Category: taxes

U.S. – Japanese trade agreement

Free trade of goods and services produced without government subsidies or restrictions would maximize the incomes of all involved. To promote this result, the World Trade Organization has led the effort to reduce or eliminate tariff and other trade restrictions and has authorized the use of tariffs carefully targeted to nullify the distorting effect of government subsidies or other interferences in the competitive market production of goods and services.

This is not how President Trump has used or threatened in his usual bully style to use tariffs. For Trump, tariffs are not established to improve a level playing field for world trade, and not even always to protect inefficient American manufacturers such as the 50% tariff on imported Steel. An outrageous example was his threat to impose a 50% tariff on all Brazilian imports, effective August 1, 2025, if Brazil went forward with the prosecution of his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is charged with attempting to stage a coup d’état to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential election in Brazil. Incidentally, the U.S. currently has a trade surplus with Brazil. Go figure.

On July 23, “President Donald J. Trump announced a landmark economic agreement with Japan…. [In exchange for a reduction of US tariffs on all Japanese imports from 25% to 15%, it] will invest $550 billion directed by the United States to rebuild and expand core American industries…. The United States will retain 90% of the profits from this investment…. In addition to raising billions in revenue, this new tariff framework, combined with expanded U.S. exports and investment-driven production, will help narrow the trade deficit with Japan and restore greater balance to the overall U.S. trade position.” “Whitehouse fact-sheets/2025/07/”  

As an aside, Trump has also threated to punish any country that stops using U.S. dollars as its reserve and trade vehicle currency. Somehow, he fails to understand that for a country to acquire these dollars (and for Japan to acquire the $550 billion it is to invest in the US) they must have a trade surplus (US trade deficit). Oh well.

“Japanese officials said there was no written agreement with Washington — and no legally binding one would be drawn up — after Trump administration officials claimed Tokyo would back investments in the US from which American taxpayers would reap nine-tenths of the profits.”  https://www.ft.com/content/c1183b13-9135-41f6-9206-7b52af66f0a5

In addition to the fact that Japanese officials are disputing that they have agreed to such a deal, I hope that you are surprised that the American government is proposing to create new state owned companies. The world’s experience with state own companies has not been good. Our private enterprise dominated economy has served us (our standard of living) very well.

If this all seems rather confusing, welcome to Trump land.

Retirement

For those who save for their retirement, what they save is what they get. For those who depend on Social Security income for their retirement (most people do both), the story is different. Social Security is a pay as you go system. While working, people (shared with their employer) pay a SS tax and once retired they receive a legally fixed income (defined benefit). The system works ok as long as there are enough workers paying the tax to finance the benefits received by those retired. “Saving Social Security”  “What to do about Social Security”

But American’s are living longer than they did when the SS system was designed. Without any change in their retirement age they will live in retirement longer. In 1975 there were 3.2 workers (paying the SS tax) per retirees receiving SS benefits. By last year this had fallen to 2.8. Over the next ten years this ratio is projected to fall to 2.3. The simplest solution to the shortfall of taxes paid into the Social Security Trust Fund for financing its benefit payments to the retired is to raise the retirement age. Most of us want to work longer anyway. A new extensive study of these issues and the experiences of some other countries will be available in a few weeks. “Reimagining Social Security”

Taxation norms

Taxes are levied to raise money but also to influence behavior. What is taxed and how much influences how much of it is demanded. To take an example of a tariff (tax) on steel imports, the resulting higher price of imported steel increases the relative attractiveness of domestically produced steel. Under the rules of the World Trade Organization, such a tariff would be justified if it offsets an artificial (and thus economic efficiency undermining) subsidy of the foreign produced steel.

President Trump has introduced a totally different way of using tariffs/taxes. He uses them as threats to pressure a country to take action totally unrelated to the item to be taxed. This follows his general bully approach to negotiations. To pressure a country or firm to agree to his requests, he threatens harm if they refuse. If a university or newsman behaves in ways he doesn’t like, he attacks them or threatens them with harm.

In the most recent example Trump is threatening a 50% tariff on all imports from Brazil primarily due to Brazil’s legal proceedings against former President Jair Bolsonaro, which Trump characterizes as a “witch hunt,” and to address what he claims is an “unfair” trade relationship between the two countries.

“Trump demands that the trial against former president Bolsanero, who had tried to instigate a military coup after he had lost the last election, should be immediately end.”  “First casualties from Trump’s increasing tariff craze”

 It’s not clear what Trump means by “unfair” trade relationship. His positions on trade, which he clearly does not understand at all, are contradictory. He has threatened to raise tariffs on imports from countries that avoid using US dollars in their FX reserves and foreign trade payments. For countries to use US dollars they must have a trade surplus with the US (a US trade deficit with such countries) in order to acquire them. “Why Does the World Need a Reserve Asset with a Hard Anchor?”  But Trump doesn’t seem to like or want such deficits. The US actually has a trade surplus with Brazil.

It may sound like this is all from the Onion, but sadly it is not. I don’t expect it to end well.

Econ 101: Government Budgets

Newspapers are full of articles about the deaths or other losses that will result from proposed budget cuts. Today’s Washington Post, for example, headlined a story on USAID cuts “USAID cuts may cause 14 million more deaths in next five years, study says”  “Washington post /2025/07/01/”

If the government’s spending on X is reduced (aside from any improvement in efficiency) the benefits of that spending will be lost. But our resources are limited. If we spend more on X we have less to spend on Y.  So when we lament the losses from reduced spending on X we should take account of the gain from the increased spending on other things.

To put a bit of flesh on this issue, consider the following: “The administration has cut more than a hundred contracts and grants from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries. President Donald Trump has shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired other staffers who supported it.”  “Rubio-pepfar-aids”

Evaluating whether this cut is “good or bad” is not easy because determining the likely alternative use of the money saved is not easy. If we stick to a fixed government budget total, the alternative use by the government of the money saved might save even more lives (or maybe not). But the saving could also be given to tax payers whose use of that money would reflect their own personal needs and priorities.  

The process used by Elon Musk’s DOGE to arrive at the spending and/or personnel cuts they proposed was not transparent thus is largely unknown to us. But I have serious doubts that it was appropriate. Semafor offers the following advice:

“A lot of US government work is highly inefficient, says the science reformer Stuart Buck. Federally funded scientists say they spend 44% of their research time on bureaucracy, federal procurement is “broken” and often results in the government buying products that don’t work, and “the Paperwork Reduction Act paradoxically results in endless paperwork.” “Many such cases,” says Buck. “We should have an official effort to address these issues… We could even call it a ‘Department of Government Efficiency.’” As you might be aware, there is one: It is “widely viewed as a failure,” but the basic idea is sound. How could we make it good?

“The first step, says Buck, would be taking a long time to deeply understand how each government agency works, so you don’t mistake routine human error or some statistical artifact for fraud. Second, it should focus on high-value reforms, like outdated data systems or software. Third, it should learn from previous attempts to cut red tape — because there have been many, not all of which worked. And importantly, a good DOGE would not mistake things we don’t use for “waste” — like an insurance policy, we hope pandemic preparedness infrastructure and fire departments are never used, but they’re in place in case we need them. The real-world DOGE is a failure, says Buck, because it ignored all of these strictures.”  “Semafor.com/newsletter/06/30/2025/”

I think some, if not many, government programs or activities should be reformed or eliminated. But those the public really want must be paid for by the public paying additional taxes or lending to the government (buying US bonds). U.S. debt is dangerously high (123% of US GDP) and continuing to grow.  So to the extend spending is not reduced, taxes should be raised.   

Econ 101: How much should we tax the rich?

Should the wealthy pay more taxes than the rest of us? Of course, no one disagrees with that. But how much more? Based on 2022 tax year, the latest available, the top 10% of income earners (those with adjusted gross income above $178,661) paid 72% of the total of $2.1 trillion taxes collected. Is that too much or too little or about right. The bottom 50% of income earners (less than AGI of $50,339) paid 3.0%. What is a “fair” distribution of the tax burden and/or an economically efficient distribution? Corporate income taxes raised $0.42 trillion that year and should really be abolished in our globally trading world.

I have written earlier (many times actually) that I support abolishing all income taxes (personal and corporate) and relying fully on consumption taxation. While it can be challenging to determine where things are produced, there is no question about where we consume them. But while waiting for that miracle to happen, how much more should higher income people pay in taxes than lower income people?

Fair Tax Act of 2023
Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income

My sense of fairness (and economists norm for tax neutrality) says that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. In other words, if your income is twice mine, you should pay twice the tax. If all income taxes and welfare payments were replace with a Universal Basic Income for all and flat consumption tax (VAT) the result would be mildly progressive tax rates on income.

A note on Social Security: it is not a saving plan in which what you saved is there to pay out to you when you retire. https://wcoats.blog/?s=social+security

Econ 101: Budget Cuts

What criteria should guild when to cut some program’s budget? We must first get beyond the fact the any cut will result in having less of something. If it is inefficiency or corruption that we give up—good riddance. But usually, it will be something that has some value. That does not necessarily mean that the cut should not be made.

Consider this example from my in-tray today:

“The Trump administration has made drastic cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that threaten to impact weather forecasting and other key services provided by the agency. 

In the wake of the wave of dismissals this week, lawmakers and former officials raised concerns about potential damage to services ranging from extreme weather responses to efforts to prevent objects from colliding in space.” “The Hill: Energy – Environment – NOAA cuts”

What should be considered when making such a decision is what other services were prevented by directing these resources to NOAA activities rather than alternative uses. Even if the government just increases it overall budget, the added taxes or borrowing will have alternative uses.

You will immediately understand the issue when you consider your own household budget. Your income is limited (unless you give up some leisure to work more hours). You might gain some pleasure spending more on X, but you can only do so by giving up some Y. If you benefit more from the extra X than you lose giving up Y, then you should do it. It passes the cost/benefit test of maximizing the benefit of your given income.  

In short, the fact that cutting the budget of some agency will cut some of its services is an incomplete argument for not cutting because if fails to take account of the rest of the cost/benefit assessment of the resulting reallocation of resources.

Such budget decisions are generally debated in Congress as it approves the government’s budget. It’s an imperfect process, like most of life, but it allows all views and pros and cons to be heard and considered. A body like Musk’s DOGE might be appropriate for evaluating the efficiency with which services are performed (perhaps proposing better information processing systems) and detecting corruption, but not for evaluating the desirability of such services themselves.

America’s Trump style Foreign Policy

The world benefits from rules of interaction that provide peace and cooperation. Rather than building more weapons of war, we could build more temples of beauty. Championing rules most countries respect and aspire to and being the largest (or perhaps second largest) economy in the world, the United States has naturally led such an international order. Retaining that role would be jeopardized if the U.S. did not diplomatically fashion such rules that were embraced and respected by most other countries and if the U.S. did not itself abide by the rules it had championed.

America’s leadership role is being jeopardized by our hypocrisy, such as condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine while given a blank check and American weapons for Israel’s invasion of Gaza and Lebanon and ignoring its abuse of its occupied territories in the West Bank of Palestine. America’s embrace of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s condemnation of the ICC’s arrest warrant for Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s and its former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is the very definition of hypocrisy.  

President elect Donald Trump’s style of negotiating international agreements reflects more the behavior of a bully than a diplomat. Last Monday Trump threatened to levy a 25% percent tariff on all imports from Mexica and Canada, despite the large economic harm to the US as well as Mexica and Canada and despite the laws and agreements it would violate, if they did not stop the illegal drugs and aliens entering the US across their borders. WC: “tariffs”

“Trump’s threat spurred outrage across the northern and southern U.S. borders, prompting backlash and warnings of retaliatory tariffs from both Mexico and Canada.”  The Hill: “Takeaways from trumps new tariff threat”

“Donald Trump’s angry threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on all U.S. imports from Mexico… is widely being depicted as a bluff….

“But amid all this parsing of Trump’s intentions, a crucial fact about his new move is getting lost: At the center of it is a lie. This lie is hiding in plain sight: It’s the underlying suggestion that Mexico is not doing anything to stop migrants from coming and that Trump’s threat of tariffs is needed to change that….

“All this is laid bare by the sharp response to Trump’s threat that new Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum issued Tuesday. Her statement is getting attention for its barbed claim that American guns trafficked to Mexico are fueling crime and violence there among gangs supplying U.S. markets with drugs. ‘Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours,’ Sheinbaum noted acidly, suggesting that the two countries’ interrelated national challenges underscore the need for cross-border cooperation rather than Trumpian confrontation.”

She further noted that: “You may not be aware that Mexico has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States. As a result, and according to data from your country’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP), encounters at the Mexico-United States border have decreased by 75% between December 2023 and November 2024….

“What this polite (and euphemistic) language says is that Mexico is already acting extensively to thwart migrants who travel through that country—originating south of Mexico—so they don’t reach our own southern border. As Sheinbaum notes, this is partly why border apprehensions in the United States have dropped sharply of late.” New Republic: “Mexico’s Sheinbaum responds to Trump tariffs”

So, what did our bully in chief do next?  “President-elect Donald Trump has said he had a “wonderful” conversation with Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, in an apparent easing of the tensions raised this week over trade tariffs….  After Wednesday’s phone call, both leaders described the conversation in positive terms. Trump said on Truth Social, his social media platform, that it was a ‘very productive conversation’ and thanked Mexico for its promised efforts.”

Perpetuating his original lie, “Trump indicated that Sheinbaum would stop migration through Mexico, ‘effectively closing the southern border’.

“Sheinbaum said she had explained her country’s efforts to deal with migrants and that her position would ‘not be to close borders but to build bridges’”.  https://on.ft.com/49czcol

Trump may or may not be a good negotiator (6 of his businesses have filled for bankruptcy) but his approach is that of a bully. Given America’s dominant status in the world, bullying rather than leading and negotiating in the search for mutually beneficial compromises will hasten American decline from leadership.

Tariffs

“Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said [Monday] that on the first day of his presidency he will charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the U.S. He added in a separate social-media post that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on all products that come into the U.S. from China,… That would come on top of existing tariffs the U.S. has already imposed on Chinese goods.

“’This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!’ Trump wrote.” WSJ: Trump pledges tariffs on Mexico Canada and China”

A tariff is a tax on an import. They are permitted by the World Trade Organization when leveed on goods receiving state subsidies in order to create a level playing field for trade. Such global trade has made an enormous contribution to the standard of living around the world.  “Ernie Tedeschi, former chief economist for President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the North American tariffs would cost the typical American household almost $1,000 per year.” WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

The normal expectation is that the tariff will reduce U.S. demand for the taxed import and encourage its domestic production. But the US labor force is fully employed and can only increase domestic production of the targeted goods by shifting workers from the production of goods the US has a comparative advantage in thus reducing our overall income. Though employment of manufacturing workers has declined in the US, manufacturing output has not because worker productivity has increased. In fact, our imports have not shipped American jobs overseas as increasing productivity has resulted in reduced manufacturing employment most everywhere in the world, including China, surely a good thing. WC: “Trade protection and corruption”

Immediately after Trump’s tariff announcement, the exchange rate of the dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar reduces the cost of imports (but increases the cost to foreigners of our exports), thus undoing to some extent the demand reducing impact of the tariff. But it hurts our exports because of their higher price to foreign purchaser and reduces our overall standard of living.

China and others hit with this tax are likely to retaliate with their own tariffs. “Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020, goods moving among the three North American nations cross borders on a duty-free basis. ‘Obviously, unilaterally imposing a 25 percent tariff on all trade blows up the agreement,’ said John Veroneau, a partner at Covington & Burling in Washington.”  WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

Should Trump actually impose these tariff’s he would (again) be violating the law, which only allows the President to impose tariffs without Congressional approval for national security reasons: WC: “Tariff abuse”

Trump’s threatened tariffs are not even leveed on the goods he wants to restrict (drugs and illegal aliens). Thus, unlike traditional tariffs they would be leveed to pressure Mexico and Canada to take other actions Trump wants. They are bargaining ploys. So at the cost of raising prices and lowering incomes in the US, weakening the global trading rules from which we have benefited so much, and weakening the checks and balances limiting an over extended executive branch, Trump may be playing his bargaining game again. But in my opinion the cost to us and the world trading system is too high.

Econ 101 – Price gouging

The good news is that the Presidential campaign has moved on to the presentation of policy positions—at least on Kamila Harris’s part–Trump’s response at a Pennsylvania campaign stop over the weekend was that “she’s gone “full communist.”

The bad news is that in addition to continuing some of Trump’s bad economic policies (tariffs, buy American protectionism, etc.) some of Harris’s economic policies are bad. Here I will take a closer look at her promise to ban “price gouging” by grocery stores.

In March of 2020 US. Broad Money (M2) growth jumped from its usual 5 to 6% per annum growth to over 25% a year later. As a result, U.S. Inflation (CPI) began to increase rapidly above its 2% target at the beginning of 2021. The Federal Reserve did not begin to tighten monetary policy until a year later when inflation had already reached 8% per annum. In addition, federal government deficit spending exploded over the same period. To fight this inflation the Fed’s policy interest rate was increased from almost zero from March 2022 to 5.3% by mid 2023 where it remains, thus ending M2 growth.

Since its disastrous late start in monetary tightening, the Fed’s management of the return of inflation to its 2% target has been as good as I could hope. Inflation has fallen below 3% without (yet) causing an economic slowdown. My guess is that the Fed is slightly behind the curve and should have started reducing it policy rate earlier this month.

So what is Harris’s ban on price gouging all about? “Perhaps Harris’s most surprising policy announcement was her plan to ban “price gouging” in grocery and food prices. While details were sparse, the measure would include authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to impose large fines on grocery stores that impose “excessive” price hikes on customers, her campaign said. Grocery prices remain a top concern for voters: Even though the rate of increase leveled off this year, grocery prices have jumped 26 percent since 2019, according to Elizabeth Pancotti, director of special initiatives at the Roosevelt Institute.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/16/kamala-harris-2024-policy-child-tax-credit/

In an excellent editorial last Friday (I urge you to read it) the Washington Post asked: “‘Price gouging’ is not causing inflation. So why is the vice president promising to stamp it out?”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/16/harris-economy-plan-gimmicks/

Stores only offer goods for sale when they can be sold for more than their cost to the story by enough to pay for their own employees, cost of their store and its maintenance and “normal” profit (return on the investment made by the store’s owners). The erratic economic events of the last few years create disruptions in these normal relationships that can produce temporary losses and/or usually large profits.

The supply and demand for a good can be matched by its price or by some other form of rationing. If a pandemic suddenly spikes the demand for facemasks, it will take a while for manufacturers to increase the supply. Until that happens demand will exceed supply.  Dr. Fauci and the government can ban sales to us common people in order to reserve the existing supply for doctors and nurses, or the market will increase the price such that only those with the most pressing need (or desire) will pay the higher price of the available supply. Rationing by prices has two big advantages. The first is that each individual (rather than government bureaucrats) determines whether their need is strong enough to pay the higher price. This makes it MUCH more likely that face masks will go to those with the highest need. Second it maximizes the market incentive to increase production and supply faster.

It the supply (relative to demand) shortage is not rationed by price, some other rationing mechanism and criteria must take its place. One is first come first served until the shelves are empty. During the wage and price freeze imposed by President Richard Nixon starting on Aug 15, 1971, gasoline was rationed by long lines of cars waiting for their turn at gas stations. It is not surprising that freely determined market prices have served us so well.

The latest on Social Security Benefits

If no changes are made to the Social Security law: “Starting in 2034… Social Security will only have enough money to pay 79% of its promised benefits.” “Day of reckoning for Social Security draws closer”  The system promises a given pension upon retirement (a defined benefit) that is financed by a given payroll tax. It is not a pool of saving that is drown down at retirement. It is pay as you go. “Saving Social Security”.

This financial problem results from the fact that Americans are living longer and thus receive their SS pension for more years if there is no change in the retirement age. Moreover, the growth in the population has slowed so that the ratio of workers (i.e. those paying the tax financing the pensions of the retired) to retirees has fallen from approximately 3.3 in 1970 to 2.9 in 2020. It is projected to fall further to 2.0 by 2030.

The system must and will change, the only question is how. Legal immigration could be increased to increase the number of workers. The wage tax could be increased. Retirement age could be increased (20% voluntarily work after retirement already). As people live longer many choose to work longer for more than just the extra income. Pension benefits could be indexed to inflation rather than to wage growth (which has been greater than inflation). But more recently I have proposed replacing Social Security and other safety net programs with a Universal Basic Income for every man, woman and child without exception. Such a remake of our social safety net would have several very good features. “Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income”