- Joined
- Mar 13, 2025
- Messages
- 194
- Reaction score
- 226
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The real question is this: “Are tariffs ‘taxation without representation’ ?” (Recalling what the Boston Tea Party was all about.)
Well, I suppose it depends on degree. I'd say to the scope of how Trump is implementing tariffs, I'd say he has crossed the threshold into 'taxation without representation' territory, at least in the de facto sense. But, we must look, also, to how congress granted much of it’s authority over tariffs to the president. I contend that congress needs to revise it’s laws on tariffs, to reacquire it’s original authority, with some modifications, considerations, etc.
If the American Revolution was born over a cup of overpriced tea, then it is fitting that we examine modern tariffs not merely as economic policy, but as a civic insult--no less offensive than the Stamp Act, and arguably more cynical. At issue is not merely trade, but power: who wields it, who pays for it, and whether the American people still have a voice in the taxation imposed upon them.
Tariffs are taxes. No matter what euphemism is deployed--“trade balancing,” “protectionism,” “economic leverage”--the end result is that prices rise, and American consumers pay the bill. And yet, unlike most taxes, tariffs are often imposed unilaterally, not by Congress--the body constitutionally charged with taxation--but by the President, through powers Congress has long since ceded.
In this we have a constitutional crime of negligence. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is explicit: only Congress may “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” And yet, via a thicket of loosely written trade acts, Congress has allowed successive presidents to impose tariffs on steel, washing machines, aluminum, semiconductors--practically anything with a customs code--citing everything from “national security” to “emergency economic action.” The result? A single executive, elected by half the country, levies taxes that affect all of it.
More troubling is the nature of this taxation. Tariffs are regressive. They do not target wealth or corporate profits but the goods ordinary Americans buy every day. When a tariff raises the price of lumber, it doesn’t dent the billionaire’s lifestyle; it makes it harder for working-class families to afford home repairs. When imported food is hit, it is the grocery bill--not the hedge fund--that suffers.
In short, we have reinvented taxation without representation--but this time in the name of nationalism and with bipartisan shrugs.
The Boston Tea Party was not just an angry act over tea prices. It was a visceral rejection of an imperial government taxing colonists who had no voice in Parliament. Two and a half centuries later, we endure tariff regimes launched by executive order, often in the dead of night, announced in press conferences rather than congressional debate. The colonists threw tea into the harbor; we shrug and open our thinner wallets.
The remedy is neither radical nor new. Congress must reclaim its constitutional duty. At a minimum, tariffs--unless narrowly reciprocal or emergency in nature--should require congressional approval. Let the people's branch debate the matter. Let voters hold someone accountable.
It does seem that the dream of 1776 has faded into a long nap--interrupted only by the sound of new taxes falling, one executive order at a time.
Well, I suppose it depends on degree. I'd say to the scope of how Trump is implementing tariffs, I'd say he has crossed the threshold into 'taxation without representation' territory, at least in the de facto sense. But, we must look, also, to how congress granted much of it’s authority over tariffs to the president. I contend that congress needs to revise it’s laws on tariffs, to reacquire it’s original authority, with some modifications, considerations, etc.
If the American Revolution was born over a cup of overpriced tea, then it is fitting that we examine modern tariffs not merely as economic policy, but as a civic insult--no less offensive than the Stamp Act, and arguably more cynical. At issue is not merely trade, but power: who wields it, who pays for it, and whether the American people still have a voice in the taxation imposed upon them.
Tariffs are taxes. No matter what euphemism is deployed--“trade balancing,” “protectionism,” “economic leverage”--the end result is that prices rise, and American consumers pay the bill. And yet, unlike most taxes, tariffs are often imposed unilaterally, not by Congress--the body constitutionally charged with taxation--but by the President, through powers Congress has long since ceded.
In this we have a constitutional crime of negligence. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is explicit: only Congress may “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” And yet, via a thicket of loosely written trade acts, Congress has allowed successive presidents to impose tariffs on steel, washing machines, aluminum, semiconductors--practically anything with a customs code--citing everything from “national security” to “emergency economic action.” The result? A single executive, elected by half the country, levies taxes that affect all of it.
More troubling is the nature of this taxation. Tariffs are regressive. They do not target wealth or corporate profits but the goods ordinary Americans buy every day. When a tariff raises the price of lumber, it doesn’t dent the billionaire’s lifestyle; it makes it harder for working-class families to afford home repairs. When imported food is hit, it is the grocery bill--not the hedge fund--that suffers.
In short, we have reinvented taxation without representation--but this time in the name of nationalism and with bipartisan shrugs.
The Boston Tea Party was not just an angry act over tea prices. It was a visceral rejection of an imperial government taxing colonists who had no voice in Parliament. Two and a half centuries later, we endure tariff regimes launched by executive order, often in the dead of night, announced in press conferences rather than congressional debate. The colonists threw tea into the harbor; we shrug and open our thinner wallets.
The remedy is neither radical nor new. Congress must reclaim its constitutional duty. At a minimum, tariffs--unless narrowly reciprocal or emergency in nature--should require congressional approval. Let the people's branch debate the matter. Let voters hold someone accountable.
It does seem that the dream of 1776 has faded into a long nap--interrupted only by the sound of new taxes falling, one executive order at a time.
