Trump Flirts With the Ultimate Tax Cut: No Income Taxes at All
By: Andrew Duehren (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The former president has repeatedly praised a period in American history when there was no income tax, and the country relied on tariffs to fund the government.
Former President Donald Trump has floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs, but he has not provided specific details of how that would work.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
By Andrew Duehren
Reporting from Washington
Oct. 24, 2024Updated 2:10 p.m. ET
Former President Donald J. Trump has spent much of the presidential campaign brainstorming new, and sometimes untested, ways to cut taxes. In the election's final stretch, he raised the possibility of going even further: eliminating income taxes entirely.
During a Fox News segment on Monday, Mr. Trump took questions at a barbershop in the Bronx. When asked if the United States could potentially end all federal taxation, Mr. Trump said the country could return to the economic policies in the late 19th century, when there was no federal income tax.
"It had all tariffs — it didn't have an income tax," Mr. Trump said. "Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They're paying tax, and they don't have the money to pay the tax."
In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.
Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive. Even if Republicans control Congress, lawmakers are unlikely to dismantle the income tax system. Yet Mr. Trump's combination of tax cuts and tariff increases has been central to his political pitch.
"There is a way, if what I'm planning comes out," Mr. Trump said of ending income taxes.
Replacing income taxes with tariffs would reverse the progressivity of the tax system in the United States. In general, income taxes are progressive, meaning that Americans with more income pay a higher tax rate. Tariffs, which impose a tax on products imported into the United States, are regressive. They raise the prices on imported items like clothing and groceries, placing a larger burden on lower-income Americans who spend a bigger percentage of their income on those goods.
Tags
Who is online
596 visitors
This sounds quite counter productive to populist aspirations, but Trump will dangle "no taxes" in front of the populace (with 10 days left in the campaign) with no shame.
At least his idea includes all. Cackles is floating the idea of forgivable loans only to black men.
It's not his idea, libertarians have been trumpeting the concept since their formation.
Well damn, a candidate in a very tight race who makes all sorts of promises that everyone really should know can't or won't happen. But do go back and find a candidate for President who ever made campaign promises and felt shame from it. You know you cannot find one.
Any tax cut requires Congress to pass it, the President can't do it alone. Just more campaign promises.
So you are fine then with any unattainable proposals Harris makes.
George Bush, "Read my lips, no new taxes". His shame was being at Bill Clinton's Inauguration.
Just as fine as I am with any unattainable proposals that Trump or any other candidate makes. They all make promises depending on the group they are talking to. This is part of campaigning. Hell, it's easy for a presidential candidate to make outlandish promises and should they win the election they can always say later that the President alone can't make such a promise come true and pass the buck. Let's be honest, this is the type of government that the people of the US continue to elect.
I notice that you however didn't even try to find any candidates who made such promises and felt shame for making the promise.
Really? You have proof that he was ashamed that he made that promise? Just losing the election doesn't mean he felt shame. Hell, he lost due to many reasons. Let's not forget the recession of 1990 when his approval rating fell to 41% and only 29% of the people felt he was doing a good job as President. Yes he made that promise while campaigning in 1988 and in 1990 he had to approve a tax increase due to a law that required the lowering of the federal deficit.
1992 presidential election, Democratic populism, Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, George H.W. Bush, economic issues, voter sentiment, political realignment
But you still haven't offered any evidence that he felt any shame for making that promise. Yeah, it was a stupid promise. That's what candidates do.
I worked for him at the time and we all had the same reaction when he said that. Not good.
You may disagree that regret isn't shame but Bush had more character than anyone I heave ever met. He was truly remorseful. It ended his political career.
George was a living breathing hero, not just another candidate, a Pacific theatre naval aviator to his core.
Regret and shame are both negative emotions but they are not the same. Someone can feel regret without being ashamed of said actions. Bush made a campaign promise and two years later had to break that promise. BFD. Your link to Wikipedia shows that he was remorseful for having to raise taxes but it doesn't show that he felt any shame.
You want to equate the two in an attempt to score points, but it's not working.
Yeah, he was a naval aviator. But in this instance he was just another candidate for the office of President where he made a promise that he could not keep. Again, Big Fucking Deal. Hell, he kept the promise for two years but had to follow the law that required lowering the deficit. As Congress makes the budget, he could either go along with their plan to raise taxes to offset the spending they were doing or he could have vetoed the bill and potentially shut down the government. Reality has to come into play here, at least I would hope so. The President can only do so much. Or would you rather he had vetoed the budget bills and allowed the government to shut down in the middle of a recession?
But you still have not proven by any stretch that Bush felt shame over that campaign promise and two years later having to break it.
This isn't a debate for points. I had first hand knowledge of the man from 1989 to 1992.
Well, politely, I don't give an old man's shart, about proving anything to you.
Have a good weekend.
Every time I see him doing a sitting interview or barbershop town hall, I have to check my own posture.
Seems like a far better thing to have done in your first four years than to pretend to be able to do in your second four years.
People die every day.
WTF does that mean? They are either paying or they aren't, and no one dies from unpaid taxes.
As you probably know I'm not one to defend the moron or explain what he's saying - but I think he's saying that people are not literally dying from paying taxes but figuratively I guess it's 'killing their wallets or purses' - along those lines.
although of course it's not true
It is well-recognized that ending the progressive income tax and imposing a revenue system based strictly on sales taxes/tariffs will wreak havoc on the middle and working class. It's an oligarch's dream.
Ridiculous. I feel that way about a flat tax also.
Does anyone here not understand that a tariff is a tax on imports, that the importer must pay the tax and that the importer then passes the tax through the supply chain to be paid, ultimately, by the consumer?
To wit, does anyone here not understand that Trump's concept is utterly ridiculous and would not only trigger trade wars but would raise prices on goods?
Some of us understand it very well.
Most Americans are more impacted by payroll tax than by income tax. So eliminating income tax would once again favor the rich. Gosh. Surprise.
How can that be? we are constantly hearing the rich don't pay taxes?
Mr X, a salaried employee, pays payroll tax. A significant part of his "declared income". He pays no income tax because his income is below the lowest bracket.
Mr Y lives on the dividends paid by stocks he owns. Not drawing any salary, he pays no payroll tax. He pays some income tax.
I know, I know... It's very complicated.
What? I think you have that wrong.
Yes. That's how a progressive tax system works. The rich pay more.
.