Can Trump seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the tax code?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What good is preserving American job is no one is buying our products overseas because we've added a 45% tax on top of whatever it already costs to buy it?

NO one?  Completely ridiculous comment.  One must make sense in order to be taken seriously.

What's to stop other countries from doing the same thing for the same reasons?

absoutely nothing.  They are sovereign nations, as are we.
A nation's primary interests are for its own citizens, and tariffs employed over centuries are utilized for that purpose.

This starts the global economy down a dangerous path that is not good for anyone involved.

There is nothing dangerous on protecting tariffs properly applied for citizens of the country.

In the 20th Century though...tariffs have been used as a political weapon...with not so good results.

Trump wants to use them as a political weapon...and it will have the same not so good outcome.

You did not even read what I wrote previously.
The example of the 1922 tariff was specifically designed not as a political weapon, but to assist the soldiers returning from a war to have a job from working at American industries.

Did achieve its purpose? Some say yes.

Did it last too long?  Probably.

Would the US do it again? Yes.

Would it do it the same way? No.

You are making blanket statements on tariffs and appear to indicate that tariffs are never right.

That is just plain wrong.

[Longmire]

We are the second largest exporter on the planet. I'm sure we can live without those exports.

Missing from this thoughtful analysis is a detailed reason why that would happen in the first place. 

[txradioguy]

NO one?  Completely ridiculous comment.  One must make sense in order to be taken seriously.place

Ridiculous why? Because you think the only way to handle trade issues is by imposing tariffs on another country?

So you don't think that if we imposed  say a 45% tariff on items made in China (the mainland not Taiwan) that they would not retaliate in kind and place incredible high tariffs...which in reality are taxes passed on to the people...on things which we bought from them?

Or that any of their Asian trading partners would not do the same?  Or impose the same kind of tariffs on places like Japan because they are our allies...or South Korea for the same reason?

absoutely nothing.  They are sovereign nations, as are we.
A nation's primary interests are for its own citizens, and tariffs employed over centuries are utilized for that purpose.There is nothing dangerous on protecting tariffs properly applied for citizens of the country.

So you see nothing wrong at all with a global trade war that ruins economies across the globe?

You did not even read what I wrote previously.
The example of the 1922 tariff was specifically designed not as a political weapon, but to assist the soldiers returning from a war to have a job from working at American industries.

Except that it had long term negative ramifications that you seem content to ignore.

Did achieve its purpose? Some say yes.

Manufacturers and the people who suffered through the ensuing 1929 market crash and the great depression would beg to differ.

Did it last too long?  Probably.

Because people thought like you...and they were as wrong about the positive effects of such high tariffs as you are.  They too failed to see the long term implications of their short term myopic fix.

Would the US do it again? Yes.

And it would have the same disastrous results.

Would it do it the same way? No.

Not from what Donny has said.  He wants to bring back the economic policies of the Hoover administration.

You are making blanket statements on tariffs and appear to indicate that tariffs are never right.

That is just plain wrong.

Tariffs were wonderful before the turn of the century when we were still a rural nation and there wasn't such thing as the income tax.  19th Century thinking on this issue has no place in the 21st century.

[Hoodat]

So you see nothing wrong at all with a global trade war that ruins economies across the globe?

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[Suppressed]

?  The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI.  No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.

So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary.  You like income taxes instead?

Tariffs suppress an economy and increase costs to the consumer, while propping up fledgling or uncompetitive businesses and artificially boosting corporate profits and wages (if wildly and improbably successful).

It's no wonder the US didn't really take off until after the yoke was lifted.

[Smokin Joe]

NAFTA is a disaster.  NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.

Those factories were going somewhere. The EPA regulated them elsewhere, and Mexico was closer.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Tariffs suppress an economy and increase costs to the consumer, while propping up fledgling or uncompetitive businesses and artificially boosting corporate profits and wages (if wildly and improbably successful).

It's no wonder the US didn't really take off until after the yoke was lifted.

Eh, they also provided jobs for returning GIs after a war and are responsible for minimizing job losses when our country is dumped on by a foreign entity like China.

Oh yeah, they provide some tax income for the country in lieu of income taxes.

They have a place if used properly.  If not properly used, they are destructive, like any tax is(name one that is not).

[Sanguine]

Tariffs suppress an economy and increase costs to the consumer, while propping up fledgling or uncompetitive businesses and artificially boosting corporate profits and wages (if wildly and improbably successful).

It's no wonder the US didn't really take off until after the yoke was lifted.

@Suppressed You can say that of all taxes - they are all passed on to the consumer and divert funds from the economy.  I think I'm missing your point.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Ridiculous why? Because you think the only way to handle trade issues is by imposing tariffs on another country?

YOur statement saying no one would buy is really, really ridiculous.  Just cause you may not does not mean everybody.

And where in the world did you grab out of the air that tariffs were the only way to handle trade issues?

You are grasping at straws.

Like any tax, it can be destructive.  All taxes must be used properly, whether it is a income tax or tariff, they have a place and need control.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Except that it had long term negative ramifications that you seem content to ignore.

Manufacturers and the people who suffered through the ensuing 1929 market crash and the great depression would beg to differ.

You seem to completely ignore what I said about it being used too long obviously.  You are just headed into some agenda when you rant like that.  Tariffs are justifiable when used properly.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Tariffs were wonderful before the turn of the century when we were still a rural nation and there wasn't such thing as the income tax.  19th Century thinking on this issue has no place in the 21st century.

Seems you love the IRS and income taxes.  I do not particularly care for either.

[Jazzhead]

Political tariffs would be a disaster, inviting retaliation and devastating U.S. employers who rely on exports.

Apolitical tariffs might just work.   Sort of a VAT on the value of foreign labor added to a product, without regard to the country of origin. 

[Bigun]

The Trump administration needs do but one thing in this arena in order to fulfill his many promises and cement the republican in power for the next century and it is already right the languishing before both houses of the legislature!  I refer to HR25/S122, the Fairtax bill. Make it law and the economy takes off like a rocket instantly!

http://fairtax.org

[Hoodat]

NAFTA is a disaster.  NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.

The biggest flaw in your argument here is your decision to inject 'envy' into it.  There is no 'coming out on the short end' here.  There is but one question to be asked:  "Does it help the US?"

I really don't give a damn how much Mexico or Canada has benefited from it.  That is not my concern.  If anything, I would want their economies to grow so that they would demand more US goods.  But the bottom line is that it shouldn't matter if Mexico benefits more as long as the US benefits.  The pie grows.

NAFTA is not a disaster.  Our exports to Mexico have increased fivefold since NAFTA was enacted.  That benefits the US.

[Jazzhead]

The biggest flaw in your argument here is your decision to inject 'envy' into it.  There is no 'coming out on the short end' here.  There is but one question to be asked:  "Does it help the US?"

I really don't give a damn how much Mexico or Canada has benefited from it.  That is not my concern.  If anything, I would want their economies to grow so that they would demand more US goods.  But the bottom line is that it shouldn't matter if Mexico benefits more as long as the US benefits.  The pie grows.

NAFTA is not a disaster.  Our exports to Mexico have increased fivefold since NAFTA was enacted.  That benefits the US.

Quoted for truth.   Getting rid of NAFTA would be huge mistake - especially if a goal is to stem migration from Mexico.  A healthy Mexican economy keeps Mexicans working - in Mexico.   

[Free Vulcan]

Yep...and I notice we're still waiting for a straight answer.

Meanwhile the thought police have arrived... 

So you think no one should call you on your BS?

There is another special snowflake safe space on the web that might be a happier place for you. Maybe you've heard of it:

http://www.freerepublic.com

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed You can say that of all taxes - they are all passed on to the consumer and divert funds from the economy.  I think I'm missing your point.

Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.

Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received.  The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example. 

Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding.  It's all an illusion.  Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American.  The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.

Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers.  It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence.  I don't like socialism.

I hope that explains.  I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces.   ^-^

[Sanguine]

Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.

Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received.  The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example. 

Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding.  It's all an illusion.  Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American.  The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.

Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers.  It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence.  I don't like socialism.

I hope that explains.  I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces.   ^-^

Ah, I think I see what you mean: tariffs are targeted taxes for those who can't compete in a global economy. 

But, all of us - the competitive and the not, still pay the increased expenses that result from tariffs, whether directly in consumption or indirectly by having useable funds diverted to the government.

[Bigun]

Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.

Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received.  The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example. 

Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding.  It's all an illusion.  Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American.  The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.

Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers.  It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence.  I don't like socialism.

I hope that explains.  I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces.   ^-^

BRAVO!!! Well said! 

[Jazzhead]

Ah, I think I see what you mean: tariffs are targeted taxes for those who can't compete in a global economy. 

Of course,  that presupposes that American workers should be expected to compete with foreign workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar,  as compared with the kind of wages American workers need to provide decent lives for their families.   

The anger that has led to Trump's election is based on the reality that globalism has changed the game for many Americans, shattering lives and leading to the sinking feeling that our kids won't have it as good as we do.   

Free trade?  I'm all for it - but within a fair playing field and fair rules.   Should we trade freely with those nations that have similar wage rates and labor and environmental protections to our own,  or trade freely with those nations that abuse their workers and pay them peanuts?   For generations now, both political parties have catered to American consumers by encouraging cheap foreign goods, while ignoring the plight of American workers priced out of the middle class they thought would be their patrimony.     

[DB]

Tariffs are purely a wealth-transfer method where the government picks winners.

Wealth-based taxes (and to a lesser extent, income-based) place the burden where the benefits are received.  The wealthy have more to lose if we're invaded, for example. 

Of course, reducing tax/tariff burdens in general should be our primary goal, but a tariff is like piling sandbags higher and higher and claiming the sea is receding.  It's all an illusion.  Sure, we protect a job short-term, but the standard of living of everyday Americans goes down...and we can't force foreigners to pay us extra just because we're American.  The burden goes right onto Americans' shoulders.

Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers.  It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence.  I don't like socialism.

I hope that explains.  I admit it's not the most coherent writing, but I'm hoping you can see the pieces.   ^-^

Well said, what I was trying to say but doing it poorly... And the next question is where does it end? Every domestic producer will lobby to tax his competitor over the border and the government then picks winners and losers while the consumer simply loses. In the 70's we had really crappy cars because the auto workers unions and the car companies had little competition outside their bubble.

[DB]

Of course,  that presupposes that American workers should be expected to compete with foreign workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar,  as compared with the kind of wages American workers need to provide decent lives for their families.   

The anger that has led to Trump's election is based on the reality that globalism has changed the game for many Americans, shattering lives and leading to the sinking feeling that our kids won't have it as good as we do.   

Free trade?  I'm all for it - but within a fair playing field and fair rules.   Should we trade freely with those nations that have similar wage rates and labor and environmental protections to our own,  or trade freely with those nations that abuse their workers and pay them peanuts?   For generations now, both political parties have catered to American consumers by encouraging cheap foreign goods, while ignoring the plight of American workers priced out of the middle class they thought would be their patrimony.   

You can't bend economic forces without them catching up to you. We are not an island. We can lead or fall behind. The world will go on with or without us. We compete by innovation, by working smarter, by producing more for less. Extortion often works for awhile but the consequences always catch up to you. Just see what happens with entrenched unions over time.

As the Chinese gain wealth, fewer and fewer of them are willing to work for "pennies on the dollar" and more and more are demand better working conditions including environmental. They don't want to be poisoned anymore than other people. Japan was much the same in the 60's moving into the 70's. Those days are long gone now and that day is coming for China too.

You also put way to much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.

[Bigun]

You can't bend economic forces without them catching up to you. We are not an island. We can lead or fall behind. The world will go on with or without us. We compete by innovation, by working smarter, by producing more for less.

And having a tax code that rewards effort and savings instead of punishing those things would be of GREAT benefit!

Extortion often works for awhile but the consequences always catch up to you. Just see what happens with entrenched unions over time.

Nothing to add to that except a hearty 

As the Chinese gain wealth, fewer and fewer of them are willing to work for "pennies on the dollar" and more and more are demand better working conditions including environmental. They don't want to be poisoned anymore than other people. Japan was much the same in the 60's moving into the 70's. Those days are long gone now and that day is coming for China too.

You also put way too much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.

  Again!  The laws of economics are just as immutable as those of physics!

[Jazzhead]

Tariffs are affirmative-action for those who can't compete, whether businesses or workers.  It's paid for by others...socializing costs of incompetence.  I don't like socialism.

No, tariffs are one means for raising tax revenue to cover the cost of government.  They are no better or worse than any other form of taxation, in that each has "winners" and "losers".   I'd say tariffs have their role to play within a system of taxation,  and, like any other kind of tax (income tax, sales tax, VAT, user fees, etc.)  can be designed efficiently or designed poorly.

I think there's a rather knee-jerk reaction against the idea of tariffs, even though the Founders themselves favored their use.   I support the use of APOLITICAL tariffs as part of an integrated system of taxation.   And I'm happy to support free trade, within a fair system of rules that doesn't punish American workers.  Free trade with countries whose wage rates and labor/environmental protections don't match our own is intrinsically biased in favor of consumers and against workers.  if you're going to support unbridled free trade, then at least be honest about who you're favoring and who you're consigning to a lifetime of misery.     

[Jazzhead]

You also put way to much faith in government deciding what is "fair". What is fair in Washington is determined by who has the best lobbyist and who feeds the beast best.

But trade policy toward the outside world has always been a legitimate function of government - that is, unless you are against the notion of borders between nations.