No More IRS? How Tariffs Could Fund the Government and Boost American Industry

Spread the love

Loading

by Torrance Stephens, PhD

In high school, in my U.S. History classes (which we were required to take each year from 10th to 12th grade), three major topics seemed to dominate coverage in the subject: wars, slavery, and taxes and tariffs.

I would contribute my interest in studying history to my classes on Tennessee History and U.S. History equally. I consider I know more about war than I may ever need to. I was taught about the Revolutionary War, the First and Second Barbary Wars, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, The Civil War, the Boxer Rebellion, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and even the Banana Wars. We learned about them all (I know I missed some).

We also learned about tariffs. A tariff is a tax or duty imposed by a government on imported or, less commonly, exported goods. Until the early 1900s, except during the Civil War and when Lincoln floated the Greenback, there was no income tax in America. Tariffs were the main means of revenue generation for our nation during this time. They were used to produce income for the government by taxing goods entering or leaving the country. This was particularly important in the early United States because income taxes did not yet exist.

George Washington (1789–1797) signed the Tariff Act of 1789, one of the first major laws passed by Congress. It was designed to generate revenue for the federal government and protect emerging American industries from foreign competition. These tariffs primarily targeted British goods and helped establish the federal government’s financial foundation. John Adams (1797–1801) largely continued Washington’s tariff policies without significant changes. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809) reduced government expenditures and relied on tariffs as the primary source of federal revenue. He maintained existing tariffs but promoted a more agrarian economy, favoring free trade in principle. While not a tariff, he signed into law the Embargo Act of 1807, which stopped trade with foreign nations, severely impacting tariff revenue and the economy.

James Madison (1809–1817) initially favored free trade but supported tariffs during the War of 1812 to protect American industries. This war exposed the vulnerability of the U.S. economy, leading to calls for more protective tariffs to reduce dependence on foreign goods.

The Tariff of 1824, which increased duties on imported goods, including textiles and iron, was implemented during the administration of James Monroe (1817–1825). The tariffs were aimed at protecting American manufacturers and stimulating industrial growth. Similarly, John Quincy Adams (1825–1829) supported high tariffs to promote industrial development.

Sometimes tariffs can have an opposite impact. The Tariff of 1828 (also called the “Tariff of Abominations”) was passed under his administration, significantly raising rates. This action angered Southern states, which relied on imported goods and agricultural exports, sowing seeds of sectional tension. The Tariff of 1828 was inherited by Andrew Jackson (1829–1837). Jackson signed the Tariff of 1832 into law to reduce rates slightly but failed to satisfy Southern opposition. Under John C. Calhoun, South Carolina declared the tariffs null and void, leading to a standoff. Jackson, eventually compromised with the Tariff of 1833, which gradually reduced tariffs.

Existing tariff policies were largely maintained by Martin Van Buren (1837–1841) and continued to be a source of revenue but were less of a priority due to the economic crisis of 1837 Although he was in opposition to tariffs, John Tyler (1841–1845) signed the Tariff of 1842, which reinstated higher rates after the Compromise Tariff of 1833 (Jackson) had reduced them. The tariff aimed to increase revenue during an economic downturn.

Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) implemented the McKinley Tariff in 1890 which raised tariffs to an all-time high, protecting American industries but it resulted in voter backlash. William McKinley (1897-1901) went even further with the Dingley Tariff (1897), which raised rates again, replacing the Wilson-Gorman Tariff. McKinley also signed the Gold Standard Act into law in 1900, to strengthened U.S. monetary policy, indirectly affecting trade and tariffs.

I am just saying that tariffs can benefit domestic producers by reducing competition from cheaper imported goods. However, they can result in higher prices for imported goods, reducing consumer choice and increasing costs. But this is unlikely since in free market economies choice remains and individual consumers will likely select similar but cheaper products.

By making imported goods more expensive, tariffs encourage consumers to buy domestically produced products. This helps protect local businesses and industries from foreign competition. Moreover, tariffs can be used as tools in trade wars or to influence other nations’ economic policies. There are various types of tariffs but I will not get into that.

To be fair and objective, there are some who suggest that the problem with having tariffs is that it adds to the cost of the manufactured products in the US, hence products become more expensive to manufacture and less competitive in the market. They admit that the government will make a revenue, but suggest that it will come with a financial cost and a loss in competitiveness.

Others claim that tariffs are a consumption tax on the American consumer. Not only does it raise prices, but it slows consumption. Tariffs on goods like cheap Chinese furniture are a great way to redirect to American-made, but otherwise, they say you will end up just taxing citizens.

I disagree with these assertions. Using coffee as an example, if tariffs were placed on Columbia, other coffee export nations would fill the void. As of 2023, the top ten coffee exporters to the United States by export value indicated that Colombia was fifth behind Brazil ($7.35 billion), Switzerland ($3.64 billion), Germany ($3.41 billion), and Vietnam ($3.38 billion). There will be other coffee-producing nations to replace the presence of Colombia like Jamaica, Ethiopia, Kenya, Costa Rica, Italy, and Honduras.

Top Countries Coffee Exports Ranking History (1988~2018) - YouTube

 
I am all in favor of going back to tariffs to fund the federal government. Either use them for leverage or cash flow. Increased tariffs reduce trade deficit, increase treasury revenue, decrease inflation, and increase savings. Tariffs are not the same as a sales tax that is added onto the cost for goods purchased. Tariffs will drive competition, just like prices in a free market. Countries will be fighting to compete and gain favor for lower tariffs to get market share over other countries. Done properly, this could lead to huge revenues and price reductions.

No taxes and just tariffs would be great for America. They would make it less expensive to make things in America. This would provide jobs.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Colombia is fifth behind Brazil ($7.35 billion), Switzerland ($3.64 billion), Germany ($3.41 billion), and Vietnam ($3.38 billion). 
There will be other coffee-producing nations to replace the presence of Colombia like Jamaica, Ethiopia, Kenya, Costa Rica, Italy, and Honduras.

This is a terrific and inexpensive ITALIAN grown coffee.
Lavazza Super Crema Medium Espresso Roast
2.2 pounds Lavazza Super Crema Italian whole coffee beans.

The Dallmayr Prodomo Ground Coffee is a lovely and reasonably priced GERMAN coffee.

We have a European grocery store here in Utah that has these and other richly flavored European coffees.
I remember Yuban as a 100% Columbian coffee as being a rather wimpy coffee.

Last edited 15 days ago by Nan G

Decaf coffee only works if you throw it at someone.

comment image?width=568

comment image?width=568

The amount of cheating and corruption alone are reasons for getting rid of the IRS. Many employees of businesses demand cash for their wages. You really think they declare it on a 1099? Many businesses exist on a cash basis and IRS employees could care less while they are “working from home”. The whole system is corrupt to the core and needs to be abolished. It punishes people who work, save, invest and live with a degree of common sense only to be punished after retiring with regulations like the RMD (required minimum distribution) another tax on the annuity or IRA you worked on all your life so as not to be a burden on society.

Jerry admit it you just want “name brand” cat food, so self centered. Without those taxes there wont be studies on preferred music when animals are high, no condoms for terrorists. Who will fund proxy wars? Who will rig other countries elections? Spread “their” democracy?(code for corrupting other governments)
Pay up Jerry you can always be a Walmart greeter to make ends meet, Ive seen retirees taking orders at Mc. Donalds hey over 15 an hour, minus taxes!