Tag Archives: taxes

Rich folks aren’t taxed because they have no income; you can do some of this too.

Leave a reply

Two tax questions: (1) How do the top rich people manage to pay such low taxes, e.g. Warren Buffett paying at 0.1%. and (2) why do these rich folks campaign for higher taxes. Warren Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes for 50 years. These questions seem perhaps related.

I got my tax data from a public tax advocacy group, ProPublica. In 2021 they received the tax filings for many important people including the 25 US richest from the years 2014 to 2018. They find that these individuals paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income tax while their wealth rose a collective $401 billion, go here for more. Dividing the numbers, we see an average income tax rate of only 3.4%, with Warren Buffett paying the least, 0.1%. This is far less than the “half of the rate that my secretary pays,” that Buffett likes to claim.

The reason these people pay so little tax is that their taxable income is zero. They use a very wide variety techniques to do this. Among these are charitable foundations, including those that lobby for higher taxes and against climate change. The foundations buy private planes and send the founders (and their families) to climate change events in the South of France or Davos, Switzerland. “Pro-tax” foundations hire tax accountants to research ways that the rich avoid taxes, often the founders then use these methods while speaking out against others who do the same. Bezos was so successful at avoiding income that he got welfare payments in two of the five years, ProPublica found. Soros and his son got $2,400 in COVID payments. They had almost no income. The one tax all these folks hate is tariffs because it is almost impossible to buy new, expensive things from abroad while avoiding them. See my essay, “Tariffs are inflationary, but not on you.”

Another advantage of a charitable foundation is that 74% of your donation can offset capital gains. You have to itemize your donations, but If you give $1 million to your foundation, you can use it to offset $740,000 of stock appreciation earnings. Not a bad deal. You can also use any stock losses against gains. Thus, it’s a good idea, if you itemize, to sell some losing stocks when you sell gainers (while holding on to other gainers, of course.) All of this is only available to those who itemize, and it’s only the rich who benefit by itemizing.

Borrowing money against your assets is another popular tax avoidance scheme, one that ordinary folks could use (but don’t over-do it*). The scheme is often called “Borrow, Buy, Die.” You borrow a large sum against your assets (your home, your stocks, or options –Musk has lots of Tesla options, etc). You then use the borrowed money to purchase property, typically: a vacation home, rental properties, a hotel, or a car. If you structure the purchase right, the interest can be deducted from any other earnings you have including rents. You then have no taxable income, or a lower income while the property appreciates. You can often structure the purchase so that depreciation can be deducted against income as well. Meanwhile, you get to drive the car, live at the vacation home, or rent it as an Air B&B, or stay at the hotel for free.

You live this way until you die. When you die, your heirs get the asset, but they are not taxed on the appreciation. The asset is transferred at its value at the time of death. You’ve avoided paying all the income tax you’d have to pay if you were to sell before death. Most home-owners do this on a small scale: They borrow to buy their home or the building where their business is. Or borrow to buy a vacation home or income property. They use through their life-time, deducting the interest, then leave it to their kids. There is no inheritance tax on most homes or small businesses, and the asset appreciates year to year. Both Nixon and Obama proposed eliminating this loophole by taxing appreciation at death. This would be a lot fairer than the current inheritance tax that is full of loopholes, and unfair when it works. If your parent bought a $10,000,000 item with taxable income, and it remains at that value, why should it be taxed a second time at death?

For a small businessman like me, it made sense to borrow to buy the building that my business operates out of and pay myself a normal rent. It’s income, as real as salary, but taxed at a lower rate, Besides there is no payroll tax on rental income. Another advantage of renting to myself is I can be trusted to fix the building and pay the rent, and I will not throw myself out if there is a downturn, nor will I raise the rents exorbitantly. My car is owned by my business, another plus. I pay a fee for personal use, but this is cheaper than using my own taxed income. When I die, the building (and car) will go to my heirs, tax free.

One last change I’d like to see is in the payroll tax. I’d like to see it tax the entire taxable income, but at a lower percent than the current 15.2 or 7.6. Currently the first $150,000 of income is payroll taxed at 15.2% for a self-employed individual, a plumber or office cleane, even before he/she pays income tax. An office worker is taxes at half this rate, 7.6% before income tax, with the company making up the other 7.6%. A CEO making $10 million pays this rate too, but only on the first $150,000. This amounts to $11,400 in payroll tax, or less than 0.11% of salary. I consider this disparity a bigger scandal than the fact that the richest 25 Americans paid only 3.4% in income tax.

Robert Buxbaum, November 25, 2025. *Trump presents a cautionary tale about property investing; if you invest at the wrong time, you can lose your shirt. In the late 80s, the property market in NY collapsed briefly, and he really was less than penniless. Don’t over-extend. The property market doesn’t collapse often, but you don’t want to be wiped out if it does.

Tariffs on German cars are inflationary, but not for you.

1 Reply

As things stand, the major export of Germany to the US is high end cars: Mercedes, Audis, Porsches, BMWs, $100,000+ on average. The lower end models are made in the US, Mexico, and Canada. These high end cars are the biggest profit centers of their makers and of the German economy. Currently, they face an import tax (tariff) of 15%, the same as everything from Germany (or Italy or Japan). Liberal economists are furious at this; they claim it’s a tax and that it is inflationary. They are right on both counts except that this is only a tax and inflationary for the few Americans who buy new, high end cars.

The Americans who buy such cars are typically rich folks — poor and middle class folks can’t afford them. They are also folks with ‘taste’, folks who need a BMW, and would not be caught dead behind the wheel of a US car. Normally liberal economists would favor taxing such people, but these are often the who hire economists. They run the TV programs and newspapers, universities and hedge funds. They choose the economists and the economists are eager to see things their way.

Another high tariff item imported from Europe is art. Modern art for $1 million dollars that ends up in museums. For the average Americans the tariff on this, or on art is irrelevant or beneficial. The income it generates is used to offset other taxes, allowing Trump to remove the tax on tips, for example. That this tariff falls on rich people and replaces a tax that otherwise fell on poor workers. Liberal economists should favor of this, but their opinions are not their own.

A side benefit of these tariffs for ordinary folks, is that that they cause some buyers to switch to American-made products, cars and art. Perhaps not for themselves, but for for their children. They may buy a German car made in the US, rather than one made in Germany, or art from an American. This provides jobs for US workers — and an opportunity for Detroit to retool for the future. Detroit auto workers seem to understand this; they voted for Trump in 2016 and 2024. Detroit’s union leaders opposed tariffs. In Michigan, the union leaders get their power mostly from MI politicians, Democrats, who force union membership.

This is not to ignore the suffering of those who buy foreign products, the buyers of new BMWs, or French cheese, or high end art. As things stand, Columbian coffee is tariffed at 10%, and that may add 50¢/lb. Mexican coffee is not taxed, but many average Americans prefer Columbian. I hope they can be consoled by Trump’s tax breaks.

Some months ago, Trump showed off a tariff schedule that he considered ideal, with rates targeted to reduce our trade deficit by half. I derive here, Trump’s formula and rates, and give my opinions of the target. By the formula he presented, the EU tariff should be higher than it is, 20%. Trump has it at 15%, I think, for diplomatic leverage, to goad the EU into lowering their tariffs on us goods, now 15%. He’s also pushed them to spend more on defense, and pushed to end the war between Cambodia and Thailand. He threatened them with near 100% tariffs if they didn’t stop fighting.

Robert Buxbaum, September 2, 2025. Here’s a Bob Dylan song, union sundown, making a musical case against free trade. Once upon a time that was a liberal view. Now not. The NY appeals court ruled to block Trump’s tariffs to stop the horrible damage being done. My guess is the judges drink high-end coffee, eat French cheese, and drive new, German cars.

To make social security fairer, raise the ceiling.

1 Reply

For most working folks, the majority of your taxes are social security, certainly the majority of your federal taxes. The tax structure of SS is strongly weighted to help the rich. This is a fact that politicians have created and typically hide. Both parties proclaim tax help for the middle class, by instituting income tax changes that barely affect anyone, and really sticking it to the low wage-earner and middle class by a highly recessive SS tax that charges 14.2% off the top for a self-employed person, or 7.1% for an employee, but only to a cut-off of $160,000.

Anyone making more than this pays nothing on the overage, with the result that high earners, on a percent basis, pay essentially 0% tax. The rest of the high eaters income is generally protected by deductions. His car is a work expense, rented from the company, his travel is too. The working plumber benefits from these same deductions, but ends up paying 14.2% because of Social Security, while someone earning $1.6 million ends up paying 1.42% effectively.

People earring more than $1.6 million gain credit for other exemptions. Bill Gates has been buying farm land and claims the depreciation of the land value. Land does not actually depreciate, but you can claim it does because people like him get to fix the tax code (Donald Trump gets the same deduction, BTW on his gold courses). Less rich folks can still deduct the high cost of country club membership, of travel, entertainment, and meetings in exotic places (you can claim some of that too). Because so much of what you pay is Social security, it will come out that, while the executive may pay more in absolute tax, he or she will pay far less as a percentage. Many rich folks claim to find this offensive, but neglect to suggest the most obvious correction raise the ceiling on social security and (ideally) lower the the %.

I strongly suspect that we could bill for social security at 5% and 10% if we raised the ceiling to $2,000,000 per year. I suspect that SS would then be more solvent too. The net result would be drastically fairer.

Robert E. Buxbaum, April 23, 2023

Britons did better than Germans since Brexit

Leave a reply

Britain and Germany are the two largest economies in Europe. When Britain voted to leave the EU seven years ago, 23 June 2016, economists, royals, and the richer, smarter set predicted disaster. The unemployment rate at the time was 5.2% in the UK; economists guaranteed it would rise with Brexit due to the loss of access to the common market. Unemployment fell to 3.7% today: Embarrassing for economists, a bonus for British workers. Germany unemployment today is 5.6%, basically slightly higher than the 4.3% of 2016. There has been a large influx of Ukrainians into both countries, and of illegal boat people into the UK. These are people coming to get jobs, seeking a better life than available in the rest of the EU. That boat people don’t go the other way suggests that things are better in the UK.

Fromm Bloomberg, October 2022. See full article here. UK unemployment is down to 2.5% in February 2023.

Britain’s GDP was supposed to suffer from Brexit, too. Instead, GDP has grown by 18% since 2016, about 2.5% per year on average, outpacing Germany’s 10.6% total growth, 1.5% per year. Between 2016 and 2022, the British GDP rose to $3.19T from $2.7 T. Germany’s GDP increased to $3.57T, from $3.14T (data from the world bank). Separating from the EU helped, it seems and helped us too something Trump promoted. Germany chose close ties to Russia instead. That does not seem to be a big plus.

German Inflation has traditionally been low. It has increased in the past few months due to rising food and energy costs.

Inflation is higher in the UK than in Germany, 10.4% as of February 2023 versus 8.7% in Germany, or 9.9% in the European Union and a whole. I don’t think that’s Brexit. The UK typically has seen higher inflation rate than Germany, something seen by the steady drop of the pound. They have a tradition of inefficiency and silliness. Part of the problem today is that Britain gets much of its electricity from natural gas, while the French use nuclear power. Nuclear is cheap and clean, compared to natural gas. Coal is cheap and dirty; China uses it extensively and plans to use more. But the real cause of the UK’s higher inflation is inherent in the British and Germans, IMHO. The Germans hate inflation, the Brits don’t mind.

Population growth (green) or decline (orange) in Europe

For high-power, white collar workers, Britain seems to be as good a spot as Germany, maybe better. Maximum tax rates are slightly lower than in Germany (45% vs 47.45%), and the population is growing (slowly). Apparently, people like it enough to come there and have children; children are a good sign, IMHO. It’s harder to get good workers, but population growth suggests that the problems won’t be catastrophic (as they were in Japan, and likely will be in Germany). If you want a developed economy with yet-lower taxes, plus good workers, the US is the place to be, IMHO. Our maximum tax rate is 37%. You get fewer free services (healthcare), but you can earn enough to afford it. Prince Harry moved to the US recently, joining foot-baller David Beckham, and Pele a few years back. Former Python, John Cleese, came here too… They complain that Americans are cheap when it comes to helping others (but that’s out attraction). They claim that we’re violent and crass (true enough!) but say that the UK isn’t what it was. The fact that refugees seem to prefer the UK to Germany, suggests that Britain is a place to go. Britain, I’d say seems to have come out pretty well from Brexit.

Robert Buxbaum, April 11, 2023

Biden stops fracking and gas prices go up 300% — Surprise!

Leave a reply
Natural gas prices for June 2022 as of May 6, 2022.

Natural gas prices have quadrupled in the last 17 months. It’s gone from $2.07 per million BTU in mid January 2021 when Joe Biden took office, to nearly $9 today. It’s a huge increase in the cost to heat your home, and adds to the cost of any manufactured product you buy. Gasoline prices have risen too, going from $2/gallon when Biden took office to about $4.40 today. Biden blames the war with Russia, but the rise began almost as soon as he took office, and it far outstrips the rise in the price of wheat shown below (wheat is grown in Ukraine — it’s their major export). The likely cause is Biden’s moratorium on fracking, including his decision to stop permitting oil exploration and drilling on federal land. In recent weeks Biden has walked back some of this, to the consternation of the environmentalists. On April 15, 2022, the Interior Department announced this significant change including its first onshore lease sale since the moratorium.

Biden also cancelled the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would have brought tar-sands oil from Canada and North Dakota to Texas for refining. Blocking the pipeline helped increase gas prices here and helped cause a recession in Alberta and North Dakota. The protesters who claimed to speak for the natives are not affected.

Another issue fueling price increases is that Biden is printing money. Bidenflation is running at 8%/year. It’s not hyperinflation, but it’s getting close. It’s money taken from your pocket and from your savings. Much of the money is given to friends: to groups that Biden thinks will use it virtuously, but inflation is money taken from us, from our pockets and savings. Another beneficiary are those who are rich enough to take no salary, but live by borrowing against their real estate and corporate equity. The richest people in the US do this, earning $1 per year or less, (here’s a list compiled by Bloomberg, it’s basically every rich person). They pay no taxes, as they have no income. The only way to tax them is by tariffs, taxing what they import, but the government is against tariffs.

What you can do, personally about energy-cost inflation is not much. I would recommend insulating your home. I plan to repaint the roof white, and put in a layer of roof insulation. I also have fruit trees: an apple tree and a peach tree, grapes and a juneberry. They provide summer shade, and you get a lot of fruit with minimal work. Curtains are a good investment. Another thought is to buy solar cells. A vegetable garden is fun too, but it’s unlikely to pay you back.

Winter wheat prices are up by about 40%, likely due to the loss of supply from Ukraine and Russia

Speaking of wheat prices, they are up. They increased 40% when Russian troops invaded Ukraine, and have held steady at that level since. This is far less increase than for natural gas. Corn and rice prices are up too, but nowhere near as much. Fertilizer prices are up 300%, though, and Biden has indicated he’d like to push for a sustainable alternative; is that poop? There is a baby formula shortage too. We can handle it, I think, unless Biden get involved, or starts a hot war with Russia.

Robert Buxbaum May 10, 2022. As a fun sidelight, here is Biden answering questions about Pakistan when someone in a Bunny costume grabs him and walks him away from the reporters. Who is that masked handler? What’s going on in Pakistan?

Billionaire Democrats and union Republicans

1 Reply

In the last presidential election, the largest billionaires in the US were vocal Democrats, and two billionaires, Yang and Bloomberg were candidates. Bloomberg had been an anticrime Republican when he ran for mayor but in 2020 he spent $!B of his own money on anti Republican ads, and paid the debts of thousands of Florida felons who he thought would vote his way. It’s a strange new world.

Other vocal Democrats include: Jeff Bezios, majority owner of Amazon and The Washington Post, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Bill Gates, founder and largest owner of Microsoft (just today blasting the Republicans over global warming — Is that logical — is cold better?), and Warren Buffett who likes to note that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does (IMHO that’s because he games the tax system and pays no social security tax). Meanwhile union workers and white middle class folks were mostly Republicans in 2020.

Union leadership are still Democrats, but the last few elections saw union workers voting R. These were called “The basket of deplorables, unredeemables” by candidate Clinton. R support among black people is less than 50%, but growing too. it’s quite a lot higher than two decades ago. Many showed up at MAGA rallies, you’ll see plenty in videos at “the insurrection”. The only person shot and killed at the insurrection was a white woman, unarmed, shot in the face by Capital police — no charges filed, but the liberal press, who usually hate such things, was silent. Almost to the man, they sided with the police over the mob.

I notice that the Black Lives Matter rallies are populated with the well off and the well educated. A Princeton lawyer was photographed driving around with a box of Molotov cocktails, and his co-worker, another lawyer tossed a lit fire bomb into a police car. It used to be that Princeton lawyers didn’t do that, at least not in person.

Portrait of a Democrat. From the New Yorker.

It’s not like the platforms have reversed. The Democratic party was always for high taxes, high regulation, and for soft money that they could give away. They still are. In 1900 the call was for “free silver“, now it’s “stimulus money.” It used to be that rich people didn’t like this. They would point of that printing money didn’t add to wealth, but just redistributed it from those who had savings to those who did not. Now they uniformly blast anyone who doubted the wisdom of printing 1.9 trillion in new money ($6000 per person, of which $1400 is given to you), and going on to blast anyone who doesn’t like additional oversight to prevent the systemic racism they see in the less-well-off.

One reason these richest billionaires are no longer Republicans is that they are no longer involved industrial manufacturing in the US. Thus the regulations they favor don’t apply to them. In the olden days, rich people made steel or cars. Regulations were annoying. Rich industrialists had money in US banks. For them inflation was theft. Now rich people own intangible industries that largely operate outside of the country. What money they earn is earned off-shore, tax free. As individuals, they live on US debt, and possess little or no hard cash. Inflation helps them pay off their debt, and high taxes don’t hurt them. Buffett can be down-home and pro environment. He flies private jet to meetings on global warming while investing in overseas petroleum.

Elon Musk seemed like a Republican during the Trump administration, but not so much now. He still makes stuff in America, but has moved to manufacture abroad. In January, he said he was fired up for Biden. He has put a significant chunk of his wealth into bitcoins. Its a protection from the inflation caused by printing money, and it’s a bet that’s paid off handsomely. I expect that we’ll have billionaire Democrats and union Republicans for the foreseeable future.

Robert Buxbaum, March 14, 2021. It’s pie day. Eat a pie at 1:59:27. (Edited Apr. 28, 2021)

New York and San Francisco rents fall, Detroit rises for now.

Leave a reply

Rents in New York and San Francisco are far less expensive than before the pandemic. It’s been a boon for the suburbs, the south and the midwest, one that’s likely to continue unless Biden steps in. Before the pandemic, rent in San Francisco for a one bedroom apartment averaged over $3700 per month. New York rent was similar. People paid it because these cities offered robust business and entertainment, the best restaurants and bars, the best salons and clubs, the best music, museums, universities, and theater. New York was Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Broadway; San Francisco was Silicon valley and Hollywood. These cities were the place to be, and then the pandemic hit.

Post COVID-19, the benefits of big city life are gone, and replaced by negatives. The great restaurants are mostly gone; the museums, theaters, and salons, shut along with Hollywood. Wall Street and Madison Ave have gone on-line, as have the universities. If you can work and study from anywhere, why do it from an expensive hotbed of Corona.

People of means left the big cities with the first lockdowns. Wall Street moved on line, with offices in New Jersey, and many followed, along with college students, and hotel and restaurant workers. New York’s unemployment rate increased from 4-5% to over 9.5% today, among the highest rates in the nation, 9.5%. It would be higher if not for the departures. Crime spiked; the murder rate doubled. To keep people from leaving, landlords have lowered rents and many will now forgive a month or two of rent to keep apartments full with some rent coming in and an illusion of exclusivity. This is good for tenants, but tough on landlords.

Detroit rent history, 2014 to January 2021. Rents fell a lot on election day, maybe because of Biden, or because we think the pandemic is over.

As things stand, the suburbs and smaller cities are the beneficiaries of the exodus. Among the cities benefiting the most are cities in the south and mid-west: states that are more open and are relatively low cost: Phoenix, Oakland, Cleveland, St. Petersburg, and even Detroit. Detroit’s rents were already moving up as auto manufacturing returned from Mexico, see chart. Between early 2017 and October 2020, they went from $500/month to $1250/month for a 1 bedroom apartment, according to Zumper. Detroit rents fell after election day, but are still up 20% on the year. The influx of wealthier working folk to Detroit is welcome to some, unwelcome to tenants who find their rents are raised. I think it’s is a sign of a healthy economy that people follow life-quality, and that rents follow people. Our landlords are happy, but there are a lot of Detroit renters who are not

Joe Biden has promised to step in to make things right for everyone. He promised to have the government pay people’s rent so they don’t get evicted. I presume that means paying about double to people in NY and SF as to those in Detroit. He claims he will shutter smokestack industries too, and create the good jobs of the future in computers and high tech. It’s a nice claim. I suspect it’s a bailout of big city landlords, but what would I know. I suspect that the US would be better off if Joe just sat back and let New York rents fall, while allowing Detroit to gentrify. Detroiters need not worry about rents getting too pricy here. We’ve1500 shootings per year, that 15 times more than NYC, per capita. Unless that ratio changes, Detroit will continue to be the lower rent city.

Robert Buxbaum, January 17, 2021.

Why Warren Buffett pays 0% social security tax

1 Reply

Social Security is billed along with Medicare (health care for the poor) as an anti-flat tax called FICA where middle class workers pay 7.65 -15.3%, and rich people pay essentially 0%. The reason that Warren Buffet and other rich people pay 0%, on a percentage basis, far less than their secretaries, is that there is a FICA cap of $127,200 currently, and he earns far more than $127,200. Buffett’s secretaries pays 7.65%, or which 6% approximately is social-security payment, and the rest Medicare. Buffett’s company then matches the 7.65% — a situation that applies to virtually every employee in the US.

A self employed person though, a gardener say, pays both the employee and employer portion or 15.3%. The same $127,200 cap applies, but since few gardeners make more than this amount, they are likely to pay 15.3% on all earnings, with no deductions. FICA really socks the poor and middle class, and barely touches a rich man like Buffett. This is the tax-inequality that most needs addressing, in my opinion, and one I have not heard discussed.

A short history of FICA

A visual history of FICA rates (right), and of the salary cap (left). Medicare contributions were added in 1966.

As I write this, there is a debate about tax reform that mostly involves income tax, but not at all FICA. Income tax could be improved, in my opinion, and should be. We could remove some exemptions that are being abused, and we should lower the general rates, especially for foreign-earnings, but the current income tax isn’t that bad, in my opinion. Buffett likes to brag about the high rate he pays, but it’s not a bad rate compared to the rest of the world. And Buffett benefits from a lot of things we don’t. His income is taxed at a lower rate than a worker’s would be since most of it is unearned. And, like most rich folks, he has exemptions and deductions that do not apply to most. He can deduct cars, private airplanes, and interest; most folks don’t deduct these things since they don’t spend enough to exceed the “standard deduction”. I’m happy to say these issues are being addressed in the current tax re-write.

The current, House version of the GOP tax proposal includes a raise in the standard deduction and a cap on interest and other deductions. There is a general decrease in the tax rate for earnings, and a decrease for earnings made abroad and repatriated. I’d like to see tariffs, too but they do not appear in the versions I’ve seen. And I’ve very much like to see a decrease in the FICA rate coupled with a removal of the salary cap. Pick a rate, 4% say, where we collect the same amount, but spread the burden uniformly. Why should 7.65%-15.3% or the workmanship wages got to the window, the orphan, and healthcare of the poor, while 0% of Buffett’s go for this?

Some other tax ideas: I’d like to see shorter criminal sentences, especially for drugs, and I’d like to see healthcare addressed to reduce the administrative burden.

Robert E. Buxbaum, November 17, 2017. In the news today, the senate version puts back the tax exemption on private jets. The opposite of progress, they say, is congress.

Taxes and accounting jokes

Leave a reply

A friend called the other day asking about a financial matter. It seems his wife bought some pictures for  pictures a few days ago for $2000, and after having them apprised, she finds they’re worth $2,000,000.

I started talking about un-realized profits, and mentioned that I never imagined that his wife had such an eye for art. He said, they’re not art pictures, exactly; they’re of you discussing business with the Russians. (It’s a joke — I thought you-all might depreciate it).

—————

When I started my business, I found that you could deduct medical costs. I called the IRS and asked if I could deduct birth control. They told me: “only if it doesn’t work.”

—————

I’m glad I learned about parallelograms in school, instead something mundane, like taxes. It’s really come in handy this parallelogram season.

—————–

I got a robo-call asking me to press “1” to hear about a government program for those who wanted to avoid paying back taxes. I did, and a voice said “Leavenworth.”   It wasn’t much of a program, more of a sentence.

—————-

Robert E. Buxbaum, April 5, 2017.  For jokes on other topics, click the jokes tag, here.

The argument for free trade is half sound

6 Replies

In 1900, the average tariff on imported goods was 27.4% and there was no income tax. Import tariffs provided all the money to run the US government and there was no minimum wage law. The high tariffs kept wage rates from falling to match those in the 3rd world. Currently, the average tariff is near-zero: 1.3%. There is a sizable income tax and a government income deficit; minimum wage laws are used to prop up salaries. Most economists claim we are doing things right now, and that the protective tariffs of the past were a mistake. Donald Trump claimed otherwise in his 2016 campaign. Academic economists are appalled, and generally claim he’s a fool, or worse. The argument they use to support low tariffs was made originally by Adam Smith (1776): “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy…. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry.” As a family benefits from low cost products, a country must too. How stupid would you have to be to think otherwise?

A cartoon from Puck 1911. Do you cut tariffs, and if so how much. High tariffs provide high wages and expensive prices for the consumer. Low tariffs lead to cheap products and low wages. Uncle Sam is confused.

A cartoon from Puck, 1911. Should tariffs be cut, and if so, how much. High tariffs provide high prices and high wages. Low tariffs lead to low prices for the consumer, but low wages. Uncle Sam is confused.

Of course, a country is not a family, and there are certain benefits in keeping manufacturing and employment here, in not exporting jobs and expertise. It is clear that some people benefit from a flood of cheap, imported products, while some folks suffer. Consumers and importers benefit, while employees generally do not. They are displaced from work, or find they must compete with employees in very low wage countries, and often with child labor or slave labor. The cartoon at right shows the conundrum. Uncle Sam holds a knife labeled “Tariff Revision” trying to decide where to cut. Any cut that helps consumers hurts producers just as much. Despite the cartoon, it seems to me there is likely an optimal, non-zero tariff rate that allows productive trade, but also provides revenue and protects American jobs.

A job-protecting tariff was part of the Republican platform from Lincoln’s time, well into the 20th century, and part of the Whig platform before that. Democrats, especially in the south, preferred low tariffs, certainly no more than needed to provide money for government operation. That led to a diminution of US tariffs, beginning in the mid- 1800s, first for US trade with developed countries, and eventually with third world as well. By the 1930s, we got almost no government income from tariffs, and almost all from an ever-larger income tax. After WWII low tariff reductions became a way to promote world stability too: our way of helping the poor abroad get on their feet again. In the 2016 campaign, candidate Donald Trump challenged this motivation and the whole low-tariff approach as anti- American (amor anti America-first). He threatened to put a 35% tariff on cars imported from Mexico as a way to keep jobs here, and likely to pay for the wall he claimed he would build as president. Blue-collar workers loved this threat, whether they believed it or not, and they voted Republican to an extent not seen in decades. Educated, white collar folks were uniformly appalled at Trump’s America-first insensitivity, and perhaps (likely) by the thought that they might have to pay more for imported goods. As president, Trump re-adjusted his threat to 20%, an interesting choice, and (I suspect) a good one.

The effect of a 20% tariff can be seen better, I think, by considering a barter-economy between two countries, one developed, one not: Mexico and the US, say with an without a 20% tax. Assume these two countries trade only in suits and food. In the poor country, the average worker can make either 4 suits per month or 200 lbs of food. In the developed country, workers produce either 10 suits or 1000 lbs of food. Because it’s a barter economy with a difference in production, we expect that, in the poor country, a suit costs 50 lbs of food; in the rich country, 100 lbs of food. There is room here to profit by trade.

The current state of tariffs world-wide. Quite a few countries have tariffs much higher than ours. Among those, Mexico.

Tariffs world-wide. We put no tax on most imported products while much of the world taxes our products heavily.

With no tariff, totally free trade, an importer will find he can make a profit bringing 100 lbs of US food to Mexico to trade for 2 suits. He can return two suits to the US having gotten his two suits at the price of one, less the cost of transport, lawyers, and middlemen (relatively low). Some US suit-makers will suffer, but the importer benefits immediately, and eventually US consumers and Mexican suit workers will benefit too. Eventually, US suit prices will go down, and Mexican wages up, We will have cheaper suits and will shift production to what we make best —  food.

In time, we can expect that an American suit maker will move his entire production to Mexico bringing better equipment and better management. Under his hand, lets assume his Mexican workers make 6 suits per month. The boss can now pay them better, perhaps 100 lbs of food and two suits per month. He still makes a nice profit, more than before: he ships two suits to the US to buy the 200 lbs of food, and retains now two suits as profit. Hillary Clinton believed this process was irreversible. “Those jobs are gone and they’re not coming back,” her campaign told CNN. She claimed she’d train the jobless “for the jobs of the future” and redistribute the wealth of the rich, a standard plank of the democratic platform since 1896. But, for several reasons, industrial voters didn’t trust her to succeed, or even to try. Redistribution of wealth rarely works because, even if a politician has the will, and most don’t, manufacturers can usually keep their profits off-shore, and they do.

A very high tariff would stop all trade, but lets see what would happen with Trump’s 20% tariff. With a 20% tariff, when the first two suits come to the US, we’d extract 0.4 suits in tax revenue. The importer still makes a profit, but it’s now 0.6 suits, the equivalent of 60 lbs of food. He can sell suits for less than the American, but not as much less. If the manufacturer moves to Mexico he makes more money, but not quite as much. Tax is still collected on every suit brought to America — now 20% of the 3 suits per Mexican worker that the Boss must export. The American worker’s wages are depressed but he/she isn’t forced to compete with the Mexican dollar-for-dollar (suit for suit). In barter terms, he isn’t required to make 6 suits for every 100 lbs of food.lincoln-national-bank-internal-improvements-tariffs

We find that, in the above fictional economy, a 50% tariff in the maximum to allow any profitable suit trade: the first two suits might enter the US; but they’d be taxed at one suit, just enough to pay for the 100 lbs of food that he’d have to barter for the 2 suits. At that rate, there would be no profit for the importer, and he/she would stop importing. A 50% tariff is thus counter-productive to the consumer and the US gov’t: we would get no imported goods, and we’d collect no import revenue – a bad situation in general, though good for the manufacturer. Lincoln’s “protective tariffs” of 1861 contributed to Southern succession and the start of the civil war. It seems to me that some modest tariff of 10% to 20% is fair and productive — tariff rates that Trump seems to have intuited, and that many other countries have adopted, see map-chart above. As for the academic economists, I note that they also predicted a stock market crash should Trump be elected; it’s gone nearly straight up since November 8, 2016. I find that most economists are not rich despite claiming to be experts on money.

Robert E. Buxbaum, March 27, 2017. I learned such economics as I have from my one course in economics, plus comic books like the classic “Once upon a dime” produced by the New York Federal Reserve. Among the lessons learned: that money is a distraction, just a more convenient way to carry around a suit, 100 lbs of food, or a month of work. If you want to understand economics, I think it helps to work things out in terms of barter, as above.