Tariffs

[FrancisMarion]

If I were to classify myself as a one issue voter, it would be the issue of the income tax. A non-voluntary tax is wrong.

Now, Trump says that those who are taking advantage of "free trade" will be subject to tariffs to level the playing field. My mind tells me that this was the intent in collecting Federal revenue in the first place.

Would such an arrangement offset income taxes?

Would such tariffs, as Trump correctly explained, light new fires of American production of goods?

Can someone please explain to me what would be wrong with such a situation?

[Danke]

If I were to classify myself as a one issue voter, it would be the issue of the income tax. A non-voluntary tax is wrong.

Now, Trump says that those who are taking advantage of "free trade" will be subject to tariffs to level the playing field. My mind tells me that this was the intent in collecting Federal revenue in the first place.

Would such an arrangement offset income taxes?

Would such tariffs, as Trump correctly explained, light new fires of American production of goods?

Can someone please explain to me what would be wrong with such a situation?

The federal government relied on tariffs for many years before the income tax.

[presence]

“In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people
to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest.” []
“The proposition is so very manifest []
that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it;
nor could it ever have been called in question,
had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers
confounded the commonsense of mankind.”

Adam Smith 1776

[erowe1]

Can someone please explain to me what would be wrong with such a situation?

It would be wrong because if I want to buy something from someone in another country or sell something to someone in another country, it's none of Trump's business, and he has no right to charge us money for that arrangement that we choose to make with one another.

No, increasing one tax doesn't do anything to help bring about cutting another tax. You want to cut income taxes? Good. Just cut them.

[CaptUSA]

Can someone please explain to me what would be wrong with such a situation?

Do you respond to moral or utilitarian arguments better?

[farreri]

It would be wrong because if I want to buy something from someone in another country or sell something to someone in another country, it's none of Trump's business, and he has no right to charge us money for that arrangement that we choose to make with one another.

No, increasing one tax doesn't do anything to help bring about cutting another tax. You want to cut income taxes? Good. Just cut them.

How would government be paid for even if it gets reduced to bare bones, like funding a military to protect the country?

[presence]

How would government be paid for even if it gets reduced to bare bones, like funding a military to protect the country?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[farreri]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I sense you purposely left out the part of the constitution that talks about providing and maintaining a navy.

[Zippyjuan]

Tariffs are protectionism for business- keeping away competition which could mean lower prices for consumers. Some think it is a way for citizens to avoid paying for government but that is wrong. It is a hidden tax secreted in the prices of goods. We still end up paying those taxes (it isn't foreign businesses paying the tariffs-- it is you and me every time we purchase something). When you file your income taxes, you get some idea of how much money you are giving to the government. With tariffs you don't have a clue how much you are paying.

But let's say for grin's sake that we wanted to replace all taxes with tariffs instead. Let's also keep spending where it is and balance our budget. How high of a tariff are we talking about?

We will apply the tariff to everything- including imported foods and energy. In 2015, our imports came to $2.3 trillion. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.co...s_imports.html

2015 budget spending was $3.7 trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_U...federal_budget

That means we need a tariff of 170% to balance our budget. Of course, with tariffs that high, import demand will fall significantly which would require an even higher tariff. That means a tripling of prices (even goods not subject to tariff will see their prices rise). Would that be good for the economy? With people spending so much of their money just to pay for the tariffs they would be buying a lot fewer things. Would that create more jobs? Not likely.

[FrancisMarion]

Adam Smith 1776

Its been awhile since I read "Wealth of Nations". Does Smith take into consideration regulatory environments and monetary manipulation. I love your quote, but it is based on all things being equal. They are not.

[FrancisMarion]

It would be wrong because if I want to buy something from someone in another country or sell something to someone in another country, it's none of Trump's business, and he has no right to charge us money for that arrangement that we choose to make with one another.

No, increasing one tax doesn't do anything to help bring about cutting another tax. You want to cut income taxes? Good. Just cut them.

This is not the reality of the situation we live in. If all played by this philosophy, no problem.

[FrancisMarion]

Do you respond to moral or utilitarian arguments better?

Utility by far in this scenario. I'll save moral arguments for inside my family and friends doors.

[farreri]

How does government get funded?

[FrancisMarion]

Tariffs are protectionism for business- keeping away competition which could mean lower prices for consumers. Some think it is a way for citizens to avoid paying for government but that is wrong. It is a hidden tax secreted in the prices of goods. We still end up paying those taxes (it isn't foreign businesses paying the tariffs-- it is you and me every time we purchase something). When you file your income taxes, you get some idea of how much money you are giving to the government. With tariffs you don't have a clue how much you are paying.

But let's say for grin's sake that we wanted to replace all taxes with tariffs instead. Let's also keep spending where it is and balance our budget. How high of a tariff are we talking about?

We will apply the tariff to everything- including imported foods and energy. In 2015, our imports came to $2.3 trillion. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.co...s_imports.html

2015 budget spending was $3.7 trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_U...federal_budget

That means we need a tariff of 170% to balance our budget. Of course, with tariffs that high, import demand will fall significantly which would require an even higher tariff. That means a tripling of prices (even goods not subject to tariff will see their prices rise). Would that be good for the economy? With people spending so much of their money just to pay for the tariffs they would be buying a lot fewer things. Would that create more jobs? Not likely.

This is well reasoned. However, purchasing is voluntary as opposed to income taxes. I would not be foolish enough to assume that it could offset ALL taxes as you proposed. If you want to look at property and or corporate taxes for instance; a new market (I concede not a free one) would emerge under the tariff scenario. Would there not be a boom?

[FrancisMarion]

How does government get funded?

Care to expound?

[erowe1]

This is not the reality of the situation we live in. If all played by this philosophy, no problem.

You didn't ask us to tell you what situation now obtains. You asked us what would be wrong with what you described. And that's what I did.

[erowe1]

I love your quote, but it is based on all things being equal.

Where do you get the notion that that quote is based on all things being equal?

[erowe1]

How would government be paid for even if it gets reduced to bare bones, like funding a military to protect the country?

A tip jar.

[farreri]

A tip jar.

Laughs aside, how would a country pay for government?

[erowe1]

Laughs aside, how would a country pay for government?

I was being serious.

Only voluntary means are acceptable. At no point should any theft at all be employed. That includes tariffs.

[FrancisMarion]

You didn't ask us to tell you what situation now obtains. You asked us what would be wrong with what you described. And that's what I did.

There are lots of things that are wrong. I've gotten past idealism enough that I am willing to consider courses that make the best of the inevitable bad situation.

[farreri]

I was being serious.

Only voluntary means are acceptable. At no point should any theft at all be employed. That includes tariffs.

How does the government pay for providing and maintaining a navy?

[erowe1]

How does the government pay for providing and maintaining a navy?

I probably wouldn't contribute to that. But if you felt like it was something you ought to help pay for, and you didn't think that you were donating enough of your money for it, you could always increase how much you gave. You wouldn't need someone with a gun to come and force you to donate more.

[erowe1]

There are lots of things that are wrong. I've gotten past idealism enough that I am willing to consider courses that make the best of the inevitable bad situation.

Then I'm not sure what the point of the OP was. Were you not asking what was wrong with tariffs?

[farreri]

I probably wouldn't contribute to that. But if you felt like it was something you ought to help pay for, and you didn't think that you were donating enough of your money for it, you could always increase how much you gave. You wouldn't need someone with a gun to come and force you to donate more.

Do you think that part of the constitution is un-libertarian?

[erowe1]

Do you think that part of the constitution is un-libertarian?

I don't really get into the debates about what qualifies as libertarian, and don't care if I count as one or not myself.

But using any of the most common definitions of "libertarian" I've seen, yes, coercive means of acquiring revenue for the government are not libertarian. What's more important, and more cut-and-dry than saying if they're libertarian is recognizing that they are definitely morally wrong.

There is a great deal wrong with the Constitution.

[farreri]

yes, coercive means of acquiring revenue for the government are not libertarian.

So how does a militia get "well regulated" and is that enough to protect a country from the kinds of weapons other countries have these days compared to the late 1700's?

There is a great deal wrong with the Constitution.

Agreed.

[FrancisMarion]

Then I'm not sure what the point of the OP was. Were you not asking what was wrong with tariffs?

No, I asked what would be wrong with a scenario. Comparing, Pros, Cons, etc. ... Please explain your scenario where everything is right AND have it be possible here on planet Earth. I am all ears and very open minded.

[erowe1]

No, I asked what would be wrong with a scenario. Comparing, Pros, Cons, etc. ... Please explain your scenario where everything is right AND have it be possible here on planet Earth. I am all ears and very open minded.

It's possible here on planet Earth for the US federal government not to exist at all. For most of planet Earth's existence it didn't.

But your answer here is confusing. You say you asked what would be wrong with a scenario. And the scenario you are talking about is the scenario of tariffs. Right? It sounds like you think I misrepresented the OP somehow, and I don't see yet how I did.

With tariffs, there are zero pros, and lots of cons. They are morally evil, and they are terribly harmful to the economy.

[erowe1]

So how does a militia get "well regulated" and is that enough to protect a country from the kinds of weapons other countries have these days compared to the late 1700's?

I think that if there were no US federal government, there would be little need of a national defense. There would be no centralized institution for any foreign power to take over which would give them control of this whole land. And subjugating 300 million free, well-armed people, and creating such a government over them, would be terribly impractical. But if these people, or any subset of them, felt the need to pool their resources to invest in advanced weaponry of all sorts (as I'm sure many would), I see no reason that they wouldn't be able to.