The First Federal Revenue Law
On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports....
...A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade ("commercial shackles," he said, "are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic")
A pertinent post from your link:
To: Willie Green
You seem to have forgotten the discussion of just a few threads ago where several posters explained to you why a tariff arrangement was a useless thing to do. It not only does not raise nearly enough revenue to be revenue neutral (which is the requirement for a major tax bill), but it does nothing to eliminate either the income tax OR the IRS. It basically accomplishes nothing except, perhaps, initiate a trade war or two.
In view of that, you might answer the question "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
20 Posted on 03/19/2000 16:50:38 PST by pigdog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]