When you argue that the government should be funded by tariffs, that is a method of means rather than ability - two wholly different arguments. The government must have the ability to lay and collect taxes or it will not be able to function. Article I of the Constitution recognizes this (and the difficulties in the Articles of Confederation) and specifically authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes for its own funding with the condition that such be apportioned equally. (Read further for my suggestions.)

Regarding the use of tariffs, I don't disagree with this premise and note that this was the original means of Federal funding until well after the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. A reliance on tariffs provides an external feedback mechanism to Congress which forces them into robust debate between which nations to trade with (at all), which nations to exempt from tariffs via Most Favored Nation Status, and how high to set individual tariff rates so as to generate revenue without unduly restricting imports.


I don't approve of personal or corporate income taxes as a federal funding mechanism for several reasons. First, personal taxes and taxes on business were the entire reason there was a Revolution in the first place! There is no shorter road to tyranny than that which allows a government to confiscate personal property through punitive taxation.

Second, personal income taxes at a Federal level stifle free speech. Such taxes provide an easy mechanism for an abusive IRS to go after groups who evince speech they do not like, Lois Lerner being a potent example. (I also note that until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, churches were instruments of public policy and robust debate in the public square. The squelching of their participation in the public policy sphere because of threats of taxation should not be underestimated.)

Third, corporate taxes are always passed along to consumers. The reason corporations are taxed is to hide this fact from consumers! Taxes should always be DIRECT taxes - never indirect taxes. Everyone deserves and can make good decisions only with the full information regarding costs. Diversion and obfuscation emanate from government operatives who don't want to have to justify their tyranny.


In my perfect world, the funding of the government would be primarily through tariffs on trade. If further funds were requested, the taxes should be laid on the States themselves according to their population at the last Census, i.e. if California has 13% of the US population and a nationwide tax is levied, California would be responsible for paying 13% of the levy amount. How California then collects the money to pay that tax is then a matter for their State Legislature to ascertain. (My druthers would be that such additional taxes be levied only for specific purposes such as prosecuting a war, building major infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway system, etc.). Such levies would require a 2/3 vote to pass.

The second aspect of this would be that government spending bills be constrained to budget not a penny more than the government actually collected through taxation in the second year prior to the one being budgeted. In other words, budgets would be created every other year but the amount actually allotted could never exceed actual/historical inflows. This would have the economy itself provide an effective check on those enamored with taxation. This would also force robust debate and the elimination of government functions which could not be supported in a bipartisan manner. Pet projects would necessarily have a short shelf life and perpetual welfare programs would cease to exist.

I don't see why it couldn't be covered by the voluntary sales "tax" (or Law Enforcement Fee) I mentioned. with a certain percentage (say 25%) of whatever was in the state's coffers going to the Federal government, a citizen would know that when he was paying the Law Enforcement Fee, he was also paying for national defense.