What exactly are tariffs, and are they constitutional?

[ClayTrainor]

I understand that tariffs are a form of tax on import / export goods, is there to them, than this basic definition?


Do you feel that tariffs are a good thing, and are constitutional? why?


Just trying to increase my understanding on certain topics, and im getting more and more confused when i research. These forums have a tendency to explain things much simpler to me. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

I understand that tariffs are a form of tax on import / export goods, is there to them, than this basic definition?


Do you feel that tariffs are a good thing, and are constitutional? why?


Just trying to increase my understanding on certain topics, and im getting more and more confused when i research. These forums have a tendency to explain things much simpler to me. :cool:

Constitutional, yes (aricle 1, section 8). Ued wisely? No.

[sratiug]

I understand that tariffs are a form of tax on import / export goods, is there to them, than this basic definition?


Do you feel that tariffs are a good thing, and are constitutional? why?


Just trying to increase my understanding on certain topics, and im getting more and more confused when i research. These forums have a tendency to explain things much simpler to me. :cool:

Import tariffs are allowed under Article I section 8 as Duties and Imposts.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Which should be amended to make tariffs a flat rate for all goods so no lobbying for specific industries would be productive.

Export taxes are forbidden in section 9


No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Jefferson and I argue that the best tax to run the federal government is the import tariff. His argument is it is the least intrusive tax.

Mine is that any other tax, by virtue of not being shared by foreign producers, is in effect a subsidy on foreign production. Internal taxes inhibit free trade more than tariffs because of this reason.

I support a constitutional amendment to gradually replace the income tax and all other federal taxes with a flat tariff automatically moved up until it pays for the entire federal government. I believe all true Americans would support this amendment if phazed in over a period of 10 years or so, giving everyone time to adjust (and time to cut government spending).

[heavenlyboy34]

i support a constitutional amendment to gradually replace the income tax and all other federal taxes with a flat tariff automatically moved up until it pays for the entire federal government. I believe all true americans would support this amendment if phazed in over a period of 10 years or so, giving everyone time to adjust (and time to cut government spending).

+1776

[Zippyjuan]

Tarrifs are contrary to free markets on a global scale. They are protectionism for local businesses.

How much does the US government collect in tarrifs? According to the 2008 budget, they accounted for $97.3 billion (if you count both excise taxes and customs duties- if you only count customs duties that is $29.2 billion). Excises taxes can be assesed on both domestic and imported goods (ie taxes on luxury goods) so they do not only apply to imports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

Since the 2008 US budget was estimated to be $2.9 trillion, if you only used Customs Duties to pay for your budget and had no cuts in anything, you would have to raise customs duties by a factor of 100 times higher. If you include excise taxes you would have to raise them by a factor of 30 times higher meaning that if a car has an excise tax of $100, it would have to raised to $3000. If beer has an excise tax of $1 a six pack, that would be raised to $30.


An excise means any tax other than (1) a tax on property by reason of its ownership; or (2) a capitation, or head tax
(according to Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States

If you keep the customs duties at their present level, you would have to get rid of 99% of the US government's budget. If you include excise taxes and keep them the same you would have to get rid of 70% of the US budget.

Or do something in between- ie. cutting programs while raising the taxes.

Some history:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Ever on guard against the power of the central government to eclipse that of the states, the collection of the taxes was left as the responsibility of the State governments.

To pay the debts of the Revolutionary War, Congress levied excise taxes on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auctions, and various legal documents. Even in the early days of the Republic, however, social purposes influenced what was taxed. For example, Pennsylvania imposed an excise tax on liquor sales partly "to restrain persons in low circumstances from an immoderate use thereof." Additional support for such a targeted tax came from property owners, who hoped thereby to keep their property tax rates low, providing an early example of the political tensions often underlying tax policy decisions.

Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
With the establishment of the new nation, the citizens of the various colonies now had proper democratic representation, yet many Americans still opposed and resisted taxes they deemed unfair or improper. In 1794, a group of farmers in southwestern Pennsylvania physically opposed the tax on whiskey, forcing President Washington to send Federal troops to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, establishing the important precedent that the Federal government was determined to enforce its revenue laws. The Whiskey Rebellion also confirmed, however, that the resistance to unfair or high taxes that led to the Declaration of Independence did not evaporate with the forming of a new, representative government.

During the confrontation with France in the late 1790's, the Federal Government imposed the first direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates. These taxes are called direct taxes because they are a recurring tax paid directly by the taxpayer to the government based on the value of the item that is the basis for the tax. The issue of direct taxes as opposed to indirect taxes played a crucial role in the evolution of Federal tax policy in the following years. When Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1802, direct taxes were abolished and for the next 10 years there were no internal revenue taxes other than excises.

To raise money for the War of 1812, Congress imposed additional excise taxes, raised certain customs duties, and raised money by issuing Treasury notes. In 1817 Congress repealed these taxes, and for the next 44 years the Federal Government collected no internal revenue. Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land.

[sratiug]

Tarrifs are contrary to free markets on a global scale. They are protectionism for local businesses.


It is folly to argue that a tax on imports is any more detrimental to free markets and free trade than any other type of tax. The difference is other taxes are paid only in the united states, so taxes other than tariffs actually subsidize foreign producers.

If I pay 100 dollars in any tax other than a tariff to the feds, I can't buy American or foreign products with that money. If I pay 100 dollars in tariffs I can't buy American or foreign products with that money either. The only difference is that the first example subsidizes foreign trade and production and the second does not. By making American companies and workers pay all of the tax you drive production out of the country.

[No1ButPaul08]

Jefferson and I argue that the best tax to run the federal government is the import tariff. His argument is it is the least intrusive tax.

Mine is that any other tax, by virtue of not being shared by foreign producers, is in effect a subsidy on foreign production. Internal taxes inhibit free trade more than tariffs because of this reason.

I support a constitutional amendment to gradually replace the income tax and all other federal taxes with a flat tariff automatically moved up until it pays for the entire federal government. I believe all true Americans would support this amendment if phazed in over a period of 10 years or so, giving everyone time to adjust (and time to cut government spending).

This is the only reason to support a tariff, and yes they are constitutional. The best reason for a tariff only tax system (which i would support if it was truly an option.) is that no American citizen or business would ever see an internal tax collector. The taxes would strictly be collected at the border. This is the ONLY reason for tariffs as the ONLY tax. Otherwise, tariffs are just another burdensome tax. I would gladly accept a small flat tariff for a limited Constitutional government and never having to see or worry about a tax agent again.

Many argue for tariffs as they believe they will protect industry to create jobs. What these people don't realize is that this comes at the cost of high consumer prices.

"Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work." - Ron Paul

[WRellim]

it is folly to argue that a tax on imports is any more detrimental to free markets and free trade than any other type of tax. the difference is other taxes are paid only in the united states, so taxes other than tariffs actually subsidize foreign producers. [emphasis added]

if i pay 100 dollars in any tax other than a tariff to the feds, i can't buy american or foreign products with that money. If i pay 100 dollars in tariffs i can't buy american or foreign products with that money either. The only difference is that the first example subsidizes foreign trade and production and the second does not. By making american companies and workers pay all of the tax you drive production out of the country.

BINGO. Qft +1000

BTW, regarding the Ron Paul quotation: "Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work."

What he is referring to is "protective" tariffs and "punitive" tariffs. As long as tariffs are kept to a minimal level, and the playing field is kept close to level (or uniform) on imports from ALL countries, then they are NOT detrimental to free trade.

"Taxes on consumption [aka tariffs], like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

Remember that by Jefferson's second term, he ran the entire Federal Government SOLELY on tariffs... and that included paying off substantial costs on the Louisiana Purchase, etc.

In his Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805), Jefferson points out:

"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, ENABLED US TO DISCONTINUE OUR INTERNAL TAXES. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexations which, once entered, is scarcely to be retrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property...

"The remaining revenue ON THE CONSUMPTION OF FOREIGN ARTICLES, IS PAID CHEERFULLY BY THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO ADD FOREIGN LUXURIES TO DOMESTIC COMFORTS, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gather of the United States?"

-- Thomas Jefferson
[emphasis added]
[via http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/TaxReform.htm --- excellent article BTW. ]
One could only wish it were still true.

[sratiug]

BINGO. Qft +1000

BTW, regarding the Ron Paul quotation: "Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work."

What he is referring to is "protective" tariffs and "punitive" tariffs. As long as tariffs are kept to a minimal level, and the playing field is kept close to level (or uniform) on imports from ALL countries, then they are NOT detrimental to free trade.

"Taxes on consumption [aka tariffs], like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

Remember that by Jefferson's second term, he ran the entire Federal Government SOLELY on tariffs... and that included paying off substantial costs on the Louisiana Purchase, etc.

In his Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805), Jefferson points out:

"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, ENABLED US TO DISCONTINUE OUR INTERNAL TAXES. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexations which, once entered, is scarcely to be retrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property...

"The remaining revenue ON THE CONSUMPTION OF FOREIGN ARTICLES, IS PAID CHEERFULLY BY THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO ADD FOREIGN LUXURIES TO DOMESTIC COMFORTS, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gather of the United States?"

-- Thomas Jefferson
[emphasis added]
[via http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/TaxReform.htm --- excellent article BTW. ]
One could only wish it were still true.

Bump for truthiness and to once again ask the forums to allow a section dedicated to those of us who understand this and want to work towards a suitable amendment push. I believe all Americans would support this if allowed an informed choice.

[Sergeant Brother]

Mine is that any other tax, by virtue of not being shared by foreign producers, is in effect a subsidy on foreign production. Internal taxes inhibit free trade more than tariffs because of this reason.

I support a constitutional amendment to gradually replace the income tax and all other federal taxes with a flat tariff automatically moved up until it pays for the entire federal government. I believe all true Americans would support this amendment if phazed in over a period of 10 years or so, giving everyone time to adjust (and time to cut government spending).

I absolutely agree with this, and I see I'm not the only one who does :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I support a constitutional amendment to gradually replace the income tax and all other federal taxes with a flat tariff automatically moved up until it pays for the entire federal government. I believe all true Americans would support this amendment if phazed in over a period of 10 years or so, giving everyone time to adjust (and time to cut government spending).

Rather than create new Constitutional Amendments, why not just use the Federal Government less? Let's close it down for say 50 years. Let us make governors more important and mayors even more important while the President stands in the background. Let's make happiness of U.S. citizens the prerequisite over any claim of responsibility.

[sratiug]

Rather than create new Constitutional Amendments, why not just use the Federal Government less? Let's close it down for say 50 years. Let us make governors more important and mayors even more important while the President stands in the background. Let's make happiness of U.S. citizens the prerequisite over any claim of responsibility.

Because an amendment is the only way to stop the federal government from stealing all the tax revenue that should belong to local and state government.

[sailor]

The difference is other taxes are paid only in the united states, so taxes other than tariffs actually subsidize foreign producers.

The only difference is that the first example subsidizes foreign trade and production and the second does not. By making American companies and workers pay all of the tax you drive production out of the country.

What are you talking about?

The fact is the importer already pays a sales tax to the country of origin when purchasing the goods he intends to import.

Or do you think foreigners buy stuff from Amazon.com at a different price? :eek:

[Sergeant Brother]

What are you talking about?

The fact is the importer already pays a sales tax to the country of origin when purchasing the goods he intends to import.

Or do you think foreigners buy stuff from Amazon.com at a different price? :eek:

Any form of taxation that occurs within the borders of the US is basically distributed through out the economy. An income tax reducing the amount of money people are getting from their labors and makes them demand greater amounts of money in turn raising prices of American goods and services, all internal taxation has a similar effect and therefor is a defacto subsidy for foreign goods that are not so affected.

All taxation is oppressive in a sense, but tariffs tend to be less so particularly when considering the fact that other forms of taxation helps foreign business at the expense of American business.

[Zippyjuan]

Tarrifs are indirect subsidies for domestic producers- they allow them to charge higher prices than if they faced competition from outside countries. They still increase the prices you pay for things. Tarrifs have some appeal because they create the illusion that the tax is being paid by foreigners rather than US residents but ultimately you pay for it in the price of goods you buy. How much would you be paying for gas today if there was a universal tarrif on all imports? That in turn is added to the cost of making and transporting everything else.

US imports run about $1.5 trillion a year today. To be able to pay for our present level of government spending you would have to apply a 200% tarrif on everything imported inlcuding oil. That would raise the price of oil to nearly $200 a barrel today.

As the import duties rise, the quantity of goods attempted to be imported will decline meaning that you have to increase the level of the tarrif on the remaining goods even more to maintain your revenue- but this further decreases imports. A spiral ensues. If we have high tarrifs, then the countries we presently sell goods to will also raise their tarrifs meaning our own exports will decline too. This would also cause the value of the dollar to fall.

There are a lot of implications to trying to pay all of our bills via using just a "simple" tarrif on imports. - most of which are not good for consumers or the overall economy.

[sratiug]

Tarrifs are indirect subsidies for domestic producers- they allow them to charge higher prices than if they faced competition from outside countries. They still increase the prices you pay for things. Tarrifs have some appeal because they create the illusion that the tax is being paid by foreigners rather than US residents but ultimately you pay for it in the price of goods you buy. How much would you be paying for gas today if there was a universal tarrif on all imports? That in turn is added to the cost of making and transporting everything else.

US imports run about $1.5 trillion a year today. To be able to pay for our present level of government spending you would have to apply a 200% tarrif on everything imported inlcuding oil. That would raise the price of oil to nearly $200 a barrel today.

As the import duties rise, the quantity of goods attempted to be imported will decline meaning that you have to increase the level of the tarrif on the remaining goods even more to maintain your revenue- but this further decreases imports. A spiral ensues. If we have high tarrifs, then the countries we presently sell goods to will also raise their tarrifs meaning our own exports will decline too. This would also cause the value of the dollar to fall.

There are a lot of implications to trying to pay all of our bills via using just a "simple" tarrif on imports. - most of which are not good for consumers or the overall economy.

This is all total bullshit. The tariff will cause prices to rise in the US. Internal taxes do the same, except imports remain artificially cheap because they do not pay US income tax, wage taxes, social security taxes, yada yada yada on their production. This is a direct subsidy of foreign production. Free traders must see the error of lobbying against replacing internal taxes with a universally applied across the board flat tariff. Tariffs are bad IN ADDITION TO other taxes, or in order to help specific industries, but are the best tax to choose if choosing one or the other BY FAR.

[Zippyjuan]

I am not claiming they are any better- just trying to point out some of the impact using them to replace other taxes would be. The US consumer still pays for it one way or the other.

[Danke]

Federal government can also run lotteries again for funding. A very voluntary tax.

[sailor]

The tariff will cause prices to rise in the US. Internal taxes do the same, except imports remain artificially cheap because they do not pay US income tax, wage taxes, social security taxes, yada yada yada on their production. This is a direct subsidy of foreign production. Free traders must see the error of lobbying against replacing internal taxes with a universally applied across the board flat tariff.

Stop calling a no trade barrier situation a subsidy on imports it`s making you look a fucking simpleton.

Imports pay the German income tax, the German wage tax, the German social security taxes. It is precisley the same situation braniac. Do you think only USA taxes while the rest of the world lives in anarchy or what?

And if the German imports were in a better starting position by the German taxes being lower that is all the better as it A.) gives the US consumer access to cheaper imports B.) gives the USA government all the more reason to lower own taxes.

Having a no trade barrier situation is in fact the far best way of ensuring the domestic taxes stay low as it must maintain competitivness to survive. As soon as you give the government the option to install trade barriers it can afford to suck out the life of the economy with its shortsightedness.

[sailor]

Federal government can also run lotteries again for funding. A very voluntary tax.

That would be true if the lottery buisiness wasn`t regulated and there would be free entry. As it is state lotteries are artificaly advantaged.

[Zippyjuan]

That is because the intent is to make money for the governments. They only return about half of the money in terms of prizes for participants. If they gave it all back (minus costs of operating the lottery) there would be no reason for them to have one. Lottery revenues in many places are dropping.

[SeanEdwards]

Clearly Constitutional and in my opinion a much better way of raising tax revenue than individual income taxes.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because an amendment is the only way to stop the federal government from stealing all the tax revenue that should belong to local and state government.


We do have a large portion of states in the United States who use the Federal Government as their local and state governments. They try to solve all their local problems on the national level. Like Rome was the heart of the Roman Empire, Washington DC has become the heart of a Washingtonian Empire.

States with pathetic state and local governments need to be taught how to govern themselves again while Washington DC needs to be closed down. I'm really surprised at the number of youngsters in here that continue to seek solutions to local and state problems on the national level. Let's give it a long rest. Let us try fishing for a change. I'm not saying we should fish for change, no. I'm not talking about change at all but fishing.

[sratiug]

Stop calling a no trade barrier situation a subsidy on imports it`s making you look a fucking simpleton.

Imports pay the German income tax, the German wage tax, the German social security taxes. It is precisley the same situation braniac. Do you think only USA taxes while the rest of the world lives in anarchy or what?

And if the German imports were in a better starting position by the German taxes being lower that is all the better as it A.) gives the US consumer access to cheaper imports B.) gives the USA government all the more reason to lower own taxes.

Having a no trade barrier situation is in fact the far best way of ensuring the domestic taxes stay low as it must maintain competitivness to survive. As soon as you give the government the option to install trade barriers it can afford to suck out the life of the economy with its shortsightedness.


In case you haven't noticed it ain't Germany we are competing with. Your argument holds no water when applied to the real competition from South America and communist Asia and any other place with a smaller government than us (everybody). Internal taxes subsidize imports. The tariff would subsidize exports by allowing cheaper internal production costs by the enormous benefit of NO FEDERAl TAXES.

[Zippyjuan]

How low are the taxes in Canada? Did you know that they are our #1 trading partner? China is #2. 16.3% of all our imports came from our neighbor to the north. China provides us with 15%. Germans? #5 on the list at 4.7%.

The Top Ten: (Country, $billions imported, and percent share of our imports)
1 Canada 235.4 16.3%
2 China 217.3 15.0%
3 Mexico 148.5 10.3%
4 Japan 96.8 6.7%
5 Federal Republic of Germany 67.9 4.7%
6 United Kingdom 40.5 2.8%
7 Saudi Arabia 40.0 2.8%
8 Venezuela 38.0 2.6%
9 Korea, South 32.7 2.3%
10 France 29.6 2.0%

Totals are Year to Date figures as of August 2008. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0808yr.html

China is the only Communist country on the list. Most of these are what might be considered taxing countries (except Venezuela and Saudi Arabia who are on the list due to our oil imports from them). Maybe Mexico could be considered a low tax country, but again oil is a major import from them too- they are our #3 source behind Saudi Arabia- which raises their position on the list too.

[Aratus]

Constitutional, yes (aricle 1, section 8). Used wisely? No.

the Spanish-American war and the Civil War
were also funded by a personal income tax...
its not until 1913 that the IRS gets official & annual.

tariffs were a basic "tax" slapped on imports, foreign goods...
usually collected at ports of call or points of access.

[Pericles]

Tarrifs are indirect subsidies for domestic producers- they allow them to charge higher prices than if they faced competition from outside countries. They still increase the prices you pay for things. Tarrifs have some appeal because they create the illusion that the tax is being paid by foreigners rather than US residents but ultimately you pay for it in the price of goods you buy. How much would you be paying for gas today if there was a universal tarrif on all imports? That in turn is added to the cost of making and transporting everything else.

US imports run about $1.5 trillion a year today. To be able to pay for our present level of government spending you would have to apply a 200% tarrif on everything imported inlcuding oil. That would raise the price of oil to nearly $200 a barrel today.

As the import duties rise, the quantity of goods attempted to be imported will decline meaning that you have to increase the level of the tarrif on the remaining goods even more to maintain your revenue- but this further decreases imports. A spiral ensues. If we have high tarrifs, then the countries we presently sell goods to will also raise their tarrifs meaning our own exports will decline too. This would also cause the value of the dollar to fall.

There are a lot of implications to trying to pay all of our bills via using just a "simple" tarrif on imports. - most of which are not good for consumers or the overall economy.

So what? The purpose of the Federal government is to perform certain functions specified in the Constitution. Establishing a perfectly free market is not on the list. The argument is that to promote the general welfare by imposing import duties may provide some advantage to a domestic producer - if he can't do it for the market price (which granted may be higher than without the duty) than he won't be able to compete. The people ultimately pay for government - the question is how to do it with minimal bad effects.

[sratiug]

How low are the taxes in Canada? Did you know that they are our #1 trading partner? China is #2. 16.3% of all our imports came from our neighbor to the north. China provides us with 15%. Germans? #5 on the list at 4.7%.

The Top Ten: (Country, $billions imported, and percent share of our imports)
1 Canada 235.4 16.3%
2 China 217.3 15.0%
3 Mexico 148.5 10.3%
4 Japan 96.8 6.7%
5 Federal Republic of Germany 67.9 4.7%
6 United Kingdom 40.5 2.8%
7 Saudi Arabia 40.0 2.8%
8 Venezuela 38.0 2.6%
9 Korea, South 32.7 2.3%
10 France 29.6 2.0%

Totals are Year to Date figures as of August 2008. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0808yr.html

China is the only Communist country on the list. Most of these are what might be considered taxing countries (except Venezuela and Saudi Arabia who are on the list due to our oil imports from them). Maybe Mexico could be considered a low tax country, but again oil is a major import from them too- they are our #3 source behind Saudi Arabia- which raises their position on the list too.

Many of those countries have effective tariffs.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tariff (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tariff)

[sratiug]

How low are the taxes in Canada? Did you know that they are our #1 trading partner? China is #2. 16.3% of all our imports came from our neighbor to the north. China provides us with 15%. Germans? #5 on the list at 4.7%.

The Top Ten: (Country, $billions imported, and percent share of our imports)
1 Canada 235.4 16.3%
2 China 217.3 15.0%
3 Mexico 148.5 10.3%
4 Japan 96.8 6.7%
5 Federal Republic of Germany 67.9 4.7%
6 United Kingdom 40.5 2.8%
7 Saudi Arabia 40.0 2.8%
8 Venezuela 38.0 2.6%
9 Korea, South 32.7 2.3%
10 France 29.6 2.0%

Totals are Year to Date figures as of August 2008. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0808yr.html

China is the only Communist country on the list. Most of these are what might be considered taxing countries (except Venezuela and Saudi Arabia who are on the list due to our oil imports from them). Maybe Mexico could be considered a low tax country, but again oil is a major import from them too- they are our #3 source behind Saudi Arabia- which raises their position on the list too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN2739209520080529?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and Japan said they were taking action at the World Trade Organization aimed at overturning European Union tariffs on computer screens, multifunctional printers and TV set-top boxes capable of accessing the Internet.

[Zippyjuan]

Many of those countries have effective tariffs.
And so do we. Your point earlier was that our trading partners had an economic advantage with lower taxes and wages but we do most of our trading with countries with similar wages and taxes to our own. The European countries have higher taxes and stricter regulations on industry than we do here. The playing field is pretty level between us and most of our trading partners. I would concede that this is not the case with China of course. Increasing tarrifs enough to replace other forms of taxation would effectively eliminate all of our trade- both on the importing and the exporting side. That would include foodstuffs and raw materials including oil. No more fresh produce out of season which comes from South America or Australia. $200 a barrel for oil. Would that be good for the US and the average consumer?

[sratiug]

And so do we. Your point earlier was that our trading partners had an economic advantage with lower taxes and wages but we do most of our trading with countries with similar wages and taxes to our own. The European countries have higher taxes and stricter regulations on industry than we do here. The playing field is pretty level between us and most of our trading partners. I would concede that this is not the case with China of course. Increasing tarrifs enough to replace other forms of taxation would effectively eliminate all of our trade- both on the importing and the exporting side. That would include foodstuffs and raw materials including oil. No more fresh produce out of season which comes from South America or Australia. $200 a barrel for oil. Would that be good for the US and the average consumer?

As if we don't have oil and food here. The pay for farm workers goes up, green houses get built, we can buy fresh bananas locally instead of ones pumped full of preservatives and shipped 6,000 miles, etc, etc, etc...

[sailor]

Internal taxes subsidize imports. The tariff would subsidize exports by allowing cheaper internal production costs by the enormous benefit of NO FEDERAl TAXES.

You`re just repeating your pretty little line over and over again. You`re like a deranged hamster caght in the running wheel.



So what? The purpose of the Federal government is to perform certain functions specified in the Constitution. Establishing a perfectly free market is not on the list. The argument is that to promote the general welfare by imposing import duties may provide some advantage to a domestic producer - if he can't do it for the market price (which granted may be higher than without the duty) than he won't be able to compete. The people ultimately pay for government - the question is how to do it with minimal bad effects.

:rolleyes: Except you caught yourself in your own paradox. Since when is providing advantage to an uncompetitive domestic producer at the expense of the domestic consumer on the list of legitiamate roles of the government?


__________

The whole protectionist argument is bogus shit. The problem with protectionists is they only ever look at the immediate effects of the trade barriers, instead of all of the effects. The fact is it is a form of welfare. It benefits some (buisinesses) at the price of making everyone that much poorer in relative terms as they are forced into buying more expensive variant of the same product.

[sratiug]

And so do we. Your point earlier was that our trading partners had an economic advantage with lower taxes and wages but we do most of our trading with countries with similar wages and taxes to our own. The European countries have higher taxes and stricter regulations on industry than we do here. The playing field is pretty level between us and most of our trading partners. I would concede that this is not the case with China of course. Increasing tarrifs enough to replace other forms of taxation would effectively eliminate all of our trade- both on the importing and the exporting side. That would include foodstuffs and raw materials including oil. No more fresh produce out of season which comes from South America or Australia. $200 a barrel for oil. Would that be good for the US and the average consumer?
http://www.bordertaxequity.org/problem/index.html

The Problem


Foreign border taxes are diminishing the domestic manufacturers’ ability to be globally competitive. The leading foreign border tax inequity is known as the value-added tax (VAT). This tax is a general, broad-based consumption tax that is assessed on the incremental value added to goods and services at each phase of production. It applies more or less to all goods and services that are bought and sold for use or consumption in the nations that use a VAT system.

In those countries, goods and services that are sold to customers abroad are normally not subject to a VAT. Conversely, imports are taxed at the same VAT rate applied to domestic producers. The VAT is just one kind of indirect tax system that may be adjusted at the border in this manner, but it is a very common system with a broad impact on U.S. trade.

As of 2007, 149 nations have a Value-Added Tax. By contrast, the U.S. relies primarily on a direct tax system that taxes income and property. No portion of those direct taxes is rebated on exported goods nor does the U.S. impose on imports a tax that is equivalent to U.S. direct taxes. Thus, most imports into the United States are subsidized by foreign VAT rebates and all U.S. exports are not.

In 2006, 94 percent of all U.S. exports and imports of goods were traded with VAT countries. Foreign governments paid their producers an estimated $218.2 billion of VAT rebates on goods exported to the United States. Foreign governments also collected from U.S. producers an estimated $122.4 billion of VAT equivalent taxes on their imported goods. The total data on U.S. trade in services, just released, estimates for the trade disadvantage in services was $87.2 billion. The combined goods and services disadvantage in 2006 was $428 billion.

VAT harms U.S. investment. Thousands of U.S.-headquartered companies that have shifted production to nations that use a VAT can get a VAT rebate on their exports and avoid the double taxation (U.S. direct tax plus national VAT equivalent tax on exports) placed on U.S.-based exporters.

Because the United States cannot rebate direct taxes under the terms of global trade agreements administered by the World Trade Organization and must pay VAT equivalent taxes on exports to the 149 countries that use a VAT, U.S. exporters are competitively disadvantaged domestically, in nations with a VAT.

Equally important, as global trade negotiations over the past half-century have lowered tariffs on imports, global trade rules have not regulated the rate of VAT taxes that countries may apply to imports. In the 1960s, the Governments of Europe imposed a 10.4 percent average tariff on imports and only three EU nations imposed a VAT, with an average standard rate of 13.4 percent. Today, the EU nations impose an average tariff of 4.4 percent, plus an average 19.4 percent VAT equivalent tax – a total levy of 23.8 percent on U.S. goods and service imports. The protection is the same, whatever its name.

Thus, the WTO rules on indirect taxes such as the VAT give European and other nations the benefit of lowered U.S. tariffs for their exports, while allowing them to protect their domestic producers with a high de facto tariff on U.S. imports. Consequently, U.S. producers face a massive and unfair trade obstacle that is totally legal under current global trade agreements, and is cumulative to other unfair trade distortions U.S. manufacturers must overcome. Altogether, imports into the U.S. face average tariffs of 1.3% and no VAT penalty, whereas U.S. exports face average tariffs worldwide of about 40% plus VAT border adjustment penalty of 15.7%Border Tax Equity is essential to maintain a level playing field for the United States’ domestic manufacturing industry. Border Tax Equity is essential to maintain a level playing field for the United States’ domestic manufacturing industry

[sratiug]

You`re just repeating your pretty little line over and over again. You`re like a deranged hamster caght in the running wheel.




:rolleyes: Except you caught yourself in your own paradox. Since when is providing advantage to an uncompetitive domestic producer at the expense of the domestic consumer on the list of legitiamate roles of the government?

I repeat it because it cannot be refuted. If you can refute it then please explain how any other tax is not more destructive to the free trade of Americans both in and out of the US than a tariff.

I am not talking about protecting specific industries, I am talking about the best way to fund the federal government so that lobbying has no effect and corporate money is driven out of Washington.

__________

[Sergeant Brother]

And so do we. Your point earlier was that our trading partners had an economic advantage with lower taxes and wages but we do most of our trading with countries with similar wages and taxes to our own. The European countries have higher taxes and stricter regulations on industry than we do here. The playing field is pretty level between us and most of our trading partners. I would concede that this is not the case with China of course. Increasing tarrifs enough to replace other forms of taxation would effectively eliminate all of our trade- both on the importing and the exporting side. That would include foodstuffs and raw materials including oil. No more fresh produce out of season which comes from South America or Australia. $200 a barrel for oil. Would that be good for the US and the average consumer?

Remember though, that by eliminating internal taxes each American citizen would have vastly more money to buy goods - foreign and domestic. Of course, I would lower total government revenue so that we spend less in conjunction with replacing income tax with tariffs. Citizens would have so much more money they they may well be able to buy just as many foreign products and the internal economy would certainly boom.

Of course, all taxes are bad in one way or another. But unless you're an anarchist who opposes all taxation, which I'm not, you need to figure out the best form of taxation which is the least oppressive and doesn't damage the economy too much. Also, both internal taxes and tariffs encourage certain kinds of business and behaviors - but I would rather subsidize exports and our native products and labor instead of subsidizing foreign products and labor.

Furthermore, internal taxes are more oppressive in that it requires more monitoring of normal citizens. It requires agencies and bureaucracies that force people to give their information to the government in violation of their rights of privacy and against the intent of the founding fathers. Tariffs require only companies who import to have to be tracked by the government instead of every citizen within the nation, it is also one of the forms of taxation that was originally allowed by the constitution.

So you cannot just argue that tariffs are wrong. You have to make an argument as to what form of taxation is better. If you can't argue that another form of taxation is better and why, then there is no argument at all.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.bordertaxequity.org/problem/index.html
I guess you do not understand how a VAT tax works. It is basically a sales tax or an internal tarrif. Collecting a sales tax and the refunding it is not a subsidy. US goods shipped abroad are not charged the US sales tax either.

If corporate lobbying is a concern, then why go with a high tarrif? That keeps out foreign goods which force the domestic companies to be more competitive. It makes it easier for them to control their domestic makets meaning more profits and money they can use to try by buy more influence. It won't stop Washington from passing laws favorable to them. And as I mentioned earlier if you want to encourage exports, do not impose high tarrifs yourself- others will raise their own in retaliation. Then you HAVE to subsidize your exports if you hope to have any.

[sratiug]

I guess you do not understand how a VAT tax works. It is basically a sales tax or an internal tarrif. Collecting a sales tax and the refunding it is not a subsidy. US goods shipped abroad are not charged the US sales tax either.

The article I linked says American goods are taxed upon importation. And while other goods in those countries may be taxed the same, their exports to us are not, so they are really subsidized. I believe that is because they have the sense to understand that exports bring money into their country, while imports drive money away.


In those countries, goods and services that are sold to customers abroad are normally not subject to a VAT. Conversely, imports are taxed at the same VAT rate applied to domestic producers.



If corporate lobbying is a concern, then why go with a high tarrif? That keeps out foreign goods which force the domestic companies to be more competitive. It makes it easier for them to control their domestic makets meaning more profits and money they can use to try by buy more influence. It won't stop Washington from passing laws favorable to them. And as I mentioned earlier if you want to encourage exports, do not impose high tarrifs yourself- others will raise their own in retaliation. Then you HAVE to subsidize your exports if you hope to have any.

It is supposedly "American" corporations that are destroying our wealth by importing everything to increase their profits. When we pass this amendment, there will be little for them to lobby for, and a great increase in domestic competition from small businesses. Small businesses and individuals will get some of the money that the "banks and the corporations that grow up around them" have stolen from us as Jefferson so clearly warned.



Double Flat Tariff Only Amendment

1. All internal federal taxes and fees shall be replaced within a period of 11 years of ratification of this amendment by a flat across the board tariff applied equally to all goods and to all product sources. The tariff shall be set at the beginning of each year at a percentage sufficient to raise an amount of money equal to all projected federal government expenditures forecasted by the Congressional Budget Office for that year.

2. One year from ratification of this amendment a 10 year phaze in process will be enacted whereby each year the percentage of projected federal government expenditures raised by the tariff shall be 1 divided by the number of years remaining of the ten. For each of these same ten years all internal taxes and fees shall be reduced across the board by a percentage that will eliminate an equal amount of federal revenue.

[revolutionist]

I think the best way to raise revenue is not tariffs alone. Too high of tariffs would cause reactionary tariffs and contribute to monopolies. I think there should be a tariff, but at a rate lower than 10%, say 5%, for revenue supplemented by excise taxes on certain goods.

[Pericles]

You`re just repeating your pretty little line over and over again. You`re like a deranged hamster caght in the running wheel.




:rolleyes: Except you caught yourself in your own paradox. Since when is providing advantage to an uncompetitive domestic producer at the expense of the domestic consumer on the list of legitiamate roles of the government?

The only paradox is who do you want to subsidize - citizens of your own country or others? I vote for citizens of my country.

There is no perfectly free market and never will be.
__________

The whole protectionist argument is bogus shit. The problem with protectionists is they only ever look at the immediate effects of the trade barriers, instead of all of the effects. The fact is it is a form of welfare. It benefits some (buisinesses) at the price of making everyone that much poorer in relative terms as they are forced into buying more expensive variant of the same product.[/QUOTE]

[sratiug]

The only paradox is who do you want to subsidize - citizens of your own country or others? I vote for citizens of my country.

There is no perfectly free market and never will be.
__________


+1

I think what we have here is a lot of people that are actually much in favor of redistribution of wealth. That is the only way I can see a reason for their objection to the double flat tariff amendment. They say it can't raise enough money. So. We can't raise enough money now. Do we really want to raise enough money? How can the current system be superior? Only because people with a lot of money pay a bigger percentage of the taxes collected now(supposing that is true). So they don't want to give up their subsidies. Now I am beginning to understand...

Also the argument against tariffs because other countries will retaliate with tariffs is like saying we can't have guns because then other people will get them. So. Guns are protectionist, no?

We must be object oriented. Our object (the USA) must deal with things here, not worry about globalism. Let the UN, WTO, and the NWO British Empire puppets worry their little heads off about that. Take politics and business lobying out of the tariff and only use it for revenue and it is not a problem, it is a solution.

[sratiug]

I find it interesting that the above post gets zero rebuttals.

[Danke]

I find it interesting that the above post gets zero rebuttals.

Well, you only just posted it. And threads do die out too.


I think tariffs and lotteries are a fine way to fund the federal government. But as with all taxes, we need to limited the ability of government to raise them to the rate that inevitably causes damage. Always difficult.

The Constitution already provides for proper means to tax. The biggest problem is the hidden tax of inflation that our government enjoys. End The Fed.

[sratiug]

Well, you only just posted it. And threads do die out too.


I think tariffs and lotteries are a fine way to fund the federal government. But as with all taxes, we need to limited the ability of government to raise them to the rate that inevitably causes damage. Always difficult.

The Constitution already provides for proper means to tax. The biggest problem is the hidden tax of inflation that our government enjoys. End The Fed.

Um, that's what the amendment is for. It requires other taxes be eliminated. It requires raising revenue to meet budget demands, helping eliminate deficit spending. Corporations and free traders want low tariffs, so they will help control the budget instead of bloating it.