Dec

12

"Free trade" never loses an argument; it is like being in favor of virtue. Even the worst sinner knows that vice is not to be publicly defended. The difficult for those of us in the bleachers is that we have never been able to avoid asking the follow-on question: if you don't like tariffs as taxes, what do you want to have instead? Adam Smith's answers were (1) domestic excises - the sugar is allowed to arrive untaxed and then have a tax levied when it is sold and (2) occupancy taxes - to be measured by how many windows a building had. What is never mentioned, of course, is that Smith was completely in support of the navigation acts; Britain would have "free trade" but only on cargoes carried on British ships that traveled directly to British ports. His specific comment on that question was: “Defense is of much more importance than opulence.”

William Huggins writes:

i'm all ears to hear what national security threat the us is responding to with their 50% tariff on aluminum processed where there is an abundance of clean energy to do so and (until recently) all but perfectly aligned nat sec interests with the processor?

Stefan Jovanovich responds:

The answer offered by the authors and voters who made the Constitution the national law was "protection". I offer this only as an historical explanation, not advocacy, since those of us who live on popcorn and waiting from spring (what Rogers Hornsby said he did after the baseball season ended) have abandoned all attempts to understand what is called "policy", whether monetary or otherwise.

Art Cooper asks:

May I have your thoughts on Henry George's advocacy for the replacement of all other taxes by a land value tax?

Henry Gifford comments:

I think Henry George’s idea has a lot of merit, and not just because I heard that my father once taught at The Henry George School of Economics.

More than one calculation has shown that the cost of complying with tax laws in the US is about equal to the amount of taxes paid. If a land value tax eliminated all other taxes, almost all that cost would be saved. But, this would disadvantage the government because vague and complicated laws can be used by the strong against the weak, something not many in government want to see the end of.

Then there is the issue of jobs. The existing tax systems create a huge number of jobs, most of which would go away with a greatly simplified tax. Sure, those people could find more useful endeavors, increasing wealth for all, but if politicians started talking like that a lot of other things would be seen as folly.

Disagreements about the value of land could be handled like the ancient Greeks did – anyone claiming a lower value for their property can be challenged to sell it at that lower price.

A similar situation exists with the part of building design laws that regulate the energy efficiency of new buildings that get built. Now the laws run to hundreds of pages, which makes them very difficult to enforce. The vagueness gives the government people more power, as they interpret the laws as they see fit, or as they are paid under the table to do. For a time I was advocating a simple energy code: limit the size of the heating and cooling systems installed per the size of the building (you-tube: “The Perfect Energy Code”). Governments around the US were loathe to adopt a simplified energy code, because then jobs would be “lost” and the power to make arbitrary decisions would be reduced and the laws would actually be enforceable. A simplified tax collecting system will probably always be unpopular for similar reasons, despite what I think is a lot to recommend it.

Stefan Jovanovich responds:

Smith agreed with Henry George. He thought a land tax had all the attributes of a good tax, unlike income and employment taxes, which were the worst possible ones. Even tariffs had some virtues compared to those that required citizens to tell the state everything.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search