[inquest]

Well, I can certainly understand what you mean by "lack of focus". I started out with the point that a good revenue tariff will protect national sovereignty better than no tariffs at all, regardless of whether it's a good source of revenue. Somewhere along the line we stopped talking about that aspect of the issue and got bogged down in other matters.

[ancient_geezer]

A lack of focus indeed, as the primary focus of the thread was about raising revenue using consumption taxes replacing of the current income/payroll tax system.

inquest #375: So if we have to pick a tax, why not go with one whose primary effect will be to protect national sovereignty?

I notice you never did actually answer my point as regards being dependant up a tariff for government revenues:

Geezer #376: How does becoming dependant upon tariffs as a source of tax revenue protect national sovereignty?

A nation looses sovereignty in direct relation to a countries dependancy upon other governments for tax revenue.

Putting aside the fact a tariff alone could never answer the revenue needs of the nation in the modern economy.

Imports make up one ninth of the of the total national economy, and we collect only $20 Billion of a $2 Trillion federal budget in tariffs. (0.1% of total federal funds)

Political interference as regards to trade, comes predominately from Exports, not imports. The problem is taxing exports to remove the influence of foreign trade are expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

In principle a tax is not necessary to shut down foreign trade to avoid the objectionable influence over sovereignty you feel it has.

Foreign trade could simply be prohibited by statute under the commerce clause, and meet your expressed intent to limit the loss of soverignty claimed.

Goal accomplished, no dependancy on foreign governments for tax revenues. Of course there is the little problem with loss of export and import industries to deal with but what the heck.