Started By
Message
locked post

Imagine the US government’s only source of revenue being tariffs.

Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:30 am
Posted by tigereye58
Member since Jan 2007
2668 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:30 am
I’ve been trying to learn more about tariffs. In my lifetime tariffs haven’t really been a major player in US economics. I’ve been reading 2 books that have given me different levels of perspective related to taxation and tariffs.

1.) JFK and the Reagan Revolution

2.) The Forgotten Man

I found this article that has me wondering what is Trumps next move especially with the mention of a new middle class tax cut.

Did you know this?

quote:

In fact, for one long stretch, from 1817 to 1861, the tariff was the only form of federal taxation. In the other periods prior to 1913 (when the income tax was enacted), the tariff was accompanied by a small list of sales taxes, mainly on alcohol.


This is from this Forbes article LINK the author is which coauthored the first book mentioned above with Larry Kudlow, Trumps Director of his National Econimc Council.

It seems to be a strategy of putting the tax burden on the backs of those that want to do business with our vibrant nation versus the burden on the backs of the middle class. Who could disagree with that? I doubt we will see such a huge shift back to tariffs but I do think we may see more of a tariff based tax system more and more in the future. I think this is the “Trump Card” for Trumps re-election.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 10:31 am
Posted by Jack Bauers HnK
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
5714 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:41 am to
In the general sense, whatever is taxed is discouraged. Would we rather discourage people from earning income (income tax) or would we rather discourage purchasing goods from other countries (thus encouraging purchasing from other Americans?)
Posted by TaderSalad
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
24656 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:42 am to
Do you know what happened in 1913?
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260739 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:43 am to
quote:

In fact, for one long stretch, from 1817 to 1861, the tariff was the only form of federal taxation


Much different world

quote:

It seems to be a strategy of putting the tax burden on the backs of those that want to do business with our vibrant nation versus the burden on the backs of the middle class.


Who pays for tariffs?

This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 10:48 am
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:44 am to
putting the question on whether taxing trade alone is a good idea aside, this doesn't seem like a realistic way to fund the government. at all.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 10:51 am
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
95749 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:45 am to
The big issue with tariff based taxes, at least from the government’s perspective, is that it is not a reliable source of income.

It’s similar to Nevada’s budget which is balanced off sales tax and mining taxes. If tourism or mining goes into the toilet, they’re fricked.

LA has the same with oil to a degree but they have their fingers into pretty much every pie in addition to petroleum.
Posted by tigereye58
Member since Jan 2007
2668 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:46 am to
Agreed. I can see some negatives too because it may put us too dependent on the foreign economies but what if we cut the middle class tax tax down to 10% up to the first 100k and left the tariffs in place? While prices may go up the middle class has more money in their pocket to pay those costs and those jobs stay in America.
Posted by TaderSalad
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
24656 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:46 am to
quote:

doesn't seem like a realistic way to fund the government.



It is if you keep the government within a budget, and base the budget on Tariffs.

Taxation of citizens via income, property, etc to support a tax and spend government is not a realistic way to fund government.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37655 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:47 am to
Imagine this.

Imagine that there are big companies out there whose biggest client base are there own employees.

I'm talking big massive companies ... and there are more than a few.

So imagine a company whose big client base is their own employees AND the Federal Government.

There are quite a few actually.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
95749 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:48 am to
Except the government doesn’t give a shite because they get their cut and it’s pretty much guaranteed.

With tariffs, if foreigners don’t want to trade here the money doesn’t come in.

With the taxes you are talking about, the government has a captive tax base. They can’t go anywhere short of going Galt.
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:48 am to
quote:

It is if you keep the government within a budget

you might look into the size of the federal budget, and the value of total us imports
Posted by Volatile
Tennessee
Member since Apr 2014
5472 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:49 am to
I’m going to say this as nicely as I can.

This is stupid. Companies hit by tariffs raise their prices to compensate. Companies that are not affected by tariffs will also raise their prices because their competition’s prices are being manipulated by the government.

It’s a tax on foreign producers, but it’s a tax that ultimately gets passed down to the consumer... even if the consumer buys domestically.

Not even mentioning that it’s completely insufficient revenue generation by itself.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 10:51 am
Posted by LSUTIGER in TEXAS
Member since Jan 2008
13610 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:54 am to
quote:

putting the question on whether taxing trade alone is a good idea, this doesn't seem like a realistic way to fund the government. at all.
it would be plenty to fund a reasonably sized government. It’s clearly not enough to support a bloated entitlement state
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118847 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:55 am to
Many professional economists blame high tariffs on the Great Depression. I have found none of the mainstream economists that tout conventional wisdom on the reasons for the Great Depression mention income taxes.

As income taxes came on line tariffs did decrease. Before the Depression tariffs made up approximately 15% of federal tax revenue and the remaining revenue was made up by income taxes and other sources but mostly by income taxes. Prior to the 16th amendment and income taxes, tariffs made up most of the federal tax revenue. After the Depression and into 40's tariffs made up and continue to make up 1 to 2 percent of federal tax revenue.

Leading into the Depression it wasn't just tariffs that caused the Great Depression. It was the total impact of high income taxes combined with high tariffs.

Total taxes are the overarching issue.
The secondary issue is the type of tax and those fall into two broad categories, regressive taxes and progressive taxes.

I personally favor regressive taxes like the Fair Tax, sales taxes, VAT taxes and tariffs over progressive taxes like the income tax.

Regressive taxes tax consumers. Progressive taxes tax producers.
Posted by tigereye58
Member since Jan 2007
2668 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 10:56 am to
quote:

Do you know what happened in 1913?


I do. So you’re saying that the year we shifted away from tariffs our economy started its decline?

“February 3 – The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified, authorizing the Federal government to impose and collect income taxes.

April 8 – The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is passed, dictating the direct election of senators.”

LINK

Lots of things changed. Tariffs were at 40% and cut down to 25% when the income tax was reintroduced. . Imagine that.


Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 11:00 am to
quote:

it would be plenty to fund a reasonably sized government

maybe, maybe not

it doesn't approach funding ours without requiring a rate of taxation that would shut down most trade, leaving nothing to tax

sounds like the next project should obviously be to get to that level of reasonably-sized government before giving ourselves any more goodies
Posted by tigereye58
Member since Jan 2007
2668 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 11:17 am to
quote:

I’m going to say this as nicely as I can. This is stupid. Companies hit by tariffs raise their prices to compensate. Companies that are not affected by tariffs will also raise their prices because their competition’s prices are being manipulated by the government. It’s a tax on foreign producers, but it’s a tax that ultimately gets passed down to the consumer... even if the consumer buys domestically. Not even mentioning that it’s completely insufficient revenue generation by itself.


Thanks for being so nice. I’m interested in the debate and I’m trying to understand the pros and cons. Your points are good ones. But what if to compensate for that we cut the middle class tax rate down to 10%? Sure you pay more but it’s offset by paying less in taxes. I just find it odd that some are so closed minded to other options.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 11:28 am
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260739 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 11:19 am to
quote:

but it’s a tax that ultimately gets passed down to the consumer... even if the consumer buys domestically.


Posted by TaderSalad
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
24656 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 11:23 am to
Also, the establishment of the Federal Reserve/Central Banking System.
Posted by Wolfhound45
Hanging with Chicken in Lurkistan
Member since Nov 2009
120000 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 11:26 am to
And foreign entanglements during that time period?

Hmmm.

Maybe President Eisenhower was onto something.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram