- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Getting rid of Federal Income Tax and its fallout
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:31 pm to Old Sarge
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:31 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
I’d prefer a 10% national sales tax on every single thing bought and sold in the US to whoever
This is more the answers. And there is a blue print but even as Neal Boortz said, it's easy to demagogue.
0
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:37 pm to Rip Torner
Tarriff's are a sales tax so I am for it. Too many free loaders not paying any income taxes or property taxes.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:42 pm to Rip Torner
Trump is also building the Sovereign Fund to generate revenue to replace taxes. Of course, the "true conservatives" did what they always do and cried about it because they hate new ideas. They want the government to only take money from hard working Americans, not generate their own.
They will complain about the dwindling middle class and how hard it is to purchase a home or save for retirement, but then they will also complain when a president proposes a way for the government to make money without taking it from the middle class.
There are so many ideological conflicts in conservatism, and pretty much all-isms, and instead of reconciling those differences, they double down on their inconsistent belief system by only focusing on the single concept in front of them. This is so they don't have to explain why they support it even though it conflicts with their other beliefs. They can just proclaim, "You're not a real conservative," and pretend that's a valid argument in the face of unconservative results.
They will complain about the dwindling middle class and how hard it is to purchase a home or save for retirement, but then they will also complain when a president proposes a way for the government to make money without taking it from the middle class.
There are so many ideological conflicts in conservatism, and pretty much all-isms, and instead of reconciling those differences, they double down on their inconsistent belief system by only focusing on the single concept in front of them. This is so they don't have to explain why they support it even though it conflicts with their other beliefs. They can just proclaim, "You're not a real conservative," and pretend that's a valid argument in the face of unconservative results.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:43 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:
Tarrifs could never replace the amount of money received by the income tax
The impact to the price of goods would be a problem too
this year the government will take in 5.3 trillion in income taxes, 2.3 trillion of that will be collected through individual income tax returns, so that amount could easily be replaced by tariffs.
as i said earlier in this thread 63% of american aren't paying income tax.
returns of 100k or less make up roughly 3% of total income taxes collected. the top 10% of wage earners (210k plus) pay 70% of all collected income taxes. this notion that you people have of the beleaguered middle class with the heavy burden of taxation single handily carrying the weight of this country on their backs is a myth and has been for the last 20 years.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:46 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Trump is also building the Sovereign Fund to generate revenue to replace taxes. Of course, the "true conservatives" did what they always do and cried about it because they hate new ideas. They want the government to only take money from hard working Americans, not generate their own.
They will complain about the dwindling middle class and how hard it is to purchase a home or save for retirement, but then they will also complain when a president proposes a way for the government to make money without taking it from the middle class.
Thanks, Bernie.
quote:
There are so many ideological conflicts in conservatism, and pretty much all-isms, and instead of reconciling those differences, they double down on their inconsistent belief system by only focusing on the single concept in front of them. This is so they don't have to explain why they support it even though it conflicts with their other beliefs.
You're describing MAGA and don't even realize it.
This post was edited on 1/27/26 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:46 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Tariffs would not generate enough revenue to replace income taxes.
They will easily, if we were to drastically cut federal spending.
That's apparently not up for discussion though. Terrorists in prisons need those sex changes too much, and the Congressional Establishment Uniparty loves them some money laundering.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:47 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
If you believe federal income tax can be replaced by tariffs, I've got a very large bridge to sell you.
I don’t really give a frick if they’re replaced. Government has plenty of money already.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:48 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
They will easily, if we were to drastically cut federal spending.
That's apparently not up for discussion though. Terrorists in prisons need those sex changes too much, and the Congressional Establishment Uniparty loves them some money laundering.
Discretionary spending is only $1.8T
$4.1T in tariffs is not possible.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:54 pm to theballguy
quote:
But what if it can be cut by a 1/3? or 1/2?
I'd offer this solution. No federal income tax on the first 50k of individual income. This would be a tax cut for all tax payers and give more opportunity for upward mobility.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Discretionary spending is only $1.8T
$4.1T in tariffs is not possible.
Again, drastically cut federal spending.
Rethink what we're spending money on, and why. Break the idea of this massive budget and its necessity.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:07 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Rethink what we're spending money on, and why.
That $4.1T removes all the discretionary
Here is a better breakdown
Of the mandatory, about $3T is only Medicare, Social Security, and military retirement/benefits/VA.
$3T in tariffs is not possible.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:19 pm to Rip Torner
quote:False logic. The DC imbeciles don't limit spending based on revenue.
IF Trump can get rid of federal income tax it will forever reshape the size of the federal government. It will greatly limit it
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:21 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
get rid of federal income tax
Will not happen. Uncle Sam needs that leash, so he can make examples once in a while. Daddy Gov can control behavior via taxation.
This post was edited on 1/27/26 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:22 pm to TheHarahanian
I know it likely won’t but it would be the best way to reign in the size of government
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:23 pm to CajunZ81
quote:
Looks like everyone is missing the fact that if it weren’t for social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, they wouldn’t need income tax to fund the government
FIFY
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:25 pm to Rip Torner
Won't happen so not even a discussion.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:26 pm to dickkellog
quote:
If you have a mortgage, you’re paying property tax on property that you don’t even own. Then, when you actually do own it, they will take it from you if you don’t pay property tax.
that's between you and the county in which you reside.
Amounts vary by parish/county, but I believe that the principle is the same. If I’m paying a $1500/month mortgage payment to Rocket Mortgage, they can foreclose for non-payment, meaning they actually own the property through lien. Why isn’t Rocket Mortgage paying the property taxes then?
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:31 pm to Powerman
quote:
I'd offer this solution. No federal income tax on the first 50k of individual income. This would be a tax cut for all tax payers and give more opportunity for upward mobility.
well right now jethro the first 100k married filing joint with company provided health insurance and a 401k will pay $6130 in income taxes add two kids to the mix and they pay nothing.
what your suggesting is a tax increase.
it's always amazed me how little you people actually know.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:45 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Looks like everyone is missing the fact that if it weren’t for social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, they wouldn’t need income tax to fund the government
FIFY
quote:
The Act of 1935: President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, establishing old-age benefits, unemployment insurance, and aid for dependent mothers and children.
Social Security should have never been permanent. The bolded part is regularly abused, and Congress has used SS almost as a slush fund in the past.
Anyone currently receiving SS benefits will continue to until they all die off. Those who have paid in will have that full balance returned to them. The program would then be phased out within 20 years or so. Is that even marginally feasible, or has Congress spent too much using it as a slush fund?
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:47 pm to High C
quote:
Is that even marginally feasible
quote:
Those who have paid in will have that full balance returned to them.
frick no.
That's a bit kooky. It's feasible without the return.
Do you realize how many trillions of dollars would have to be returned?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News