Tariffs as Welfare-State Economics (2012) \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Tariffs as Welfare-State Economics (2012)mises.org/mises-daily/tariffs-welfare-state-economics

198 sats \ 11 comments \ @Undisciplined 2 Apr econ

By Gary North

Logic and ethics do not change just because we cross an invisible judicial line. The pro-tariff person should face the implications of his position.

view all related items

60 sats \ 10 replies \ @kepford 2 Apr

I find democrats very dishonest about tariffs. The same people that act like taxes have no impact when they want them... but then again they will propose sin taxes saying they will reduce the usage of things like cigarettes.

Then you have the republicans that talk a big game on taxes but never really do anything to back that up. Republicans will oppose corporate taxes saying they will affect the customer... but now the tariff fans who usually say this same stuff are pro tax.

Now, there is argument to be made that tariffs are a tool that will change behavior but there is a cost. I don't think they have counted the cost and impact. We will see though.

I still say, if you can't admit that taxation is theft, you are gonna have all sorts of problems in your reasoning about them.

62 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 2 Apr

Yes, there's a realpolitik argument for threatening tariffs to get other concessions. If it works, the proponent can reasonably say "We got good thing, without bad thing."

Principled people have a hard time with the idea of coercing others into doing things they didn't want to do. It gets really tricky, when the thing they're being coerced into doing is something like lowering taxes or easing regulations, though. There's a reasonable self/other defense argument that you can threaten violence to get someone to stop committing violence.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 2 Apr

100%

38 sats \ 6 replies \ @Bell_curve 3 Apr

is sales tax theft?

because los angeles county has the highest sales tax in the country starting yesterday

51 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 3 Apr

When money is taken from you under threat of force... I call that theft or at best extortion. If it was a voluntary donation like those they ask for at checkouts now it would not be theft.

Why is this so freaking hard? I know but man it is wild how far people will bend things around to deny this simple logic.

When I (very rarely) talk about the voluntary option people usually roll their eyes and say, "well who would pay it if it were voluntary". As if that is an argument. Often they follow up with arguments that describe the current state of affairs as a potential future state.

This is why I rarely ever talk about it in person.

Honestly, I've been thinking the approach taken in "You Can't Take It With You" is better. "Taxes? I don't believe in them!" "But we have the pay the President! Not with my money!"

Humor is more effective with many people.

Another effective approach I have used is when people start complaining about how government is funding something they find repulsive to mention how maybe things should be funded voluntarily by individuals. That way we can have clear consciences.

44 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 3 Apr

People often think greed is at the center of being opposed to taxes. I disagree. Greedy people are often pro-tax and some anti-tax. No one is very accused of being greedy because they don't want someone to steal from them.

That said, it is true that charity is needed in functional society. I personally believe the community, churches, and individuals are far better at helping people than the state. Just because the state can steal a lot of money and claim to help people with it, that doesn't mean they are effective at solving problems. We've seen they are not. The fraud and perpetuation of poverty has shown us how it works out. We have plenty of evidence. Not to mention the massive infrastructure the state constructs full of waste.

Its true that private charity can and does have the same issues. The difference is that private charity has the pressure of the donor withholding funds. Competition forces better outcomes.

Still, you need a moral population that actually cares for people. Thing is, we are told we live in a system where the will of the people is respected. So if people believe that they should believe people supporting state welfare would also support private charity.

If people truly believe in the ideals of democracy they should support voluntary giving over theft. If they don't believe it would work then do we really live in a system that enacts the will of the people?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 3 Apr

I endorse greed and charity

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 3 Apr

I don't endorse greed but I recognize no law will prevent it. The medicine is worse than the cure.

People use force when they can't convince you through reason. Far too many people are comfortable living in a society based on the use of force. Even more are in denial about supporting a society that does this. That's what makes it impossible to discuss the root issues. State theft and redistribution is not charity.

People try to twist the words of Jesus to support theft. WE ARE the ones that are supposed to care for the widows and orphans. Not Rome! Its absurd.

view all 1 replies

68 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 3 Apr

Yes. The state has no legitimate claim on a portion of transactions between consenting adults.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 2 Apr

Taxing cigarettes doesn't reduce their use or help pay for the consequential health care costs? Really? I gave up cigarettes largely because of the tax on them.