Tariffs are Theft

[PAF]

by Ron Paul
3/10/2025


The US and China came closer to a full-fledged trade war last week when China imposed tariffs of up to 15 percent on key US agricultural exports. This was retaliation for President Trump’s increasing of tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States from 10 percent to 20 percent.

China’s retaliatory tariffs show how export-dependent industries are harmed by protectionist policies. Even if other countries refrain from imposing retaliatory tariffs, exporters can still suffer from reduced demand for their products in countries targeted by US tariffs. Businesses that rely on imported materials to manufacture their products also suffer from increased production costs thanks to tariffs. President Trump acknowledged how tariffs harm US manufacturers when he granted US automakers’ request for a one-month delay in new tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada.

Many American consumers who are struggling with high prices are concerned that President Trump’s tariff policy will further increase prices. They are right to be concerned. Contrary to popular belief, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs. Tariffs are paid by US businesses that wish to sell the imported goods. When tariffs are increased, the importing businesses try to recoup their increased costs by increasing their prices. Consumers then must choose whether to pay the higher price, find a cheaper alternative, or do without the product. Whatever they choose, consumers will be worse off because they cannot spend their money the way they prefer.

Tariffs may provide a short-term benefit to the protected businesses. However, tariffs could keep businesses alive that should be allowed to fail so the business owners and workers can put their talents to use in other endeavors that would more greatly benefit and the whole economy.

Defenders of tariffs, including President Trump, claim the revenue from tariffs can be used to “offset” the revenue government loses from tax cuts. Some even claim that tariffs can generate enough revenue to allow the government to repeal the income tax. The problem with this is that a tariff brings in more revenue to “pay for” tax cuts only to the extent the tariff does not cause consumers to cease buying imported goods. Thus, the tariffs, to bring revenue to the government, must not be large enough to discourage Americans from buying foreign products. The more tariffs increase government revenue, the more they will tend to fail in bringing about another often promoted tariff goal — an increase in the purchase of domestic goods.

According to the Tax Foundation, if President Trump’s tariff plan for China, Mexico, and Canada were fully implemented, it would increase federal tax revenue by 142 billion dollars this year — an average tax increase of over one thousand dollars per household. The tariffs would also decrease economic output. This does not account for the decline in consumer satisfaction caused by consumers being forced to alter their consumption choices because of government-caused price increases. It also does not account for the new businesses, products, and jobs that could have been created had government not drained resources from the productive economy via tariffs.

The economic effects are a good enough reason to oppose raising tariffs. However, the main reason to oppose tariffs is that tariffs, like all taxes (including the inflation tax), are theft.

Tariffs are Theft

Ron Paul Liberty Report

www.ronpaullibertyreport.com

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ron is wrong.
Tariffs are the best form of taxation to support the legitimate functions of government.
They have the least drawbacks and some positive benefits.

Tariffs prevent hostile foreigners and the international globalists from reducing the average American to a 3rd world slave.
When the middle class is destroyed liberty goes out the window, the poor feel robbed (rightly so) and go socialist, meanwhile the globalist class consolidates all money and power into the hands of the 0.1% and either manipulates the poor or just takes direct power through election theft and the deep state bureaucracy.

 

[CCTelander]

Well, if it’s a choice between believing Ron Paul’s position (which is supported by hundreds of years’ worth of actual empirical evidence), or the bullshit propaganda that Swordy constantly posts on this topic (supported mostly by protectionist shills for rent seeking corps and industries, and economic illiterates like Pat Buchanan), I guess I’ll be siding with Ron on this one. Not just because Ron says so, although he has earned a good deal of rust due to his actual actions over several decades, but because the actual evidence is also on his side. Nit that evidence actually counts for much anymore, but…

 

[Swordsmyth]

Well, if it’s a choice between believing Ron Paul’s position (which is supported by hundreds of years’ worth of actual empirical evidence), or the bullshit propaganda that Swordy constantly posts on this topic (supported mostly by protectionist shills for rent seeking corps and industries, and economic illiterates like Pat Buchanan), I guess I’ll be siding with Ron on this one. Not just because Ron says so, although he has earned a good deal of rust due to his actual actions over several decades, but because the actual evidence is also on his side. Nit that evidence actually counts for much anymore, but…

Hundreds of years worth of actual empirical evidence supports tariffs and condemns free trade, not only on economic grounds but on liberty grounds.
Not having tariffs creates an opening for much worse things like the income tax, and it creates globalism and world government.

Ron is part of the brainwashed on this subject, as are nearly all libertarians.
You lose the debate every time, so you just retreat to declaring falsely that history is the opposite of what it is and quoting your false prophets, and even the false prophets admit it creates globalism but pretend that's a good thing.

 

[TheTexan]

Tariffs may provide a short-term benefit to the protected businesses. However, tariffs could keep businesses alive that should be allowed to fail so the business owners and workers can put their talents to use in other endeavors that would more greatly benefit and the whole economy.

The problem with this logic is it ignores what happens to the means of production. The industrial equipment from a factory that fails in the US will generally either rot, be sold to China, or be melted for scraps.

We lose the ability to create wealth, and we lose almost all of the associated service industry that was servicing the wealth creation activities.

Some tiny fraction of the US employees who lost their job will continue to service wealth creation activities, just simply the wealth creation activities of China.

The majority of US employees who lost their job, will not be servicing wealth creation activities at all. The jobs that remain are generally consumer service roles. Consumer service roles do not create wealth and nor do they service the creation of wealth.

The net result of all of this is we become totally dependent on China to produce wealth, and we beg them to let us service their industries so we can earn some small fraction of that wealth. Their economy grows fantastically and ours stagnates, which is exactly what we have seen.

And all of this isn't even due to labor cost advantages anymore. China has such a stranglehold on the industry that American factories would fail even if American labor costs were zero. A factory cannot exist on its own, it needs a supporting ecosystem of factories and local service industry, for it to be viable.

This was China's strategy from the beginning and they executed it flawlessly: to erase American industrial capability to zero.

There is not a "free market" solution to this. The "free market" solution to this is to let China keep its industrial dominance, we all learn Chinese, and America becomes an autonomous region under China's control. That's the "free market" solution to this problem.

If we don't like the sound of that - and I certainly don't - the only other option that I see is government intervention (e.g. tariffs).

If there are indeed free market solutions that solves these problems, then I'd love to hear it. The only free market solutions I've heard, are those that either ignore these problems, or try to gaslight us into thinking that these problems are somehow good things. Well, they're not good things. It's a huge fuckin problem and it needs a solution. If there are actual free market ideas that address these issues then I'd love to hear it.

 

[TheTexan]

If there are indeed free market solutions that solves these problems, then I'd love to hear it. The only free market solutions I've heard, are those that either ignore these problems, or try to gaslight us into thinking that these problems are somehow good things. Well, they're not good things. It's a huge fuckin problem and it needs a solution. If there are actual free market ideas that address these issues then I'd love to hear it.

Still waiting...

 

[Snowball]

Although I am of the opinion that targeted, clearly delineated, and purposeful tariffs have their place in a managed trade program for the country, this is a different matter than the way in which "TRUMP" is employing tariffs.

"TRUMP" is employing tariffs as a blunt weapon to force other countries' into his own agenda. He seems to believe they will bend to whatever ageda he supports, or will somehow convince their citizens to buy more American goods THEY DO NOT WANT (and for good reasons in many cases).

Additionally, there is the larger misconceived notion that somehow a "trade imbalance" with country or group of countries is somehow deleterious to Americans. It is not. It is their choice as consumers. If they favor those imports, what business of it is the US GOV? None.

I can only support tariffs in a limited, targeted manner, and by themselves, they are never a solution, as if the magic wheels are going to turn, and affected sectors will just automatically reverse course because of them. This does not happen without hard work and managed solution-making.

What I'd like to know from Ron as a proponent of unfettered trade, is could he support a MORE EFFECTIVE solution than tariffs.
That would be BANS.

Why are BANS more effective? Two reasons:

1) BANS deprive the US GOV of revenue, thus, contributing to the shrinking of government.
2) BANS more FORECEFULLY benefit American producers, because competition doesn't even enter the marketplace AT ALL.
In the case of BANS, additional supports might not even be required to acheive outcomes beneficial to Americans.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Although I am of the opinion that targeted, clearly delineated, and purposeful tariffs have their place in a managed trade program for the country, this is a different matter than the way in which "TRUMP" is employing tariffs.

"TRUMP" is employing tariffs as a blunt weapon to force other countries' into his own agenda. He seems to believe they will bend to whatever ageda he supports, or will somehow convince their citizens to buy more American goods THEY DO NOT WANT (and for good reasons in many cases).

Additionally, there is the larger misconceived notion that somehow a "trade imbalance" with country or group of countries is somehow deleterious to Americans. It is not. It is their choice as consumers. If they favor those imports, what business of it is the US GOV? None.

I can only support tariffs in a limited, targeted manner, and by themselves, they are never a solution, as if the magic wheels are going to turn, and affected sectors will just automatically reverse course because of them. This does not happen without hard work and managed solution-making.

What I'd like to know from Ron as a proponent of unfettered trade, is could he support a MORE EFFECTIVE solution than tariffs.
That would be BANS.

Why are BANS more effective? Two reasons:

1) BANS deprive the US GOV of revenue, thus, contributing to the shrinking of government.
2) BANS more FORECEFULLY benefit American producers, because competition doesn't even enter the marketplace AT ALL.
In the case of BANS, additional supports might not even be required to acheive outcomes beneficial to Americans.

Free trade has destroyed America, especially the common man.
We'd be better off than now if we had a total embargo on all foreign trade.
Trump is phasing in tariffs to the best balance because he doesn't want too much disruption on the way to rebuilding our economy, but a sudden shock to the system would still improve things in the long run.

Bans are a stupid idea, they deprive the government of the revenue necessary to get rid of the communist income tax thus keeping the government intimately involved in the lives of the citizens, they are not required in order to advantage native industry and they really do infringe on your right to buy foreign goods at all.

 

[acptulsa]

Free trade has destroyed America, especially the common man.

Free trade built America. Free trade was outlawed in America fifty years ago. No wonder you're always the first sheep popping up and bleating, "Gaslighting!!" You have to point fingers and try to blur the definition lest you get called out for gaslighting people constantly.

Incompetently, but constantly.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Free trade built America. Free trade was outlawed in America fifty years ago. No wonder you're always the first sheep popping up and bleating, "Gaslighting!!" You have to point fingers and try to blur the definition lest you get called out for gaslighting people constantly.

Incompetently, but constantly.

Pure historical gaslighting by you.
The Founders implemented a tariff regime to build American industries, the only argument was about how high the tariffs should be and on what they would be placed.

Then the Income tax was invented to replace tariffs and enslave Americans, but we still had protective tariffs until the advent of globalism after WWII, America's industrial might was slowly siphoned away to our rival and enemies and then absolutely flushed away with the opening of China and a full court press of opening our markets wide to foreign imports subsidized by our rivals and enemies directly and through the use of slave labor, this has resulted in nothing but the steady enserfement of the average American and the enrichment and empowerment of the globalist elite.

 

[Snowball]

Free trade has destroyed America, especially the common man.
We'd be better off than now if we had a total embargo on all foreign trade.
Trump is phasing in tariffs to the best balance because he doesn't want too much disruption on the way to rebuilding our economy, but a sudden shock to the system would still improve things in the long run.

Bans are a stupid idea, they deprive the government of the revenue necessary to get rid of the communist income tax thus keeping the government intimately involved in the lives of the citizens, they are not required in order to advantage native industry and they really do infringe on your right to buy foreign goods at all.

You're contradicting yourself here, and you didn't argue against any of what I wrote.

First, you say "We'd be better off than now if we had a total embargo on foreign trade".

You realize embargo = ban, right? Duh.

Then you throw up the red herring about income tax being abolished, something that is still a pipe dream, and justify the very same
massive foreign trade you previously deplored, because you can place tariffs on it. So, you want the bad because you want gov rev.

Bans actually force domestic economy to adapt with new businesses that thrive. Tariffs are just a tax, like Ron said.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're contradicting yourself here, and you didn't argue against any of what I wrote.

First, you say "We'd be better off than now if we had a total embargo on foreign trade".

You realize embargo = ban, right? Duh.

Then you throw up the red herring about income tax being abolished, something that is still a pipe dream, and justify the very same
massive foreign trade you previously deplored, because you can place tariffs on it. So, you want the bad because you want gov rev.

Bans actually force domestic economy to adapt with new businesses that thrive. Tariffs are just a tax, like Ron said.

Bans are not a good idea, but they would be better than what we have, there is no contradiction there.
What we have is worse than even an embargo.

I do not justify the massive foreign trade, I expect tariffs to reduce it, that's why we will also have to cut the excessive spending.

Tariffs force the domestic economy to adapt as well, but less harshly and without the other downsides of bans.

 

[Snowball]

Bans are not a good idea, but they would be better than what we have, there is no contradiction there.
What we have is worse than even an embargo.

I do not justify the massive foreign trade, I expect tariffs to reduce it, that's why we will also have to cut the excessive spending.

Tariffs force the domestic economy to adapt as well, but less harshly and without the other downsides of bans.

Targeted Bans whether against particular countries, or subsets of industries, have a positive effect on their counterparts domestically.

One example which Biden Adm in January put into effect is the BAN on connected-vehicle tech from China (and Russia).
As far as I'm aware, Trump has not lifted this ban.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Targeted Bans whether against particular countries, or subsets of industries, have a positive effect on their counterparts domestically.

One example which Biden Adm in January put into effect is the BAN on connected-vehicle tech from China (and Russia).
As far as I'm aware, Trump has not lifted this ban.

We should ban all trade with enemies like China, that's entirely different from banning the import of certain things entirely from any source.
Tariffs suffice and also replace other worse forms of taxation.

 

[acptulsa]

...that's entirely different from banning the import of certain things entirely from any source.

Who said anything about that? Snowball certainly didn't in what you snipped there?

Who are you talking to? What kind of red herring is this?

 

[Swordsmyth]

What I'd like to know from Ron as a proponent of unfettered trade, is could he support a MORE EFFECTIVE solution than tariffs.
That would be BANS.

Why are BANS more effective? Two reasons:

1) BANS deprive the US GOV of revenue, thus, contributing to the shrinking of government.
2) BANS more FORECEFULLY benefit American producers, because competition doesn't even enter the marketplace AT ALL.
In the case of BANS, additional supports might not even be required to acheive outcomes beneficial to Americans.

@acptulsa Learn to read.

 

[acptulsa]

FORECEFULLY

Learn to spell.

 

[Snowball]

Learn to spell.

I spell very well, but what I do not do is type well, because I'm old and male, and didn't ever type until the information superhighway came into our lives. Typing is not spelling.

 

[acptulsa]

enserfement

Sorry, thought I was talking to this clown.