Trump considers return to our Constitution’s original tax plan ending un-apportioned direct tax on earned wages


As you can see, the establishment’s lackeys are quick to denounce any attempt to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would help to remove the jackbooted tax-heel from the necks of hard-working American citizens and America’s businesses, which is now used as a weapon to punish political opponents and reward the friends of big government.

Trump’s idea would bring us closer to our Constitution’s original tax plan which is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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. 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 dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, 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 and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”

In reference to the above Section see: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798 and each State’s apportioned fair share.

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

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 pays the exact same amount!

Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is 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.


“……with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I love a government funding scheme that relies solely on massive amounts of imported goods to work.


Yup. It really is a good idea since the tax on those imports are paid at our custom houses, before they enter our marketplace. I love to see foreigner manufacturers paying for the privilege of doing business on American soil. I’m happy to see we finally agree on something. :+1:


When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country’s inner cities.

1 Like

Any social group or society requires governance of one sort or another, else the group devolved into chaos. Even an ant colony or a wolf pack has such order.

Problems arise when governance actually harms the society.

And depending on the size of the society and the form of governance, resources are required to maintain that governance, and therefore a source of supply for those resources.

I don’t see how the USA and its government can function without taxation. (Not unlimited taxation, of course, but some significant flow of revenue sufficient to conduct the functions that the government was designed to perform.)

No tax reform would be adequate if it is not accompanied by a clear definition of what government’s function should be (and what it should be limited to.) As a baseline, we should return to the clearly enumerated functions spelled out in the Constitution. If there is agreement on additional functions beyond those, then amend the Constitution to include them.

Just some initial thoughts.


And those costs will passed on to the consumers.

But it sounds incredibly stupid to fund our government by imports. That would incentivize more foreign stuff, not less.

1 Like

I don’t think that it would incentivize more foreign stuff.

The point of it is to incentivize the manufacturing base here to produce more goods for domestic consumption and export.

The problem with tying tariffs as the way to fund the government is that it curtails importation and therefore over time government revenue goes down and the whole thing will collapse and we will go back to income taxes because there was a reason they were implemented in the first place.


The United States engaged in tariff whoring from its founding until the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930.

One of the few bright spots of the New Deal was the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, which allowed the President to negotiate lower tariffs nation by nation.

That was the helpful beginning and the arrival of GATT in 1947 really put teeth into reducing tariffs.

And the United States and the world has made much progress from 1947 until about 2000, when we began backsliding with the steel tariff of 2002. Sundry other tariffs, including under Trump and Biden have also not been helpful.

Tariffs lead to disaster and we should fight them.


I see you are very eager to promote unadulterated ■■■■■■■■ [the Smoot-Hawley Tariff myth] , in order to keep the status quo which is destroying America’s economic engine.

The Smoot-Hawley Act did not give us the depression of 1929, which is a common myth used by Globalists to attack the United States using taxing at our water’s edge to promote America’s best interests. The Smooth-Hawley became law in the middle of 1930, well after the depression was in progress. When one studies the statistics, Smoot-Hawley had a very small impact on the economy.

Aside from that, the use of taxes at our water’s edge are a very useful tool to promote America’s general welfare.

In regard to promoting America’s common defense and general welfare under our nation’s first revenue raising Act, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

“…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.”
An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789

This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but 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.

Why are you, intent on making crap up?


“…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.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act


absolute truth. No major tax revision can be taken without also reforming spending. This is exactly why when I have posted about my support of an APT I have included turning over administration of all extraconstitutional spending programs to the states. Initially with funding. It took a long time to get here, its going to take a long time to get out of it.


He’ll never get away with that one. The Machine is much too hungry.

As @Guvnah mentioned-we have it.

1 Like

That’s not going to happen. Russia would take over the world.

Free trade isn’t possible with countries involved in slave labor. It doesn’t matter if Trump or Biden wins both will put tariffs on China.

Yep - the companies will have to pay the tariffs. Then, guess what? They’ll pass the cost on to the consumer (you and me), making these high prices everyone is complaining about even higher.

Apparently inflation is a good thing now.

1 Like

Well, I guess you could argue that the lack of an income tax offsets the higher price of tariffed goods.

But what happens when the tariffs do not meet our needs and we have to enter into that state taxing scheme he proposes? Then we have the best of both worlds: high tariffs and taxes.

1 Like


No company can force me to purchase their imported products, especially when that product will cost me more than a similar American made, or a friendly country made product, which has not had to pay a tax at our custom houses before selling it to the American people.

Why do you have a problem with having China paying for the privilege of doing business on American soil? Did Trump no teach your kind a lesson when he was successful in getting China to help fill our national Treasury by imposing taxes on them at our water’s edge?


The irrefutable fact is, under today’s authoritarian democrat party leadership, our government doesn’t help to fix the nation’s problems. It fixes the people, like Trump, who dare to point to the nation’s problems.

Is the realization of having the major source of funding of the government from the importation of goods as being insufficient making sense yet?




That’s new.

Are you sure we could get enough money from just taxing our adversaries?

Why would Americans pay higher prices for a Chinese widget if a comparabley priced Canadian widget is available?

For that matter, if Americans are avoiding cost inflated Chinese products, how are we going to generate any revenue whatsoever?