Will Trump support our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan?

johnwk · May 25, 2025

.
It seems to me those advising Trump, who constantly demand having an annually balanced federal budget and forcing fiscal restraints upon Congress’s spending, suspiciously avoid any mention of our Founder’s original tax plan which would, if returned to, accomplish their asserted goals.

To Trump’s credit, he apparently sees the advantage of taxing at our border’s edge as a primary means to fill our national treasury, and using tariffs to advance an America first policy which includes using tariffs to encourage a healthy domestic manufacturing base, which is critical to our national defense and is in perfect harmony with our Founder’s thinking.

For example, knowing full well that building a strong domestic merchant marine, necessary to defending the United States, one of the very first revenue raising Acts of Congress included giving hometown ship builders an advantage when taxing imports, thus leading to a healthy domestic ship building industry. See: July 4, 1789, CHAP. II.—An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported (Section 5 . . . Discount on duties for goods imported in vessels of citizens.)

Also see: CHAP. III.—An Act imposing Duties on Tonnage.(a) July 20th, 1789, [further down the page] continuing an advantage to encourage domestic ship building.

Getting back to our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan, currently being promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, I’m beginning to believe some of Trump’s most trusted advisors are really flimflam con artists and have no intention to actually force fiscal restraints upon Congress nor end reckless federal spending which has become a clever device to plunder the people’s treasury by distributing its contents into the pockets of countless non-government organizations created for money laundering operations and defy the defined and limited objects for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would go a long way to end the massive corruption now taking place in Washington, because it creates a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for their State Legislature to pay an apportioned share, out of their own state treasury, to extinguish a federal deficit created by Congress when it spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

JWK

"A national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one,that, while it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___James Madison speaking before Congress during our NATION'S FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT

rahl · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
.
It seems to me those advising Trump, who constantly demand having an annually balanced federal budget and forcing fiscal restraints upon Congress’s spending, suspiciously avoid any mention of our Founder’s original tax plan which would, if returned to, accomplish their asserted goals.

To Trump’s credit, he apparently sees the advantage of taxing at our border’s edge as a primary means to fill our national treasury, and using tariffs to advance an America first policy which includes using tariffs to encourage a healthy domestic manufacturing base, which is critical to our national defense and is in perfect harmony with our Founder’s thinking.

For example, knowing full well that building a strong domestic merchant marine, necessary to defending the United States, one of the very first revenue raising Acts of Congress included giving hometown ship builders an advantage when taxing imports, thus leading to a healthy domestic ship building industry. See: July 4, 1789, CHAP. II.—An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported (Section 5 . . . Discount on duties for goods imported in vessels of citizens.)

Also see: CHAP. III.—An Act imposing Duties on Tonnage.(a) July 20th, 1789, [further down the page] continuing an advantage to encourage domestic ship building.

Getting back to our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan, currently being promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, I’m beginning to believe some of Trump’s most trusted advisors are really flimflam con artists and have no intention to actually force fiscal restraints upon Congress nor end reckless federal spending which has become a clever device to plunder the people’s treasury by distributing its contents into the pockets of countless non-government organizations created for money laundering operations and defy the defined and limited objects for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would go a long way to end the massive corruption now taking place in Washington, because it creates a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for their State Legislature to pay an apportioned share, out of their own state treasury, to extinguish a federal deficit created by Congress when it spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

JWK

"A national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one,that, while it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___James Madison speaking before Congress during our NATION'S FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT

Taxing imports as the main source of government revenue is monumentally retarded in 2025. We are a global market now. There is no getting around this reality. Nor is there any going back to 18th century means of revenue collection. No economist on the planet concurs with trumps stupidity. Trump doesn’t even know how tariffs work. He still insists the exporting country is who pays them.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
Taxing imports as the main source of government revenue is monumentally retarded in 2025. We are a global market now. There is no getting around this reality. Nor is there any going back to 18th century means of revenue collection. No economist on the planet concurs with trumps stupidity. Trump doesn’t even know how tariffs work. He still insists the exporting country is who pays them.

Well, you certainly do have a number of opinions.

Aside from that, taxing consumption seems to be the most logical way to raise a federal revenue, e.g., Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

rahl · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
Well, you certainly do have a number of opinions.

It’s an opinion that is backed by critically every economist on the planet.

johnwk said:
Aside from that, taxing consumption seems to be the most logical way to raise a federal revenue, e.g., Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

Nope. Taxing consumption simply discourages consumption. Which is why no economist on the planet agrees with this stupidity.

johnwk said:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

Th is his 2025, not 1787.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
It’s an opinion that is backed by critically every economist on the planet.

Nope. Taxing consumption simply discourages consumption. Which is why no economist on the planet agrees with this stupidity.

Th is his 2025, not 1787.

You above opinions are noted, but refuted by Hamilton, who I quoted for you.

rahl · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
You above opinions are noted, but refuted by Hamilton, who I quoted for you.

Hamilton has been dead over 200 years. The world is a drastically different place in 2025 than in 1787. Which is why we no longer, nor does any nation on the planet, derive its government revenue from tariffs. Because it’s an antiquated and obsolete method in the 21st century. Which is why no economist on the planet concurs with this stupidity.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
Hamilton has been dead over 200 years. The world is a drastically different place in 2025 than in 1787. Which is why we no longer, nor does any nation on the planet, derive its government revenue from tariffs. Because it’s an antiquated and obsolete method in the 21st century. Which is why no economist on the planet concurs with this stupidity.

You have offered no rebuttal to Hamilton's observations concerning taxing consumption.

Likewise, you have offer no rebuttal to our Constitution's original tax plan.

Integrityrespec · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
Well, you certainly do have a number of opinions.

Aside from that, taxing consumption seems to be the most logical way to raise a federal revenue, e.g., Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

It's clear we have a revenue problem in comparison to our spending. A balanced budget needs to be part of the answer. Collecting a revenue that pays the bills and leaves some money in reserve would be smart, but Congress can't keep its fingers off any available money, or even unavailable money. Common sense tells you we can't continue to spend money we don't have and never make a move to pay it off.

Integrityrespec · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
Hamilton has been dead over 200 years. The world is a drastically different place in 2025 than in 1787. Which is why we no longer, nor does any nation on the planet, derive its government revenue from tariffs. Because it’s an antiquated and obsolete method in the 21st century. Which is why no economist on the planet concurs with this stupidity.

All I can say is the expert economists haven't managed to come up with a program Congress will implement that pays the bills, leaves us some money to pay down the debt not overburden the taxpayer. The economist are like somebody who never played baseball teaching somebody else to hit. They read about it.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

Integrityrespec said:
It's clear we have a revenue problem in comparison to our spending. A balanced budget needs to be part of the answer. Collecting a revenue that pays the bills and leaves some money in reserve would be smart, but Congress can't keep its fingers off any available money, or even unavailable money. Common sense tells you we can't continue to spend money we don't have and never make a move to pay it off.

Speaker Johnson's new big spending bill confirms your assertion that "Congress can't keep its fingers off any available money, or even unavailable money." How much does his big beautiful bill increase our nation debt ?

rahl · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
You have offered no rebuttal to Hamilton's observations concerning taxing consumption.

Of course I have.

johnwk said:
Likewise, you have offer no rebuttal to our Constitution's original tax plan.

Of course I have. We are a global market now. We import a substantial amount of our goods. Deriving government revenue from tariffs is unworkable in 2025. It’s regressive and discourages consumption. We are a consumer driven economy, so basing government revenue solely on consumption taxes/tariffs would completely implode the US economy. Which is why no economist on the planet concurs with this stupidity.

Hamilton was a brilliant man in his time. His ideas are completely obsolete in 2025.

rahl · May 25, 2025

Integrityrespec said:
All I can say is the expert economists haven't managed to come up with a program Congress will implement that pays the bills, leaves us some money to pay down the debt not overburden the taxpayer.

Because Republicans are fiscally incompetent. They slash revenues every single time they are in power, while at the same time outspending democrats. Don’t get me wrong, democrats aren’t a whole lot better, but at least they don’t also slash revenues, nor spend as much as republicans.

Integrityrespec said:
The economist are like somebody who never played baseball teaching somebody else to hit. They read about it.

No, not even remotely close. That politicians are incompetent has nothing to do with economists.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
Hamilton was a brilliant man in his time. His ideas are completely obsolete in 2025.

And yet, you have offered no rebuttal to his commentary on taxing consumption other than naysaying.

rahl · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
And yet, you have offered no rebuttal to his commentary on taxing consumption other than naysaying.

You’ve quoted my rebuttals to his commentary. 2025 isn’t 1787. We are a consumer driven economy. Taxing consumption simply discourages consumption. This is basic economics. Which is why every economist on the planet tells you how stupid trumps tariff war is.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
You’ve quoted my rebuttals to his commentary. 2025 isn’t 1787. We are a consumer driven economy. Taxing consumption simply discourages consumption. This is basic economics. Which is why every economist on the planet tells you how stupid trumps tariff war is.

Once again you assert without substantiating you assertions. Your generalizations are meaningless.

rahl · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
Once again you assert without substantiating you assertions.

I assert based on reality, economics, and every economist on the planet. You assert, based on a long dead man from a time completely irrelevant to the 21st century.

johnwk said:
Your generalizations are meaningless.

Reality doesn’t care how you feel. It’s why no nation on the planet has a tariff only source of revenue. It’s also why no economist on the planet agrees with you. When literally everyone is telling you that you are wrong, maybe you need to reexamine your position lol.

Integrityrespec · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
Speaker Johnson's new big spending bill confirms your assertion that "Congress can't keep its fingers off any available money, or even unavailable money." How much does his big beautiful bill increase our nation debt ?

I'm curious did feel the same about Inflation Reduction Act? Or all that crap USAID spent? At least be consistent in your disgust of spending. Neither side is without fault. My belief is dems are worse, I bet you disagree.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

rahl said:
I assert based on reality, economics, and every economist on the planet. You assert, based on a long dead man from a time completely irrelevant to the 21st century.

Reality doesn’t care how you feel. It’s why no nation on the planet has a tariff only source of revenue. It’s also why no economist on the planet agrees with you. When literally everyone is telling you that you are wrong, maybe you need to reexamine your position lol.

No one has suggested a tariff as our only means of raising a federal revenue. Take some time and study what has been posted before making absurd comments.

Aside from that, in the OP I gave an example of our Founder's using duties to encourage our domestic ship building industry.

Section 5:

“…a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.”

This gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America’s ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Sad to say the last time I visited the docks in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen area where I grew up, I was very saddened that I could no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seemed to be foreign owned foreign built vessels…an irrefutable sign of America’s decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and “globalists”

Yes, Trump is absolutely correct that “tariff’ is a beautiful word to those who support an America First policy

Nickyjo · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
.
It seems to me those advising Trump, who constantly demand having an annually balanced federal budget and forcing fiscal restraints upon Congress’s spending, suspiciously avoid any mention of our Founder’s original tax plan which would, if returned to, accomplish their asserted goals.

To Trump’s credit, he apparently sees the advantage of taxing at our border’s edge as a primary means to fill our national treasury, and using tariffs to advance an America first policy which includes using tariffs to encourage a healthy domestic manufacturing base, which is critical to our national defense and is in perfect harmony with our Founder’s thinking.

For example, knowing full well that building a strong domestic merchant marine, necessary to defending the United States, one of the very first revenue raising Acts of Congress included giving hometown ship builders an advantage when taxing imports, thus leading to a healthy domestic ship building industry. See: July 4, 1789, CHAP. II.—An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported (Section 5 . . . Discount on duties for goods imported in vessels of citizens.)

Also see: CHAP. III.—An Act imposing Duties on Tonnage.(a) July 20th, 1789, [further down the page] continuing an advantage to encourage domestic ship building.

Getting back to our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan, currently being promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, I’m beginning to believe some of Trump’s most trusted advisors are really flimflam con artists and have no intention to actually force fiscal restraints upon Congress nor end reckless federal spending which has become a clever device to plunder the people’s treasury by distributing its contents into the pockets of countless non-government organizations created for money laundering operations and defy the defined and limited objects for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would go a long way to end the massive corruption now taking place in Washington, because it creates a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for their State Legislature to pay an apportioned share, out of their own state treasury, to extinguish a federal deficit created by Congress when it spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

JWK

"A national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one,that, while it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___James Madison speaking before Congress during our NATION'S FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT

The system “shall not be oppressive to our constituents.” Tariffs are proposed will be, hitting those below harder than those at the top.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

Integrityrespec said:
I'm curious did feel the same about Inflation Reduction Act? Or all that crap USAID spent? At least be consistent in your disgust of spending. Neither side is without fault. My belief is dems are worse, I bet you disagree.

I have been consistent in my views since the early 1980's when I discovered our Founder's original tax plan, and the Republican Leadership tried to subvert it with their phony balanced budget amendments, each of which would have made it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

Nickyjo said:
The system “shall not be oppressive to our constituents.” Tariffs are proposed will be, hitting those below harder than those at the top.

Provide your specifics and documentation.

AConcernedCitizen · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
You have offered no rebuttal to Hamilton's observations concerning taxing consumption.

Hamilton offered his own rebuttal, which you quoted.

johnwk said:
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.

What Hamilton describes here is a problem for both tariffs and taxes on consumption. They lessen consumption, which will diminish GDP growth, and which is also self-defeating in terms of tax revenue.

They are also regressive, which aside from being very unpopular, is also less effective, as the money is being removed from relatively high MPC flows, rather than the relatively low MPC flows that you get with progressive taxes.

johnwk · May 25, 2025

AConcernedCitizen said:
Hamilton offered his own rebuttal, which you quoted.

What Hamilton describes here is a problem for both tariffs and taxes on consumption. They lessen consumption, which will diminish GDP growth, and which is also self-defeating in terms of tax revenue.

They are also regressive, which aside from being very unpopular, is also less effective, as the money is being removed from relatively high MPC flows, rather than the relatively low MPC flows that you get with progressive taxes.

Well, that is very special. Re-writing Hamilton's view regarding duties which are too high and will lessen consumption, which was . . . "This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

"in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

AConcernedCitizen · May 25, 2025

Integrityrespec said:
A balanced budget needs to be part of the answer.

Why?

Integrityrespec said:
Common sense tells you we can't continue to spend money we don't have and never make a move to pay it off.

That’s silly. Of course we can.

Bank of America has a D/E ratio of 1.169, which means they have more debt than equity, and their overall nominal debt is increasing all the time. That is by design.

Anything under 1.0 is considered a healthy D/E for most businesses. Suppose a business maintains a healthy D/E of 0.5. As the business grows, the nominal value of D will grow proportionately with the value of E.

A business can maintain a D/E ratio of 0.5 indefinitely. The nominal value of D can grow indefinitely. It doesn’t mean the company is headed for imminent disaster.

AConcernedCitizen · May 25, 2025

johnwk said:
Well, that is very special. Re-writing Hamilton's view regarding duties which are too high and will lessen consumption, which was . . . "This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

It doesn’t form a complete barrier against material oppression of the citizens. Particularly with regard to inelastic goods.

Suppose a consumption tax of $200/liter was imposed on water. Perhaps Hamilton would be fine with it, but it would nonetheless be material oppression.

Will Trump support our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency