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

[johnwk]

.


.
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

 

[Woodznutz]

Several of our most notorious robbers were asked,

"Why do you want to go to Washington?"

They answered,

"Because that's where the money is."

 

[Foxfyre]

.


.
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

I don't know what the best method of funding the U.S. government is.

But when the Constitution of the USA was ratified in the late 18th century, the U.S. population was less than 4 million. It is now 330 million.

In the late 18th Century, anyone attacking us did so on horseback or on foot and their weapons were muskets, knives, and crude cannons. Unless they came from the North or South American continents they took long journeys in slow sailing ships to get here.

Now we have aircraft with as much destructive fire power as an entire army had then, submarines that can carry and launch nucelear warheads that can hit hundred of targets. Intercontential ballistic missiles can come from across the world and wipe out whole cities in 30 minutes or less. We have infinitely more ways to poison our air, water, soil than what existed in the 18th Century. In the interest of public safety, the laws, rules and regulations necessary to govern us have of necessity changed to factor in a changed capability to harm ourselves and;or others..

The principles of good government as the Founders intended have not changed. But the world itself is much changed.

Some things do need to be done differently.

 

[MarathonMike]

our Founder’s original tax plan which would, if returned to, accomplish their asserted goals.

Our Founders were adamantly opposed to taxes, the Boston Tea Party a case in point. There was no mention of a tax plan in the Constitution until 1913.

 

[johnwk]

I don't know what the best method of funding the U.S. government is.

But when the Constitution of the USA was ratified in the late 18th century, the U.S. population was less than 4 million. It is now 330 million.

In the late 18th Century, anyone attacking us did so on horseback or on foot and their weapons were muskets, knives, and crude cannons. Unless they came from the North or South American continents they took long journeys in slow sailing ships to get here.

Now we have aircraft with as much destructive fire power as an entire army had then, submarines that can carry and launch nucelear warheads that can hit hundred of targets. Intercontential ballistic missiles can come from across the world and wipe out whole cities in 30 minutes or less. We have infinitely more ways to poison our air, water, soil than what existed in the 18th Century. In the interest of public safety, the laws, rules and regulations necessary to govern us have of necessity changed to factor in a changed capability to harm ourselves and;or others..

The principles of good government as the Founders intended have not changed. But the world itself is much changed.

Some things do need to be done differently.

I see the principles under which our original tax plan was formulated are as valid today as when it was put into practice.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Several of our most notorious robbers were asked,

"Why do you want to go to Washington?"

They answered,

"Because that's where the money is."

It’s the exact same reason why the DC area is inundated with highspanics, legal and otherwise. There’s always money here.
The fed is the world’s largest no-risk corporation.

 

[elektra]

I see the principles under which our original tax plan was formulated are as valid today as when it was put into practice.

Which principles?

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the primary drivers of the realization of the necessity of having a tax for government income was the Battle of Wabash. A poorly trained and equipped US Army was ignominiously defeated by Native Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see the principles under which our original tax plan was formulated are as valid today as when it was put into practice.

For sure taxation with representation is as valid now as it ever was. For sure a government of, by and for the people is as valid now as it ever was meaning, among other things, a government that uses the people's money legally, ethically, wisely, carefully, efficiently, effective.

Nevertheless, as I illustrated in my previous post, government does have challenges now that simply was not the case when the Founders were governing.

 

[johnwk]

Which principles?

Let us start with the rule of apportionment for both representation and direct taxation:

 

[elektra]

Let us start with the rule of apportionment for both representation and direct taxation:

Okay, go ahead, make your case

 

[Woodznutz]

It’s the exact same reason why the DC area is inundated with highspanics, legal and otherwise. There’s always money here.
The fed is the world’s largest no-risk corporation.

True. "Full faith and credit" = Power to tax.

 

[Woodznutz]

I don't know what the best method of funding the U.S. government is.

But when the Constitution of the USA was ratified in the late 18th century, the U.S. population was less than 4 million. It is now 330 million.

In the late 18th Century, anyone attacking us did so on horseback or on foot and their weapons were muskets, knives, and crude cannons. Unless they came from the North or South American continents they took long journeys in slow sailing ships to get here.

Now we have aircraft with as much destructive fire power as an entire army had then, submarines that can carry and launch nucelear warheads that can hit hundred of targets. Intercontential ballistic missiles can come from across the world and wipe out whole cities in 30 minutes or less. We have infinitely more ways to poison our air, water, soil than what existed in the 18th Century. In the interest of public safety, the laws, rules and regulations necessary to govern us have of necessity changed to factor in a changed capability to harm ourselves and;or others..

The principles of good government as the Founders intended have not changed. But the world itself is much changed.

Some things do need to be done differently.

See next post.

 

[Woodznutz]

The people need to step up and take better care of their health. Too many Americans think they have the right to be sick and have others pay for their medical care.

What Does the Federal Government Spend on Health Care? | KFF

As Congressional Republicans and President Trump search for trillions of dollars in cuts to mandatory federal spending that could help offset the cost of extending expiring tax cuts, this brief analyzes current support from the federal government for health programs and services, including both...

www.kff.org

 

[johnwk]

Okay, go ahead, make your case

I don't have to. It was defended during the making of our Consitution, e.g. see:

Founders Online: The Federalist No. 54, [12 February 1788]

The Federalist No. 54, [12 February 1788]

founders.archives.gov

"In one respect the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress, will necessarily depend in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not the cooperation of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will controul and ballance each other; and produce the requisite impartiality."


JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded [the rule of apportionment] , would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[johnwk]

For sure taxation with representation is as valid now as it ever was. For sure a government of, by and for the people is as valid now as it ever was meaning, among other things, a government that uses the people's money legally, ethically, wisely, carefully, efficiently, effective.

Nevertheless, as I illustrated in my previous post, government does have challenges now that simply was not the case when the Founders were governing.

You have offered nothing to conclude our Founders original tax plan, which is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, is not as valid today as when it was agreed to by its ratification, e.g., common sense thinking people agree that taxing imports can encourage the rebuilding of America’s domestic manufacturing base.

Trump is spot on!

Economic View: Tariffs Done Right Can Rebuild Our Economy | Coalition For A Prosperous America

Proposals for new tariffs face a lot of criticism these days, from the media, from economists, and from foreign policy types. Part of the reason is that it’s Donald Trump making the proposals and many in those groups don’t like Trump. But the fact is that tariffs can work to build our economy...

prosperousamerica.org

 

[Woodznutz]

You have offered nothing to conclude our Founders original tax plan, which is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, is not as valid today as when it was agreed to by its ratification, e.g., common sense thinking people agree that taxing imports can encourage the rebuilding of America’s domestic manufacturing base.

Trump is spot on!

Economic View: Tariffs Done Right Can Rebuild Our Economy | Coalition For A Prosperous America

Proposals for new tariffs face a lot of criticism these days, from the media, from economists, and from foreign policy types. Part of the reason is that it’s Donald Trump making the proposals and many in those groups don’t like Trump. But the fact is that tariffs can work to build our economy...

prosperousamerica.org

True. It's the importers who are the scoundrels, as well as those who buy those imports. In this we are all guilty. We are pulling our economic house down upon our own heads.

 

[johnwk]

True. It's the importers who are the scoundrels, as well as those who buy those imports. In this we are all guilty. We are pulling our economic house down upon our own heads.

I am getting the impression from some of those posting in the thread, they are not even familiar with our Constitution's original tax plan, which is currently being promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment. So, here is the current wording and editorial comments for the 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).


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 officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.

________

 

[elektra]

I don't have to. It was defended during the making of our Consitution, e.g. see:

Founders Online: The Federalist No. 54, [12 February 1788]

The Federalist No. 54, [12 February 1788]

founders.archives.gov

"In one respect the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress, will necessarily depend in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not the cooperation of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will controul and ballance each other; and produce the requisite impartiality."


JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded [the rule of apportionment] , would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Not in the constitution, epic fail on yout part

Try reading, The Federalist Papers

 

[konradv]

Several of our most notorious robbers were asked,

"Why do you want to go to Washington?"

They answered,

"Because that's where the money is."

Now the scammers head to Mar-a-Lago. Pardons for sale!