Posted on 06/13/2024 5:39:20 PM PDT by shadowlands1960
Key Points
-Donald Trump discussed the idea of imposing an “all tariff policy” that would ultimately enable the U.S. to get rid of the income tax, sources told CNBC.
-He also talked about using tariffs to leverage negotiating power over bad actors, according to another source in the room.
- Trump championed tariffs during his first term in the White House.
Donald Trump on Thursday brought up the idea of imposing an “all tariff policy” that would ultimately enable the U.S. to get rid of the income tax, sources in a private meeting with the Republican presidential candidate told CNBC.
Trump, in the meeting with GOP lawmakers at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C., also talked about using tariffs to leverage negotiating power over bad actors, according to another source in the room.
The remarks show Trump, who championed tariffs as a foreign policy multi-tool during his first term in office, is considering a drastically more protectionist trade agenda if he defeats President Joe Biden in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
And prior to that it wasn’t possible to suggest ending the income tax.
You mean when the illegals can no longer send their American-made earnings to help the economies of other countries?
And we restore American industry so we don’t have to buy goods from China?
I don’t think that would be necessary.
What you posted about the Constitution is widely known and doesn’t contradict my statement in the least. If there were such a contradiction, I wouldn’t have posted it.
Maybe you should read my post again. I simply said that what Trump proposed, as the most trustworthy President in modern times if not ever (because he does what he says), was the most ingenious ever made in the history of our country.
Before they started taxing our income, it wouldn’t have been possible to make such a proposition.
So my statement from post #7 is true.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4244188/posts?page=7#7
“How about combining the Fair tax with the flat tax: Replace payroll taxes by a 20% national retail sales tax or VAT, then have a 30% flat tax at $500K income……..you’d pay 15% income tax on your first million only…….then it goes to 30% at the top?”
I don’t like a national sales or VAT tax of any kind. Sales taxes are regressive and no VAT tax in Europe has ever replaced or offset the income taxes there. Have you ever been to Europe and bought any local goods there? 1. VATs are just another reach into the incomes of businesses while pretending they are not really taxing the income of the businesses, which indirectly they are. If there is to be any kind of tax on business income then just declare a tax rate for it and be honest about it. 2. VATs have universally become even more cpmplex than any U.S. state sales tax could possibly be. You propose a VAT and the Congress critters will write hundreds of specific provisions detailing exactly which ox get’s one VAT rate, and why, and which ox gets another VAT rate, and why, ect., ect., ect., ad infititum. The same will happen with any “national sales tax”.
That is why I propose a universal (everyone pays) one rate flat income tax, no deductions, no exemptions, no exclusions and no credits. Your income was X (no matter the source), so the tax would be X times the flat rate - end of story.
1. “A flat tax might be best but what do you do with tax credits, mortgage deductions, etc.” In my proposal, as I said, they’d ALL be eliminated - UNIVERSAL and ZERO deductions, exclusions, exemptions or credits.
2. I realize that to get it through any Congress, I would have to give up on some of the purity of the idea, and (in as much I’d also be eliminating ALL “tax credits” of any kind, I’d likely have to accept an income floor below which the flat tax itself would not apply.
3. Even so, a universal flat tax with no deductions, exemptions, exclusions or credits would be so massively broad based I’d expect the rate itelf may neeed to be no more than 10%.
Tariffs are not free trade, so who is the nasty little Free Traitor? It ain’t me.
William J. Bernstein wrote:[30]
Between 1929 and 1932, real GDP fell 17% worldwide, and 26% in the United States, but most economic historians now believe that only one A minuscule part of that huge loss in both world GDP and US GDP can be attributed to tariff wars.
... At the time of Smoot–Hawley's passage, the volume of trade represented only about 9% of world economic output. If all international trade had been eliminated and no domestic use found for previously exported goods, world GDP would have fallen by the same amount: 9 percent. Between 1930 and 1933, the volume of world trade fell by between a third and a half. Depending on how the drop is measured, this equates to between 3 and 5 percent of global GDP, and these losses were partially offset by more expensive domestic goods. Thus, the damage caused could not have exceeded 1 or 2 percent of global GDP, or even close to the 17 percent drop seen during the Great Depression... The inescapable conclusion: Contrary to public perception, Smoot–Hawley did not cause, or even significantly deepened, the Great Depression.
“Bad idea because that does NOT promote domestic industry, at all.”
A flat tax would promote every domestic indusrtry indirectly because their business and investment choices would quit being skewed by how to take advantage of the convoluted tax code written to skewer some and benefit others (while that nonsense continued in most countries).
Tarriffs are not a zero-sum “domestic industry” helper. People have the idea that “imports” applies mainly to goods and services consumers buy. But a giant part of imports is in materials and parts U.S. domestic companies need for the things they are producing. Even after you tarriff some foreign made imported product, it may still beat out a domestic producer’s product because of the tarriffs that have hit the things he imports for his domestic production.
The way to help “domestic production” most is in laws, taxes and regulations that are favorable to domestic capital investment in industries, including foreign investment in domestic industries.
No, I mean when increased cost of labor, as a result of no longer paying illegals less than the legal wage, raises prices. See California increase in fast food minimum wage for an example.
And when the trade deficit with China, which rose under Trump but is now decreasing and is the lowest it’s been in ten years, increases due to tariffs in Chinese goods. Or is the trade deficit a good thing now?
As I’m sure you know, tariffs are passed on to the consumer, as we saw during the Trump administration. I don’t know how shrinking the disposable income of consumers will restore American industry. Maybe you can explain it to me?
“US Employment will go up because domestic supply will be in HIGH demand. “
Wrong again. Your assumption is wrong in the belief that (1) there is a domestic producer for anything and everthing - not true in tons of cases, and (2) a “startup” can find, domesticlly, what is needed to produce the imported item - also not true in tons of cases. In the case of (2) imports on what goes into domestic production will sky rocket and may still not make products cheaper than the imported ones with the tarrifs on them.
“Re industrializing will improve our national security for generations to come.”
I do not believe tarrifs are the route to “re indutrialization”. I think that is a simplistic answer to a more complex problem.
I think this would have to proceed gradually. We don’t want to precipitate tariff wars and an international depression. I also think President Trump is aware that it must proceed gradually.
Changing government policy can be very disruptive, that is to say, destructive. People, companies, and organizations need time to adapt.
All taxes affect behavior. For example, we once taxed windows. The bigger the house, the more windows, the larger the tax. Then people boarded up windows. If you tax something too much, it disappears. If all your taxes come from tariffs, people will stop buying foreign goods and services. Then you won’t have any government revenue. Oops.
On the other hand, if you tax broadly, at a low rate, behavior does not change as much.
Adam Smith proposed a multi-pronged approach with moderation. Let’s start with the moderation. The US government should spend less. Musk showed the way with Twitter where he reduced the workforce by 90%. We can at least reduce Federal spending by 50%. Departments that threaten liberty should be eliminated or cut 90%. With less need for tax revenue, taxes can be lower.
We should have a highly simplified income tax for starters. A “Fair Tax” (general sales tax with ample refund) might be a good idea.
A modest tariff would be good for revenue, domestic production, and national security.
Remember, international trade is just that - a trade. If we stop buying from others, others will stop buying from us. Also tariff revenue will be zero.
Trump’s actions fully refuted the lies we’ve been told about “isolationism” which include the nonsensical claim that tariffs imposed on other countries is a bad thing.
It was a lie made up by the anti-America crowd. They parrot these lies again and again, while pretending to be pro-American.
What they don’t understand is their anti-America ideology is itself the product of low IQ.
“In a real war are small businesses goning to build tanks, ships and planes? LOL.”
Really.... plenty of components on those items that can be produced via CNC. Thanks for playing, please try again.
Absolutely, I agree!
Democrats are not “tax and spend liberals” anymore. They are borrow and spend liberals, now
You're saying Democrats are not the party in favor of massive tax increases now? The "borrow and spend" party I refer to is the GOPe, which has no problem passing tax cuts for their billionaire cronies but does nothing to cut spending, which just puts us further in debt to China.
Factories only close they never open? LOL. What smiplistic thinking.
imports on what goes into domestic production will sky rocket and may still not make products cheaper than the imported ones with the tarrifs on the
Ok, that is good because skyrocketing means $$$, which means high profit margin which is the incentive for domestic supply to come on line. IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM. GET IT? No, I don't think Free Traitors™ get anything but selling out the USA for a quick buck. ...
Main reason was: were an intrinsically limited source of revenue.
Politicians wanted more of YOUR MONEY!
Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax.
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
From well before 1894, Democrats, Progressives, Populists and other left-oriented parties argued that tariffs disproportionately affected the poor, interfered with prices, were unpredictable, and were an intrinsically limited source of revenue.
They have to.
The end of the Petro-Dollar is the end of the
unlimited line of credit that has taken the USA to where we are today.
The DC Borg will go down kicking and screaming over this
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.