Trump floats eliminating U.S. income tax and replacing it with tariffs on imports

-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.

central_va to Wuli: "You Free Traitors™ are all egotistical psychos.
I am not sure if that is cause or effect."

I don't "get" where all this sturm & drang comes from.
"Free trade", "Fair trade", "Protected trade", "Industrial policy" -- these are all matters of definitions and historical precedents.

From Day One -- the Tariff of 1789, under Pres. Washington, pushed through Congress by Rep. James Madison -- the US set relatively high tariffs on some imports, no tariffs on others.

Yes, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which caused the 1830 Nullification Crisis and South Carolina's threatened secession -- that did tax pretty much all imports at nearly 60% tariff.
However, by 1835, not only was the average on tariffed items reduced to under 40%, but about half of imported commodities were not taxed at all.
Post-Civil War, tariffs remained at nearly 50%, but between 1/3 and 1/2 of imports were not tariffed at all.
Notice especially the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which raised some tariffs back of to 1828 Abomination levels of 60% -- at the same time nearly 2/3 of imports were not tariffed at all.

Point is, US tariffs were always a very mixed bag, based mainly on economics & politics of the time.

Today, at least 80% of US international trade is with our closest neighbors (Canada & Mexico), friends and allies in Europe and Asia.
If we count the BRICS as potential enemies, they add up to about 20% of US foreign trade, but BRICS include India and Brazil, which have been entirely friendly to the US.
So our real problem internationally is not BRICS, it's the Axis of Evil Dictators -- China, Russia, Iran & NoKo.
And of those, only China is a serious economic-military-political threat.
Yes, the others are also serious threats, but not so much economically.

So, what does Donald Trump say about all this?
Under Trump US unemployment reached 3% and labor participation around 63%, with rising wages for the lowest earners and inflation not a problem.
Those sound like good times to me.

Trump negotiated trade deals with Canada, Mexico, Japan and South Korea.
He maintained good economic relations with our European and other friends overseas.
He imposed punishing tariffs on China for "dumping" their surpluses on American markets.
He has promised to make certain that American "free trade" is always "fair trade" on balance.

All that sounds exactly right to me.

So, call Trump or me whatever nasty names you wish, it doesn't matter, he's called much worse by our Democrats every day.

I hve no argument with your comments.

My only point in the whole “tariff” issue is that Trump threw out the idea of totally replacing the income tax with tarriffs.

1. Most in favor of high and broad enough tarriffs to replace the income tax ignroe that it is the U.S. importer that pays the tarriif not the foreign exporter, so the tarriff is a cost IN the U.S. domestic economy. 2. It’s not feasible or practival goal. It cannot raise revnues even to pre-Trump levels without being so large and hitting so many imports, friends and allies as to start a “tariff war”, which will be damaaging to all. 3. It will hurt as many U.S. domestic companies as it may help, as many imports are not items for retail consumption but materials domestic producers use for what they produce here. Raising their costs with tarrifs will hurt them. 4. This is 2023, not 1789, 1800s or 1930. The world financial, economic, trade, tarriffs and tex envrionments have changed immensely not just in the U.S. but globally in that time. One cannot pretend those earlier eras, with much differenent conditions, can with a mere stroke of legislatve pen in the U.S. be resurrected without economic pain all around.

Calling anyone opposed to the idea of a one shot replacement of the income tax with tarriffs a “Free Traitor” demonstrates ignorance and nothing less.

DiogenesLamp: "Here is the Civil War for you BroJoeK.
Same sort of people, living in the same liberal Northern areas of the Country, (joined by the West coast now) exploiting the same tactics to STAY IN POWER."

As always, you remain confused and disoriented about the real facts of US history.
Here is the truth of it:

From the perspective of conservative Constitutionalist Founders' Original Intentions, from Day One our Democrats were and remain "the root of all evil".
Meaning -- in general, whatever political problems you can name can be traced back to radical Democrats, not conservative Republicans.
"Ape" Lincoln, hated by Democrats then and now:
Part of your problem in perceptions is your refusal to acknowledge the core-essence of what it meant to be an early Democrat, and that is the ancient alliance between our Southern slavocracy (i.e., Jefferson-Jackson) and Northern big city globalist immigrant political bosses (i.e., NYC's Tammany Hall & Martin Van Buren), first forged in the late 1790s.
This unholy political alliance held an iron grip over Washington, DC, from the election of 1800 until Southern Democrat secessions in 1861.
Indeed, the immediate cause of those secessions was obviously the election in November 1860, of the America's first anti-DC-Democrat-corruption party -- Republicans with clear intentions to "Drain the Swamp" and "Make America Great" by "Putting Americans First" -- rather than same-old Democrat globalists.
This drove ruling DC Democrat elites insane with anger and explains, as much as any other potential cause, their instantaneous resort to secession.
They didn't even wait for "Black Republicans" to move in at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

After the US Civil War, the old Democrats' North-South alliance quickly reasserted itself, with the old Southern slaveocracy now replaced by Democrat segregationists and KKK enforcers.

New black voters became Republicans, but with the end of Reconstruction in 1876, were steadily squeezed out of political power by white Southern Democrats.
The last Southern black Republican to leave Congress was George Henry White, from North Carolina's "Black Second" District -- in 1901.
The Great Migration converted Southern rural Black Republicans
to Northern Big City Black Democrats:
From 1901 to 1929 (the "Progressive Era") there were no elected blacks serving in Congress.
In 1929 the first African American elected from Illinois was also a Republican, but he was soon replaced by a black Democrat in 1934, and since then all but a handful (~11) of the 150+ African Americans elected to Congress were Democrats.
The conversion from Southern rural Black Republicans to Northern Big City Democrats correlates with the "Great Migration" of African Americans to Northern big cities.
Barbara Jordan was the first African American elected from the old Confederate South -- Texas in 1973.
Texas had voted Republican for Nixon in 1972.

So, during the 1930s & 1940s, African Americans switched in mass from Republicans to Democrats, and during the 1960s and 1970s Southern whites switched in mass from Democrats to Republicans.
But my point is -- the Old North-South Democrat alliance remains, with Southern descendants of slaves replacing descendants of slaveholders, while Northern Democrat Big City globalist immigrant bosses remain in place, their voters now swelled in numbers by "immigrants" of African Americans from the South.

In the meantime, Republicans remain what we always were -- more rural, small town, suburban, small business, professionals, military and law enforcement, religious conservatives, and constitutionalists.
We want to Make America Great by Putting Americans First, drain the DC-Democrat Swamp, and protect against Big Government overreach.

So I have no clue as to where all your nonsense about this comes from.

DiogenesLamp: "They said it was about slavery back then.
That was a lie.
It was always about power and enrichment for themselves, and it was never about morality or concern for their fellow man."

"Orange Man Bad" hated by Democrats today:

It's an absolutely despicable lie to claim that slavery had nothing to do with it.
Were there other motives?
Of course, but to downplay slavery's importance is to reveal your own soul as false to the core.
Why do that?

As for power-hungry self-enrichers, in 1860 those were 100% Democrats in Washington, and the majority of them were Southerners.
And 1860 was the Democrats first resounding election defeat since John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1796!

So, in 1860, Southern Democrats were "p*ssed as h*ll and not going to take it any more".
That's the immediate reason why they seceded -- they were and are the "rule or ruin" party and they don't behave well when defeated.

We can expect a similar response from Democrats in November 2024.

Unlike Federalists - Whigs - Republicans.

DiogenesLamp: "You simply refuse to acknowledge that the Northeastern part of the country has always been milking the rest of us to enrich themselves.
You simply won't face that simple point that *THEY* are the bad guys."

Your words, "Northeastern part of the country" are a vague abstraction with no connection to anything real.
You might as well say, "the man in the moon has always been milking the earth to enrich himself" -- that would be just as real as your words.

New York Harbor circa 1850:

Now, as soon as you attempt to reduce your abstractions to something resembling reality, then right away you run into Democrats, not Republicans.

That's because, first of all, we are talking about politics here, not economics.
Economics will do what economics does, and under ideal circumstances economics makes everyone wealthier.
But politics writes the "rules of the road" which businesses must follow to make their livings.

And politics in the US come down to the Old "Democratics"-Democrats vs Federalists-Whigs-Republicans.
From Day One, F-W-Rs wrote, defined and defended the US Constitution, while Anti-Federalists-"Democratics" opposed it, for whatever reasons seemed best to them at the time.

Historically, the basics of US politics have always been alliances and partnerships, and for our Democrats:

Beginning with the election of 1800, until 1861, their basic alliance was Northern Big City internationalists business and immigrant bosses with the Southern Cash-Crop slaveocracy.
After 1865 the old Democrat alliance reasserted itself with slaveocrats replaced by segregationists.
After circa 1964 Democrats began to replace white Southerners with African Americans, but their Northern wing (Big City, Big Business, Internationalists & Immigrant bosses) remained unchanged from the election in 1800.

Southern plantation circa 1850:

So, bottom line: I'm saying your word "northeasterners" is a meaningless abstraction, but the reality of Democrats is not abstract in the least.
And in terms of defending Constitutionally conservative, traditional American values, radical "Democratics" (Democrats) have always been, since Day One, your "bad guys".

By the way -- if you want 100% proof positive that politically nothing has changed since 1796, then consider our Democrats today accusing Donald Trump of being a "dictator"!
It's utter nonsense, but...
That is the same accusation Democratics made against Federalists in 1796 and helped elect Democratics in 1800, only in those days "dictator" was not really a word, so they accused Federalist of being "monarchists" instead.

Accusations of Federalist "monarchism" worked for Democrats in the 1800 election, but will it work again in 2024?

Time will tell...

Wuli: "This is 2023, not 1789, 1800s or 1930.
The world financial, economic, trade, tarriffs and tex envrionments have changed immensely not just in the U.S. but globally in that time.
One cannot pretend those earlier eras, with much differenent conditions, can with a mere stroke of legislatve pen in the U.S. be resurrected without economic pain all around."

Of course you are right, and I've never seen anything in Trump's actions which represent more than simply punishing unfair trade with higher US tariffs while also protecting American industries/jobs.
I'd say those are radical enough changes for now to maintain US economic prosperity and independence -- especially considering Trump's unemployment rate was already down to circa 3%.
Why mess with success?

Yes, US economic self-sufficiency is important in a dangerous world, but what is the point of being "self-sufficient" from our closest friends and allies?
That makes no sense but focusing on freeing ourselves from dependency on potential enemies (i.e., CCP China, Russia, etc.), as well as making certain that trade with our allies is "fair" -- that does make a lot of sense, and in my understanding, that's what Pres. Trump was & is all about.

imho yrmv

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.