JohnTommasi.com: The Economics of Unintended Consequences & Common Sense
  • Home
  • Murder Outside the Back Door
  • Murder at the Front Door
  • Danger Zone
  • About/Contact
  • Blog
  • Stock Pick of the week
  • FED Speak

Trumponomics: Border Adjustment Tax

3/29/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
​This month’s blog is an explanation of Trump’s proposed borer adjustment tariff and its possible ramifications; but first, a brief economic history lesson.  In October of 1929 on Black Tuesday, the stock market crashed and a recession was imminent.  However, as a result of monumental blunders in both fiscal and monetary policy, a bad recession was turned into a depression.  The fiscal policy came in the form of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff also known as the Tariff Act of 1930.  This act raised tariffs on over 20,000 goods and services that were being imported into the United States from foreign countries. The logic, according to Congress, was simple.  As a result of the stock market crash and looming recession, aggregate demand was decreasing as was output as a result of increasing inventories, and as a result, unemployment was increasing.  The tariff would help rectify this by making foreign goods more expensive, thereby increasing purchases of American goods, reduce inventories, spur production to replenish the inventories and thus lowering unemployment and ending the recession.  

Picture
​What Congress failed to realize (funny how some things never change), that, unlike today, the United States was a net exporter of goods and services.  In other words, we sold more to foreign countries than we purchased from them and all foreign countries that we traded with reciprocated with their own tariffs, thereby making American goods more expensive abroad.  As a result of the tariffs and worldwide recession/depression, word trade plummeted by over 65% in 4 years (chart).  Fortuitously, Congress, and the rest of the world, realized their folly and reversed the tariffs, but the damage had already been done.

​  Enter the border adjustment tax (BAT).  In theory, it looks good, but there are generally unintended consequences.  The purpose of the BAT is to incentivize exports and discourage imports.  While some may think that a BAT is a tariff, it isn’t.  It would prevent companies from deducting expenses associated with importing goods for resale.   It has the additional benefit of exempting exports from being taxed on any profit those exports may generate.  In theory, this would encourage firms to buy American to avoid the increased cost of taxes on imports and to nurture additional markets abroad and in the long be revenue neutral or slightly positive for the US.
   The attached chart is from the US Tax Foundation:
     An origin based-tax (like what we have in place now) is one that taxes goods based on where they are produced, regardless of where they are consumed. As such, an origin-based tax applies to both goods produced and consumed domestically (purely domestic goods) and to goods produced in the U.S. and consumed in foreign countries (exports). In the two-by-two matrix (below), an origin-based tax is applied to the top and bottom boxes on the left.
A destination-based tax is one that taxes goods and services based on where they are consumed, regardless of where they are produced. In our two-by-two matrix, a destination-based tax system is levied on goods and services in the two top boxes: goods produced and sold domestically (purely domestic products) and goods produced in foreign countries and sold domestically (imports).
  ​  As a result, a destination-based tax is neutral with respect to domestic consumption but could be positive if consumption of goods produced domestically increase and be profitable for businesses if exports increase.
       What could go wrong?  What lawmakers aren’t taking into effect is that we import goods for a reason, i.e., cheaper prices.  As a result of higher domestic prices, consumption/demand will decrease which will have a multiplier effect. In addition, it never ceases to amaze me how Congress fails to learn from history.  It is quite in the realm of possibility that other countries will reciprocate with a BAT of their own or just a simple tariff.  For the most part, I like Trumps pro-business agenda of lower taxes and less regulation, however, I think the BAT tax will do more harm than good.

0 Comments

    Author

    John Tommasi is a retired Senior Lecturer of Economics & Finance from Bentley University and  the University of New Hampshire.

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from simone.brunozzi