And the best tax is always the lightest - And that would be tariffs

[Philhelm]

Criminal .

More like pure evil. What's worse, if someone were to ever make a stand to defend their property, they would be written off as nutjobs. My how far we have fallen.

 

[oyarde]

More like pure evil. What's worse, if someone were to ever make a stand to defend their property, they would be written off as nutjobs. My how far we have fallen.

I agree .

 

[phill4paul]

I think that one is more overtly egregious than the income tax. So, I take a loan from the bank, spend years paying it off, retire, get sick, and can't pay the property tax. Goodbye home.

One of the tenants for a free society is personal property possession. We do not have this in America. It is a myth.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I hate taxes , but if you have to have them , maybe tariffs are reasonable , if I was in China , selling chickens to the US , they impose a tariff on my chickens , I switch to ducks and turkeys . If I am selling you auto's , you tariff it , I raise the price to keep my profit margin the same , or sell you bulldozers ....

You would want the excise tax to be flat and low. In that case, products from China would still be lower in cases where they are already lower. By keeping it very low, you wouldn't even change buying habits.

I could even live with a reasonable sales tax (reasonable being enough to sustain what a true limited government would need to operate). If we only had, say, a 5% sales tax and the government wasn't trying to model itself from 1984, I don't think that I'd find the time to complain, even if I agree philosophically that the collection of taxation is ultimately dependent upon the threat or use of violence. At least with the sales tax, the implication of you or your property being owned by the government isn't there.

Yep. And with the income tax, everyone is constantly under the threat of IRS SWAT teams and confiscation of your property with no due process.

 

[Philhelm]

Yep. And with the income tax, everyone is constantly under the threat of IRS SWAT teams and confiscation of your property with no due process.

And forced self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I'm not sure how tariffs would effect trade, as I'm not that familiar with that form of taxation. At current spending levels such tariffs would have to be obscenely high to cover government expenses. I'm open to the idea but I could see tariffs (interstate? international on imports? what scheme, how far reaching?) resulting in some problems unless federal government was returned to the smaller more limited role it should have.

Tarrifs would be a deterent to trade. They would make everything subject to the tarrif (all imports?) more expensive. In responce to our tarrifs, countries would also impose tarrifs on goods we export to them which would hurt US exporters. It would shield US industries from foreign competition which would allow them to charge higher prices for goods and those who rely on imported inputs would face higher costs so their prices would also be higher. No matter where you assess any tax, the money eventualy comes from consumers- it is included in the price of the goods you buy. A tarrif sounds like you are avoiding paying taxes and that foreigners are paying them for you, but they are instead hidden more.
In 2009, tarrifs only accounted for $30 billion in government revenues. Income taxes accounted for $1.2 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are $2.7 trillion (+7.1%).

$1.21 trillion - Individual income tax
$949.4 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion - Corporate income tax
$68.9 billion - Excise taxes
$29.1 billion - Customs duties
$26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$47.9 billion - Other

As to your question about trying to cover current government expenses with tarrifs, the US imports about $2 trillion worth of goods a year. It spends roughly $3.5 trillion so if you wanted a balanced budget with today's level of government spending and financed it only via tariffs, you would need a tax on everything you import of 175%. Now once you impose that large of a tax, imports would drop significantly so you would require a much higher tax rate that that in the longer term to continue to collect that amount of money. THat $90 a barrel of oil imported would rise to $157 a barrel. Imported foods (we only produce foods certain times of the year- imports cover the times we can't like tomatos or lettuce in the winter) so food costs would also soar.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I could even live with a reasonable sales tax (reasonable being enough to sustain what a true limited government would need to operate). If we only had, say, a 5% sales tax and the government wasn't trying to model itself from 1984, I don't think that I'd find the time to complain, even if I agree philosophically that the collection of taxation is ultimately dependent upon the threat or use of violence. At least with the sales tax, the implication of you or your property being owned by the government isn't there.

The problem again becomes-what's to keep them from raising that to 10,20,30%? Tariffs are the most rational way to go, IMO.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Tarrifs would be a deterent to trade. They would make everything subject to the tarrif (all imports?) more expensive. In responce to our tarrifs, countries would also impose tarrifs on goods we export to them which would hurt US exporters. It would shield US industries from foreign competition which would allow them to charge higher prices for goods and those who rely on imported inputs would face higher costs so their prices would also be higher. No matter where you assess any tax, the money eventualy comes from consumers- it is included in the price of the goods you buy. A tarrif sounds like you are avoiding paying taxes and that foreigners are paying them for you, but they are instead hidden more.
In 2009, tarrifs only accounted for $30 billion in government revenues. Income taxes accounted for $1.2 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Yes, but this is an incentive to keep government spending under control.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, but this is an incentive to keep government spending under control.

The amount of revenues the government takes in or where they get them from no longer acts as any incentive to control what they spend.

 

[erowe1]

As to your question about trying to cover current government expenses with tarrifs, the US imports about $2 trillion worth of goods a year. It spends roughly $3.5 trillion so if you wanted a balanced budget with today's level of government spending and financed it only via tariffs, you would need a tax on everything you import of 175%. Now once you impose that large of a tax, imports would drop significantly so you would require a much higher tax rate that that in the longer term to continue to collect that amount of money. THat $90 a barrel of oil imported would rise to $157 a barrel. Imported foods (we only produce foods certain times of the year- imports cover the times we can't like tomatos or lettuce in the winter) so food costs would also soar.

There would be no possible way to raise as much through tariffs, no matter how high they were set, as the income tax currently raises. That's a point in favor of tariffs as opposed to other taxes, and the point of the OP.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Exactly my point- you can't raise enough revenue via tarrifs alone.

And they are not "harmless" either- they would mean higher prices for everything- ending up passed along to consumers. The net effect would be the same as a hidden sales tax.

 

[Zippyjuan]

duplicate.

 

[overcastpatriot]

Tariffs funded this country for over 200 years. In fact if you look back on election history the big issues of the day were usually tariffs, trade, and national banks.

 

[erowe1]

Exactly my point- you can't raise enough revenue via tarrifs alone.

And they are not "harmless" either- they would mean higher prices for everything.

Of course they're not harmless. But the amount of harm they (and any other tax) do is commensurate with how much they raise. The less they can raise, the less potential for harm they have. Since tariffs have less of a potential amount they can raise than other taxes, they also have less of a potential for harm.

And you absolutely can shrink the federal government to a size that could be paid for by tariffs alone. Why do you think you can't?

 

[Philhelm]

The problem again becomes-what's to keep them from raising that to 10,20,30%? Tariffs are the most rational way to go, IMO.

That's a good point, but I was speaking in hypotheticals. If the sales tax were low, and if our government was truly limited. But that's just the reason that I warned one of my friends who would be paying less taxes under the 9-9-9 plan. I tried to tell him that once we get the national sales tax in, it will be raised in the future no doubt.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Of course they're not harmless. But the amount of harm they (and any other tax) do is commensurate with how much they raise. The less they can raise, the less potential for harm they have. Since tariffs have less of a potential amount they can raise than other taxes, they also have less of a potential for harm.

And you absolutely can shrink the federal government to a size that could be paid for by tariffs alone. Why do you think you can't?

How low do you think you can go in spending? What would you consider a "reasonable" tariff amount? Ron Paul has said he would not cut Social Security or Medicaid/ Medicare. Can't get rid of the interest on the debt. Let us start with those three items. Leave in a little for national defense and you are already up to about $2 trillion in spending which would be a 100% tarrif.

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

 

[erowe1]

How low do you think you can go?

The absolute lower limit is zero.

This country got along fine for a long time without those entitlements. I see no reason it can't again.

As someone else said, reducing government to a size that could be funded by tariffs alone would merely be taking it back to what it was 100 years ago.

Again, all this is a reason for why tariffs are less harmful than other taxes. You seem to be saying the opposite.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The absolute lower limit is zero.

This country got along fine for a long time without those entitlements. I see no reason it can't again.

As someone else said, reducing government to a size that could be funded by tariffs alone would merely be taking it back to what it was 100 years ago.

Again, all this is a reason for why tariffs are less harmful than other taxes. You seem to be saying the opposite.

Spending 100 years ago was $700 million (probably not adjusted for inflation) http://federal-budget.findthebest.com/l/12/1910. I used an inflation calculator and came up with that being worth $16 billion today. Interest on the debt alone today is near $200 billion so that is quite unrealistic. Just to cover that interest on the debt would require a 10% tarrif on all imports.

 

[Nathaniel1984]

A 'resonable' plan, would be that the federal government sell of 90% of its property, including all of its land, and such.

Otherwise, they should just default on the debt, take the massive hit, and get over it in the years to come, rather than spreading everything out over decades of slow death and destruction, and inflation.

 

[apex]

A tariff would make imports more expensive which would result in AMERICA actually competing and manufacturing something to compete with that price. People will stop buying cheap Chinese crap if its not cheap anymore. Tariffs might not work immediately but in the long run it would work by america creating manufacturing jobs and making american stuff cheaper.