Trump’s Latest Tariff Plan Just Replaces One Tax with Another

I think I’m really starting to like this tariff idea, at least as much as I like price inflation.

After all, who doesn’t love paying higher prices for the every day items that keep life running smoothly? You know, luxury items like food and clothing and anything that uses steel and…
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
Let's also not forget that Trump was the one who started all of the inflation in 2020 with Biden making it much worse.

Not to deprive Trump of his share of the blame, but I'm pretty sure he's not even remotely close to being "the one who started all of the inflation" ...
 
Not to deprive Trump of his share of the blame, but I'm pretty sure he's not even remotely close to being "the one who started all of the inflation" ...

:up: You're right. He needed help:

Ron Paul: "Those tempted to blame the increases on President Biden, the Democratic Congress, or the Covid-related spending spree should consider the debt increase by around $1 Trillion a year in 2017, and 2018, years when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress."​
 
:up: You're right. He needed help:
Ron Paul: "Those tempted to blame the increases on President Biden, the Democratic Congress, or the Covid-related spending spree should consider the debt increase by around $1 Trillion a year in 2017, and 2018, years when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress."​

Whatever help he had in contributing to the problem, he's still not even remotely close to being "the one who started all of the inflation".

You see, back in 1913 ... oh, hell, whatever, just skip it.
 
Whatever help he had in contributing to the problem, he's still not even remotely close to being "the one who started all of the inflation".

You see, back in 1913 ... oh, hell, whatever, just skip it.


Yes, of course, but it's not 1913 anymore, it's election season now. We now have to do our civic duty and choose between Trump-Socialism and Kamala-Socialism. That's what really important :up:
 
I think I’m really starting to like this tariff idea, at least as much as I like price inflation.

After all, who doesn’t love paying higher prices for the every day items that keep life running smoothly? You know, luxury items like food and clothing and anything that uses steel and…

I like to think of it differently, via a bit of a thought experiment. Imagine that World War III breaks out and America just straight up dominates, nukes every other country in the world, and America itself is entirely undamaged and left intact. Literally 0 survivors outside of America.

Would it be tough for a little while? Yea, tons of stuff would skyrocket in price for the first few years.

But after a few years the prices would go back to normal, and at least economically speaking, not much would be different in the day-to-day life of the average American.

So, as long as you accept the general estimation of this thought experiment, you can put a rough price tag on how much global trade is actually worth. Global trade is worth about several years of American hardship. If we were to get rid of it entirely, that's how much it would cost, and if we don't get rid of it, that's how much we would gain.

While that is a very significant cost, for sure, one thing that a person would notice, if so logically inclined, is that this thought experiment proves that the benefit of global free trade is a fairly static value (in terms of years of hardship). It also proves that there is not really any ongoing benefit to global free trade.

The primary benefit of global free trade, is that we can put off having to pay the several years of hardship that would be required to end free trade.

And while that is a valid reason in of itself to continue free trade, I think it's important to recognize that global free trade isn't some amazing thing that adds enormous value to the world.

If everyone but America disappeared tomorrow, the economy would keep plunking forward just as it always has, and the detriment to the economy would be short lived that could be measured in years.

The point is: free trade is not even that economically important. One can argue that free trade is good, one can argue that free trade is bad, but it's pretty hard to reasonably substantiate any claim that the economy wouldn't be able to function pretty well without it.

As such, the economic benefits of global free trade are provably small.

The costs of free trade, can be however enormous, including leading to a one world government, and the destruction of sovereignty.

So, all of that is a long winded way to say, I hope your free trade is worth it?
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course, but it's not 1913 anymore, it's election season now. We now have to do our civic duty and choose between Trump-Socialism and Kamala-Socialism. That's what really important :up:

*shrug* Nothing I said had anything to do with "election season" ... but sure, okay, that, too, if you like.
 
Not just Congress. The opposition from the tax prep and related accounting industry would be insane (who would in turn pressure Congress).


https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1849932919802077226

Yea it takes pretty much an anti-tariff-extremist to try to make any claims that exchanging income tax for tariffs, could be anything short of a big win for liberty

Now, it's obviously not gonna happen, but that's a different point entirely
 
Yea it takes pretty much an anti-tariff-extremist to try to make any claims that exchanging income tax for tariffs, could be anything short of a big win for liberty

Not if you're an even bigger anti-income-tax extremist (like me [1]).

Replacing all income taxation with a low general tariff is what I would call a great start.



[1] I consider myself to be both an anti-tariff extremist and an anti-income-tax extremist (IOW: I'm just an anti-tax extremist).
 
Last edited:
Not if you're an even bigger anti-income-tax extremist (like me [1]).

This is a provably false statement considering that:
1) the consequent of my conditional statement is that a person who satisfies the antecedent condition must be an anti-tariff-extremist
2) you consider yourself to be an anti-tariff-extremist (and I have no reason to doubt it),
3) therefore, because your personal example already satisfies the consequent conclusion, then you as a personal example has no logical value in either proving or disproving the proposed conditional
4) it is therefore categorically false to say that your personal example -- which automatically satisfies the consequent conclusion -- can somehow be used to disprove the conditional

Long story short, if you want to provide a logical counter example, that example must at bare minimum satisfy the condition of not being an anti-tariff extremist (which you say you are), and then and only then, can check whether or not the antecedent was or was not satisfied, to prove or disprove the conditional statement.
 
Last edited:
This is a provably false statement considering that:
1) the consequent of my conditional statement is that a person who satisfies the antecedent condition must be an anti-tariff-extremist
2) you consider yourself to be an anti-tariff-extremist (and I have no reason to doubt it),
3) therefore, because your personal example already satisfies the consequent conclusion, then you as a personal example has no logical value in either proving or disproving the proposed conditional
4) it is therefore categorically false to say that your personal example -- which automatically satisfies the consequent conclusion -- can somehow be used to disprove the conditional

Long story short, if you want to provide a logical counter example, that example must at bare minimum satisfy the condition of not being an anti-tariff extremist (which you say you are), and then and only then, can check whether or not the antecedent was or was not satisfied, to prove or disprove the conditional statement.

Okay, you got me on that - but whew! That's a really verbose and roundabout way of saying "yeah, well, the antecedent of a conditional is sufficient, but not necessary. Ha!. So, there!". (Closing with "... you big poopy-head!" would be strictly optional.)
 
Okay, you got me on that - but whew! That's a really verbose and roundabout way of saying "yeah, well, the antecedent of a conditional is sufficient, but not necessary. Ha!. So, there!". (Closing with "... you big poopy-head!" would be strictly optional.)

It's a rare occasion that I can prove you wrong, allow me to enjoy it a little? :cool:
 
Video: How To Prevent the Trump Tax “Reform” From Being a Bait-and-Switch


Mises.org
Ryan McMaken
10/29/2024


For a video version of this article, see here and below.

Donald Trump created some excitement last week when he suggested that he might abolish the income tax and replace it with taxes on imports.

Understandably, Most of the excitement came from the prospect of abolishing the income tax.

Of course, the Trump plan isn’t to simply abolish the income tax, it’s to replace it with another tax. Moreover, the Trump proposal, like most so-called tax reform programs, is designed to be revenue neutral. That is, the federal government doesn’t experience any actual drops in tax revenue, and thus, experiences no actual threats to its power. Also, Americans don’t see any true drop in their tax burden under so-called tax reforms like this.

Much of the excitement rests on misconceptions about income taxes. For example, the proposal only mentions getting rid of what is commonly called “the income tax” by which is almost always just meant the graduated income tax that about 60 percent of Americans pay. Many Americans seemed to think that getting rid of this tax gets rid of the IRS.


https://x.com/ryanmcmaken/status/1851334186688249970



But that’s not true at all. The IRS enforces payroll taxes, the Social Security and Medicare taxes that are taken out of every paycheck. So long as there are payroll taxes, the federal government and the IRS will be monitoring your income and making sure you and your employer pay up.

So, if we’re going to get rid of the IRS, all taxes on income will have to be abolished, not just the so-called income tax.

Anything less than that, and we’ll end up with the worst of both world’s under the Trump tax reform. We’ll get higher taxes on imports, and we won’t even get rid of the IRS.

On top of that, Tax reform packages have huge potential for being a bait-and-switch. Realistically, the only way the Trump reform isn’t a bait-and-switch is if the repeal of the IRS and all income taxes comes first, and then, only after that is all signed into law, then comes the increase in import taxes, also known as tariffs.

On the other hand, it would be absurd for anyone who claims to be opposed to state power to accept a reform that goes in the opposite direction. Imagine, for example, the Trump administration saying, well, we’ll raise tariffs big time now and then we’ll introduce some legislation in a little while to abolish the income tax.

You see how that works and you can guess where that ends. You get the big increase in import taxes, and then maybe later, Trump and his friends get around to lowering income taxes. Maybe.

Unfortunately, it would also be very easy for a Trump administration to do this because the presidency has managed to take control of tariff policy and go around the Congress. Somehow, tariff policy became a matter for administrative law even though Congress is clearly given the power over taxes in the constitution. This is why Senator Rand Paul recently introduced legislation to make it so that the executive branch cannot raise import taxes without Congressional approval.

Ridiculously, many Trump supporters on social media condemned Rand Paul’s effort saying that no, the president should be able to raise taxes unilaterally. If these are the people who represent the rule of law and the constitution, we’re in deep trouble.

In any case, many apparently accept that presidents should be able to raise taxes without any vote in Congress, so we can expect increases in import taxes in a Trump administration no matter what. Will this be followed by the abolition of income taxes? I’m not holding my breath.



https://mises.org/power-market/video-how-prevent-trump-tax-reform-being-bait-and-switch




Thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Tax-%93Reform%94-From-Being-a-Bait-and-Switch
 
You dorks must really really really hate tariffs if you'd rather keep the income tax than get any more tariffs lol

There is no option on the table that involves not keeping the income tax.

But yes, we (=those who support the mission of this website) hate tariffs too.
 

Mises.org
Ryan McMaken

In any case, many apparently accept that presidents should be able to raise taxes without any vote in Congress​


Trump probably thinks he can, but he and anyone else who shares that view are idiots.

There are too many sectors of the economy with a vested interest in the deductions and exclusions the income tax offers (e.g., charities, home mortgage lenders); abolition of the income tax is simply a talking point and wishful thinking that has no chance of ever passing (aside from the fact that tariffs would never raise the revenue that the income tax does).

Incidentally, if the IRS were abolished who would enforce tariffs?​
 
Trump probably thinks he can, but he and anyone else who shares that view are idiots.

There are too many sectors of the economy with a vested interest in the deductions and exclusions the income tax offers (e.g., charities, home mortgage lenders); abolition of the income tax is simply a talking point and wishful thinking that has no chance of ever passing (aside from the fact that tariffs would never raise the revenue that the income tax does).

Incidentally, if the IRS were abolished who would enforce tariffs?
Immigration and CUSTOMS Enforcement.
 
There is no option on the table that involves not keeping the income tax.

But yes, we (=those who support the mission of this website) hate tariffs too.

That would come as a great surprise to Ron Paul who has endorsed Trump's plan to replace the Income Tax with Tariffs.
 
Back
Top