[PeaRidge]

To Pelham, LS, and donmeaker, please pardon this boring post, but it has to be addressed.

BroJoeK..........One last time.

You cannot draw the conclusions you have been making based on your data from Wiki.

Whoever posted this table on Wiki took this data from an extensive data source without factoring changes in inventory practices, tariff law, and shipping accounting. There are many variables that are included but not foot marked in this chart. For example, up until 1846, overseas reexports were included in the value of the goods taxed, but were later factored out. That makes conclusions from any comparisons of data sets on each side of that year simply false.

In any given year, he tariff rates may have remained the same on average, but the type of articles that were to be taxed were changed. For example, tariff rates may have averaged 20%, but in one year that may be 20% on 50 articles, and next year it may be 20% on 200 items. That would affect the scope of the tariff and therefore the amount. That is not given by Wiki.

You do not know the value of goods stored over periods of one to three years and later sold, according to the new warehousing laws, first in 1848, and again revised in 1854. That affected the volume of tariff collected in a given year, but not the rate of taxation.

So, maybe now you can see that none of your conclusions are correct because you do not have the corrected data.

If you want to engage in this type of commentary, I would suggest that you go on line to the Historical Statistics of the United States, section 317.3, and begin with page 106. But to save you the trouble, someone has already done an analysis for you: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1093/ei/40.3.428/abstract

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "You do not know the value of goods stored over periods of one to three years and later sold, according to the new warehousing laws, first in 1848, and again revised in 1854.
That affected the volume of tariff collected in a given year, but not the rate of taxation.
So, maybe now you can see that none of your conclusions are correct because you do not have the corrected data."

"...I can assure you that if you use the data you quoted, you are in fact wrong."

"someone has already done an analysis for you: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1093/ei/40.3.428/abstract"

First you referred to, but did not post, data which you claim contradicts:

• 1. Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945; Series M-42-55; Imports (1789-1945), [1] Accessed 5 Aug 2011
• 2.Bicentennial Edition Historical Statistics of the United States Series {Part 2 Zip file: CT1970p2-08;} Series U 1 25; Balance of International Payments Imports 1790 1970 [2] Accessed 5 Aug 2011
• 3.Imports 1960-2010 [3] Accessed 5 Aug 2011
• 4.Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945 Series P 89-98 Excise Tax {labeled: Internal Revenue/Other} Tot. Receipts; Customs, Income taxes [4] Accessed 5 Aug 2011

Then you posted (or thought to post) a link which provided no data whatsoever: Link to no data.

Sure, your apparently academically motivated desire to dive deep into the weeds -- the details -- of these statistics is doubtless commendable, but I am making very simple and broad points, which the long-term data abundantly supports:

1. Historically, lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues.

2. From 1792 through 1860, US tariff rates went up (high of 35% in 1830) and down (low of 7% in 1815), and at 15% were historically lower in 1860 than any time since 1840.

So I have to question, why you'd want to get "lost in the weeds" so that you "can't see the forest for the trees", so to speak?

Especially since the shape of this particular forest is pretty easy to make out, even given the limitations of available data:

1. From 1792 through 1860, on average Federal receipts nearly doubled every decade.

2. But in some decades Federal receipts declined (1800-1810 and 1830s) or grew more slowly (1820s and 1850s), while in two decades Federal revenues tripled: 1790s and again in the 1840s.
   Of course, if you wish to argue that these changes in growth rate were strictly the result in changes in accounting methods, then I'll be interested to see your data demonstrating it.

3. My conclusion is that the higher growth rates in the 1790s and again 1840s resulted from lower, more rational tariffs enacted under Presidents Washington and Jackson.

4. Further note that in 1857 the already low Walker Tariffs were reduced by the Tariff of 1857 to their lowest since 1840.

But if someone wants to post data demonstrating otherwise, I'll be interested to see it.