That would be awesome. If they keep tariffs at 10% and you add in DOGE cuts they should be able make significant cuts to income taxes. You'll also see a lot of people's opinions change on tariffs and DOGE.
More winning
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
I don’t know that we’re better off as a service economy that requires degrees etc. . Maybe we are but without data I don’t feel like we are. I’ve become really passionate about manufacturing and I don’t think trump’s instincts are wrong. He’s just half a century too late. To try now is stupid
The math does not come close. The import pot of money is simply not large enough.
DOGE cuts are inconsequential too. In fact the 160b in savings is offset by net costs of 135b. This is from nonpartisan sources.
There’s a benefit to knowing things will be scrutinized tho. That has a value going fwd
Consumption taxes decrease demand. Which in turn would decrease revenue. So the claim falls on its face. It's just another version of voodoo economics. Unless, of course, you believe China will pay the tariffs, not US companies and consumers.
lol...when does the math matter? They can claim 300-500 billion in extra revenue from tariffs/DOGE and cut incomes taxes based off the amount.
Last edited:
Back to the bigger point. DBMs post is idiotic and you know it. The math is so far off it's ridiculous to discuss. And that's ignoring the great point made by Mark.
They can't even find the cuts to cover the costs of keeping taxes at current rates. Don't be an idiot.
It matters because you can't just make up numbers and get through the reconciliation process in the Senate. If it doesn't score out via CBO then it's dead.
Tax cuts would be partly or completely offset by increased prices paid by US consumers.
And it’s not just about cuts. As jdb noted outcomes. It’ll influence grants etc going forward. You have an agency that provides meals stick to that. Don’t ask for commubity awareness monies to hold seminars at the rec center re poverty awareness and race. Just get food $. We don’t need to fund social workers and stories
Why not apply that to the deficit? Or better, the debt?
Yes, from the upper income folks (they're the only ones paying income taxes) to the lower income folks who have to spend everything they have to keep their heads above water.
Because the voting public will vote their asses out of office if they choose austerity.
Nonsense. I pay plenty in income taxes and am not in the upper income. The top 10% currently make up half of all consumer spending. They're the least sensitive to price increases and will pay the majority of the tariff increases. It would end up shifting more of the tax burden to them, which I thought liberals like yourself are for?
Half of households pay no federal income tax. If you pay plenty, then you're in the upper half.
Grok's estimates for loss revenue if the threshold was 100k 👇
Estimating the revenue loss from eliminating federal income taxes for individuals earning $100,000 or less annually involves analyzing IRS data and tax revenue distributions. Based on available information, here’s a reasoned estimate:
- **Total Federal Income Tax Revenue**: In 2023, the IRS collected approximately $2.56 trillion in individual income taxes.[](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp)
- **Revenue from Lower-Income Earners**: Posts on X and web analyses suggest that individuals earning less than $100,000 per year contribute roughly 13.5% to 16% of total federal income tax revenue. Using the lower end of this range for conservatism:
- 13.5% of $2.56 trillion = ~$345.6 billion.
- Upper end (16%) = ~$409.6 billion.
- **Adjustments for Taxpayer Behavior**: Eliminating income taxes for this group could increase economic activity (e.g., higher spending or work incentives), potentially offsetting some revenue loss. However, studies indicate that tax cuts rarely pay for themselves fully, with only partial recovery through increased economic growth. For example, a 10% tax rate reduction might yield a 3% increase in taxable income, offsetting about 30% of the revenue loss. Applying this to our estimate:
- Direct revenue loss: ~$345.6 billion to $409.6 billion.
- Potential offset (30%): ~$103.7 billion to $122.9 billion.
- Net revenue loss: ~$241.9 billion to $286.7 billion annually.[](https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/do-tax-cuts-pay-themselves)
- **Additional Considerations**:
- **Dynamic Effects**: Increased disposable income could boost consumer spending, potentially increasing other tax revenues (e.g., sales or payroll taxes), but these are harder to quantify and likely minimal compared to the direct loss.[](https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-taxes-affect-economy-short-run)
- **Administrative Costs**: Reducing taxes to zero for this group might simplify tax collection for lower earners, but the IRS would still need to verify incomes, limiting savings.
- **Economic Context**: The U.S. collected 16.5% of GDP in revenue in 2023, below historical averages. A loss of $241.9 billion to $286.7 billion (1.0% to 1.2% of GDP, assuming a $25 trillion GDP) would exacerbate fiscal deficits unless offset by spending cuts or alternative revenues (e.g., tariffs, which are estimated to yield $250-$400 billion but have other economic costs).[](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-tax-cuts-led-to-record-low-not-high-revenues-outside-of-a-recession/)
**Final Estimate**: The U.S. would likely lose **$240 billion to $290 billion annually** in federal income tax revenue if income taxes for individuals earning $100,000 or less were eliminated, accounting for some economic feedback effects. This assumes no major changes to tax code structure or other revenue sources. For precise figures, detailed IRS microdata or Congressional Budget Office modeling would be needed, but this range aligns with available analyses.
*Note*: These figures are based on 2023 data and static economic assumptions. Inflation, wage growth, or policy changes (e.g., tariff implementation) could alter the outcome. Always cross-check with primary IRS or CBO reports for fiscal planning.
It’s already starting to get late for Christmas. Has a friend who is a marketing rep for small independent businesses. She was at market last week. Things are already late coming in and prices are way up. The stores she sells to don’t want to pay the mark ups. Everyone is going to feel this.
My stuff oddly falls under textiles and apparel Altho it’s not. But it’s the same factories. China is the biggest textile manufacturer in the world. That work 1) isn’t coming back and 2) would be prohibitively expensive. The size of the china labor market, land, regs on and on just don’t make it feasible. So companies will just shop for other countries. The 10% is a bummer but can be handled
"We favor transparency, except when we do not. We almost always do not" - every administration but especially this one.
Why wouldn't they want us to know how much we're paying now per product so we can replace income tax?
How much does it cost taxpayers for welfare recepients not living in their state?
It’s not on my federal tax bill…or I can’t find it. Is it on your itemized tax bill you receive from the federal government?
I would more compare it to state sales tax. Don't we know exactly how much that is in every transaction.
UPS says it's cutting 20,000 jobs amid reduction in Amazon shipments
UPS on Tuesday announced it is planning to cut 20,000 jobs as part of its plan for workforce consolidation.
www.cbsnews.com
More winning!
Yes we do. You make a great point. We need to cut the federal government drastically and move all these services under state and local jurisdiction.
Pay for our military, barebones federal apparatus, debt.
$18-19/ton duty on goods shipped in via foreign vessel. $11-12/ton duty on goods shipped in on American made vessel owned by foreign entity. $2-3/ton duty on goods shipped in on American made and American owned ships.
All other revenue is generated at the state and local level
1) no one cries about this like gov RifUPS says it's cutting 20,000 jobs amid reduction in Amazon shipments
UPS on Tuesday announced it is planning to cut 20,000 jobs as part of its plan for workforce consolidation.
More winning!
2) farva and his boys getting lean and mean
US consumer confidence plunges to lowest in 5 years on tariff worries
Americans’ confidence in the economy slumped for the fifth straight month to the lowest level since the onset of COIVD-19 as worries about the impact of tariffs take a heavy toll on consumer expectations for future growth.
apnews.com
Asset management titan Apollo Global Management now estimates a 90% probability the U.S. will fall into a “Voluntary Trade Reset Recession.”
They argue that Trump’s trade policies are being “implemented in a way that has not been effective” after his “administration inherited an economy with strong growth.”
www.forbes.com
To be fair, a few economists think that the odds of a recession may be as low as 50-50.
SO
MUCH
LOSING
They argue that Trump’s trade policies are being “implemented in a way that has not been effective” after his “administration inherited an economy with strong growth.”
Forbes Recession Tracker: Apollo Says 90% Chance Of ‘Voluntary’ Recession Heavily Impacting Small Businesses
A tariff-driven recession would "particularly" weigh on small businesses and would lead a spate of "well-run" companies to go bankrupt, warns one economist.
www.forbes.com
To be fair, a few economists think that the odds of a recession may be as low as 50-50.
SO
MUCH
LOSING
Bent the knee to what? Not memorializing how stupid trump is on every sale?
Remember when we were told tariffs wouldn't raise prices?
Wonder why the white house is so against us knowing how much we pay for things.... hmmmm
Just wait until the store shelves are empty for lack of
-Chinese-made clothes
-Chinese-made toys / games
-Chinese-made pharmaceuticals
-Chinese-made electronics
-Chinese-made auto parts
-Chinese-made medical devices
(and many more)
There will be great wailing
SO
MUCH
LOSING
-Chinese-made clothes
-Chinese-made toys / games
-Chinese-made pharmaceuticals
-Chinese-made electronics
-Chinese-made auto parts
-Chinese-made medical devices
(and many more)
There will be great wailing
SO
MUCH
LOSING
Of course that would require a lot of changes up and down the lines. I think Amazon has a vested interest in not being believed to be price gouging. If their prices go up, it helps them to explain why my price now is 20% more.
The state model has some interesting issues with it. Indiana keeps capping property tax. The most recent was particularly described as helping retirees. Sounds great. But to go with a theme a lot of younger posters have, what it really does is shift the tax burden from Boomers to others as counties will be forced to raise their income tax. Several testified they no longer could afford even just fire/police. So if that happens, younger workers will pay to give Boomers, of which I am one, a lower property tax. A lot of younger people rent. I wonder, do we think landlords are really going to lower rental rates?
