• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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
Refuted all of this already. This isn’t 1787. Hamilton, while brilliant for his time, is obsolete in the 21st century. Which is why no economist on the planet agrees with you.

When every single expert on planet earth tells you that you are wrong, it’s time for you to look in the mirror.
 
Do you know how tariffs are paid and who pays them?
Well, I can see you have no rebuttal, and suspiciously avoid engaging in a productive dialogue.
 
Well, I can see you have no rebuttal, and suspiciously avoid engaging in a productive dialogue.
Lying doesn’t erase the written record of the forum where I specifically and repeatedly rebutted it. You have this terrible habit, in thread after thread, of pretending the curb stomping your premise received simply never happened. Ranging from your 14th amendment thread all the way to this one.

Also, you forgot to answer the question. Do you know how tariffs are paid and who pays them?
 
Lying doesn’t erase the written record of the forum where I specifically and repeatedly rebutted it. You have this terrible habit, in thread after thread, of pretending the curb stomping your premise received simply never happened. Ranging from your 14th amendment thread all the way to this one.

Also, you forgot to answer the question. Do you know how tariffs are paid and who pays them?
All you have done is assert the following.

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. LINK

Your assertions are not a rebuttal.
 
All you have done is assert the following.

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. LINK

Your assertions are not a rebuttal.
So you don’t know what the word rebuttal means, or how debate works. No wonder you faceplant in every thread you create.

You keep forgetting to answer. Do you know how tariffs are paid and who pays 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.

Doing as you suggest above would reduce Congress's source of revenue.

"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.”

Hamilton is correct and especially so when he indicates articles of necessity ought not be taxed:

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.
 
So you don’t know what the word rebuttal means, or how debate works. No wonder you faceplant in every thread you create.

You keep forgetting to answer. Do you know how tariffs are paid and who pays them?
You apparently do not know if you have to ask the question.

Tariffs are paid at our ports of entry before the objects enter our market place.

Your nonsense that every economist condemns tariffs is just that . . . . unadulterated nonsense.

 
You apparently do not know if you have to ask the question.

Tariffs are paid at our ports of entry before the objects enter our market place.
So you disagree with Trump then. Well, that’s a start.
Your nonsense that every economist condemns tariffs is just that . . . . unadulterated nonsense.
Strawman.
 
Provide your specifics and documentation.
Tariff is essentially a sales tax, which will be passed on to consumers. It’s regressive, hitting those with less, who spend more of their wealth each year than do richer folks. Why do you think Trump supports tariffs?
 
So you disagree with Trump then. Well, that’s a start.
You are the one who seems to disagree with Trump. I made no mention of disagreeing with Trump. But hey, I know your game is to make stuff up. Have a wonderful evening.
 
Last edited:
Tariff is essentially a sales tax, which will be passed on to consumers. It’s regressive, hitting those with less, who spend more of their wealth each year than do richer folks.
Your opinions about rich vs poor are noted, which I have already addressed HERE
 
Your opinions about rich vs poor are noted, which I have already addressed HERE
I don’t get it. Poor spend a greater amount if what they have, so sales taxes and tariffs will take a greater % of their income.
 
.
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
Yes, we should base our tax policy on a 250 year old agrarian economy with millions of slaves, and what would have been at the time a highly underdeveloped economy even by the standards of the time.

In the post-war era, we have enjoyed the strongest economy the world has ever known. We have a per-capita GDP several times of China’s. A GDP larger than Europe despite having a hundred million less people, a standard of living in our poorest states that exceeds Canada’s richest provinces, and our middle class enjoys some of the highest disposable income on earth. We have an economy that is the envy of the world and it is made possible by a consistent post war policy of pursuing free trade and free markets - yet for some reason, Trump and his supporters insist on going the route of Peron’s Argentina with massive tariffs and risking taking us down the road of economic ruin.
 
The Constitution was written in 1787, when we lived in a mercantilist world. We haven't lived in a mercantilist world since the mid 1800's.

The "plans" of the founders are of as little value as a horse and buggy.

The United States should pursue a policy of unconditional free trade, cutting all tariffs to zero.

Revenues should be continued to be raised under the existing tax system.
 
Yes, we should base our tax policy on a 250 year old agrarian economy with millions of slaves, and what would have been at the time a highly underdeveloped economy even by the standards of the time.

In the post-war era, we have enjoyed the strongest economy the world has ever known. We have a per-capita GDP several times of China’s. A GDP larger than Europe despite having a hundred million less people, a standard of living in our poorest states that exceeds Canada’s richest provinces, and our middle class enjoys some of the highest disposable income on earth. We have an economy that is the envy of the world and it is made possible by a consistent post war policy of pursuing free trade and free markets - yet for some reason, Trump and his supporters insist on going the route of Peron’s Argentina with massive tariffs and risking taking us down the road of economic ruin.
So tell me, ALiberalModerate, how much will Speaker Johnson’s big beautiful spending bill increase our national debt if adopted?

Are you really on board with adding to our national debt which currently is approximately $136 trillion, when including unfunded federal debt liabilities?

Are you really on board with Johnson’s con game which reflects Whimpy’s thinking?
.

 
Doing as you suggest above would reduce Congress's source of revenue.

So will tariffs ultimately. Most forms of oppression will ultimately reduce revenue, for that matter.

Hamilton is correct and especially so when he indicates articles of necessity ought not be taxed:

No, he is incorrect. Hamilton is assuming here that the government will seek to optimize revenue. But the government can still apply the taxes oppressively at the expense of revenue from those taxes.

Trump's tariffs are ultimately going to reduce Federal tax revenue by more than the tariffs bring in. The fact that they will reduce revenue doesn’t stop them from being imposed.

Hamilton is correct and especially so when he indicates articles of necessity ought not be taxed:

Hamilton is assuming that avoiding oppression is an objective when he says “private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions.”

Blanket tariffs used to stab our longtime allies in the back at the expense of American consumers is nothing remotely resembling “judicious selection.”
 
.
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
No.
 
I think there may very well be a clever, fast talking Judas, advising Trump.

These “big beautiful” tax and spend packages are a notoriously evil gimmick invented, and created, to intentionally hide and tuck away countless million, and even billion-dollar provisions in them by which our federal treasury is plundered, and its contents are sneakily distributed to Washington’s inner circle cabal whose fortunes are fattened at taxpayer expense.

In regard to our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan, its common sense characteristics present themselves loud and clear. So, here is the current wording along with editorial comments for our founder’s big beautiful original tax plan, currently promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment. Is it not based upon common sense thinking and principles which do not change with the passage of time?


Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected as done on July 14th, 1798 : Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798



NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit is:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount (equal direct taxation). The direct tax is also intended to create a very real moment of accountability if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes which then requires each state's Congressional Delegation to return home with a bill in hand for their State Legislature to pay our of its own State Treasury.


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its
 
I see neither Trump nor Musk have come up with a remedy to deal with Congress’s refusal to balance the annual budget, and stop Congress from enslaving our children and grandchildren with their profligate and thieving deficit spending. How sad.


1749315803376.webp


JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in-between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.
 
I repeat that there is a logically defensible (but false) argument to tax cuts, the supply-side argument that more wealth allowed to the wealthy will trickle down to the rest. But the picture of what the GOP/Trump/Musk are planning to do is their standard policy, irrespective of theory: more for the rich, less for the poor, most clearly seen by extension of the tax cuts to those at the top and (I assume) corporations, and cutting Medicaid. It’s most vicious form was the cuts in AID that will cause many thousands of deaths, and the picture drawn of the wealthiest man in the world taking aid from the poorest children in the world. As Musk said, “civilizational empathy” is suicidal.
 
I repeat that there is a logically defensible (but false) argument to tax cuts, the supply-side argument that more wealth allowed to the wealthy will trickle down to the rest. But the picture of what the GOP/Trump/Musk are planning to do is their standard policy, irrespective of theory: more for the rich, less for the poor, most clearly seen by extension of the tax cuts to those at the top and (I assume) corporations, and cutting Medicaid. It’s most vicious form was the cuts in AID that will cause many thousands of deaths, and the picture drawn of the wealthiest man in the world taking aid from the poorest children in the world. As Musk said, “civilizational empathy” is suicidal.
Our founders understood human nature, and that is why they created the tax plan they did which provides a specific procedure if Congress were to spend more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which, if enacted, would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan making every State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their State’s Legislature if they spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes, which then would require them to bring home a bill for their State’s Legislature to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the deficit our of their own State’s Treasury.
 
Our founders understood human nature, and that is why they created the tax plan they did which provides a specific procedure if Congress were to spend more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which, if enacted, would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan making every State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their State’s Legislature if they spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes, which then would require them to bring home a bill for their State’s Legislature to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the deficit our of their own State’s Treasury.
I hardly think that would work, and such a plan, excluding a progressive income tax, places a greater burden on poorer folks.
 
Back
Top Bottom