Trump says Americans may soon pay ‘no income tax’ as White House explores alternative revenue streams

President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Americans may "not even have income tax to pay" in the near future, saying tariff-driven revenue could allow for the historic elimination of the federal income tax under his tenure.

Trump told a press gaggle after his cabinet meeting that "at some point in the not too distant future you won’t even have income tax to pay," arguing that revenue the government is collecting under his administration is now "so great… so enormous."

"Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won't be paying income tax," Trump added.

If enacted, abolishing income tax would mark the most ambitious overhaul of the American tax system in more than a century. Trump’s repeated public support for replacing income tax with tariffs makes this the most explicit endorsement yet.

Earlier in his second administration, the president floated a tax plan eliminating income tax for individuals earning under $150,000, with tariffs proposed as a replacement.

"It's time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before," the president said back in January. "Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, we should be tariffing and taxing foreign nations to enrich our citizens."

“Genuine question, not trying to make a point: why would paying off the debt crash the economy?”

#####################

Fair question. Think of it this way: Suppose that in your own household, you used your income to pay off a large debt instead of spending it on household items. Until you paid off that debt, would your own household be better or worse off in the short run? Remember, you stopped paying for many current household items (food, clothing, car, furniture, restaurants, repairs, etc.) to start paying off that large debt.

Until you paid off that debt, your household economy would be worse off.

And traditional “charities” and church programs have gone by the wayside

False.

the richest church on the planet is too cheap to spend her money on those who need assistance these days.

False.

Got any more falsehoods to defecate onto the thread?

Then some politician and several rich people decided that instead of the rich paying for the war... The people should pay for it. And we’ve been paying personal income taxes ever since.

The same could be said for payments in blood, for the most part. There’s few of the political or rich caste that are in the military and have to make any sort of personal sacrifice. It’s usually ‘the poors’.

Thank you for referencing that article Libloather.

Trump says Americans may soon pay ‘no income tax’ as White House explores alternative revenue streams

If When PDJT47 succeeds with his plan for no income tax, then he needs to do the following. He needs to make his no income tax legacy permanent by leading the states to end the post-17th Amendment ratification (popular vote for federal senators) Congress's ongoing abuse of its 16th Amendment (direct taxes) powers by leading the states to repeal those amendments.

The 16th Amendment (16A) has turned into the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime, front-ended by deep state Congress.

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature. —Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

Consider that a resolution to repeal 16A was introduced as recently as 2021, but was unsurprisingly ignored.

We'll call the repeal amendment Trump's Boston Tea Party II Amendment.

Once unconstitutional federal taxing and spend is stopped, the states will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues that they probably won't know what to do with imo, healthcare, including taking care of the poor, and education, on the short list of priorities.

Roosevelt falsely promoted Social Security to Americans as a “savings account for the old age of the worker” with contributions made by employers and employees through payroll taxes “held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.” This was an intentional lie, but it is what causes people to still believe that Social Security is for Us. It is the largest annual expenditure of the federal government.

First and Foremost, I am absolutely not a FDR fan (I liked Teddy). FDR looked out at the depression and the past a put forth he felt was a rock solid plan to protect the elderly. The problem wasn’t that the plan was flawed, or that base net for the working poor was flawed. No, that was actually acceptable and well thought out. The problem with SS is that at the time it had unrealistic requirements....most people never saw age 65 to retire, but all were taxed.

I think here that FDR actually meant well for the nation and the future. Yes, it was the ‘cornerstone’ of socialism, but it was set up to actually be a positive thing for a growing society in a time of need. The failure of FDR was simple, it was called LBJ. LBJ convinced Congress to vote to ‘raid’ the SS fund to support the Grand Society-—WELFARE. That bankrupted SS, all by itself. The mistake FDR made was not making SS LBJ proof.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.