Mutually Assured Trade Destruction Tariff-Style Further Diminishes Individual Sovereignty
Wolters Kluwer, Regulating for Globalization: Trade, Labor and EU Law Perspectives, 04/20/2018
3 Pages Posted: 9 May 2018
Date Written: April 20, 2018
There was legal mention recently about how the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) had increased the difficulty for business to deduct environmental litigation expenses (e.g., property remediation expenses or compliance costs) incurred incident to a U.S. Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Department (DOJ-ENRD)-initiated enforcement action.
The inability of a business to deduct expenses incurred in defending against DOJ-ENRD-initiated environmental litigation is but another reason why the administration’s tax reform had been foolishly assembled without adequate due diligence and foresight to prevent harm to private property and free enterprise.
The tax bill should have been used as a cudgel to compel U.S. multinationals to return their outsourced Chinese manufacturing hubs (and not mere eye candy factories) to the U.S., as demonstrated by restoration of significant numbers of actual U.S. manufacturing jobs, skills and technologies, as the quid pro quo for the promised tax and regulatory relief.
The administration has blown it, thus far, from a trade perspective by focusing on the tail of the dog (tariffs imposed on finished goods) rather than on the body and inner organs of the dog. These consist of the regulations and other hidden indirect taxes which adversely affect the cost and means of production and processing of goods which foreign governments, especially those in China and Europe, have used with aplomb to deny market access to U.S. products, technologies and know-how (i.e., intellectual property) where they haven’t already stolen them....
Keywords: non-tariff trade barriers, environment, health & safety regulations, tariff war, protectionism, precautionary principle, postmodern science, U.S. jobs, tax policy, DOJ-ENRD litigation defense expense nondeductible, intellectual property, IP theft, China, Brazil, India, Russia, european socialism
JEL Classification: F1, F13, F16, F18, F51, K23, K32, K33, K34, K41, O14, Q01
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation