Trump: U.S. May ‘Almost Completely’ Scrap Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

[mystery-ak]

Trump: U.S. May ‘Almost Completely’ Scrap Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Sean Moran 28 Nov 2025

President Donald Trump late Thursday said that the United States may “almost completely” eliminate the income tax due to the rising tariff revenue.

“In the next couple of years, I think we’ll substantially be cutting, or maybe cutting out completely, but we’ll be cutting income tax,” Trump said during an event on Thursday.

“Could be almost completely cutting it because the money we’re taking in is going to be so large,” he added.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in June projected that the tariff increases will reduce the federal deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade.

Breitbart News Economics Editor John Carney wrote:

    The tariff estimate covers measures implemented between January 6 and May 13, 2025. These include a 30 percent levy on imports from China and Hong Kong, 25 percent duties on autos, auto parts, steel, and aluminum, a 10 percent general tariff on most other imports, and the elimination of duty-free treatment for low-value Chinese shipments.

    CBO estimates that, before accounting for economic side effects, the new tariffs will reduce primary deficits by $2.5 trillion and cut interest payments by another $500 billion, for a total deficit reduction of $3.0 trillion. After factoring in modest economic drag — slightly lower GDP and temporarily higher inflation — the net deficit reduction is pegged at $2.8 trillion.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in November said that Trump is proposing a tariff dividend check so that Americans understand the impact of Trump’s tariff policies.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/28/trump-u-s-may-almost-completely-scrap-income-tax-due-to-tariff-revenue/

[Hoodat]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[DB]

Not possible unless the government is drastically reduced in size. And I'll believe that when I see it...

[Hoodat]

Not possible unless the government is drastically reduced in size. And I'll believe that when I see it...

Yeah, good luck with that.

For the umpteenth time, we don't have a revenue problem.  We have a spending problem.

[Wingnut]

Trump is talking out his ass...again.   

[libertybele]

....and yet again another economic suggestion that will likely never come to fruition.

[DefiantMassRINO]

[Kamaji]

[berdie]

....and yet again another economic suggestion that will likely never come to fruition.

Exactly.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Remember when 10 years ago building a wall was laughed at and immigration reform absolutely required an expanded path to citizenship?

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

[Sighlass]

....and yet again another economic suggestion that will likely never come to fruition.

Exactly what I was thinking...

[Kamaji]

Remember when 10 years ago building a wall was laughed at and immigration reform absolutely required an expanded path to citizenship?

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

Wow.  The naivete is breathtaking.

[roamer_1]

Math is hard.

[Hoodat]

Remember when 10 years ago building a wall was laughed at

Ten years later and no wall, they're still laughing.

.  .  .  and immigration reform absolutely required an expanded path to citizenship?

. . . when Trump was saying he was going to deport everyone and then fast-track them right back in.

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

What does this even mean?

Here's a better idea.  Stop spending money you don't have.  That's what everybody else does.  Why can't government live by this rule?

[cato potatoe]

There is no tariff revenue.  It simply passes through as higher costs, a topic the government has lied about ever since covid.  Trump avoided the blame for inflation when he lost, but he has nowhere to hide now. 

[Idiot]

Wow.  The naivete is breathtaking.

It is a blessing to have someone as truly knowledgeable as you are on this site.

[Kamaji]

It is a blessing to have someone as truly knowledgeable as you are on this site.

Your username is the truest I've ever seen.

[Hoodat]

It is a blessing to have someone as truly knowledgeable as you are on this site.

Maybe you can translate  this for us?  Because I sure as heck don't have a clue what this means.

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

[Idiot]

Your username is the truest I've ever seen.

You can't take a compliment or what?

[Idiot]

Maybe you can translate  this for us?  Because I sure as heck don't have a clue what this means.

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

I've never known what she was saying...lol.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Maybe you can translate  this for us?  Because I sure as heck don't have a clue what this means.

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

I'll give it a shot, but I don't think it will help you.  Planting new seeds is another way of referencing "thinking outside the box", "consider something new".  Help water them is another way of saying "debate the possibilities",  "envision what success would look like".  Boomers weren't good at this even in their youth, and by now whatever shred of talent they had for this kind of thinking has calcified.

[Hoodat]

I'll give it a shot, but I don't think it will help you.  Planting new seeds is another way of referencing "thinking outside the box", "consider something new".  Help water them is another way of saying "debate the possibilities",  "envision what success would look like".  Boomers weren't good at this even in their youth, and by now whatever shred of talent they had for this kind of thinking has calcified.

Before you explain how implementing 18th century mercantile policies is an example of "thinking outside the box", could you please explain what you consider "success" to be.  In other words, what is it that Trump is trying to achieve here.

Can't speak for Boomers here since I am not one.

[roamer_1]

Before you explain how implementing 18th century mercantile policies is an example of "thinking outside the box", [...]

One of the advantages of being an actual Conservative is having an historical perspective of the things that worked in the past - And the things that did not.

[Kamaji]

I'll give it a shot, but I don't think it will help you.  Planting new seeds is another way of referencing "thinking outside the box", "consider something new".  Help water them is another way of saying "debate the possibilities",  "envision what success would look like".  Boomers weren't good at this even in their youth, and by now whatever shred of talent they had for this kind of thinking has calcified.

Thinking inside the 19th Century box is not "thinking outside the box".

[the OlLine Rebel]

That should be a goal.  But it will take a lot one be a long-term goal.

Income tax in truth is unconstitutional.  In the Founders’ sense.  They had no idea of doing such a thing.  I like the Founders.

However, the progressives who pushed this through 100 years ago made it so they can start spending left and right on everything including other unconstitutional measures such as endless funding of deadbeats.

All this spending has to be cut back significantly before the Income Tax repeal.  Not all the way, but much of it.  Which will also be a real fight.

[Kamaji]

That should be a goal.  But it will take a lot one be a long-term goal.

Income tax in truth is unconstitutional.  In the Founders’ sense.  They had no idea of doing such a thing.  I like the Founders.

However, the progressives who pushed this through 100 years ago made it so they can start spending left and right on everything including other unconstitutional measures such as endless funding of deadbeats.

All this spending has to be cut back significantly before the Income Tax repeal.  Not all the way, but much of it.  Which will also be a real fight.

The income tax was not unconstitutional.  It was held unconstitutional in the Income Tax Cases on a very facetious basis.  It also was only held unconstitutional as to rents, dividends, and capital gains.  It was specifically held to be constitutional as to wages and salaries.

[Hoodat]

One of the advantages of being an actual Conservative is having an historical perspective of the things that worked in the past - And the things that did not.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

The income tax was not unconstitutional.  It was held unconstitutional in the Income Tax Cases on a very facetious basis.  It also was only held unconstitutional as to rents, dividends, and capital gains.  It was specifically held to be constitutional as to wages and salaries.

Of course it was “held” so by later generations.

I go by the Founders.  Taxing income ain’t right.  Consumption tax is a different thing.  You pay for what you use, not what value you create.  Another way of suppressing people from doing their best to raise their own money.

[roamer_1]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

... And here we go again, again. 

[libertybele]

... And here we go again, again. 

Yep, he's trying to give his ideas on tariffs a spin so SCOTUS will rule in his favor ....

Greer says Supreme Court tariff ruling likely before end of the year

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said he expected the Supreme Court to rule this year in the challenge to a huge portion of President Donald Trump’s tariff actions.

“I think a lot of folks are saying this may come before the end of the year. I think that's probably right,” Greer said in an interview on Fox Business Network, noting the administration had asked the court for "expedited" consideration. “We know that on a normal schedule, the court may not release its rulings until spring or even as late as June. My guess is they'll do it sooner than that, and whatever happens, we'll be ready for next steps.”

The U.S. trade chief acknowledged the Trump administration has many other authorities it can use to impose tariffs but declined to say which ones it would use if the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act duties are struck down........

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/11/greer-says-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-likely-before-end-of-the-year-00639556

[Kamaji]

Of course it was “held” so by later generations.

I go by the Founders.  Taxing income ain’t right.  Consumption tax is a different thing.  You pay for what you use, not what value you create.  Another way of suppressing people from doing their best to raise their own money.

The Founders did not express an opinion one way or the other about taxes measured by  person's income.  They did, however, grant Congress plenary power to impose taxes, with the only restrictions being that duties and excises has to be imposed at rates that were geographically the same, and so-called direct taxes - which the Founders could only identify as head taxes and ad valorem property taxes - had to be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

In particular, excise taxes, such as an excise tax on the exercise of the corporate franchise measured by the corporation's income - and also excise taxes on individuals for the exercise of their trade or profession, also measured by the individual's income - were fine with them.

[Smokin Joe]

That should be a goal.  But it will take a lot one be a long-term goal.

Income tax in truth is unconstitutional.  In the Founders’ sense.  They had no idea of doing such a thing.  I like the Founders.

However, the progressives who pushed this through 100 years ago made it so they can start spending left and right on everything including other unconstitutional measures such as endless funding of deadbeats.

All this spending has to be cut back significantly before the Income Tax repeal.  Not all the way, but much of it.  Which will also be a real fight.

It isn't just a question of Constitutionality, but what is considered "income".

If I exchange my time and skills for a certain dollar amount, is that "income"? The government says yes, but it really is a value for value exchange. No net gain.

An investment that yields a ROI would be 'income', where one that loses (negative ROI) would be a loss. I get that.

But like barter (also taxed as 'income' for both parties, and again an exchange), wages should not be so taxed.

[Hoodat]

I don't have a problem with income tax as long as everyone pays the same rate.  Everyone.  Same rate.

[Smokin Joe]

The Founders did not express an opinion one way or the other about taxes measured by  person's income.  They did, however, grant Congress plenary power to impose taxes, with the only restrictions being that duties and excises has to be imposed at rates that were geographically the same, and so-called direct taxes - which the Founders could only identify as head taxes and ad valorem property taxes - had to be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

In particular, excise taxes, such as an excise tax on the exercise of the corporate franchise measured by the corporation's income - and also excise taxes on individuals for the exercise of their trade or profession, also measured by the individual's income - were fine with them.

Not quite, or the 16th Amendment would not have been necessary to impose the income tax (passed in 1913).

While taxes were imposed on those who made at least the princely sum of $800 during the War of Northern Aggression, (consider, an ounce of gold then cost $20.67, at least until Lincoln restricted the sale thereof). The 1861 tax was repealed in 1872, and in 1895, SCOTUS ruled the tax was unconstitutional.

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Historical%20Income%20Tax%20Rates%20and%20Brackets,%201862-2025.pdf

[NavyCanDo]

Forget for a moment all that needs to happen to make the elimination of Income Taxes remotely possible,   We are still waiting on the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs and the revenue.   There may be no money at all after they rule.   

[Kamaji]

Not quite, or the 16th Amendment would not have been necessary to impose the income tax (passed in 1913).

While taxes were imposed on those who made at least the princely sum of $800 during the War of Northern Aggression, (consider, an ounce of gold then cost $20.67, at least until Lincoln restricted the sale thereof). The 1861 tax was repealed in 1872, and in 1895, SCOTUS ruled the tax was unconstitutional.

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Historical%20Income%20Tax%20Rates%20and%20Brackets,%201862-2025.pdf

The 16th Amendment was passed to undo the result of the Income Tax cases, which specifically held that the income tax was unconstitutional only as to rents, dividends, and capital gains, but was constitutional as to the tax on wages and business income, and then refused to sever the unconstitutional provisions from the constitutional provisions on the ground that legislative history indicated that Congress intended the law to stand or fall as a single unit. 


You might try reading the two cases sometime, and not the nonsense bruited about by people who wish things were otherwise.

[Bigun]

The income tax was not unconstitutional.  It was held unconstitutional in the Income Tax Cases on a very facetious basis.  It also was only held unconstitutional as to rents, dividends, and capital gains.  It was specifically held to be constitutional as to wages and salaries.

No it's not, but it darned sure should be!

Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities.



" The socialistic and anti-social character of the income tax is inherent.

Imbedded in the philosophy of the law is the destructive principle, so that once it is in effect the economic and political consequences are inevitable.  The principle of the income tax is the denial of private property.

There is nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment, there is nothing in the principle of the income tax, which puts a limit on the amount the State may demand, and hence the implication is clear that the individual's absolute right of private property is denied.


The theory of republican government, that its powers are derived from the will of the people, is no safeguard against this denial of private property.

Assuming that the Sixteenth Amendment at the time of its enactment did express the will of the people, every one of them, the substance and effect of income taxation was to destroy the will of any subsequent generation for modification or revocation.

It is unlike any other law.  For the denial of the right of private property is in essence the denial of the right of the individual to himself. He is no longer a free person if he is not free to keep and enjoy the products of his labors. --"

Excerpted from From Solomon’s Yoke to the Income Tax  by Frank Chodorov

[Kamaji]

No it's not, but it darned sure should be!

Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities.

Like I said, people who wish the facts were otherwise.

[Bigun]

Like I said, people who wish the facts were otherwise.

Indeed!

“If an enemy power bent on destroying our nation were somehow given the opportunity to devise our tax code with a goal of sapping the nation of its economic vitality, impairing the moral fiber of its people, wasting huge resources on unproductive administration, and causing division and frustration in its people, it could do little better than to adopt our current Internal Revenue Code…The American Tax system is a complete mess.”

 Richard Vedder (Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service of the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 98the Cong., 2nd Sess., September 17,1984) p.130

"What the income tax does is lead the people of this country down a path to where actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government.
The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system.
In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation."

   ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE Television Show Monday, Jan. 28, 2002

[Bigun]

Forget for a moment all that needs to happen to make the elimination of Income Taxes remotely possible,   We are still waiting on the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs and the revenue.   There may be no money at all after they rule.

ALL that needs to happen is the signing into law of a single bill (HR25) in the house currently.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/text/ih

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue. 
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21

[libertybele]

Forget for a moment all that needs to happen to make the elimination of Income Taxes remotely possible,   We are still waiting on the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs and the revenue.   There may be no money at all after they rule.

Exactly.  All the 'promises' that Trump is making regarding tariffs are nothing more than putting a message out to the American people that they are going to be getting $$ in some form before SCOTUS rules and IMO trying to sway the judges.  Roberts is compromised and hasn't exactly in the past ruled in favor of Trump or conservatism.

[bilo]

Remember when 10 years ago building a wall was laughed at and immigration reform absolutely required an expanded path to citizenship?

Why not let Trump plant new income tax seeds and help him water them ---  without being afraid of breathing new life into the topic and seeing what takes root?

Well said!

Pres. Trump knows the tariffs don't generate enough revenue yet, but the idea of using the tariff revenue to expand the deductions to the income tax is an idea worth pursuing. I know a lot of posters want to use 100% of the tariff revenue to reduce debt but that won't promote GDP growth as much as more spending power in individuals hands.