I am neither pro-tariff nor anti-tariff. What I am, however, is an economic nationalist.
A tariff is a tax—plain and simple. Governments will always find ways to extract revenue from their people, whether we approve or not.
That said, I believe the U.S. government is reckless in both its methods and the sheer volume of taxes it imposes on its citizens.
So, do I want a tariff? To fund the nation, sure. But do I trust the politicians in Washington with yet another revenue stream? Absolutely not.
Would I prefer tariffs replacing the income tax? Of course. Surrendering nearly half our earnings to various taxing authorities is excessive. And let’s not forget that the bureaucratic class in Washington, as well as in every major city and state capital, thrives off our hard-earned money.
Comes the retort. “They’ll never get rid of the income tax. They’ll just add tariffs on top of it.”
A fair point. It might be true. Probably is true.
But what if something changed? What if tariffs were used to offset or replace the income stolen from citizens every April 15th?
It would still sting—but maybe not as much.
Just because it’s “Trump’s idea” doesn’t automatically make it a bad one. I’ve long supported raising revenue via tariffs instead of an income tax, ever since I understood the government’s power to tax and extort wealth from all of us.
What remains unclear is why the Trump administration is making tariffs a cornerstone of its policy. Is the goal to boost domestic production? Is it an attempt to eliminate the income tax altogether?
Time will tell. If one accepts that the government will tax us regardless, then tariffs might not be such a bad alternative.
Questions remain.
Can Trump articulate a strong, positive case for tariffs, rather than merely energizing his base?
Will we ever see relief from burdensome federal income taxes?
Can the president follow through on his promise to eliminate the IRS and replace it with an External Revenue Service?
Trump mentioned William McKinley as one of his political influences. McKinley was one of the last “tariff presidents” before the 16th Amendment changed the game. He was also assassinated.
Tariffs ignite strong reactions.
President Chester A. Arthur also leveraged protective tariffs and negotiated trade agreements before the income tax became a gleam in Washington’s eye.
It’s worth noting that outside of wartime, the U.S. has never simultaneously had a strong protective tariff and 30%+ income tax rates.
Something has to give.
As always,
Brian
P.S. – I wrote about a particular tariff that led to an infamous Supreme Court decision a few weeks back over on Substack.
