Trump says US may "completely" cut income tax due to tariff revenue

[putnam6]

So many here are  pessimistic AF 

Of course, it has to go through Congress; Trump isn't King yet 

A President can influence tax policy dramatically through proposals, vetoes, and administrative discretion, but abolishing taxes entirely on their own is constitutionally impossible without an act of Congress (and, for something like ending the income tax entirely, likely a constitutional amendment to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment).

 
And of course, the current Congress will fight it tooth and nail if it is ever proposed.

Here's how it's presented on X.com. In every instance this is posted and reposted, it's getting loads of comments and discussion. 
 

 
Trump Proposes Cutting Income Taxes with Tariff Revenue

Last updated 50 minutes ago

Trump suggested the U.S. could substantially reduce or eliminate income taxes over the next couple of years, funded by surging revenue from import tariffs on countries he says have taken advantage of America. Tariffs brought in $195 billion through October of fiscal year 2025, up 150% from the prior year, though they remain a small slice compared to the $2.2 trillion from income taxes in 2024. Economists note replacing that revenue would demand extreme tariff rates, likely raising prices for consumers and risking trade retaliation, while no formal plan exists yet and Congress would need to approve any changes.

When I suggest doing it, I mean proposing a new tax plan and submitting it to Congress. Whether it's a flat tax or a consumption tax, what ever

He proposes abolishing taxes completely, but we may still receive CONGRESSIONAL relief for some lower tax brackets.  

The tax code needs to be simplified and modified; discussing it is the first step. It's not a distraction; it's the beginning of the long-needed tax discussion

Just because the left doesn't want ANY DISCUSSION that's proposed by Trump, regardless of whether it is feasible or not   

Get the ball rolling, whatever it is, our tax code needs to be reworked.  Yes or No?

I don't know any small business person who doesn't agree that our tax code needs to be reworked and simplified. 

Is there any doubt that lower and middle-income brackets need relief? 

Discussing abolishing taxes is how that starts... It has to be better than Congress deeking around with the hemp bill. 



 

a U.S. President cannot unilaterally abolish taxes (or create new ones) without Congressional approval.
Here’s why, grounded in the Constitution and historical practice:

1. Constitutional authority (Article I, Section 8)
   The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The President has no enumerated power to originate or eliminate tax laws.
   
2. Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7)
   All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives (though the Senate can amend them). This further reinforces that tax policy is a legislative function, not an executive one.
   
3. President’s actual powers over taxes
   • The President can propose tax changes (e.g., sending a budget or tax plan to Congress). 
     
   • The President can veto tax bills passed by Congress (subject to a 2/3 override). 
     
   • The President can issue executive orders that affect how existing tax laws are administered (e.g., IRS enforcement priorities, regulatory interpretations, or temporary disaster relief), but these cannot repeal or create statutory tax provisions.
     
4. Historical attempts and limits
   • No President has ever successfully abolished major taxes (income tax, payroll tax, etc.) by executive action alone. 
     
   • Even sweeping actions like Trump’s 2017–2020 tariffs or Biden’s student loan forgiveness attempts (which indirectly affected tax treatment) either relied on existing statutory authority or were challenged/struck down when they exceeded it. 
     
   • Claims that a President could “abolish the IRS” or “end income taxes” via executive order alone are legally unfounded; the IRS is created by statute (16 U.S.C. § 7801ff, originally the 1862 Revenue Act), and the income tax is codified in Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code)—both require Congress to repeal.
     

In short:
A President can influence tax policy dramatically through proposals, vetoes, and administrative discretion, but abolishing taxes entirely on their own is constitutionally impossible without an act of Congress (and, for something like ending the income tax entirely, likely a constitutional amendment to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment).

[quintessentone]

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/IXB6mQUgOqWQM/giphy.gif]

The count is.... 22, twenty-two mostly foreign posters 
now on ignore haha haha

And I am sure they really are fine with it.

I really hope Trump finally tries to help those that he has hurt with his tariffs. I suppose he and his buddies made enough money (is there ever enough money for them?) or rather he is trying anything and everything to look good in the eyes of the voter. But his wording 'may' 'when' shows he is only thinking about it and any good leader would just do it. Don't be conned again.

[putnam6]

And I am sure they really are fine with it.

I really hope Trump finally tries to help those that he has hurt with his tariffs. I suppose he and his buddies made enough money (is there ever enough money for them?) or rather he is trying anything and everything to look good in the eyes of the voter. But his wording 'may' 'when' shows he is only thinking about it and any good leader would just do it. Don't be conned again.

I humbly disagree with your premise, again, in our company's tariff situation, and our industry, business is up 27%, retail has been solid through the fall.  Historically, it's been an industry thats ultra sensitive to economic fluctuations.

Additionally, we still have another 14% of new accounts with unbooked orders waiting for credit approval. During this process, we usually lose 2-3% if that holds, and the rest are approved, add another 11% for an overall increase of 38%

up 38% is damn good historically, it's been a while since we've had such a large increase

Every manufacturer we represent, Chinese, Korean, Italian, Mexican, American, Australian, Canadian, etc., is subject to Trump's tariffs
No price increases at all, EOQ, EOY reports look robust, no delays in shipping and production ACROSS the board


Furthermore, here's the quote from the tarrff thread.

A careful review of the major changes in US tariff policy since 1870 shows no systematic relation between the state of the cycle and the direction of the tariff changes, as partisan differences on the effects and desirability of tariffs led to opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions. 

 

Quote:The statement you quoted is broadly accurate and reflects a key insight from economic historians like Douglas Irwin and others who have studied U.S. tariff history.
From 1870 to about the 1930s, U.S. tariff policy was overwhelmingly driven by partisan ideology and interest-group politics, not by counter-cyclical macroeconomic management:

• Republicans (the high-tariff party) consistently favored protectionism to shield domestic industry (especially manufacturing in the North and Midwest).
  
• Democrats (the low-tariff party) favored lower tariffs to benefit Southern agricultural exporters and urban consumers.
  

Because of this partisan divide, tariff changes often moved against what a simple counter-cyclical logic would predict:

• Recessions sometimes led to higher tariffs (e.g., Republicans raising rates after the Panic of 1893 → McKinley Tariff 1890, Dingley Tariff 1897; or after 1929 → Smoot-Hawley 1930).
  
• Booms sometimes led to lower tariffs when Democrats were in power (e.g., Underwood Tariff of 1913 during a strong economy; or the modest reductions under Wilson).
  

Key episodes that illustrate the lack of systematic cyclical pattern:
Period / Act
Year
Party in Power
Economic Conditions
Tariff Direction


Morrill Tariff
1861
Republican
Pre-Civil War boom
Sharply ↑


McKinley Tariff
1890
Republican
Approaching 1893 panic
↑


Wilson-Gorman Tariff
1894
Democrat
Deep depression
Modest ↓


Dingley Tariff
1897
Republican
Recovery underway
Sharply ↑

Payne-Aldrich Tariff
1909
Republican
Strong growth
Slight ↑

Underwood Tariff
1913
Democrat
Strong growth
Sharply ↓

Fordney-McCumber Tariff
1922
Republican
Post-WWI recession
↑

Smoot-Hawley Tariff
1930
Republican
Great Depression beginning
Sharply ↑

Reciprocal Trade Agreements
1934+
Democrat
Depression → recovery
↓ (gradual)

As you can see, the same economic conditions (recession, boom) produced opposite tariff outcomes depending on which party controlled Congress and the White House. 

There is no consistent pattern of “raise tariffs in bad times, lower them in good times” (or vice versa).

Only after 1934, with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and the shift of tariff authority to the executive branch, did U.S. policy become more consistently oriented toward gradual liberalization—largely independent of the business cycle and driven instead by foreign-policy and GATT/WTO commitments.

So yes: from 1870 through the early 1930s, U.S. tariff changes were driven primarily by partisan and sectional politics, not by any systematic counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical logic The historical record really does show “opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions,” exactly as the statement says.

[quintessentone]

I humbly disagree with your premise, again, in our company's tariff situation, and our industry, business is up 27%, retail has been solid through the fall.  Historically, it's been an industry thats ultra sensitive to economic fluctuations

Every manufacturer we represent, Chinese, Korean, Italian, Mexican, American, Australian, Canadian, etc., is subject to Trump's tariffs
No price increases at all, EOY reports look robust, no delays in shipping and production ACROSS the board


Furthermore, here's the quote from the tarrff thread.

Trump is back peddling on tariffs, so your one example, while I am happy for you, doesn't show the true picture.

Trump opens door to easing some steel and aluminum tariffs - The Globe and Mail

Trump rolls back tariffs on food on hundreds of food items | National Post

Again, Trump always has to do damage control. But I do hope he helps those that he has hurt.

[putnam6]

Trump is back peddling on tariffs, so your one example, while I am happy for you, doesn't show the true picture.

Trump opens door to easing some steel and aluminum tariffs - The Globe and Mail

Trump rolls back tariffs on food on hundreds of food items | National Post

Again, Trump always has to do damage control. But I do hope he helps those that he has hurt.

LOL, my industry represents the tariffs' effects on the Textiles and Apparel sector.

Do you have any clue how many Americans are employed by the Textile and Apparel companies?

Direct Employment in US Apparel Retail (2025)
Apparel retail (NAICS 4481: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores) employed about 1.35 million workers as of November 2025. This includes sales staff, managers, and support roles in physical and omnichannel stores, representing ~18% of total US retail sales jobs. Employment grew modestly by 1.2% YoY, buoyed by e-commerce integration and holiday hiring, despite store closures. The broader US apparel market (including e-commerce) is valued at $365.7 billion, with households spending ~$162/month on clothing.
Total Direct Employment: Manufacturing + Retail
Combining manufacturing and retail yields ~1.62 million direct jobs in the US textile and apparel sector as of late 2025. This accounts for ~79% of jobs in retail and ~8% in manufacturing within the overall fashion ecosystem.
Total Americans Supported (Including Indirect and Induced Jobs)
The full supply chain—from fibers and logistics to wholesale, retail distribution, and consumer spending—supports far more. NCTO estimates each direct manufacturing job supports ~3 additional jobs in related sectors (e.g., chemicals, transport, merchandising). Applying this multiplier to manufacturing alone yields ~1.07 million total from that segment.
For the combined sector, industry analyses estimate ~1.9 million total jobs supported, including:

• Direct: 1.62 million (as above).
  
• Indirect/induced: ~280,000 (e.g., wholesale ~152,000 at 8% of total; merchandising; e-commerce logistics).
  

This figure aligns with broader fashion industry estimates, contributing $395 billion in value and bolstering rural and urban economies. Projections for 2026 suggest stability, with sustainability and tech (e.g., AR try-ons) driving modest growth.

 

• Core Apparel Focus (Prior): 267,000 manufacturing + 1.35M apparel retail = ~1.62M.
  
• Expanded for Home Textiles: 270,700 manufacturing (now including full NAICS 314) + 403,400 home furnishings retail = ~674,100 direct jobs. (Note: This avoids double-counting; apparel retail NAICS 4481 remains separate at 1.35M for clothing-specific.)
  

 
Total Americans Supported (Indirect + Induced Jobs)
Using NCTO's multiplier (3 additional jobs per direct manufacturing role for supply chain ripple—fibers, logistics, chemicals), the expanded manufacturing base supports **1.08 million total from production**. Adding retail multipliers (1.5–2x for distribution/consumer spending) yields ~2.2–2.5 million total supported jobs economy-wide. This includes ~$100B+ in value from home textiles alone, vital for rural mills (e.g., Georgia carpet hubs) and urban retail. Trends like green manufacturing (e.g., recycled rugs) and remodeling ($600B+ annual spend) ensure resilience through 2030.

Tariffs were always going to be adjustable and modified on a case-by-case basis BEFORE we shift to a permanent situation; this has never been attempted on such a scale. Most times, it's one specific country or industry

[quintessentone]

LOL, my industry represents the tariffs' effects on the Textiles and Apparel sector.

Do you have any clue how many Americans are employed by the Textile and Apparel companies?

Tariffs were always going to be adjustable and modified on a case-by-case basis BEFORE we shift to a permanent situation; this has never been attempted on such a scale. Most times, it's one specific country or industry

Let's look at the big numbers.



Leading Companies Announcing Layoffs And Hiring Freezes in 2025 | Intellizence

[putnam6]

Let's look at the big numbers.

Leading Companies Announcing Layoffs And Hiring Freezes in 2025 | Intellizence

LOL, they are trying to sell you a monthly AI-curated data service, FFS

Did you sign up? 

But I guess Trump increased thier business...

Do you want laughing mustache, One Trick Pony, or Pickles from a Jar? I haven't used that in a while

[SomeStupidName]

Honestly if they want tip toe into it start it at households making 75k and lower. It would probably pave the way to 150k in a short time.

[Maxmars]

I understand and see the logic behind the idea....

But I have great difficulty in actually believing that anything can be done which diminishes the revenue stream to the "Central" bank.

We can barely survive the failure to meet the 'debt' interest alone...  where did all that money go?

Tariffs are just a tax on the industries which they are allowed to simply pass off on you... scot-free.

It a 'bald-faced lie tax' on every consumer... because they can.

The bank revenue is sacrosanct... it will grow... always.... and we will pay... always.
We will never "pay down" anything in this banking model... not gonna happen.
That's the scam... that's the play... that's a wrap.

[Oldcarpy2]

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/IXB6mQUgOqWQM/giphy.gif]

The count is.... 22, twenty-two mostly foreign posters 
now on ignore haha haha

22?!!!!  Must be a cosy echo chamber for you.

I don't have anyone on ignore.

I like listening to alternative opinions, even if I disagree with them strongly.

So much for tolerance and freedom of speech, I guess.

Please feel free to cross me off your Christmas card list too, if you haven't already.

I will be inconsolable for days... ..