, an international trade expert and assistant professor of economics at the University of Southern California.

Now, the U.S. largely uses tariffs as a protectionist policy to shield certain industries from foreign competition, according to the Brookings Institution, a think tank.

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential election prompts Americans to ‘doom spend’
Next U.S. president could face a tax battle in 2025
How the ‘vibecession’ influences investors

Trump imposed some tariffs in his first term — on washing machines, solar panels, steel, aluminum and a range of Chinese goods, for example. The Biden administration kept many of those intact.

However, Trump’s proposals from the campaign trail are much broader, economists said.

He has floated a 10% or 20% universal tariff on all imports and a tariff of at least 60% on Chinese goods, for example. Last month, the president-elect suggested vehicles from Mexico have a tariff of 200% or more, and in September threatened to impose a similar amount on John Deere if the company were to shift some production from the U.S. to Mexico.

“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff,'” Trump said at the Chicago Economic Club in October. “It’s my favorite word. It needs a public relations firm.”

China is very 'concerned' about the rhetoric around tariffs, says Longview's Dewardric McNeal

How much tariffs cost consumers

A 20% worldwide tariff and a 60% levy on Chinese goods would raise costs by $3,000 in 2025 for the average U.S. household, according to an October analysis by the Tax Policy Center. Trump’s plan would reduce average after-tax incomes by almost 3%, according to the tax think tank.

Additionally, a 200% Mexico-vehicle tariff would increase household costs by an average $600, TPC said.

American consumers would lose $46 billion to $78 billion a year in spending power on apparel, toys, furniture, household appliances, footwear and travel goods, according to a National Retail Federation analysis published Monday.

“I feel pretty confident saying [tariffs] are a price-raising policy,” said Mike Pugliese, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “The question is just the magnitude.”

The reason for these higher costs: Tariffs are paid by U.S. companies that import goods. The “vast majority” of that additional cost is passed on to American consumers, while only some of it is paid for by U.S. distributors and retailers or by foreign producers, said Zandi of Moody’s.

Philip Daniele, president and CEO of AutoZone, alluded to this dynamic in a recent earnings call.

“If we get tariffs, we will pass those tariff costs back to the consumer,” Daniele said in September.

The U.S. imported about $3.2 trillion of goods in 2022, for example, said Olivia Cross, a North America economist at Capital Economics. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests a 10% across-the-board tariff would be roughly equivalent to a $320 billion tax on consumers, Cross said.

Tariffs reduce economic growth and jobs

Of course, the financial fallout likely wouldn’t be quite that large, Cross said.

Trump’s plan could boost the strength of the U.S. dollar, and there may also be tariff exemptions for certain categories of goods or imports from certain countries, all of which would likely blunt the overall impact, Cross said.

'No argument' for Trump tariffs on Mexico, says Harvard's Jason Furman

A 20% universal tariff and 60% Chinese import tax would also generate about $4.5 trillion in net new revenue for the federal government over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

“The administration could take tariff revenue and redistribute to households via tax cuts in some form or another,” explained Pugliese of Wells Fargo.

Trump has proposed various tax breaks on the campaign trail. Additionally, tax cuts enacted by Trump in 2017 are due to expire next year, and tariff revenue may potentially be used to extend them, should Congress pass such legislation, economists said.

However, the typical U.S. household would still lose $2,600 a year from Trump’s tariff plan, even after accounting for an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, according to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Here's what's at stake for global trade & tariffs this election

The U.S. economy would also likely suffer due to other tariff “cross currents,” Zandi said.

While U.S. companies that financially benefit from protectionist tariff policies may add jobs, the total economy would likely shed jobs on a net basis, Zandi said.

This is because countries on which the U.S. imposes tariffs would likely retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. exports, hurting the bottom lines of domestic businesses that export goods, for example, Zandi said.

Higher prices for imported goods would likely also lead to lower consumer demand, weighing on business profits and perhaps leading to layoffs, he said.

In June, the Tax Foundation estimated Trump’s tariff plan would shrink U.S. employment by 684,000 full-time jobs and reduce its gross domestic product, a measure of economic output, by at least 0.8%.

Capital Economics expects the Trump administration would introduce tariffs — and a curb on immigration — in the second quarter of next year, the group said in a note Tuesday night. Together, those policies would cut Gross Domestic Product growth by about 1% from the second half of 2025 through the first half of 2026 and add 1 percentage point to inflation, it said.

Continue Reading

Trending