Don Boudreaux vs. Peter Navarro on transshipments

See Peter Navarro Is to Economics What Trofim Lysenko Is to Genetics by Don Boudreaux.

"This letter was sent ten days ago to the New York Times; it was not published there.

Editor:

Trump administration trade official Peter Navarro’s attempt to justify the White House’s crackdown on transshipments fails on several counts (“It Was a Great Scam While It Lasted,” August 13). First, these transshipments are the inevitable result of a trade regime – such as Trump’s – that, by rejecting the largely uniform tariffs that arise under a policy of most-favored-nation status, imposes wildly different tariff rates across different countries.

Second, while Navarro is correct that transshipping reduces U.S. customs revenues, he neglects to mention that these revenues are paid overwhelmingly by Americans. His complaint about transshipping, therefore, is really a complaint that transshippers are successfully easing Americans’ tax burden.

Third, Navarro is also correct – trivially so – that all motors, pumps, and other goods that Americans import are goods that Americans don’t produce. Yet he’s incorrect to imply that this reality indicts U.S. trade. Trade of course allows us Americans to acquire these goods at costs lower than we’d incur were we to produce these goods ourselves. But by releasing resources in the U.S. from the production of the goods that we import, trade also allows us to produce other goods that, were we to import less, we’d be unable to produce. Like all protectionists, Navarro is utterly blind to the production and jobs that are made possible in the domestic economy only by trade."

Taxing the Rich Can’t Close the Federal Deficit

By Adam N. Michel of Cato. 

"It’s not just the Democratic Socialists who believe in “taxing the hell out of millionaires.” The belief that Washington can finance itself by taxing a relatively small group of wealthy Americans has become increasingly mainstream and bipartisan. 

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D‑MA) and Bernie Moreno (R‑OH) propose removing the Social Security payroll tax cap, subjecting earnings above $184,500 to the 12.4 percent combined employer-employee payroll tax. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D‑MD) and Cory Booker (D‑NJ) each propose exempting more wages from income taxes at the bottom while raising taxes on higher earners. President Trump has pursued a similar strategy of expanding tax exemptions, while President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both pledged not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000.

Each approach shifts more of the tax burden toward the top. One problem with this approach is that there are not enough high-income Americans to finance the current federal budget deficit, let alone fund additional spending or tax cuts. 

One simple way to illustrate the mathematical impossibility of raising taxes only on rich people is to ask an intentionally extreme question: How much income is actually left to tax at the top? Not as much as popular proposals usually assume. 

Using IRS data, the post below shows an upper bound for income-tax increases on high earners. In 2023, if the government had confiscated every dollar earned over half a million dollars, it still would have run a budget deficit. 

What’s left to tax?

Using IRS data from the 2023 tax year (the most recent available), we can illustrate the difficulty of raising a lot more revenue from a narrow segment of the population.

In 2023, taxpayers filed 161 million individual income tax returns, reporting $15.3 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI). AGI includes wages, capital gains, personal business income, and other forms of income, minus adjustments for things like student loan interest and retirement contributions. 

The IRS reports this information by different income groups, separating taxpayers into buckets with AGIs above and below $200,000, $500,000, $1 million, and $10 million, among others. Table 1 shows the total AGI and income taxes paid, including federal taxes and an estimate of state-level taxes, by each group. 

 

In 2023, taxpayers earning over $1 million reported $2.5 trillion in total AGI and paid $747 billion in federal and state income taxes. To estimate state income taxes, we apply average rates by income group from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The 799,094 tax returns in the $1 million+ group accounted for 0.5 percent of all returns and paid an average federal and state income tax rate of 29.5 percent.

In theory, Congress could devise a way to reach every dollar of untaxed millionaire income. But most proposals to raise taxes on high earners instead start by increasing marginal tax rates. Under a graduated income tax, a higher rate imposed above $1 million applies only to income exceeding that threshold, which exempts the taxpayer’s first $1 million from additional taxes.

The IRS data show that for the $1‑million-and-above group, there is $1.7 trillion in AGI above the threshold. Applying the group’s average tax rate implies they have already paid roughly $512 billion in taxes on their above-threshold income. That leaves $1.2 trillion after taxes. 

If Congress confiscated every one of the remaining $1.2 trillion after-tax dollars earned above $1 million, the resulting revenue would have fallen nearly $600 billion short of covering the cost of the 2023 $1.8 trillion calendar-year deficit. Dropping the taxable income threshold to $500,000 would also have fallen just short of covering the same year’s deficit. And these estimates make the wildly unrealistic assumption that a 100 percent marginal tax rate would have no behavioral or other economic effects. 

Figure 1 extends the improbable assumption over 10 years, assuming that high-income Americans would continue to earn income when facing 100 percent income tax rates. It adjusts the 2023 data by projected income and household growth to show untaxed income over the next 10 years. Confiscating all income earned over $1 million would cover only about 80 percent of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projected $24.4 trillion federal deficit over the same period. 

 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget produces a more realistic projection of future deficits that assumes Congress extends many expiring tax and spending programs (which the CBO is required to assume are not renewed). At the more likely deficit figure of $29.4 trillion, even lowering the income threshold to $500,000 does not cover the next decade’s budget shortfall.

Lowering the taxable income threshold further to $200,000 expands the pool of untaxed income, but it does not make confiscatory tax rates economically plausible. 

Common sense and economic incentives make clear that Congress cannot raise marginal income tax rates anywhere close to 100 percent and expect taxpayers to continue earning and reporting the same income. A recent report by economists at the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that combined state and federal income tax rates are already near their revenue-maximizing level. Raising top income tax rates further would result in revenue gains of about 0.1 percent of GDP, equivalent to at most $400 billion over the next decade. 

Conclusion 

Taxing incomes at 100 percent marginal rates is not a realistic policy proposal. Taxes significantly higher than what we have today would radically change how much people work, invest, and realize as income, as well as how much income they report to the government. The point of this exercise is to show that “just tax the rich” proposals fail, even under arithmetic that is the most favorable possible."

1 in 5 Americans Still Need Government Permission To Work

Occupational licensing raises costs and limits mobility without improving safety.

By J.D. Tuccille of Reason. 

"Last week, an article in Governing noted that despite years of reform efforts, roughly one in five jobs in the United States requires government permission in the form of occupational licensing. In a world that is more potentially mobile and flexible than ever, licensing requirements can keep people fixed in place or pose high barriers to entering new trades and professions. The Archbridge Institute's 2026 State Occupational Licensing Index reveals which states are most burdensome, and which make it relatively easy to earn a living.

22 Percent of Americans Need Licenses To Work

"Too often, the occupational licensure laws on the books do not reflect the world we actually live in," Alanna Wilson cautioned in Governing. "American workers wishing to launch a career, build their own business or re-enter the workforce in one of 102 lower-income occupations must on average give up nearly a year to education and on-the-job training, pass at least one exam and pay nearly $300 in fees."

No Rhyme or Reason to Licensing Requirements

According to Archbridge's report, the five most burdensome states in the union are Oregon, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and New Jersey. The five states that put the fewest bureaucratic hurdles in the way of work are Missouri, Kansas, New York, Indiana, and Colorado.

As the report points out, medical doctors are licensed in every state. Nail technicians, for unclear reasons, also need licenses in every state. Most regulated jobs, like the electricians and nutritionists mentioned above, are licensed in some states but not others. Master gas fitters face barriers of some kind in 44 states, including licensing requirements in 11. Dental radiographers face similar burdens in 33 states. Security guards are licensed in half of states, as are fuel piping contractors. Medical assistants and animal breeders are licensed in 10 states. Mold remediation workers need licenses only in Texas.

In other words, while some heavily regulated jobs arguably pose safety concerns, others that might raise similar issues are intermittently licensed. That offers an opportunity to assess whether licensing offers benefits.

---

'Occupational Licensing Does Not Improve Public Health'

"A broad ideological spectrum of analysts and economists mostly agrees—occupational licensing does not improve public health in any scientifically rigorous or statistically significant manner," Spence Purnell, then of the Reason Foundation, which publishes Reason, wrote in 2018. He added that a study of dental hygienists found "the stricter the licensing requirements, the poorer the health outcomes. The study found this is because the more stringent regulations led to higher prices, which led to low income-earners foregoing routine dental work, which eventually led to more oral diseases, more pain and more costs to the patients."

Rather than safety worries, the 2025 Minneapolis Fed report observed that state licensing requirements seem driven by the policies of neighboring states, lobbying by professional associations for barriers to entry, and competition for jobs from immigrants. "Licensing disproportionately reduces employment of foreign-born workers," researchers found.

Instead of benefits, licensing requirements raise costs to consumers by limiting competition: "Shifting an occupation from unlicensed to licensed reduces employment in the licensed occupation by 29 percent," according to Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. "Such barriers also discourage hiring across state lines, and thus limit workers' interstate mobility."

While, as the Minneapolis Fed cautioned, eliminating licensing requirements is very rare, states have moved to recognize other states' licenses. "As of 2026, 28 states have adopted some form of universal licensing recognition—the same as last year," according to Archbridge. "Universal" recognition isn't always universal—some states specify that the licenses they recognize be subject to "substantially similar" rules as those issued locally, while others recognize only the licenses of state residents. But 11 states earn Archbridge's gold medal for universally recognizing occupational licenses without restrictions.

Universal license recognition isn't an entirely satisfactory substitute for eliminating requirements that people get government permission to work.

But eliminating licensing would be a difficult ask of lawmakers who sold the public on the idea that pointless and expensive burdens improve public safety. In that sense, universal recognition is a positive reform to regulations that hurdles in the way of jobs of prosperity."

Wealth Tax 2.0

By John H. Cochrane. Excerpts:

"If you invest an extra dollar today, how much extra do you get in a year? A 5% wealth tax drags down the rate of return by 5 percentage points. If you earn 10% on your investments, but then pay a 5% wealth tax, you only get a 5% after-tax rate of return. Starting from a 10% return, a 5% wealth tax is the same as a 50% tax on interest, dividends, and capital gains."

"The wealth tax applies on top of corporate taxes, property taxes, and taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains. Inflation acts as another wealth tax, running 3% a year now. My guesstimate is that the government takes all the return and more."

"Should they (billionaires)  bet the farm on a new venture, investing time and effort as well as their money? Should young Elon Musk take his $175 million PayPal payout and retire on it, or plow it all into electric cars and rockets? We often think of saving vs. consumption here, but I think we underestimate the disincentive to take risk and invest effort that comes from progressive taxation. If the government taxes away the upside to investing, people take less risk." 

"Billionaires do not have a pot of gold that can be costlessly handed out. Billionaires’ wealth stays re-invested in companies. Redirecting their wealth to social spending lowers national investment and raises national consumption, dollar for dollar. That’s not even hidden; it’s the point. But less investment mechanically means less capital for the future, fewer businesses, less productivity, lower wages."

"less investment also drives up interest rates as people with profitable ventures look for investors. Companies could finance investment with foreign money, but that raises the trade deficit"

"Structuring businesses to avoid taxes rather than generate profit might be the most insidious effect of high taxation."

"We have a wealth tax, the estate tax. It tries to charge 40% of wealth once in a generation, or about 1% a year. (You pay double if you pass it to grandkids, so really about once every 30 years.) The estate tax attracts a beehive of perfectly legal avoidance. (Avoidance, not evasion. “Tough enforcement” and audits do nothing here.) Though the estate tax applies above a lowly $11 million, the CBO reports that it yields only $18 billion, or 0.1 percent of GDP. A recent study—by wealth tax backers—reports that the estate tax collects only three to four hundredths of a percent (0.03%–0.04%) annually of the Forbes 400 wealth, not 1% or so."

[the bill] includes “a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman and child living in a household making $150,000 or less.” $1.1 trillion for Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies. Free dental, vision and hearing. $856 billion of government-provided homes to “abolish homelessness.” A childcare entitlement. A minimum salary for teachers. And so on. This is proudly a bill to turn investment into consumption."

"Free market wealth did not install Putin, nor did it create US crony capitalism under the regulatory state."

"What’s the right question? There is only one question — long run growth. Redistributing Rockefeller’s wealth would not have made your family better off. We’re all immensely better off because of long-run growth. Even if your concern is entirely at the lower end of the economic spectrum, long-run growth is the question. Ask of any policy, what does this do to long-run growth? For the wealth tax, not much!"  

Did UBI make people happier? (only in the short run)

From Tyler Cowen.

"Eh, only in the short run:

We study the causal impacts of income on a rich array of employment outcomes, leveraging an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years, with a control group of 2,000 participants receiving $50/month. We gather detailed survey data, administrative records, and data from a mobile phone app. The transfer caused total individual income excluding the transfers to fall by about $1,900/year relative to the control group and a 4.2 percentage point decrease in labor market participation. Participants reduced their work hours as a result of the transfers by 1-2 hours/week and participants’ partners reduced their work hours by a comparable amount. Among other categories of time use, the greatest increase generated by the transfer was in time spent on leisure. Despite asking detailed questions about amenities, we find no impact on quality of employment, and our confidence intervals can rule out even small improvements. Treated participants broadly increase expenditures, led by spending on non-durable goods and services, with smaller increases in spending on durable goods and human capital. We observe no significant effects on degree attainment, though the magnitudes of the estimated effects generally appear larger among younger participants. Measures of subjective well-being are higher among treated participants in the first year of the transfers but then revert to control group levels. Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities.

That is from the QJE by Eva Vivalt, Elizabeth Rhodes, Alexander Bartik, David Broockman, Patrick Krause, and Sarah Miller. Via Matt Yglesias."

What Slaughtered Pigs Can Teach Us About Europe’s Wine Policy

There’s a senselessness to Europe’s attempt to manage wine supply and dictate prices that echoes the New Deal’s effort to alleviate poverty by destroying millions of pigs.

By Jon Miltimore. 

"In the spring of 1933, American farmers pleaded for help from their newly elected president, Franklin Roosevelt. Hog prices were at record lows, and the farmers wanted the government to do something.

Not one to let a crisis go to waste, FDR took action. Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace was tasked with arranging the slaughter of millions of pigs in an effort to raise hog prices. Farmers who participated in the federal government’s hog program — later dubbed by economists “the porcine slaughter of the innocents” — were compensated. Their animals were turned into “inedible meat and bone meal,” courtesy of US taxpayers, even as hunger in America hit record highs. 

A country destroying its own food during a depression might sound like economic madness, and it is — but we are once again watching governments ramp up policies that pay farmers to destroy food.

It’s no secret that European vineyards have been disappearing for years. The trend is starkest in Pyrénées-Orientales in southern France: that region “lost nearly half its vines” between 2000 and 2020, The Economist recently reported. Limited access to water and rising energy costs played a role. But vineyards have vanished with increasing speed in recent years, thanks to government policies. 

In 2024, the French government revived a familiar tactic: paying farmers to rip out their vines. Under this national program, farmers can receive roughly €4,000 (about $4,600) for every hectare they remove. If lawmakers aimed to see the country produce less wine and hasten the disappearance of vineyards, that’s what they got.

France typically produces well over 40 million hectoliters of wine annually, but in 2025 it produced just 36 million, according to the French Ministry of Agriculture. Meanwhile, growers in the Languedoc-Roussillon region saw a surge in vines removed last year — roughly 15,000 hectares, an area approaching the size of Washington, D.C., according to The Economist.

Many might assume climate concerns drove France’s policy, but the primary reason resembles the catalyst for FDR’s “porcine slaughter of the innocents”: oversupply.

Global trends show fewer people drinking alcohol, especially Gen Z. Wine has taken a particularly hard hit, even in France, where red wine consumption recently reached an all-time low. French lawmakers say their policy is designed to “rescue” the wine industry from what the ministry described as excessive output.

To the average person, paying vineyard owners to destroy their vines likely looks crazy — but in Europe, it’s business as usual.

For years, the European Union has attempted to micromanage wine production through various incentives, including direct payments to farmers to remove vines. A European Parliament report found that the EU’s 2008 wine reform set an aggressive target: removal of 175,000 hectares with commitments to not replant. (Actual removal totaled 160,550 hectares.)

Now it appears Brussels is intent on ramping up its policy. The EU’s most recent Wine Package will, among other measures, make it easier for countries to make direct payments to farmers to destroy their vines.

“…new rules on State aid would allow Member States to use national financing not only for distillation of surplus wine,” the package reads, “but also for green harvesting (the total destruction or removal of grapes while still in their immature stage) and grubbing up (complete elimination of all vine stocks) of vineyards.”

There’s a certain irony in the policy. 

For decades, the EU subsidized wine production, resulting in surplusses critics dubbed “wine lakes.” Now Brussels wants to ratchet up efforts to rip out vines — to curb the very surplus that bureaucrats helped create.

There’s a senselessness to Europe’s approach that matches New Deal efforts to alleviate poverty by destroying millions of pigs. At least some New Dealers eventually learned their interventionist policies were failing.

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work,” United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. admitted to Congress in 1939. “I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.”

Morgenthau learned the hard way that trying to engineer a market economy from Washington — through spending, controls, and heavy-handed intervention — produced results far different from those promised. 

We can only hope lawmakers in Europe eventually learn the same lesson. 

Markets aren’t perfect, but they aggregate information from millions of buyers and sellers far better than bureaucrats, who can’t seem to decide whether to subsidize vineyards to boost production or destroy them to raise prices.

These contradictions will do long-term harm to vineyards. That’s a shame. A world with less wine is a less happy world."

A Reality Check on the Inequality Panic

Calls for wealth redistribution rest on a faulty premise about inequality

By Chelsea Follett of Cato. 

"Summary: Widespread claims of rapidly worsening global inequality are unsupported by the evidence. Long-term data show significant declines in inequality across income, health, education, and other important metrics, largely driven by rising prosperity in poorer countries. Popular policy proposals to address inequality, such as wealth taxes and expanded foreign aid, are misguided and dangerous. Policies that sustain economic growth and market stability are better guarantors of progress.

---

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for far higher taxation in a recent blog entry, arguing that current wealth concentration is higher than that of the Gilded Age and is about to get worse globally. The chart-topping singer Billie Eilish implored billionaires to give away their money, while New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani has gone further, opining, “I don’t think we should have billionaires” because we live in “a moment of such inequality.” If anything is having a moment, it is the conviction that inequality has grown urgent enough to justify a muscular policy response.

But the facts don’t support this. Not only has global income inequality fallen over the long run — contrary to the popular narrative — but inequality has also declined in education, health, and a host of other areas. The world is now more equal across a range of factors, from lifespan and childhood survival to internet access and schooling. The more broadly one examines inequality, the more encouraging the data appear. It turns out that even the shock of COVID-19 failed to erase decades of progress toward a wealthier and more equal world.

Indeed, the data show a pronounced decline in global inequality over the past few decades, driven largely by rising prosperity in poorer countries. During the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021, progress slowed sharply. Some indicators stalled and a few modestly worsened. But the gains accumulated before the crisis were not undone.

In short, the damage to human well-being was more limited than many feared. 

Another recent analysis published in The Economist finds that global inequality in consumption spending is falling. In 2000, the richest 10% of humanity spent 40 times more than the poorest 50%. In 2025, they spent around 18 times more. Using data from World Data Lab, they find that the poorest 50% now out-consume the richest 1%, breaking from past trends.

Yet many think that only large-scale redistribution can stop runaway worldwide inequality. Figures as diverse as Amodei, Eilish, and Mamdani are far from alone in embracing this view. Over the past few years, calls for a worldwide wealth tax, a vast increase in foreign aid spending, and other unprecedented measures are gaining steam across academia, non-profits, the press, and international organizations like the United Nations. 

That conclusion is premature. Getting the facts straight is essential, because misunderstanding global inequality can push policymakers toward harmful solutions.

The record on foreign aid is far less encouraging than its advocates suggest: decades of evidence show that aid frequently fails to deliver sustained development and bears no reliable relationship to long-term economic growth. Worse, the fixation on ever larger aid flows often crowds out the harder work of domestic reform. In some cases, foreign aid has been shown to weaken political institutions, entrench bad governance, and slow the process of democratization.

Wealth taxes have their own problems, from high administrative costs and enforcement challenges to low revenue production and invasion of financial privacy. These problems help explain why so many of the countries that have implemented wealth taxes in the past — such as France, Germany, and Sweden— later abolished the tax. Perhaps the worst of all, by discouraging risk-taking, wealth taxes suppress investment and growth, effects that would be felt in both rich and poor countries and would likely prove especially damaging to development in the world’s poorest economies.

Recent work on multidimensional inequality suggests that the world has not been drifting toward ever greater gaps, but that the rich and the poor have been converging in material comfort. Calls for global wealth taxes or massive new aid programs often rest on the assumption that international trade and economic freedom have failed to deliver broadly shared gains. Yet the long-term evidence suggests the opposite.

The pandemic offers two lessons here: First, it highlights just how sensitive progress is to disruptions in markets. It depends on conditions that allow growth to occur and persist, including functioning markets and stable institutions. Many of the proposed policy solutions risk undermining that progress.

The second lesson is that while the pandemic represented a hurdle in the path of progress, the long-term trend toward lower global inequality is holding strong.

Alarmist narratives shape public opinion and encourage policymakers to pursue sweeping interventions that may do more harm than good. A clearer view of the data counsels caution rather than panic."