Maybe he can completely eliminate the national debt

[Wolseley]

In a speech at a House Republican Members Conference on Monday, Donald Trump proposed abolishing income tax in the United States and replacing it with a system of import tariffs to generate revenue for the government.

“It’s time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before… Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, we should be taxing foreign nations to enrich our citizens,” Trump said in his speech as he outlined his tax reform plans.

I don't know very much about international finance, but this idea intrigues me. At the very least, it would take a lot of pressure off struggling middle-class families. And, it might force the Klown Korps (a.k.a. Congress) to be a little more frugal with their binge spending. On the other hand, there is always the concern that other countries might reciprocate with tariffs of their own. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

MSN

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't know very much about international finance, but this idea intrigues me. At the very least, it would take a lot of pressure off struggling middle-class families. And, it might force the Klown Korps (a.k.a. Congress) to be a little more frugal with their binge spending. On the other hand, there is always the concern that other countries might reciprocate with tariffs of their own. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

MSN

The classical economic model reason to be against tariffs is that they decrease efficiency. If China can make widgets more efficiently and cheaply than we can, it is smarter to buy the Chinese widgets. All other things being equal anyway. But we know trade is not always equal. Some countries undercut prices with subsidies. Some countries have high unemployment and need to make widgets for jobs rather than spend currency buying it from other countries. Tariffs can serve a purpose in leveling a playing field, contrary to classical economic theory.

Tariffs here would spur local manufacturing. But they would also shock the public addicted to cheap foreign goods they could no longer afford.

 

[Richard T]

The idea is ridiculous at the current US spending levels. In 2022, the USA collected $7,898 per person from individual personal income taxes. How much money does the government collect per person? | USAFacts

So how will you get that amount per person in tariffs? Companies will have to raise prices to pay the tariffs or produce the product here in the USA. If they produce in the USA or demand drops because of prices (which they will) then the whole tariff scheme for raising revenue will fail.
Here is a source stating it another way. Currently the average rate of tariff for the USA is 2.77% So raise it to 70% is absurd.
"Looking at the final budget for fiscal year 2023, existing tariffs generated $80 billion in revenue, a mere drop in the bucket compared to almost $2.2 trillion in individual income tax revenue. Last year, U.S. goods imports amounted to $3.1 trillion. Applying just the simplest math suggests that only a universal tariff of 70 percent would generate enough revenue to replace individual income tax – and that’s just in theory, because imports would obviously crumble in that scenario." Source: Infographic: Tariffs Are Not a Meaningful Source of Government Revenue

I support tariff hikes on those nations that have poor records. However, to use tariff income to replace personal taxes would hurt the poor and middle class greatly through some serious inflation.

As to eliminating the debt? Trump won't even balance the budget for one year, yet alone reduce the total debt. To get an annual budget balanced government has to be cut to the bone and taxes need to be raised for that to occur. Trump is cutting some things but he is proposing new tax cuts and more spending in some areas as well.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, as I said, I don't know very much about international finance. I don't know very much about domestic finance. All I know is, we have a pack of dunderheads in Washington who spend obscene amounts of money on stupid nonsense like transgender studies programs in Pakistan, which the Pakistanis don't want and which do not help us in any way. And that's only one small example.

I've never been good with numbers. But I do know this: if the outflow is greater than the income, the upkeep will be your downfall. If Trump can do anything at all to ease the level of deficit spending, I can't see it as anything but a plus.

 

[Richard T]

Well, as I said, I don't know very much about international finance. I don't know very much about domestic finance. All I know is, we have a pack of dunderheads in Washington who spend obscene amounts of money on stupid nonsense like transgender studies programs in Pakistan, which the Pakistanis don't want and which do not help us in any way. And that's only one small example.

I've never been good with numbers. But I do know this: if the outflow is greater than the income, the upkeep will be your downfall. If Trump can do anything at all to ease the level of deficit spending, I can't see it as anything but a plus.

Yes, you are right about spending too much. The amount is enormous. Every cut can help but the USA would have to cut 50% of its 1.7 trillion discretionary spending to have a chance at balancing the budget. Since defense takes up 800 billion, you could cut all welfare and social spending and the budget may still not balance. How much of the federal budget is discretionary spending? | USAFacts