Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

A simple solution. If the cost of imported oranges is going to drop because the tariff would be removed then it is necassary to reduce the cost to produce Florida oranges. Assuming labor costs are as low as possible, and the cost of trees, land, and farm equipment will only go up from here, then the only answer is to reduce the tax burden on the grower. Both state property taxes as well as federal taxes on the business and the grower personally. That would be logical. In Washington, however, there is a different logic. If the tariff is removed then that revenue to the treasury will be lost. Therefore, the congressman decides, we must increase taxes elsewhere to make up for it. In a perfect world, a politician would at least bother to learn something about business before making policy over it.
1 posted on 11/02/2003 9:07:26 AM PST by Guard Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: farmfriend
ping
2 posted on 11/02/2003 10:19:09 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

3 posted on 11/02/2003 10:20:38 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog
We don't owe Brazil anything. The US should ensure that Brazilian citrus can't undercut Florida's. If that means a tariff, so be it.

I live in Florida, and it is truly a burden for these growers whose groves are their lives.

4 posted on 11/02/2003 10:28:00 AM PST by jra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog
''We're paying a laborer $60 a day. They're paying their guys $6,'' said Scott Christmas, a spokesman for the Florida Farm Bureau. ``When their farms provide their workers with housing and education, and when they begin to abide by environmental laws, then we'd be willing to do that.'' ,p> You will note he didn't mention taxes. You are underestimating the cost to the farmer of regulation, especially environmental law.
5 posted on 11/02/2003 10:31:50 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: harpseal
Tariff PING
8 posted on 11/02/2003 11:35:00 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog
In Washington, however, there is a different logic. If the tariff is removed then that revenue to the treasury will be lost. Therefore, the congressman decides, we must increase taxes elsewhere to make up for it.

That is the same dilemma that was faced by our Founders back in 1789, during the enactment of The First Federal Revenue Law

On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports...

Congressman John Laurence of New York supported Madison's proposal, arguing that "the more simple a plan of revenue is, the easier it becomes understood and executed." Madison elaborated. A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade

While widely demonized, misconstrued and denounced by the special interests that corrupt Congress today, our Founders wisely recognized that a relatively-low, uniform, flat-rate revenue tariff levied on ALL imported goods was the least oppressive form of taxation that could be imposed by our fledgling Republic.

It would be equally wise if we could emulate their example as best we can today: raising revenue for the Treasury through a uniform tariff to enable further reduction of other, more onerous, forms of domestic taxation. Of course, reduction of the size and scope of the federal government should be pursued as well.

9 posted on 11/02/2003 12:43:57 PM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog
If the Federal Government forfeits the funding they receive from import tariffs by initiating Free Trade agreements with foreign competitors where do they makeup the loss?

They'll have to increase the burden of the American Tax Payer in some way. Import taxes are supposed to be the major tool for funding the Federal Government. When our Nation was founded it was hoped these tariffs would keep the citizens burden to minimum and increase confidence in the Federal Government.

Free Trade agreements confirm the Feds believe the people are their servants and the obligation of the government to serve the people no longer exists. They don't even need the confidence of the people to continue operating. Arrogant elitists don’t care about what their slaves think.

The logical thing to do, is to follow the original business plan as closely as possible and quit ticking the people off by undercutting their labor, increasing their tax burden and extinguishing their livelihoods.

Any compromise made to the government that allows them to stop collecting import tarrifs, is an attempt to justify submitting to tyranny.
10 posted on 11/02/2003 12:49:03 PM PST by Fearless Flyers (Proud to be of The Brave and the Free, http://fearless-flyers.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog
I noticed that they printed a little joke in this article:

Removing the tariff would cut 29 cents from the U.S. price of a gallon of imported orange juice concentrate, making for cheaper orange juice on American breakfast tables.

Like someone said once, "Wheat goes up, bread goes up. Wheat comes down, bread stays up."

11 posted on 11/02/2003 12:49:23 PM PST by petuniasevan (No one is listening until you make a mistake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog
"''Consumers have been hurt by the tariff. But they don't have an interest group. They are not organized. They don't have money behind them,'' said Jerry Haar, director of the University of Miami's Inter-American Business and Labor Program."

A Marxist promise to look out for us?

The willingness to trash an industry, private businesses and communities in the name of saving me a few dollars a year on my food bill only serves to demonstrate their contempt for the working American. It is not just about a few cents a gallon, it's about established communities. Destroying families and communities is the Marxist goal.

13 posted on 11/02/2003 1:54:35 PM PST by Ches (Please pray for James, gubamyster and family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Guard Dog; clamper1797; sarcasm; BrooklynGOP; A. Pole; Zorrito; GiovannaNicoletta; Caipirabob; ...
Ping

On or off let me know
16 posted on 11/03/2003 8:45:18 AM PST by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson