pull down to refresh

William McKinley: Prostitute of Protectionismmises.org/mises-wire/william-mckinley-prostitute-protectionism
131 sats \ 20 comments \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 29 Jan Politics_And_Law
n his inaugural address President Trump called President William McKinley (1897-1901) “great” and proudly announced that he had changed the name of Mount Denali in Alaska back to Mount McKinley. The reason the president picked McKinley of all past presidents to heap praise upon is that McKinley was a lifelong political tool of big business, primarily Northern state manufacturers who championed protectionist tariff taxes so rabidly that he was called “the apostle of protectionism” and “the Napoleon of protectionism.”
President Trump’s election is said to be a “populist” victory against the deep state establishment, but there is nothing more anti-populist than protectionist tariff taxes. Protectionist tariff taxes are nothing more than a price-fixing conspiracy orchestrated by the state that enriches a relatively small group of politically connected corporations (and their unions) by plundering their consumers with higher prices. After all, if it is possible to use tariffs to force foreigners to pay a county’s taxes, every government on earth would be doing it. Yet President Trump apparently believes that he has discovered some kind of holy grail of economics that proves you can get something for nothing after all.
I made a previous post about the tariff problem: #869366 It more clearly defines the problems with he tariff, itself, while this article goes into the personality of the practitioner of protectionism really put paid to the economy in the late 1920s. McKinley was an economic idiot who denied any of Adam Smith’s conclusions on tariffs. McKinley also got a tariff passed with his name attached that put the Republican Party at such a disadvantage that the Democrats took over everything after the effects of the McKinley tariff were felt. And, this is Trump’s hero? Mercy, please!
write
preview
related posts
20 sats \ 19 replies \ @Undisciplined 29 Jan
How do you feel about the idea of abolishing the IRS and income tax, but replacing them with consumption taxes and tariffs?
reply
32 sats \ 18 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 29 Jan
I would go for firing more government drones and not taxing at all! But, to be realistic, tariffs are bad moves due to retaliation that the tariffed countries will dish out on us. Consumption taxes are another tax on, wait for it, consumers or the labor component, who are already in a pinch for money. The best thing to do would be to get rid of the fed, the legislative delegation of authority and balance the budget and drop a lot of taxes, but that is all in dreamland.
reply
20 sats \ 17 replies \ @Undisciplined 30 Jan
I agree and I generally agree with Rothbard about the amount of taxation being much more important than the form of taxation.
That said, I would be very happy with the tradeoff of consumption tax in place of income tax.
reply
27 sats \ 16 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 30 Jan
Yes, you have some sort of control over the taxes you pay! With the income tax and Friedman’s withholding, you have absolutely no real control over the taxes you pay. I don’t think that the retailers and final sellers will like being tax collectors, though.
reply
20 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined 30 Jan
Probably not, but most places have some sort of sales tax already, so it wouldn't be much extra burden for most of them.
reply
34 sats \ 14 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 30 Jan
Yes, but I think the problem is more like they would be collecting taxes and people’s ire for collecting taxes for the man. Most retailers and sellers don’t really want to get their customers angry at them. Just think of transferring your ire with the IRS over to your local mom and pop store. Do you think anybody would appreciate it?
reply
20 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 30 Jan
Good point.
There was mention of tasking the states with collecting the sales tax. If they would just go a little further down that road, they'd get to a better idea: just collect a head tax from the states.
That would allow states to levy the least intrusive taxes, as well as incentivize them to increase prosperity and disincentivize counting illegal immigrants towards their official population numbers.
reply
22 sats \ 12 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 30 Jan
You’re kidding, aren’t you? Say for instance, you want to give this taxing authority to the states of California, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado and Illinois where there is no doubt about their abuse of taxing and spending systems. Just think of Newsome and Pritzger in charge of taxes for the federal government. I can imagine it would look like the DoD and the missing money there.
view all 12 replies