Why Is the GOP Terrified of Tariffs?

Townhall.com ^ | March 6, 2018 | Pat Buchanan

[rb22982]

You really are dense, aren't you? Let me see if I can explain this so even an idiot can figure it out.

When we take US business $400b, 100% of the cost is borne by Americans. We we collect 400b in tariffs, some - if not the majority - is borne by foreign owners and labor with the rest by Us businesses and consumers. Ergo tariffs are more efficient for the US than a us corp income tax for America.

[Sam Gamgee]

Thanks for the great information. Being Canadian this is all newish to me, but I have a keen interest in learning about the Republic. We learned basically nothing in our education system.

In Canada we still, believe it or not, have conservatives, who are strong Tories. Seems like the US Republic may have taken the middle road, fighting as Whigs, but later seeking peace between royalists (who remained) and patriots, and forging a peaceful relationship with the British parliament.

I agree. The French embraced total anarchy, and their seem to me a failed experiment, considering they are on what - their 6th Republic?

[ek_hornbeck]

Just an aside observation: one thing that seems to hurt Alexander Hamilton's reputation among contemporary conservatives is that contemporary liberals have tried to co-opt him as one of their own (dishonestly, for reasons I've covered in my earlier posts). The worst example of this is the idiotic "rap opera" Hamilton, where Hamilton is portrayed by (a black homosexual actor) as the Obama of his day. In reality, the only issue on which Hamilton could be plausibly considered politically "liberal" was his opposition to slavery, but even that wasn't so much a liberal vs. conservative issue in America as an industry vs. planter economic interest issue.

[Sam Gamgee]

I hadn’t realized liberals were trying to make him on of theirs. I guess they are trying to drag Washington and Jefferson through the mud for being slave owners. I guess I don’t really have a retort for that. Other than no one is perfect (Martin Luther King Jnr was a womanizer for example).

[FreedomNotSafety]

Dense? You have already conceded that you can use a tariff to limit imports or you can use it to raise revenue and that success in limiting imports means lessened revenue. Extrapolate how much revenue is raised on zero imports. Now you brilliantly perform basic math and start explaining revenue. So you’re actually in favor of imports as means for revenue? Which means the optimal tax rate on imports needs to be low enough so as not to hinder their purchase.

Or have you imagined another MBA unicorn? One that allows punitive tariffs that protect American industries and good jobs and yet still raises enough revenue to eliminate corporate taxes. We s that you next argument?

[rb22982]

Which means the optimal tax rate on imports needs to be low enough so as not to hinder their purchase

You simply refuse to get it. The tax revenue must come from somewhere. You can either get it from US companies or International. Neither is great, but at least some portion - perhaps a large portion - will come from the International business on a tariff while 100% is born by US people when you tax US corporations.

Which means the optimal tax rate on imports needs to be low enough so as not to hinder their purchase.

We certainly don't do this for US corporate income taxes or US personal income taxes among other taxes. There is nothing inherently good about international trade. Put it this way, if someone in Kansas produces something that is sold in Florida, we tax that income. Take the same product, produce it in China and sell it in Florida, we don't tax it at all, get no income tax from it and have shipped the jobs from Kansas to China. How is that better than charging US firms 0% income tax and charging a tariff to generate the Income that must exist. If you can eliminate 99% of the federal government, including the interest on the existing debt, we don't need tax income. But until then, tariff tax is a much, much better tax than US corporate income tax.

[FreedomNotSafety]

You don’t get it. Maybe the paradox of taxation is too much for a T10. If you tax something you get less of it. Tax it enough and you will get nothing. Tax it not at all and you will get nothing. Somewhere in between is a rate of taxation that yields maximum revenue. This is called the Laffer Curve. Named after Arthur Laffer a truley smart man.

Is your goal to keep imports out and theoretically increase jobs? Then go the full Navvaro and Ross rate of 50%. That would probably do it. Very little imports and very little taxes from imports.

Or do you wish to raise revenue using the best possible tax scheme which you say is tariffs. Then the rate would probably be low. Low enough that imports continue to be in good supply. With imposters flowing in tax collections will be high.

Which is it? Crush imports? Or have so much imports you can finance the government with the most efficient tax you can think of?

Pick one.

[rb22982]

If you tax something you get less of it. Tax it enough and you will get nothing. Tax it not at all and you will get nothing. Somewhere in between is a rate of taxation that yields maximum revenue. This is called the Laffer Curve. Named after Arthur Laffer a truley smart man.

You can keep up with this straw-man argument all day long if it makes your pea brain happy. I haven't argued against the laffer curve at all. But the laffer curve is ONLY in consideration for maximizing tax revenue for that type of tax. It doesn't consider other taxes (eg: shipping US jobs to China means less payroll and income taxes collected, property taxes, etc) nor does it consider the net GDP effect for the total country. If you steal $450 billion a year from US businesses its going to have a bigger impact on the US than stealing $450 billion in tariff taxes on the US in aggregate.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Which is it? Get rid of imports or raise taxes. The best most efficient way of raising taxes is a sales tax on imports according to you. Yet you are in favor of getting rid of imports. The T10 term would be cognitive dissonance.

Which is it?

[rb22982]

Straw-man, outright lying and hyperbole. Nice work. 1) Never said I wanted to raise taxes. I said I wanted it tax neutral 2) I never said I wanted to get rid of imports. 3) I said it is significantly more efficient for the USA than a direct tax on the US populace, not that it is optimally efficient than no tax. You can keep this up if you want, but you are being intellectually dishonest and I’m done wasting my time.

[FreedomNotSafety]

You don’t want to raise taxes and you don’t want get rid of imports you just want more efficient taxation. So you don’t mind steel workers losing their jobs to imported steel so long as we make use of an efficient import tax?