You yourself acknowledged that tariffs are incapable of pulling in more than a certain amount of revenue. That lack of free goodies.
I see goodies without a payment of taxes, is not perceived as free goodies?
Once again, I'll recap our experience: First there were tariffs. Government was limited, people weren't asking for handouts,
LOL, government has always handed out feebies to constituencies. Different times, different freebies different constituents is all.
Defense, percieved to not be paid for by all citizens,
National debt, percieved to not be paid for by all citizens,
general government, percieved to not be paid for by all citizens,
are freebies to those who are not involved in the payments required to be paid with taxes by the Constitution.
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Then came the income tax, which was originally applied only to the top earners. This was concurrent with an increasing desire on the part of the public for goodies from the government.
The income tax was sold on the premise of only the rich will pay, your tariff is based on the premise that only those who purchase import goods at a price higher than domestic goods will pay.
The desire has gone away some how?
Finally, the income tax was extended to the point where the vast majority of people were finally paying Friedman's much touted "nominal amount" (actually, most people would consider it quite a bit more than "nominal").
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross income) Income Category 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Projected
1999Lowest Quintile -0.6 -0.8 -0.2 -0.5 -0.2 -1.3 -1.9 -2.9 -3.4 -5.6 -6.8 Second Quintile 3.6 3.9 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.2 3.3 2.7 1.8 1.8 0.9 Middle Quintile 7.1 7.5 8.3 6.8 6.8 6.1 6.5 6.3 5.9 6.1 5.4
"Strongly prefer tax roll back if it
means more money for programs"
And did this at long last result in a reversal of that socialistic trend? Quite the opposite indeed - and how!
60% are not paying the freight. Same old game all the way through, nothing changed.
So theory is only as good as the experience that goes along with it.
Mistated and invalid premises lead to mistated and invalid conclusions.
You're playing a semantic game and you know it. What I'm referring to are the social-welfare benefits that have become a staple of our current income-tax-addicted government. Such would not be possible if government only depended on revenue from tariffs. Are we in agreement on this?