Donald Trump has suggested eliminating U.S. income tax

Link

Donald Trump has suggested eliminating U.S. income tax and replacing it with tariffs on imports.

Donald Trump on Thursday suggested the idea of implementing an "all tariff policy" that could potentially allow the U.S. to eliminate the income tax, according to sources in a private meeting with the Republican presidential candidate, CNBC reported.

Woohoo!

Damnnnn… Trump really is going Libertarian! Maybe he wasn’t just joking when he addressed the LP convention saying after years of attacks he’s becoming more libertarian.

Ending Department of Education.

Ending taxes on tips.

Ending taxes on social security.

Now ending all income tax!

Maybe Milei and Elon have been having an impact?

Whatever the reasons, I’ll take it!

I’m going from Luke warm to fully supporting.

Go Trump 2024!

The one thing I had thought since 2015 was the Candidate Trump was the closest thing to Ron Paul I had ever seen. Ross Perot is another I think Trump reminds me of too. Perot would have cleaned the swamp.

a reply to: pianopraze

It sounds good but likely unenforceable.

While I can't speak on most materials I can speak on steel as an example.

So we raised tariffs on steel from certain countries, mainly China. And to that point many vendors and suppliers also do not want Chinese steels. They are sub par.

Anyway, what they would do is sell to Mexico and Canada. Rebrand, resell to the US.

So relying and trying to analyze and predict what tariffs may be raised would be quite difficult.

Although income tax should just go away because of its obsolescence.

a reply to: pianopraze

I would LOVE to see the Department of Brainwashing Propaganda ended! That would be the best, greatest way to turn our country back over to we, the people! Get the government out of our children'd heads!

There never, ever should have been taxes on social security when it's the only source of income, and the law allowing the government to get their sticky fingers on the solvent social security excess should be repealed.

I'd like to see changes go a few steps further to include mandatory, independant annual cognative testing for all DC swamp critters, term limits and NO stock trading by members or their families.

Big money must be taken out of politics if there's going to be any hope of ever attracting the kind of people who truly have the betterment of the country as their main goal.

I know it's just a fantasy that will never happen and a Trunp presidency would just be a brief respite from the endemic corruption, but it's much needed at this point in time. It would show all the biased, close-minded people what's truly possible when you put patriotism and country first.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: pianopraze

It sounds good but likely unenforceable.

….

Although income tax should just go away because of its obsolescence.

The elimination of the income tax combined with drilling/low oil prices would be the biggest stimulus we could receive.

I’m afraid to hope.

I think the democrats have enough cheating ready that they think Kamala will be installed - thus their claim she’s ahead.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Ross Perot is another I think Trump reminds me of too. Perot would have cleaned the swamp.

Perot should have kept trying, like Joe Biden did.

a reply to: pianopraze

If I recall correctly, Trump has been dangling this bait now for quite a while. No income tax and make overseas producers pay tariffs on their goods. So silly me thinks, ah, wouldn't those over seas producers then just raise the prices to compensate for the loss of profit due to tariffs?

That would leave prices going up and inflation going up and consumers tightening their belts which would decrease demand for those foreign goods which would then lower the amount of goods coming in which would then lower the tariffs being paid and who is going to pay to fix the roads.......

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: pianopraze

It sounds good but likely unenforceable.

While I can't speak on most materials I can speak on steel as an example.

So we raised tariffs on steel from certain countries, mainly China. And to that point many vendors and suppliers also do not want Chinese steels. They are sub par.

Anyway, what they would do is sell to Mexico and Canada. Rebrand, resell to the US.

So relying and trying to analyze and predict what tariffs may be raised would be quite difficult.

Although income tax should just go away because of its obsolescence.

A quick quote...

In 1909, progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect. Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income.

This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.

16th Amendment linky

Look how far back Progressive ideology goes in America and how much damage they have caused.

1913... the same year our first Progressive President signed into law the Federal Reserve Act.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: pianopraze

If I recall correctly, Trump has been dangling this bait now for quite a while. No income tax and make overseas producers pay tariffs on their goods. So silly me thinks, ah, wouldn't those over seas producers then just raise the prices to compensate for the loss of profit due to tariffs?

That would leave prices going up and inflation going up and consumers tightening their belts which would decrease demand for those foreign goods which would then lower the amount of goods coming in which would then lower the tariffs being paid and who is going to pay to fix the roads.......

Or instead of your fantasy, we could just make what we need in America... which would lead to more jobs, the average American citizen would have more to spend, which would further lower inflation and supply more jobs in the service sector...

Think harder.

a reply to: pianopraze

The elimination of the income tax combined with drilling/low oil prices would be the biggest stimulus we could receive.

Will you explain to us how this would work? The US doesn't drill for oil, American oil companies do. So they increase their drilling right? They produce more oil to sell to Americans and to sell to the world, right? With all this product to sell do we think they will lower prices for us, are we that naive? Will they let themselves be taxed higher or will they insist on lower corporate taxes. Would they endorse a candidate that would not promise to lower their taxes?

Other than that though, if this was such a good idea, why in the hell don't the Democrats already do it. Why haven't any Republican administrations done it either.

a reply to: pianopraze

This Trump proposal is dangerously stupid. It would crash the US economy.

You can read about the reasons why here at the libertarian CATO Institute:

www.cato.org...

One of the main takeaways:

The Math Doesn't Work

"The individual income tax raises more than 27 times as much revenue as tariffs currently do, but it’s not the gap in revenue levels that makes replacement impossible. The bigger issue is the relative size of the tax base. The most recent Internal Revenue Service data for tax year 2021 shows American taxpayers reporting almost $15 trillion of individual income while paying $2.2 trillion of taxes, for an average tax rate of 14.9 percent. Total imports in 2021 were $3.4 trillion, but that includes services that are not subject to tariffs. Looking at goods alone, imports totaled $2.8 trillion in 2021, while tariff revenues were $80 billion, for an average tax rate of 2.9 percent."

It's right up there with Steve Miller's project of trying to instantaneously deport 10 million illegal immigrants. Some of the effects of that are discussed here:

www.americanprogress.org...

• A policy of mass deportation would immediately reduce the nation’s GDP by 1.4 percent, and ultimately by 2.6 percent, and reduce cumulative GDP over 10 years by $4.7 trillion. Because capital will adjust downward to a reduction in labor—for example, farmers will scrap or sell excess equipment per remaining worker—the long-run effects are larger and amount to two-thirds of the decline experienced during the Great Recession. Removing 7 million unauthorized workers would reduce national employment by an amount similar to that expe-rienced during the Great Recession.

• Mass deportation would cost the federal government nearly $900 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. Federal government revenues are roughly proportional to GDP, while federal spending is less responsive. A conservative estimate suggests that annual revenue losses would start at $50 billion and accumulate to $860 billion over a 10-year period. With associated increases in interest payments, removal* would thus raise the federal debt by $982 billion by 2026 and increase the debt-to-GDP ratio, a common measure of fiscal sustainability, by 6 percentage points over the same time period.** Unsustainably high levels of the debt-to-GDP ratio may ultimately raise interest rates and choke off economic growth.

• Hard-hit industries would see double-digit reductions in their workforces. Unauthorized workers are unevenly spread across industries, with the highest concentrations employed in agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality. Those three industries would be hit hardest by a removal policy, experiencing workforce reductions of 10 percent to 18 percent, or more. Other industries would also experience reductions in output due to a mass deportation policy.

• The largest declines in GDP would occur in the largest industries, not in immigrant-heavy industries. Because industries also vary in size, the losses in value added to the national GDP stemming from removal occur across many industries that are not usually associated with unauthorized labor. The three largest U.S. industries in terms of value added are financial activities, manufacturing, and wholesale and retail trade. Annual long-run GDP losses in those industries would reach $54.3 billion, $73.8 billion, and $64.9 billion, respectively, the three largest effects among the 12 private-sector industries.

* Throughout this report, the terms “mass deportation,”“deportation,”“removal,” and “removal policy” refer to any policy or practice that results in the 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants, among whom 7 million are workers, in the United States being forced to leave the country.

• States with the most unauthorized workers will experience the largest declines in state GDP. We estimate that GDP in California, for example, will ultimately fall by $103 billion annually—or roughly a 5 percent drop—if mass deportation occurs. Large declines will also occur in other states such as Texas, New York, and New Jersey, with the effects spread across industries."

I repeat: Trump's economic proposals are dangerously stupid. He's not intellectually capable of understanding the consequences of what he's proposing.

a reply to: Lumenari

Maybe you label those questions as fantasy because you have not thought enough about it yourself, I don''t know.

Do you suppose that we are to trust American corporations that would grow bigger and richer under this plan to be so patriotic that they would just say, ''Hey Americans, come share in our new wealth''. Is that what you think would happen ?

I doubt it. They would push for more freedom, as if they don't already have to much, to run the entire enchalada. Would they say ''Hey guys, here is higher pay to help you out''? Would they say, ah, let's forget about automation, let's forget about automatic assembly lines or maybe they will say let's just skip this AI revolution. No, they wouldn't.

a reply to: Boomer1947

He's not intellectually capable of understanding the consequences of what he's proposing.

And worse, not capable of understanding that he dosen't.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: Lumenari

Maybe you label those questions as fantasy because you have not thought enough about it yourself, I don''t know.

Do you suppose that we are to trust American corporations that would grow bigger and richer under this plan to be so patriotic that they would just say, ''Hey Americans, come share in our new wealth''. Is that what you think would happen ?

I doubt it. They would push for more freedom, as if they don't already have to much, to run the entire enchalada. Would they say ''Hey guys, here is higher pay to help you out''? Would they say, ah, let's forget about automation, let's forget about automatic assembly lines or maybe they will say let's just skip this AI revolution. No, they wouldn't.

~yawn~

You are quick to assume that corporations would automatically become bigger and richer under this plan.

Marxists think that.

Without thinking about the really basic economic laws of supply and demand vs market competition.

"Big Oil" isn't one looming company that owns everything.

It is a whole bunch of larger and smaller businesses competing for market share.

When supply goes up and demand goes down, prices will lower.

That's literally covered in Econ 101.

Trump understood that really basic concept.

As an added thing for you to think about tonight...

Will government spending go down if we no longer have a Department of Education?

How about no longer needing the IRS?

Stop being so dependent on your owners.

Our government needs to shrink, not grow further.

It also needs to get out of the way of actual Capitalism.

You know, where the actual money comes from.

People who produce stuff.

a reply to: Boomer1947

You just posted a whole lot of doom porn from Progressives who need their government to own them so much that they don't even bother asking for a reach-around.

Ever heard of the concept of being an American citizen who wants Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

The freedom to build their lives how they want to, to succeed and fail according to their merits?

You know, the actual American Dream?

You and people like you are on the wrong side of history.

I'll give you this quote from a critical thinker who once long ago was conversing with people who were on the wrong side of history at the time..

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams.

See you on the other side...

Well, probably not.

a reply to: pianopraze

Sounds awesome. But it would screw over the middle and lower class.

finance.yahoo.com...

If all imported products coming in to the United States had increased tariffs, there would be short-term and long-term impacts. The short-term impact would be that prices would rise on all imported goods. Consumers could opt to either pay the higher price for the imported product or choose a domestic product, which would also typically have a higher price than the pre-tariff imported product. No matter which choice the consumer makes, the price they would pay would be higher than the previous price of the imported product. So overall prices will rise.

The longer-term effect would be a reduction in the quantity of foreign goods imported into the United States. The law of supply and demand tells us that when prices go up, demand goes down and this, after all, is the goal of the tariff — to reduce imports. There will be fewer imported goods available in the United States, which could also drive up prices overall.

And if everything goes up in price...

Here’s an example. Two families, the Smiths and the Joneses, each have the same monthly necessary expenses, except for their mortgages, of $6250, which adds up to $75,000 a year. (We’ll exclude their housing costs from this exercise, since housing wouldn’t be affected by a tariff.) The Smiths have an annual income of $150,000, which barely covers their expenses. The Joneses, on the other hand, have an annual income of $300,000, which allows them to easily cover expenses and put some money into savings. So, the Smiths are paying a higher percentage of their income on necessities.

Well he's looking out for who's most important to him, like his megadonors. I guess the hope is it will force everyone that wants to do business here to avoid importing where possible.

But "made in the USA" isn't what it used to be. I think Pontiac and Oldsmobile saw to that. Luckily, most good cars have plants in southern states, like Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura BMW, and Mercedes.

I don't think America is so great it can isolate itself from the world without screwing over lower classes.

Like with the car example.

What are the epitome of "lower class" or "affordable cars?" Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio. Small cars destined to be 17 dollar a day rentals.

They are manufactured in Pesquaria, Mexico. So what happens if the import tariff adds 15-20%? The car price goes up 15-20% or they move the plant to the USA, have to pay a much higher operational overhead (which is why they manufacture in Mexico), and the price goes up anyway.

It screws over the poor. Where as the woman buying a new BMW 3 from it's plant in San Luis Potosi is hurt far less by the car going up 15-20%. That's assuming he walks back what he said applies a uniform rate.

Though I read a few months ago he said 100% on imported cars. that's absurd, No one is paying that much for a Hyundai Accent, so theyd move to the USA and the car still goes up because they have well paid unions to deal with now. And no more 17 dollar car rentals. Unless he plans to also outlaw unions and allow lower more USA operational wages.

Hint* It is why they all manufacture in Southern States. Assembly plants follow states with a 7.25 minimum wage for a reason.

So wealthy people are benefitted and poor people have a more or less lateral move with their tax savings offset by increased prices. Not to mention decreased revenue from imports that will force VAT increases.

Glad he plans to make us a millionaire/billionaire tax haven though.

a reply to: pianopraze

Abram Lincoln imposed the first income tax to finance the Civil War. What is so different now? Without income tax now, the federal government wouldn't be financing wars around the globe now. They fight and we pay.

Before the 16th amendment, the federal government was wholly financed by tariffs and duties on foreign trade.

If states can operate without income taxes, why can't the federal government. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming—levy no state income tax at all. My state is examining the possibility of doing away with personal income taxes.

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. Get the crooked politicians hands out of the citizen's pockets. Until then, they own us. I've been harping on this for years now.

a reply to: Lumenari

~yawn~

You are quick to assume that corporations would automatically become bigger and richer under this plan.

If conversing with me bores you so I wonder why you keep doing so. However, in the event that you have not fallen asleep and are typing in your sleep I will replyto your first accusation, why I assume anything about corporations.

I don't know about you and what you pay attention to but I do know that I have spent decades paying attention to the actions of corporations. And supposing that you have failed to notice, they do tend to become bigger and richer as each decade passes. Smaller ones may pop up but in the majority of situations, those are most often bought up by the bigger and richer ones. You yourself must have noticed how the majority of broadcasting outlets that used to be owned by a wide variety of companies are now owned by just a hand ful. Certainly you must have noticed this. You call it automatic and I agree. So why would it be any different under any plan that Trump would come up with.

a reply to: Degradation33

I read a few months ago he said 100% on imported cars. that's absurd, No one is paying that much for a Hyundai Accent, so theyd move to the USA and the car still goes up because they have well paid unions to deal with now. Unless he plans to also outlaw unions and allow lower more USA operational wages.

And there you have it. I read that article back when he made offered that plan because it was so outrageous. I found it crazy and that article backed my thinking to a t.

But here you also address the rest of that plan that is also part of the Project 2025, to do away with unions. Under a Trump plan, the unions would not exist and there would be no minimum wage. All wages and prices would need to be adjusted to the machinations of the corporate lords.

a reply to: pianopraze

Now all Trump has to do to win is add this to his cart.

All Trump has to do to win the election is take away the democrats favorite toy. He should promise amnesty to all the illegal migrants who are already here when he is sworn in on Jan 20. Kamala flip flops why not Mr.Trump? Can you imagine the look on Obama's face if Trump did that?

Oh please please please let it happen?