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.

Chinese Official Reportedly Seeking Talks With Trump on Fentanyl Ingredients Amid Trade War

A top Chinese government official is asking what the Trump administration wants the communist nation to do about chemicals used to make fentanyl amid an ongoing trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

Wang Xiaohong, China’s minister of public security, has been making inquiries about what Trump wants China to do about the fentanyl issue over the last few days, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

Chinese companies produce precursors, large quantities of chemicals that eventually flow to Mexican drug cartels, which then make fentanyl and smuggle it into the United States.

Beijing could possibly have Wang meet with senior Trump administration officials in a neutral country, the newspaper reported.

Trump has tried to persuade China, Mexico and Canada to do more to combat the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. (Read more from “Chinese Official Reportedly Seeking Talks With Trump on Fentanyl Ingredients Amid Trade War” HERE)

Trump Administration Revokes 4,000 Visas for Students With Criminal Records for Assault, Robbery: ‘Breaking the Law With No Consequences’

The Trump administration has revoked the visas of 4,000 foreign students in its first 100 days — the bulk of which have committed crimes in the US including arson, assault and robbery, The Post has learned.

More than 90% of the rogue students who saw their visas nixed had committed crimes such as arson, wildlife and human trafficking, child endangerment, domestic abuse, DUI and robbery, a senior State Department source told The Post Monday. More than 500 of them had assault raps.

“They came and they were breaking the law with no consequences,” said the source.

“We set up a special action team to handle this.”

The State Department worked with the Department of Homeland Security, which tapped into their databases and compared that information with existing law enforcement records. (Read more from “Trump Administration Revokes 4,000 Visas for Students With Criminal Records for Assault, Robbery: ‘Breaking the Law With No Consequences’” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Three Rogue Judges Block Trump Admin Efforts To Eradicate Discriminatory DEI From Schools

The attempted judicial coup continues apace as three federal district court judges issued directives to stop the Trump administration’s ability to halt federal funding for schools that participate in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) discrimination.

Thursday saw district judges in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C., issue separate sweeping orders to stop some of the major education reforms President Donald Trump was elected to enact.

“Unelected judges, keen to disrupt the President’s efforts to remove color-consciousness from American education have forgotten that the judiciary is the only non-political branch of our tripartite system of government,” Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, told The Federalist. “Judges that prohibit the Department of Education’s enforcement of its ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ and related civil rights compliance form forget that both are constitutional and a plain-text application of longstanding federal civil rights laws like Title VI.”

“That law specifically conceives that institutions which do not uphold race neutral policies can have their federal funding revoked,” she continued. “Judges are bound to interpret the laws as they read — not as judges wish they read.”

The cases, brought by far-left teachers unions, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and others, were decided by two Trump-appointed judges and one appointee of President Barack Obama. They also came just one day after Trump signed yet another executive order trying to rein in the DEI-caused destruction in schools. (Read more from “Three Rogue Judges Block Trump Admin Efforts To Eradicate Discriminatory DEI From Schools” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Block Lower Court Injunction On Military ‘Trans’ Policy

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to stay a lower court’s nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of its policy disqualifying trans-identifying troops from serving in the military.

In the application filed by the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer requested that the high court stay a universal injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Issued by a Bush-appointed judge, the injunction is one of several orders put forward by lower court judges attempting to prevent the administration’s policy — which largely disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria from military service — from going into effect.

As noted in the application, the first Trump administration’s military “trans” policy, which was adopted in 2018 under then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, “generally disqualified individuals with gender dysphoria from military service.” While “district courts enjoined the policy on a universal basis” following challenges from various plaintiffs, the Supreme Court “stayed those injunctions,” thus allowing it to take effect.

Military specialists have long highlighted how authorizing Americans who identify as “transgender” to serve negatively affects military readiness.

The Trump administration had previously filed an emergency request to stay the injunction with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel on the court declined to lift the injunction last week, claiming in a one-page order that the administration did “not demonstrate[] that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.” (Read more from “Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Block Lower Court Injunction On Military ‘Trans’ Policy” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Trump Admin Freezes Additional $1 Billion In NIH Grants To Harvard University

The Trump administration is pausing more than 500 grants worth an additional $1 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Harvard University, senior HHS officials told the Daily Caller.

Senior Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials told the Caller that the decision to pause the funds is because the institution has been “intransigent with respect to obligations to protect students on this campus from the effects of insidious antisemitism.” The grants include those that were funding the institution’s training of its scientists and other non-clinical trial grants, the officials told the Caller. The frozen grants will not effect the care of any children, the officials added.

“Harvard needs to fully come into compliance with Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” a senior HHS official told the Caller regarding what the university needs to do to have the funds unfrozen. “They need to remedy the violations of Title IV with respect to Jewish students on campus, they need to make sure that the not violating title six with respect to their admissions practices, and they need to provide sufficient guarantees that this conduct is not going to repeat itself.”

The Trump administration previously sent a list of demands to the institution, asking for several audits on their response to anti-Israel protests on campus and their admissions process. The institution released a public letter defying the administration’s requests. From there, the Trump administration moved to freeze $2.2 billion to the university. Monday’s action, shared with the Caller by senior HHS officials, is in addition to the $2.2 billion frozen.

“[Harvard’s public letter] clearly demonstrates that the university can, when motivated, respond quickly, but we’ve seen them go 18 months without apparently being sufficiently motivated to address the rampant antisemitism on this campus,” one senior HHS official told the Caller. (Read more from “Trump Admin Freezes Additional $1 Billion In NIH Grants To Harvard University” HERE)

EPA’s Zeldin Demands End to Mexican Sewage Flooding Across Border: ‘It’s Been Going on for Too Long’

The Trump administration is tackling a different border flow after illegal crossings plunged to record lows.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin embarked Monday on a mission to halt the flow of Mexican sewage into the US from Tijuana.

“EPA is going to be on the border with Mexico,” Zeldin told reporters Monday before flying to San Diego.

“There, for decades, has been raw sewage that’s been traveling across the border, and Americans are very concerned with regards to beach closures, degradation of the Tijuana River Valley and concerns of public health, air quality,” Zeldin said.

“It’s been going on for too long, and we have to urgently and deliberately pursue and implement a solution that permanently ends this, and that is an important focus of ours.”

Zeldin will meet Tuesday with Mexican Environmental Secretary Alicia Bárcena before highlighting the impact on local military operations. (Read more from “EPA’s Zeldin Demands End to Mexican Sewage Flooding Across Border: ‘It’s Been Going on for Too Long’” HERE)

Trump Launches Investigation Into Colleges Over Transgender Fencing Scandal

A special administration task force formed by President Donald Trump has launched investigations into the University of Maryland and Wagner College after they failed to protect a female athlete penalized for refusing to compete against a male who identifies as a female, The Daily Wire can first report.

The Title IX Special Investigations Team — a joint Education Department and Justice Department project — launched a directed investigation Monday into the University of Maryland over allegations that it not only allowed a male athlete to compete in the women’s category of the USA Fencing Tournament, but also allowed that male athlete to use women’s-only intimate facilities.

The Special Investigations Team is also investigating Wagner College for its own practices and polices that allegedly allowed that male to compete in female sports and to use female intimate spaces.

Both colleges received letters from the Title IX Special Investigations Team on Monday, The Daily Wire has learned.

Officials black-carded and booted 31-year-old Stephanie Turner from a tournament at the University of Maryland for refusing to compete against Redmond Sullivan, a male who identifies as a woman and who formerly competed against males. USA Fencing allowed Sullivan, who competes for Wagner College, to compete in the women’s tournament, the organization confirmed to The Daily Wire. (Read more from “Trump Launches Investigation Into Colleges Over Transgender Fencing Scandal” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Top Trump Adviser Reveals Administration’s ‘Red Line’ Ahead of Iran Talks

Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff was adamant Friday that the Trump administration will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, describing the provocative action as a “red line” — but said that the US would still be open to compromise ahead of talks with the adversary.

“I think our position begins with dismantlement of your program. That is our position today,” Witkoff told the Wall Street Journal, explaining what he plans on telling Iranian officials on Saturday in Oman.

“That doesn’t mean, by the way, that at the margin we’re not going to find other ways to find compromise between the two countries,” the special envoy added, suggesting there are some accommodations the Trump administration might be willing to provide the theocratic regime in order to get it to scrap possible nuclear ambitions.

“Where our red line will be, there can’t be weaponization of your nuclear capability,” Witkoff asserted. (Read more from “Top Trump Adviser Reveals Administration’s ‘Red Line’ Ahead of Iran Talks” HERE)

Pete Hegseth Says Panama Accepted Agreement on Warship Canal Passage After China Accused the U.S. of ‘Blackmail’

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the nation of Panama agreed to allow warship passage through the canal after Chinese officials accused the U.S. of trying to use blackmail to further its interests.

Hegseth said that the two nations had signed a memorandum of understanding to allow U.S. warships to pass through the canal without paying a toll. The agreement for security cooperation also includes auxiliary vessels.

When asked about the accusation, Hegseth fired back at China.

“I don’t know anything about blackmail,” he responded, “but I do know about strength, peace through strength, and deterrence.”

On Wednesday a Chinese official had more fiery rhetoric against the U.S. as a trade war escalated between President Donald Trump and the communist-governed nation.

“Everyone knows who wants to control the Panama Canal,” said ministry spokesperson Lin Jian to reporters. “The U.S. side should take a look in the mirror to see who really threatens the sovereignty, security, and development of other countries.” (Read more from “Pete Hegseth Says Panama Accepted Agreement on Warship Canal Passage After China Accused the U.S. of ‘Blackmail’” HERE)