A moral judgement on your part.
Alcohol, tobacco, etc are abundantly produced and consumed and make for a reliable source of revenue, but if people choose to stop purchasing them, to avoid taxation, then those people's lives will not significantly change
Another moral judgement. You also seem to be aware that when the tax on these "unnecessary"items becomes too high the tax revenue will go down. People will either quit using the items or the black market will step in. Your plan will not provide enough revenue for a limited fedgov.
As to tariffs, the US enjoyed its greatest prosperity from the end of WW2 to the mid 70's. That with tariffs averaging 24% and total foreign trade below 14% of GNP.
Regards
J.R.
No. It is my interpretation of the preamble to the constitution. As I said, assuming that some taxes are necessary, "I think that to tax the most unnecessary of items is most in line with promoting the general welfare."
"You also seem to be aware that when the tax on these 'unnecessary' items becomes too high the tax revenue will go down. People will either quit using the items or the black market will step in."
Right. That is why care should be taken to not levy taxes that are so high that they encourage such behavior.
"Your plan will not provide enough revenue for a limited fedgov."
So far, this is what I've put forth as a potential plan in this fantasy limited government:
"Tax alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, lottery winnings, and pornography, to start off. Sell all federal lands that are not needed for government infrastructure. Sell all infrastructure not within the bounds of limited government."
"...I think that the best form of charging users is to have a user fee. For example, if you copyright an invention, then you pay the associated administrative fees; if you are in immigrant applying for a Visa or citizenship, then you pay the associated administrative fees..."
"Tariffs cannot be ruled out, because they may be necessary, but I do not think that they should be the first or only option. If we do need to impose tariffs for additional revenue, then the careful selection of which products to impose tariffs on should be based upon the following criteria:
1) the importance of the product to the average American's lifestyle (the lower, the better)
2) the cost of collecting the tax versus the revenue collected (most efficient)
3) the effects upon the overall economy (least negatively)
4) the degree to which the tariff impacts upon the prices of similar products in the US (less impact, the better)"
"As to tariffs, the US enjoyed its greatest prosperity from the end of WW2 to the mid 70's. That with tariffs averaging 24% and total foreign trade below 14% of GNP."
What's the point? Tariffs lead to prosperity? Prosperity can co-exist with tariffs? Something else?