Posted on 08/11/2003 7:49:59 AM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The United States has lodged an appeal with the World Trade Organization over a ruling that its tariffs on steel imports violate global trade laws.
The appeal was filed Monday afternoon, just hours before a meeting scheduled to adopt the report formally, a WTO official said. The meeting was adjourned to await the outcome of the appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It is hard to figure out why Dubya raised our steel taxes. The theory that he was trying to 'usurp the issue' from the dems seems bogus in view of how, like you point out, it never does any good.
The one theory I like is the idea that Dubya knows he'll eventually have to rescind the new steel taxes but he did it anyway as a negotiating ply. In other words, to keep the WTO busy with something unimportant so they have less time and energy to fight us on other subjects where we might not want to be flexible.
Let's ask Willie:
Why did GWB raise steel taxes???
Most of your posts oppose free trade and embrace protectionism which is best implemented via tarriffs.
Please explain GWB's steel tax increase and its benefits for America and conservatism.
And cause a depression that will make the '30s look mild....
And why is it that raising import taxes to hamstring the free market and force me to give my money away to underachievers is called conservatism?
Good grief Brad, now you've gone and got my blood pressure up.
Because he's a pander-monkey catering to special interests.
GWB's inept bungling of "targetted tariffs" for steel was riddled with hundreds of loopholes and exemptions.
Our nation and our steel industry would be much better off with a relatively low (10~15%), flat-rate "revenue tariff" applied to ALL imported goods. The proceeds from such a tariff would then be utilized to further reduce other forms of domestic taxation. Such a shift in tax policy would not only benefit the steel industry, but also ALL domestic industry, including the steel industry's customers.
Therefore, it would be wise for every other county to do the same, harming our exporters. So your policy is essentially anti-exporter when others apply it to us, and anti-importer when we apply it. Both American consumers and producers are punished by their acts, therefore reducing international trade. Comparative advantage between countries is actively taxed, eliminating one of the greatest and most well proved advantages in economics.
And why is 10-15% magical? Just a gut feel? If tarriffs are somewhat good, why not 100-150%? If a little tarriffs are a little bit good, then a whole lot of tarriffs are REALLY good. Or does your position break down somewhat when extended to its logical conclusion?
(BTW - No argument on the pander-monkey comment. You are absolutely right.)
When you add tarriff taxation, what is the magical political formula by which anybody in Washington is going to agree to reduce some other tax? Is your independent buddy Patty going to crack heads among Republicans and Democrats? Or is this increased taxation likely to only lead to increased taxation? Or, is it a pipe dream?
Just curious.
You must have missed where I said: "The proceeds from such a tariff would then be utilized to further reduce other forms of domestic taxation." Such a reduction would benefit ALL Americans: our consumers, our exporters and our importers. Other nations have the sovereign right to pursue their own tax policies. If those policies favor their own businesses within their own borders, I have no problem with that. That is, afterall, what their citizens should expect from their own governments.
And why is 10-15% magical? Just a gut feel? If tarriffs are somewhat good, why not 100-150%?
It's an approximation to get us in the appropriate ballpark. I once estimated that 20% would be sufficient to eliminate the domestic corporate income tax: A Proposal to Abolish the Corporate Income Tax. At relatively low rates, tariffs provide revenue for the federal government. And revenues increase as the tariff rate is increased. However, there comes a point where trade is stifled if tariffs are increased to excessive levels, and federal revenues would decline. The objective would be to find an "optimal" tariff rate where federal revenue is maximized. That would provide the greatest opportunity for reduction of other taxes.
Comparative advantage between countries is actively taxed, eliminating one of the greatest and most well proved advantages in economics.
The "proven advantage" exists only for the transnational corporate third parties that act as middleman between nations. They profit handsomely from the transaction. At the same time, Ricardo's theory also proves that it is the workforces of the trading nations who suffer as one is pitted against the other. Their standard of living is driven down into parity with the global subsistance level.
Demonstrably false. 22 big U.S. steel companies filed for bankruptcy in the year and 3 months preceding the tariff being imposed at the end of March in 2002. Only three this year. Overall steel prices have not gone up by 30% let alone more than that (which CATO-ites always assert). Average is 8%. What has happened is that DEFLATION was prevented as the carrot of dumped steel was yanked away. And now we are just seeing sour CATO grapes. GWB has finally started to act like Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.