Posts

Replacing the Income Tax With Tariffs?

During the 2024 campaign and since, President Trump has mused about replacing the income tax with tariffs. Trump believes that tariffs will put the burden of financing the U.S. government on the backs of foreigners.

Nice idea. Who wouldn’t want somebody else paying our government’s bills? To support his case, Trump correctly points out that until the modern income tax was adopted by the 16th Amendment in 1913, the United States collected the bulk of its revenue through tariffs (customs duties) and manufacturers excise taxes (discussed below).

So why can’t the U.S.do that again? If foreign producers of products imported into the U.S. in fact pay tariffs, it might be good idea. The problem is that’s just not how it works.

What is a Tariff?

A tariff (or customs duty) is an excise tax on foreign products brought into the U.S. An excise tax is imposed on a specific product or activity. Examples of excise taxes on products are those on cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline.

A tariff is paid by the domestic importer, not the foreign producer. For example, suppose ABC Imports, Inc., a U.S. corporation, brings $1 million of home goods into the U.S. from Mexico. At the point the products are received in a U.S. port, ABC Imports pays the tariff to the U.S. government. The amount of the tariff is based on the specific goods in question. Different products have different rates. The amount also depends on the foreign source of the product. Products from China may carry a heavier tariff than products from the European Union, for example.

The price of the tariff gets folded into the overall cost that ABC Imports pays for the product. That price is passed on to the retailer, and then to the final purchaser. As such, when a foreign product is sold in the U.S., the tariff is ultimately paid by the end-user of the product. President Trump’s apparent belief that foreign producers take the hit on tariffs ignores the economic reality that corporations don’t pay taxes; people do. Corporations invariably pass production and distribution costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods, or lower quality goods at the same price.

The economic reality of a tariff is that U.S. consumers pay it, not the foreign producer or foreign government. That makes foreign products more expensive for U.S. consumers.

Why Impose Tariffs?

1. Raising revenue. Raising revenue to help fund the government is one reason to impose tariffs. However, the revenue raised from tariffs by the federal government in the present era is insignificant. In 2024, the U.S. collected about $4.92 trillion in revenue from all sources. Only about 2 percent of that came from tariffs.

To consider replacing all income taxes with tariffs, there would have to be massive increases in tariff rates, on a huge number of and from most nations. This would have substantial negative economic effects, not the least of which is substantially higher prices on consumer goods, and likely a substantial reduction in consumer options as foreign products become increasing unavailable. At a minimum, such a move would trigger retaliatory tariffs by other governments. We are already seeing some of this with the new tariffs.

2. Encouraging and protecting domestic investment and production. As stated above, tariffs make imports more expensive. Because those products are more expensive, they become less desirable to U.S. consumers. This can favor U.S. producers. For example, suppose a U.S.-produced home good sells at Walmart for $25. A comparable un-tariffed Chinese product with a wholesale cost of $10 sells at retail for $20. Consumers will generally choose the less expensive Chinese product.

In the simplest scenario, if the government imposes a 50% tariff on the Chinese product, the wholesale cost goes from $10 to $15, and the retail price goes from $20 to $30. That imported product now costs $10 more than the similar domestic product. This can have the effect of encouraging domestic production of that product.

The irony is that increased tariffs on foreign products can reduce tariff revenue. A seminal economic principle is that what you tax you get less of. When you tax foreign products, you get fewer foreign products. High tariffs incentivize manufacturers to produce their product domestically so as to avoid the tariff. Likewise, customers are incentivized to purchase lower-cost domestic products. In both cases, people stop paying the tariff, undercutting the goal of raising revenue.

3. Addressing market distortions. A “distortion” is a phenomenon that leads people to do something they otherwise would not do; or discourages people from doing something they otherwise would do. All taxes cause distortions at some level. Graduated income taxes, for example, cause distortions in that they discourage production because the more money one earns, the higher the rate of tax is paid; thus, the less a person benefits from his own labor and industry.

Tariffs can mitigate market distortions caused by foreign governments flooding U.S. markets with subsidized products or those produced with (by U.S standards) artificially cheap labor.. The Chinese workforce does not enjoy the luxury of U.S. labor unions, minimum wage laws, workmen’s comp protections, medical insurance, and retirement benefits, etc. Because of that, Chinese products are frequently far cheaper than comparable U.S. products. The distortion is that U.S. consumers are driven to purchase the lower-cost product, where they might otherwise purchase the U.S.-produced product at a comparable price.

4. Retaliation and negotiating leverage. Tariffs can be used to retaliate against other nations that are trading unfairly.. In this regard, tariffs serve to level the playing field between nations. The U.S. imposes tariffs and then promises to remove them if the unfair behavior stops. This undercuts both the goals of domestic production and of raising revenue, since the entire point of the tariffs is to eventually negotiate them away.

5. National security. The U.S. may impose tariffs on certain foreign products deemed essential to U.S. national security. High tariffs on such items discourage imports, thus protecting domestic producers. This helps to ensure that the U.S. does not become dangerously dependent on foreign products that are integral to national security and defense.

Can Tariffs Replace the Income Tax?

The president argues that because the United States operated chiefly on tariffs and manufacturers excise taxes in the past, it can do so again. The reason that the federal government could operate on tariffs 125 years ago is because the federal government spent very little money. Its need for revenue was nowhere close, even in inflation-adjusted numbers, to what federal spending is today.

Between the years 1895 and 1910, federal spending went from about $366 million (not billion) to $758 million per year. Today, the federal government spends over 1,300 times more than that on interest payments alone.

During that same period, around 60 to 70 percent of federal revenue came from tariffs. The balance came from excise taxes and other insignificant sources. The modern personal and corporate income tax did not begin until after 1913.

To make Trump’s idea work, the federal government would have to slash its spending considerably. And by that, I don’t mean by 3 to 5 percent, or even 10 to 20 percent. Even cutting spending in half would require the federal government to collect about $3 trillion in revenue from a system that currently collects only about $100 billion.

And even if that would work to raise enough revenue, it would be impossible for Trump to accomplish his other tariff goals, such as encouraging domestic production or negotiating better trade deals. Tariffs work against themselves, which is one of the reasons they are such a destructive tax, one the U.S. should avoid layering on top of its already uncompetitive tax system.

Americans Paying Most Income Taxes Ever

The Treasury expects to feed on a 28% surge in individual income taxes this year and another spurt in 2025 when the Trump tax cuts expire, according to a new budget analysis presented to Congress on Thursday.

The latest Congressional Budget Office report revealed expectations of $2.6 trillion in individual income taxes this year, up from $2 trillion last year.

Not only is that the highest ever, but it is also the biggest share of gross domestic product since income taxes began.

“In 2021, receipts from individual income taxes totaled $2.0 trillion, or 9.1% of GDP. Under current law, and on the basis of receipts observed through late April of this year, CBO expects individual income tax receipts to rise by 28% in 2022, to $2.6 trillion. At 10.6% of GDP, that total is expected to be the highest amount of individual income tax receipts recorded since 1913, when ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment authorized the federal government to begin collecting income taxes,” said the agency.

The CBO said that the overall federal revenue is expected to reach a record $4.8 trillion in 2022, a 19% one-year increase. (Read more from “Americans Paying Most Income Taxes Ever” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Congressman: Let’s Scrap Income Tax

Photo Credit: WND

Photo Credit: WND

The federal tax code is a complex, unintelligible mess, and America needs to embrace the simplicity of a national consumption tax known as the Fair Tax, according to Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who is just one of many conservatives touting the idea as Americans rush to meet the federal income tax deadline.

“PROBLEM: folks sacrificing precious time, money and peace of mind on a broken complex tax code. SOLUTION: the #FairTax,” tweeted Price on Tuesday. Fellow Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., also tweeted support for the Fair Tax and the abolishing of the IRS.

Price said the first thing Americans need to recognize is that the current tax system is a disaster.

“Our current system actually punishes the things that we say that we want as a society,” he said. “We say we want hard work. We say we want success. We say we want entrepreneurs, risk taking, investment and all those kinds of things. Yet our tax system punishes every single one of them. So many of us believe that we need think more fundamentally and more creatively about it and come up with a tax system that doesn’t just massage what we currently have but puts in place a system that actually rewards those things.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.:

Read more from this story HERE.

Americans Paid All-Time Highs In State and Local Taxes in 2nd Quarter

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Revenues from state and local individual income taxes, general sales and gross receipt taxes, motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes and taxes on alcoholic beverages each hit all-time highs in the second quarter of this year, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

That means that in no quarter of any year since the Census Bureau first started tracking state and local tax revenues in 1962 have Americans paid more in each of these categories of state and local taxes then they did in the quarter that ran from April through June of 2013.

Americans paid a record of $114.032 billion in state and local individual income taxes in the second quarter of this year, according to the Census Bureau. That was up $7.787 billion—or 7.3 percent—from the previous all-time record of $106.245 billion in state and local individual income taxes that Americans paid in the second quarter of 2008.

Americans also paid a record of $82.212 billion in state and local general sales and gross receipts taxes in the second quarter of this year. That was up $1.85 billion—or 2.3 percent—from the previous record of $80.362 billion in general sales and gross receipts taxes American paid in the second quarter of 2008.

Americans paid a record of $11.254 billion in state and local motor fuels taxes in the second quarter of 2013. That was up $135 million—or 1.2 percent—from the previous record of $11.119 billion paid in the second quarter of 2012.

Read more from this story HERE.

IRS Pursuing ‘Stateless Income’ Tax Enforcement: Official

Photo Credit: ReutersThe Internal Revenue Service is pursuing tax enforcement cases against companies over the issue of “stateless income,” a senior agency official said on Wednesday in a reference to corporate profits that are not taxed by any country.

Erik Corwin, an IRS deputy chief counsel, said there were international tax disputes with companies, “most involving consequences of complex restructurings designed either to create stateless income or to affect a tax efficient repatriation.”

“So those are a family of cases that are in the pipeline and being looked at,” he told tax lawyers in a speech in Washington.

Asked by reporters later to elaborate on any litigation, Corwin declined to comment. But tax lawyers said the references to stateless income and profits held offshore could signal a new enforcement approach by the IRS.

“I have not heard the IRS use the term before,” Edward Kleinbard, who coined the “stateless income” phrase in a 2007 research paper, said in a telephone interview.

Read more from this story HERE.

One Hundred Years of Income Tax

Sunday, February 3, is the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, which makes it the one hundredth birthday of the income tax. It has grown rather ill-tempered in its dotage.

Americans for Tax Reform commemorated the occasion by publishing a few fun facts about the income tax. Among other interesting statistics, the initial top tax bracket was only 7 percent, and it didn’t kick in until income reached a whopping $11.6 million in 2013 dollars. Only 358,000 people had to fill out 1040 forms at first, because the standard family deduction was an adjusted $93,000.

Over the past hundred years, the tax code has swelled from 400 pages to almost 74,000. The top rate is 39.6 percent; add in state and local taxes, and you’ve got the government soaking up over half of every marginal dollar earned by the Evil Rich. And the top bracket crashes down on those who earn over $450k, which is the new functional definition of a “millionaire.” Every new tax – from the income tax itself, to the Alternative Minimum Tax and its prospective stepchild, the “Buffett Rule” – is sold as a small levy on the vast wealth of millionaires. The AMT was only supposed to affect a couple of hundred people when it was implemented in 1969, but now it’s on the verge of grabbing 50 million taxpayers, if it’s not “fixed.” In the early years of the income tax, Americans were likewise assured that it would only slip a few dollars from the bulging wallets of the wealthy.

Allowing the government to sink its feeding tubes into the veins of American income has fueled astonishing government growth. That first itty bitty tax levy brought in a paltry $16.6 billion in revenue, adjusted for the past century of inflation. Today the income tax brings in $2.7 trillion. Government inevitably grows to fill, and exceed, the space made available for it.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this tax is the way it is collected. As we were all reminded during the row over presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s remarks about the “47 percent,” the “progressive” tax system has moved an increasingly large cohort of Americans out of the system entirely, while placing an ever-greater share of the burden upon a dwindling group of high wage earners. Remarkably, this group is perpetually accused of “greed” and refusing to pay its “fair share,” even though the relationship between its tax burden and the amount of income it earns has long since exceeded any reasonable definition of “fairness.” Even before the new Obama tax increases kicked in, the Heritage Foundation noted that the top 10 percent of income earners were carrying 71 percent of the federal income tax burden, even though they earned only 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent, meanwhile, earned 13 percent of all income but paid only 2 percent of the income tax.

Read more from this story HERE.

Republican Governors’ Plan To Eliminate Income Taxes Comes Under Scrutiny

Several Republican governors are proposing an end to their state income taxes in exchange for closing loopholes including mortgage deductions — plans to make their states more competitive in the U.S. economy but already being criticized by Democrats.

Gov. Dave Heineman, Nebraska, and Bobby Jindal, Louisiana, earlier this week proposed eliminating the tax on residents and corporations.

Meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback proposed lower taxes for all residents in exchange for eliminating the tax deduction for interest paid on home mortgages.

Brownback’s mortgage-interest proposal is to help close a budget shortfall and was rejected last year by the state’s General Assembly.

He has been working for at least a year toward ending state income taxes and announced his plan Tuesday as part of his balanced budget proposal for fiscal 2014 and 2015.

Read more from this story HERE.