Replies

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:

Historically, lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues.
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:

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

Bro:

As usual, you run off and post some fallacious conclusion, and when confronted you think by doing a combination of dumping Internet sources, restating and misrepresenting what your original contentions, and setting up straw man arguments, you can cover your error. That does not work here.

You started all of this with your post #164 where your first error was a misreading and misquote of data on overall, annual Federal Treasury revenue as to be (what you thought was) tariff revenue---two totally different columns of numbers that were clearly marked.

Big error.

The Wiki source you used shows that the variation in dollars each year between your misquoted total vs. tariff income was as much as 46%.

Beginning with that massive error, you drew the following conclusions, not knowing that your math was way off. Here is what you said in #164 (with my corrections):

•"By 1815 tariffs were reduced from 10% to 6.5% and revenues rose from $9 million to $16 million = a growth rate of 68% over five years."

Correction---tariffs revenues from the years you quoted actually declined from 8.6 to 7.3.

•"After 1815 tariffs rose steadily to 35% in 1830 and the growth in Federal receipts was reduced by 80% — from 68% over five years to 14%."

Correction: If you were making a comparison between 1830 and 1835 (which was not clear), during that period the average tariff rate went from 35% to 14.2%. The total Federal receipts went from $24.8 to $35.8, while tariff revenue went from $21.9 to $19.4.

•"In 1835 tariffs were again reduced, to 14% and Federal receipts jumped again, by 44%."

Correction: Federal receipts in 1835 were 35.8 million...up from 24.8 in 1830. However, tariff revenue in 1830 was $21.9 million, dropping to $19.4 in 1835. Something "jumped" but it was not tariff revenue.

•"By 1835 tariffs were back up to 24% and revenues were still 15% below 1825 levels."

Correction: You said that the tariffs were 14% in 1935...then now you say they are 24%....Which is it?

In 1835, tariffs were still at 14.2%. Your figure of 24% may have come from the table data for 1845 which was by that time up to 24.3%.

Then you said: •"Tariffs then fell steadily, to 15% by 1860, while Federal receipts nearly tripled over 1840 levels.

Statement of fact: the percentages fell while revenue increased.

Statement of non fact: "So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising (sic) over the “injustice” of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect."

This gives you your data quote errors, the data comparison errors, and shows that there is no relationship to this data or your conclusions.

Apologies to Pelham; LS; donmeaker; x; Ditto; rockrr for wasting your time.