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

[PAF]

Great. Now Trump needs to describe how as president he could effect this change.

It's simple. Even though most Americans truly do not mind paying their "fair share" and insist that you should too, he will simply tell the IRS, FBI, and the other .orgs to take flying hike and fire them all at once. That should do it.

To compensate, the tariffs will be so outrageously high that while other countries are trading among each other, and the U.S. will be left out, small/medium sized companies move overseas, or fold.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support any taxation. But that also includes not supporting tariffs.

 

[acptulsa]

To compensate, the tariffs will be so outrageously high that while other countries are trading among each other, and the U.S. will be left out, as companies fold and/or move overseas.

Since we have all the proof we could ever need that Trump loves spending, yeah, that's about it.

It's simple... he will simply tell the IRS, FBI, and the other .orgs to take flying hike and fire them all at once. That should do it.

Nonsense. They can't be any less invasive; they have to continue to demand information and tribute from us for Social Security.

Remember, kiddies, FICA is technically not income tax. It may waddle and quack, but don't be fooled.

 

[TheCount]

Like Ron Paul?

Ron Paul wants to shrink the size of government.

Trump does not.


There you go, that's the difference.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Wrong. The only time a federal income tax was ever held unconstitutional was the tax on investment income addressed in the 1895 Pollock decision. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment. A tax on personal compensation had previously been upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881, based on the general taxing power granted to Congress in I.8.1 of the Constitution.

You are correct.

I was mistaken in thinking that the Civil War income tax and the 1862 Revenue Act had been struck down after the war.

So it was still unconstitutional prior to the 16th.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

So it was still unconstitutional prior to the 16th.

The only kind of income tax that was unconstitutional before the 16th was a tax on investment income. The Court went out of its way in the Pollock decision to reaffirm that a tax on other kinds of income such as pay-for-work was valid:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such. Pollock, 158 U.S. at 635

Later, the Court explained why the entire act had to be held void:

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed four thousand dollars; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied
therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations, and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of Congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would if any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated except in connection with the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act, which became a law without the signature of the President on August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void. Pollock, 158 U.S. at 636-637

Here's a link to the case upholding the Civil War era income tax against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/102/586/

 

[oyarde]

I support income tax elimination and until I support no payroll fed tax deduction. Americans can get a yearly bill. May get attention

 

[unknown]

Wrong. The only time a federal income tax was ever held unconstitutional was the tax on investment income addressed in the 1895 Pollock decision. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment. A tax on personal compensation had previously been upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881, based on the general taxing power granted to Congress in I.8.1 of the Constitution.

While they have on occasion made some proper rulings, the Supreme Fraud is irrelevant.

They were never delegated the power of judicial review.

They exist to rubber stamp government power grabs, bypassing a Constitutional Convention.

As far as any questions regarding the meaning of the Constitution, including taxes, we would have to look to the Constitutional Convention, state ratifying debates, Federalist Papers, letters, articles, writings, by the Founders and Revolutionaries prior to the ratification of the Constitution, not after.

The 16th was never properly ratified.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

They were never delegated the power of judicial review.

Of course they were. Article III of the Constitution delegated the "judicial power of the United States" to the federal courts. It's obvious that "judicial power" includes the power to determine the law that applies to a particular case. If a party claims that a law (statute, regulation, ordinance, common law rule, or any other type of law) violates the Constitution, a court must decide whether it does.

They exist to rubber stamp government power grabs, bypassing a Constitutional Convention.

The Court just overturned a ban on bump stocks. I guess they didn't get the memo that they were supposed to rubber stamp it.

As far as any questions regarding the meaning of the Constitution, including taxes, we would have to look to the Constitutional Convention, state ratifying debates, Federalist Papers, letters, articles, writings, by the Founders and Revolutionaries prior to the ratification of the Constitution, not after.

The 16th was never properly ratified.

You apparently don't realize that the power to impose a federal income tax (along with other kinds of taxes) comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It was put there deliberately because the requisition method under the Articles of Confederation was a failure (see Federalist 15). The only reason for the 16th was to overturn an 1895 SCOTUS decision that held that a tax on investment income (but not other kinds of income) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.

The language of the taxing clause leaves no doubt that Congress was to determine what and when to tax, especially when you consider that the Constitution specified one and only one thing that Congress couldn't tax (exports).

 

[oyarde]

Debt isnt getting pd , interest alone is more than oter govt. Debt will continue to be added to by cuck scummer senate. It wont be cut until it collapses . End income tax.

 

[Invisible Man]

There's a difference between "floating" an idea and advocating it. Trump has already proven that he could promise something with such great zeal as to make it a centerpiece of his campaign while having no intention of ever doing it. So even if he advocated something, hopefully every noncommunist here (this eliminates you, AF), would ignore him. But just "floating" an idea? Come on man.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Sounds to me that Trump is only saying this to get votes and has no actual intention of actually doing it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Sounds to me that Trump is only saying this to get votes and has no actual intention of actually doing it.

Sounds to me like you are talking through your hat and fantasizing, as usual.

 

[acptulsa]

Sounds to me like you are talking through your hat and fantasizing, as usual.

You're really stepping up the projection again.

You're picturing Mr. Oh God They'll Impeach Me If I Don't Finance The Mark Of The Beast Jab ending the income freaking tax, and you're accusing others of having impossible wet dreams? That's funny.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're really stepping up the projection again.

You're picturing Mr. Oh God They'll Impeach Me If I Don't Finance The Mark Of The Beast Jab ending the income freaking tax, and you're accusing others of having impossible wet dreams? That's funny.

He's going to be in a much better position with a lot more power this time.
And he still got quite a bit done last time.

 

[acptulsa]

He's going to be in a much better position with a lot more power this time.
And he still got quite a bit done last time.

Just can't wait for the inflation that comes with sixteen trillion in debt in four years, and Operation Warp Speed Poison II.

 

[TheCount]

Explain. Why do you think the income tax is necessary?

Trump's ideal government is a patronage system. No money = no patronage.

 

[jmdrake]

Anyone who thinks this could actually work is high on their own supply

Explain. Why do you think the income tax is necessary?

Trump's ideal government is a patronage system. No money = no patronage.

So....you're not going to answer my question and you're going to change the subject. Whether Trump can be trusted to implement replacing the income tax with tariffs is a completely different point than what it could work at all.

 

[TheCount]

So....you're not going to answer my question and you're going to change the subject. Whether Trump can be trusted to implement replacing the income tax with tariffs is a completely different point than what it could work at all.

No, that's not changing the subject. It's an answer. It won't work and that's why it won't work. Trump's not the only one. We live in a patronage system verging on kleptocracy.

Theoretically, in an alternate reality involving a functioning political party and/or movement interested in reducing government spending, it could work. But that's not the reality that we live in.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Theoretically, in an alternate reality involving a functioning political party and/or movement interested in reducing government spending, it could work. But that's not the reality that we live in.

It would take a massive reduction in federal spending to the point where tariffs could even come close to covering revenue needs. But that ain't gonna happen because the people (and their elected representatives who want to be reelected) wouldn't stand for it.

 

[jmdrake]

No, that's not changing the subject. It's an answer. It won't work and that's why it won't work. Trump's not the only one. We live in a patronage system verging on kleptocracy.

Theoretically, in an alternate reality involving a functioning political party and/or movement interested in reducing government spending, it could work. But that's not the reality that we live in.

You've given the reason why it likely won't pass as opposed to why it wouldn't work.