CITIZEN TRUMP. WHY TAX THE RICH? OR ANYONE AT ALL?

TRUMP ADMINSITRATION'S EMBRACING OF HAMILTONIAN PRINCIPLES CAN ALLEVIATE THE US CITIZEN'S TAX BURDEN.

I AM SURE THAT MOST OF US ARE TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THE NEED FOR THIS GROUP OR THAT GROUP TO “PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE” OR SOME OTHER PLATITUDES, SO LET’S TALK ABOUT THE US ECONOMY, TAXES AND WHY WE SHOULD BE PAYING ANYTHING TO THE GOVERNMENT AT ALL.

Beyond Taxation: Reimagining the American Revenue Model

For most Americans, taxation feels like a permanent feature of national life—an unavoidable cost of civilization. Yet this assumption is historically shallow. For more than a century after its founding, the United States operated without a permanent federal income tax. The modern system did not emerge from economic necessity, but from political circumstance, codified with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.

This distinction matters. If income taxation is not foundational, then it is replaceable.

Early American governance relied on a fundamentally different model. Federal revenue was drawn from tariffs, excise taxes, and the monetization of land and expansion. The government taxed external flows and discrete transactions, not the productive output of its citizens.

Tariffs, in particular, were not a secondary instrument—they were the central pillar of federal finance. For much of the nation’s early history, they provided the overwhelming share of government revenue while simultaneously protecting domestic industry. They were understood not as economic distortions, but as tools of national development—mechanisms to build internal capacity while ensuring that foreign producers, not American labor, bore a portion of the fiscal burden.

The shift to income taxation represented more than a fiscal adjustment—it marked a philosophical inversion. Where the early republic taxed what entered the nation, the modern state taxes what is produced within it.

What is striking today is not merely that this inversion occurred, but that the earlier model has been rhetorically discredited. Tariffs—once foundational to American economic strategy—are now routinely framed as regressive, inefficient, or economically unsophisticated. In contemporary discourse, they are often treated as relics of a less developed era, incompatible with modern global markets.

Yet this framing obscures their original function. Properly applied, tariffs do not simply restrict trade; they redistribute the burden of national revenue. They shift part of the fiscal load outward—onto foreign producers seeking access to the American market—rather than concentrating it inward on domestic income and productivity.

The result is a quiet but profound change in orientation. The United States has moved from a system that extracted value at its borders to one that extracts value from within. And in doing so, it has redefined the relationship between the citizen and the state—from one where government was funded largely by external economic interaction, to one where it is sustained directly by the earnings of its own people.

But the United States of the 21st century is not fiscally constrained in the way it was in 1913. It is one of the most resource-rich nations in the world, with vast energy reserves, deep capital markets, and structural advantages embedded in the global financial system. The question is no longer whether the government can fund itself through income taxation, but whether it must.

Alternative models are not theoretical—they are available, though underutilized. A modernized tariff system, applied strategically, could once again serve as both a revenue source and an instrument of industrial policy. Expanded resource monetization—through energy leasing, royalties, and exports—could transform natural assets into structured public revenue streams. A sovereign-style investment approach could allow the government to generate returns from participation in infrastructure and strategic industries rather than relying solely on taxation.

Finally, the unique position of the U.S. dollar introduces another dimension. As the central currency of global trade and finance, it already functions as a kind of embedded toll system. The United States benefits from this arrangement, but has yet to fully convert that advantage into deliberate fiscal strategy.

None of this suggests that eliminating income taxation would be simple. The central constraint is not revenue potential, but spending. A government structured for continuous expansion will always require continuous extraction. Without addressing the scale of federal commitments, no alternative model can fully replace the current system.

Income taxation is not an inevitability. It is a construct—layered over time, shaped by crisis, and sustained by habit. The United States has the capacity to fund itself differently, through production, ownership, and strategic positioning rather than direct taxation of income.

The question is not whether such a transition is possible. It is whether there is the will to pursue it.

The Return of American Economic Nationalism: Trump’s Path Toward a Lower-Tax State

The economic approach associated with Donald Trump is often reduced to a single word: tariffs. While tariffs are central, they are better understood as one component of a broader framework—one that reflects a revival of economic nationalism with echoes of Alexander Hamilton.

At its core, this framework attempts to shift the basis of American prosperity—and, by extension, government revenue—away from internal extraction and toward external leverage and domestic production.

Tariffs are the most visible mechanism. Under this model, they are not simply protective barriers but multifunctional tools. They generate revenue, incentivize domestic manufacturing, and serve as leverage in international negotiations. In this sense, tariffs begin to reintroduce a pre-income-tax logic: capturing value at the border rather than within the economy. The common objection—that tariffs simply raise prices for consumers and invite retaliation—captures only part of the picture. In the short term, some costs may be passed through, but tariffs are not designed as static price adjustments; they are designed to shift behavior. When applied selectively, they encourage domestic production, force supply chain realignment, and, in many cases, compel foreign producers to absorb part of the cost to maintain access to the American market.

Retaliation, while real, operates within constraints that are often overlooked. The United States remains one of the most valuable consumer markets in the world, and access to it is not easily replaced. Countries that respond with counter-tariffs risk damaging their own export sectors, creating pressure for negotiation rather than indefinite escalation. More importantly, the focus on higher consumer prices ignores the existing, less visible costs of the current system—hollowed-out industries, persistent trade imbalances, and long-term dependency on foreign production. Tariffs make certain costs explicit, but they also redistribute the burden outward and create the conditions for rebuilding domestic capacity. The issue, then, is not whether tariffs impose costs, but whether those costs are being exchanged for greater economic resilience and reduced reliance on taxing domestic productivity.

Yet tariffs alone do not define the system. A second pillar is industrial policy—whether formally acknowledged or not. Efforts to reshore manufacturing, secure supply chains, and rebuild strategic industries reflect a shift toward a production-based economy. A stronger domestic industrial base expands economic output without requiring higher tax rates, reducing structural dependence on redistribution.

Energy policy forms a third pillar. Expanded domestic production—through drilling, leasing, and export infrastructure—positions the United States not just as energy independent, but as a dominant energy supplier. In this framework, energy becomes a fiscal asset, generating revenue through royalties, exports, and market influence.

Trade rebalancing reinforces this structure. Persistent deficits represent a continuous outflow of national wealth. By challenging these imbalances, the United States can redirect economic flows inward. This reduces the need for internal revenue extraction by increasing external economic capture.

Underlying this approach is a preference for selective government rather than expansive government. The emphasis is not on eliminating federal authority, but on focusing it—reducing regulatory overhead while directing state power toward strategic sectors. A more targeted federal structure reduces baseline spending pressure, creating the conditions for lower overall taxation.

This framework is not yet complete. It does not fully replace income taxation, nor does it resolve the tension between current spending levels and reduced revenue extraction. Its implementation remains uneven, shaped by political resistance and institutional inertia.

But as a directional shift, it is significant.

What emerges is not a finished system, but a trajectory. An economy that produces more domestically, captures more value externally, and leverages national assets more effectively begins to loosen its dependence on taxing internal productivity.

If extended and systematized, this approach points toward a different fiscal future—one in which the United States taxes less not by withdrawing from the global economy, but by engaging with it more strategically.