Tariffs are neither fair nor simple

Americans need to understand that the complexity hurts them even if they can't see it

A cartoon satirizing the ‘infant industries’ - trusts - needing protection

Although it is overall among his most incoherent policies, Donald Trump’s proposed 10% tariff appears to be polling surprisingly well among voters - 56% of voters support it according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll a few days ago. Breaking that support is a key element of breaking conservatives’ reputation on the economy, one of a few issues where liberals typically score poorly in US opinion polls.

One reason it may be popular is that Trump continues to tout it as a panacea for any number of issues - after all, the tariff is supposed to replace taxes on tips, overtime, and social security, while also paying for childcare and, rather counter intuitively even for Trump, lowering grocery costs.

But this approach runs headlong into a other voter priorities - that taxation be fair, and that it be simple. Adam Smith declared of taxes that “subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.” The idea can be variously interpreted, but in its most general formulation Americans tend to support it - taxes should be paid by those who can afford them, and also it’s fair that some people pay more than others because income and property are secured only through government action. Taking this sentiment a little further we get to Henry George supporting land value taxes specifically, because of all kinds of property land has its value only if it protected by a government. The New Deal progressive income tax was largely justified because, again, highest earners are those who would suffer the greatest material fall without the security provided by the state. In any event, a shift towards tariffs cannot be justified on these grounds.