Founders Not Really for Free Trade!

[tonesforjonesbones]

It doesn't appear that the Founders were for true free trade! Look at this! Thomas Jefferson is talking about PROTECTIONISM...they didn't tax the people they didn't tax businesses because they imposed TARRIFFS! That is where they got the money to run government. tones


"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government, to fulfill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition of it among the States and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State. In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be by increased population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burthening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dr.3D]

I've pretty much been saying that right along.

 

[Danke]

Yep. And they held Lotteries too. Geniuses.

 

[enter`name`here]

Yes, of all the taxes there are tariffs are probably the least invasive. Now I am against all taxes of any kind but if I was absolutely positively forced to choose one to have in place it would be a tariff.

Tariffs are not completely benign however, they harm the general consuming public, to the advantage a small group of privileged businessmen, and encourage an intermarriage of government and corporate power who both find it to their benefit to raise taxes.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I think, personally, that the only way tariffs could work in the US is if there was a flat tariff of a fixed amount on ALL imported goods (and I'm talking real small, nothing over 5%).

I still prefer no tariffs and no taxes though, but that's me....still trying to figure out some non-coercive way the government could raise funds

 

[Trigonx]

For a new Country, the best way to grow would be tariffs. Not only do you keep local goods competitive with imports, but also gain the capital to fund a federal government without draining any efficiency from the people of the US. Brilliant! simply Brilliant!

 

[dannno]

Countries spend resources defending ports of entry and defending against piracy. I'm not completely against small tariffs, but if you know anything about the nightmare that is NAFTA (checkout the book "If You Hafta NAFTA") I am completely against that... holy jeebus, try finding a tariff code for a carborator, you'll go fucking insane. They'll probably ask you to detail each piece contained in the carborator.. then ask you the country of origin for each piece.. it's just fucking stupid.

Trade ships can be charged a modest fee based on the cubic area of their cargo load or something along those lines, I wouldn't oppose it.

 

[nate895]

If you want to have a government, you have to have taxes. The best tax on the Federal level is an extremely low tariff, I'd argue 2% across the board on everything. That would barely affect trade at all. The state should probably have a low sales tax, as well as a small amount of business taxation.

 

[Vote Waterman 2028]

When people are speaking about how time has changed and that doesnt apply to the times we live in, it usually really pisses me off and i disagree. However, in the global market that we have today due to advancements in technology our founding fathers never could have dreamed of let alone forsee, the free market is the smartest way to keep the economic leverage we have on other countries, for good (and sometimes bad unfortunately). This allows us to be the most advanced country in most aspects, and once we finally work on our own problems and right most of our wrongs, that leverage can be used to peacefully spread our influence throughout the world. People are all envious, and they should envy our way of life, but try to have the same for themselves. thats how the founding fathers thought of spreading democracy. Make everyone else want the same, but we have to allow them to, thats our problem today.

 

[Kludge]

Make everyone else want the same, but we have to allow them to, thats our problem today.

Many (myself included to an extent) are envious of Hong Kong. It's amazing that those vile terrorists haven't nuked the country for being free and prosperous.

 

[Number19]

If you want to have a government, you have to have taxes. The best tax on the Federal level is an extremely low tariff, I'd argue 2% across the board on everything. That would barely affect trade at all. The state should probably have a low sales tax, as well as a small amount of business taxation.

Sales tax and business tax is a direct tax on American labor. A tariff on imports is a tax on foreign labor and only minutely a tax on American labor ( taxing the labor of the importer ).

Any sales tax or business tax on American labor opens Pandora's Box.

 

[Pericles]

In 2007, the total value of imports to the US was $1.95 Trillion, so a 10% levy would yield $195 Billion for a federal budget. Seems about the right way to go ....

1. Crude oil... US$237.2 billion (12.1% of US total imports, up 9.5% from 2006)
2. New and used passenger cars ... $134.1 billion (6.9%, down 1.1%)
3. Other automotive parts and accessories ... $73.4 billion (3.8%, up 5.1%)
4. Medicinal, dental and pharmaceutical preparations ... $71.7 billion (3.7%, up 11.3%)
5. Computer accessories, peripherals and parts ... $63 billion (3.2%, down 6.7%)
6. Other household goods ... $56 billion (2.9%, up 8%)
7. Cotton apparel and household goods ... $50.9 million (2.6%, up 4.4%)
8. Other petroleum products ... $48,380,630 (2.5%, up 9.4%)
9. Telecommunications equipment ... $44.3 billion (2.3%, up 10.2%)
10. Computers ... $40.9 billion (2.1%, up 21.2%)
11. Television receivers and other video equipment ... $39.8 billion (2%, up 11%)
12. Electric apparatus and parts ... $35.6 billion (1.8%, up 5.9%).

 

[nate895]

Sales tax and business tax is a direct tax on American labor. A tariff on imports is a tax on foreign labor and only minutely a tax on American labor ( taxing the labor of the importer ).

Any sales tax or business tax on American labor opens Pandora's Box.

The states cannot have a tariff, it is against the Constitution, and they are the bodies that need more money, how do you expect them to get it without those taxes?

 

[nate895]

In 2007, the total value of imports to the US was $1.95 Trillion, so a 10% levy would yield $195 Billion for a federal budget. Seems about the right way to go ....

1. Crude oil... US$237.2 billion (12.1% of US total imports, up 9.5% from 2006)
2. New and used passenger cars ... $134.1 billion (6.9%, down 1.1%)
3. Other automotive parts and accessories ... $73.4 billion (3.8%, up 5.1%)
4. Medicinal, dental and pharmaceutical preparations ... $71.7 billion (3.7%, up 11.3%)
5. Computer accessories, peripherals and parts ... $63 billion (3.2%, down 6.7%)
6. Other household goods ... $56 billion (2.9%, up 8%)
7. Cotton apparel and household goods ... $50.9 million (2.6%, up 4.4%)
8. Other petroleum products ... $48,380,630 (2.5%, up 9.4%)
9. Telecommunications equipment ... $44.3 billion (2.3%, up 10.2%)
10. Computers ... $40.9 billion (2.1%, up 21.2%)
11. Television receivers and other video equipment ... $39.8 billion (2%, up 11%)
12. Electric apparatus and parts ... $35.6 billion (1.8%, up 5.9%).

10% is overly protective. Another option for federal funding Constitutionally is to levy it from the states, and the states can have other forms of taxes.

 

[Conza88]

The Founders give government the right to coin money... they were extreme / radical in what they were proposing. Limited Government. If only Rothbard was around back then, free market in money in the United States; not even allowing government to control it....

Would quite literally change the course of history. (If it remained that way..)



All that a tariff can achieve is to divert production from those locations in which the output per unit of input is higher to locations in which it is lower. It does not increase production; it curtails it. ~ Human Action, p. 737

The only case that can be made on behalf of protective tariffs is this: the sacrifices they impose could be offset by other, noneconomic advantages—for instance, from a national and military point of view it could be desirable to more or less isolate a country from the world. ~ A Critique of Interventionism, p. 23


The imposition of a duty on the importation of a commodity burdens the consumers. ~ Human Action, p. 742


Many people look upon tariff protection as if it were a privilege accorded to their nation’s wage earners, procuring them, for the full duration of its existence, a higher standard of living than they would enjoy under free trade. ~ Human Action, p. 745

 

[sratiug]

I think, personally, that the only way tariffs could work in the US is if there was a flat tariff of a fixed amount on ALL imported goods (and I'm talking real small, nothing over 5%).

I still prefer no tariffs and no taxes though, but that's me....still trying to figure out some non-coercive way the government could raise funds

Yes. We need a flat tariff by constitutional amendment, adjusted each year to a size large enough to pay all federal expenses so their is no deficit spending. The tariff should apply to labor (getting someone in asia when you call the phone company) as well as goods.

 

[Truth Warrior]

What year did Adam Smith write "Wealth of Nations"?

 

[Number19]

The states cannot have a tariff, it is against the Constitution, and they are the bodies that need more money, how do you expect them to get it without those taxes?

Ahhh - the states. I was directing my comments only to the federal level.

At the state level, I would have to reconsider my position. You do have the option of choosing which of 50 to live in. And the politics at the state level is more directly under the control of the citizens.

The smaller the political unit, the more control which is allowed, because your options are increased. For example, if you wanted to build a proprietary community based around communism, you have the right to do so, so long as no one was forced to live there.

I haven't given much thought to what form of taxation I'd prefer at the state level, but generally, about the only expense I see at this level would be law enforcement and courts. A fee system might be used to some degree. Roads should be funded through a usage fee, either a "gasoline tax" or a toll system. A "gasoline tax" would impose a small overhead cost on retailers, to collect this fee. I have also always been intrigued by the use of a yearly, week long "fund raiser". You have the problem of "free riders", but I imagine this would be acceptable. Beyond this, I haven't given much thought to state funding.

 

[sratiug]

The Founders give government the right to coin money... they were extreme / radical in what they were proposing. Limited Government. If only Rothbard was around back then, free market in money in the United States; not even allowing government to control it....

Would quite literally change the course of history. (If it remained that way..)



All that a tariff can achieve is to divert production from those locations in which the output per unit of input is higher to locations in which it is lower. It does not increase production; it curtails it. ~ Human Action, p. 737

The only case that can be made on behalf of protective tariffs is this: the sacrifices they impose could be offset by other, noneconomic advantages—for instance, from a national and military point of view it could be desirable to more or less isolate a country from the world. ~ A Critique of Interventionism, p. 23


The imposition of a duty on the importation of a commodity burdens the consumers. ~ Human Action, p. 742


Many people look upon tariff protection as if it were a privilege accorded to their nation’s wage earners, procuring them, for the full duration of its existence, a higher standard of living than they would enjoy under free trade. ~ Human Action, p. 745

The alternative to the flat tariff is that that same money is raised internally by taxing something else, and could be said to be artificially driving commerce out of the country, as we can plainly see has happened here.

 

[sratiug]

When people are speaking about how time has changed and that doesnt apply to the times we live in, it usually really pisses me off and i disagree. However, in the global market that we have today due to advancements in technology our founding fathers never could have dreamed of let alone forsee, the free market is the smartest way to keep the economic leverage we have on other countries, for good (and sometimes bad unfortunately). This allows us to be the most advanced country in most aspects, and once we finally work on our own problems and right most of our wrongs, that leverage can be used to peacefully spread our influence throughout the world. People are all envious, and they should envy our way of life, but try to have the same for themselves. thats how the founding fathers thought of spreading democracy. Make everyone else want the same, but we have to allow them to, thats our problem today.

We are all out of democracy to spread, not to mention we were never a democracy. And many people around the world have never envied us and would be better off if we never existed. Many more would be better off if the British empire never existed. We don't need economic leverage over other countries. What area, besides phony money are we the most advanced?