[Willie Green]

First, LAND SALES, not tariffs, were the major source of revenues for the young country.

Land sales merely represent the divestiture of assets.
They are not a sustainable source of revenue over the long term.
Sooner or later, you run out of assets (land) to sell.

Second, the size of government was so small that the combination of land sales and tariffs generated needed revenue. However, the first time the country got in any kind of war, the tariff revenues dried up, because Britain was no longer trading with us, and more important, we found that tariff revenues NEVER came close to supplying the money needed in emergencies.

Well, that "problem" certainly doesn't exist anymore.
We now have a bloated government that needs to be reduced in scope.

And we participate in a "global" economy, dependent on imports that virtually guarantee that tariff revenues will never "dry-up".

Care must be taken that a revenue tariff is not set so high that revenues begin to decline with imports. But at lower tariff rates, revenues DO increase with an increase in rate. It is a nonlinear function, with an optimal peak where revenues are maximized. This is where a revenue tariff should be established, allowing for reduction of other, more onerous forms of domestic taxation.

[LS]

We just disagree over the usefulness of tariffs, though you never once came to grips with my political favoritism arguments, which, for the most part, do not exist with a flat tax. Land sales DO NOT run out, because in theory as (government) land becomes more scarce, price goes up. But I can't imagine the government, with its bloated land appetite, "running out" of land through sales in the near future.