As a follow up to my post yesterday, Pat Buchanan: Foundationtional War Hawk, I want to continue my commentary by examining Buchanan's statement in his essay which seemingly suggests that tax revenue from tariffs is a better way to scalp Americans rather than other taxes.
He writes:
Specifically, we need to shift taxes off goods produced in the USA, and impose taxes on goods imported into the USA.
As we import nearly $2.5 trillion in goods, a tariff on imported goods, rising gradually to 20 percent, would initially produce $500 billion in revenue.
All that tariff revenue could be used to eliminate and replace all taxes on production inside the USA.
Of course, the key is that how Americans are scalped is not as important as that they are being scalped. And if revenues of $500 billion are generated by a tariff, it suggests that Americans price increases are occurring by a good amount and further that some production is returning from overseas which means that some labor and capital must be shifted from other product production.
Thus, tariffs raise prices and lower product availability. That is, it lowers the standard of living. Thus, there is no indication that tariffs are a "better" tax, the taxation just occurs in a more complex manner, a manner in which Buchanan apparently is unable to follow.
Whatsmore, tariffs upset leadership in other countries raising the potential for intensified hostilities by foreign countries toward the United States.
For someone who believes that the U.S. should stay out of foreign military adventures, Buchanan is doing a fine job of backing himself into advocacy of a silly economic policy that intensifies conflict with other nations. What the hell is that all about, Pat?
Instead of being a tax technocrat, how about advocating for lower government spending?
-Robert Wenzel
Bob, stop sperging. We're all for lower taxes.
ReplyDeleteJust answer the question you posed. At any given tax level, which is better?
Putting aside the obvious, that protectionism is bad and cutting spending is better than any form of taxation, one could ask the question, compared to now, were Americans more or less free in the 19th century when the US gov't was more or less funded by tariffs rather than personal income and other direct taxation?
ReplyDeleteAmerica can't win a trade war...
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/soCzGQGt2jY
I would think there would be a natural limit on how high tariffs we old rise imposed by the very people who pay them: American consumers. As for Trade "deficits," the important consideration is not their magnitude, but the underlying fundamentals that produce them ie, are they artificial (government produced) or resulting from voluntary exchange?
ReplyDeleteArguing over which form of taxation is better is an I intellectual trap. All taxation is theft and evil. Anyone who thinks his plans are so important they should be funded by theft is prideful and unimaginative.
ReplyDeleteI would think there would be a natural limit on how high tariffs we old rise imposed by the very people who pay them: American consumers. As for Trade "deficits," the important consideration is not their magnitude, but the underlying fundamentals that produce them ie, are they artificial (government produced) or resulting from voluntary exchange?
ReplyDeleteFree trade/managed trade has not brought us any great benefits. It's a libertardian assumption that prices automatically decrease because they can make a car in Mexico and import it. Where are all those jobs NAFTA was supposed to provide? Would you rather be unemployed and pay $300 for a TV or $600 for the TV but have a decent job and a stable community to reside?
ReplyDeleteMost of us can still find employment even without the government protecting us from scary competition.
DeleteIf we send other countries little pieces of green cotton and they send us cars and refrigerators and computers.... who is screwing who?
ReplyDelete