So says John Steele Gordon, who provides a short history of taxation for The Wall Street Journal, here:
After the Civil War, nearly all the wartime taxes—including the nation's first income tax—were repealed and the federal government relied mostly on the tariff for revenues. It provided the government with more than ample peacetime income. In 1882, the government had revenues of $403 million, but expenses were only $257 million, a staggering budget surplus of nearly 36%. The reason the tariff was so high was, ostensibly, to protect America's burgeoning industries from foreign competition.
Of course, the owners of those burgeoning industries—i.e., the rich—were greatly helped by the protection, which enabled them to charge higher prices and make greater profits than if they had had to face unbridled foreign competition.
But the tariff is a consumption tax, which is simply added to the price of the goods sold. And consumption taxes are inherently regressive.
Which ought to get more attention on the right when one considers that liberals like Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and so-called conservatives like Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all seem to like consumption taxes in one form or another.
The move would raise more revenues off the rank and file, and preserve the fortunes of the rich, which is why so many politicians support them. The better to eat you with, my dear.
The move would raise more revenues off the rank and file, and preserve the fortunes of the rich, which is why so many politicians support them. The better to eat you with, my dear.
