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.

“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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made a notable promise to retirees: No taxes on Social Security benefits.

Now that Trump has won a second presidential term, that may prompt Social Security’s beneficiaries to wonder whether that change may come to pass.

But nixing those taxes may be a difficult task, even if Trump has a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Any changes to Social Security would require at least 60 Senate votes, and Republicans would therefore need some Democratic support to pass those changes.

Just eliminating taxes on benefits, without any other changes to make up for that loss in revenues, would worsen the program’s current funding woes, experts say.

“It’s hard for me to imagine that Democrats would be willing to provide votes to get over that 60-vote threshold and weaken Social Security solvency,” said Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who has also served as a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare.

“I think a lot of Republicans would have heartburn about it, too,” he said.

More from Personal Finance:
Presidential election is prompting some Americans to ‘doom spend’
What top advisors tell investors about the markets during elections
How the ‘vibecession’ is influencing investors this election year

Ending taxes on Social Security benefits — along with other Trump proposals to end taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs and deport immigrants — would “dramatically worsen” Social Security’s finances, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found in a recent report.

The Trump campaign has pushed back on those findings, calling the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget “consistently wrong” in a statement to CNBC when the report was released.

The campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday, about where the proposal stands on Trump’s priority list following his inauguration.

The Social Security trust fund used to help pay retirement benefits is projected to run out in 2033, according to the program’s actuaries. At that time, beneficiaries could see across-the-board benefit cuts, though the president may have the ability to determine how those reductions are distributed among beneficiaries, according to recent research.

Households with between $63,000 and $200,000 in income would benefit most from the change, according to an August analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Lower income households making $32,000 or less would not get a tax cut, as most of their Social Security benefits are not currently taxed. Meanwhile, those with between $32,000 and $60,000 in annual income may see about $90 in tax cuts, according to the research.

“You’re giving a tax break to the higher-income senior population, so that might wind up mitigating its political sale ability as well,” Blahous said.

Currently, up to 85% of Social Security benefits may be taxed based on an individual’s or married couple’s income. Those taxes are determined based on a formula called combined income, or the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits.

Individuals face up to 85% in taxes on their benefits if they have more than $34,000 in combined income; for married couples that applies if their combined income is more than $44,000.

Individual beneficiaries may pay taxes on up to 50% of their benefits on combined income between $25,000 and $34,000, or for married couples with between $32,000 and $44,000.

Because those thresholds are not adjusted, more Social Security benefit income becomes subject to income taxes over time.

For now, financial advisors say it is too early to factor in the elimination of taxes on benefits into financial plans.

“You don’t know what the law or policy is going to be if it hasn’t even been properly drafted yet, much less adopted,” said David Haas, a certified financial planner and owner of Cereus Financial Advisors in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

“I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions,” he said.

After a spouse dies, some retirees face a costly surprise — higher taxes.

Couples, however, can reduce the burden with early planning, financial experts say.

The shift from married filing jointly to single on future tax returns can trigger a “survivor’s penalty,” depending on whether your income changes.

“Not only does a surviving spouse face potential higher taxes in the single bracket, but it may also increase their Medicare Part B and D premiums,” said certified financial planner Judy Brown, a principal at SC&H Wealth Advisors, which is based in the Washington, D.C., and Baltimore metropolitan areas.

For the year of death, a survivor can file “married filing jointly” with their deceased spouse, unless they remarry before the end of the tax year.

After that, older survivors typically use the “single” filing status, which may have higher tax rates, with narrower tax brackets and a smaller standard deduction.

The brackets use “taxable income,” which you calculate by subtracting the greater of the standard or itemized deductions from your adjusted gross income.

For 2024, the standard deduction for married couples is $29,200, but single filers can only claim $14,600. The IRS recently unveiled higher tax brackets and standard deductions for 2025.

With these differences in mind, here are some ways to reduce taxes for surviving spouses, according to advisors.

The survivor’s penalty affects American women more often than men, because women are more likely to outlive male spouses. In 2022, there was a 5.4-year life expectancy gap between U.S. sexes, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

You can do this by taking withdrawals from pretax retirement accounts earlier or leveraging Roth IRA conversions to “strategically fill up lower tax brackets” in those lower-earning years, he said.

However, increasing your income can cause other tax consequences, such as higher taxes on Social Security, capital gains and more.