- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Trump: Tariffs Could Replace Income Tax
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:17 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. InB4 surviving waterhead babies screech about "tHaT WiLL nEvEr hAppEn!"
Guess what else happened around 1913 to impact monetary policy?
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:19 pm to VoxDawg
Trump is right that prior to 1913, tariffs were sufficient to cover the federal budget
What he doesn’t seem to understand though, is that the federal budget was tiny in 1913. A literally fraction of a fraction of what it is today. There is no way tariff revenue can fund the current behemoth.
What he doesn’t seem to understand though, is that the federal budget was tiny in 1913. A literally fraction of a fraction of what it is today. There is no way tariff revenue can fund the current behemoth.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
There is no way tariff revenue can fund the current behemoth.
If we don't cut spending, no.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:21 pm to VoxDawg
We don’t have an earning problem. We have a spending problem.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:21 pm to VoxDawg
Hes wrong, and badly wrong.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What he doesn’t seem to understand though, is that the federal budget was tiny in 1913. A literally fraction of a fraction of what it is today. There is no way tariff revenue can fund the current behemoth.
Your false premise is that the federal budget has any business being the size that it has become.
It should never have been allowed to get as bloated and unnecessary as it is.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:22 pm to VoxDawg
So tariffs are revenue, not an impetus to return mfg.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What he doesn’t seem to understand though, is that the federal budget was tiny in 1913. A literally fraction of a fraction of what it is today. There is no way tariff revenue can fund the current behemoth.
Please note, Trump is saying "income taxes". Not payroll taxes. Not capital gains taxes. Not potentially carried interest taxes. Not excise taxes. Not corporate taxes.
There are a shite ton of taxes in the federal government tax basket. Trump is only talking about supplanting income taxes with tariffs.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:23 pm to VoxDawg
America also wasn't the world's largest market in 1913 and was not the superpower of the world.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:24 pm to VoxDawg
Only if you cut like 90% of the current federal budget, which would be political suicide at the minimum and more likely than not fundamentally damaging to the entire nation.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:26 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Hes wrong, and badly wrong.
Introduce tariffs.
Eliminate income taxes.
Tax carried interest.
Increase corporate taxes.
Increase capital gains.
Increase excise taxes.
Break even revenue.
Declare income taxes eliminated.
Politically profit.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:27 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Increase corporate taxes.
Increase capital gains.
Increase excise taxes.
Thats far more than just simply using tariffs.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:29 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Your false premise is that the federal budget has any business being the size that it has become.
So we will finally see this mythical Trump budget that could be supported via tariffs soon, right?
quote:
The government is operating on a continuing resolution (CR) that was passed in March and extends funding through the end of the current fiscal year, September 30, 2025
27 days
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:29 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
If we don't cut spending, no.
Nobody's interested in that, especially Trump.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:29 pm to VoxDawg
quote:Of you run on eliminations SS, Medicare and Medicare… me and 5 other people will vote for you. We aren’t going back to 913-sized government anytime soon by voter choice. Neither or our taxes.
Your false premise is that the federal budget has any business being the size that it has become.
It should never have been allowed to get as bloated and unnecessary as it is.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:29 pm to VoxDawg
i think at this point they need the rest of the three years to prove how much money tariffs take in, then in '28 Vance can use the revenue from tariffs as his main campaign point. Trump is paving the way and fighting the courts who are trying their hardest to stop the tariffs.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
It’s on the last page of the Les Miles secret playbook.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:30 pm to Flats
quote:
Nobody's interested in that, especially Trump.
And, my ole lady.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:30 pm to GoblinGuide
quote:
Only if you cut like 90% of the current federal budget,
Again, the presumption is that we should be spending the money that we already are, at the federal level.
Many reject that premise.
The next window to be licked by the howler monkeys in the cheap seats is that "We have to service the debt!". Trump has already hinted that the figure that is touted by conventional wisdom as comprising the "national debt" might be just as rife with fraud as USAID and every other gargantuan federal boondoggle, and may only be a fraction of what we commonly accept as being just south of $40T owed to the Federal Reserve.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 12:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Trump is right that prior to 1913, tariffs were sufficient to cover the federal budget
We were also on the Gold Standard and there was no Federal Reserve Bank.
Popular
Back to top


20










