Oh snap . . . I’m not falling for THIS (election year promises to eliminate Federal Income Tax)

Photo above - If President Trump makes good on his promise to eliminate Federal Income taxes, will Taylor Swift buy an even bigger jet? Or just repaint the one she has? (disclaimer - Taylor Swift and the future Travis Kelce-Swift have not publicly taken a position in favor of eliminating income taxes).

There are a lot of taxes I’d like to see eliminated or rolled back. But the amount of media attention Trump’s proposal to eliminate income tax gets is disturbing and irresponsible. It goes beyond clickbait, since there is zero discussion of what happens next. (see MSN link below)

In yesterday’s column I highlighted 6 separate fees/taxes which California levies against a nightly hotel room. These were evidently the brainchild of politicians wanting to cash in on the 2026 World Cup tourism bonanza. (some of the taxes/fees predate 2026, of course).

Some taxes are regressive – they fall equally on everyone, meaning harder proportionately on the working poor. Or they’re PROgressive, meaning the poor are somewhat spared, and instead people with more disposable income are on the hook to a greater extent. A lot of Federal spending IS wasteful, but let’s agree we cannot do without highways, schools, national defense, and the Food and Drug administration. If there’s no federal income tax, either the national debt is going expend beyond the solar system (it’s already over the moon), or tariffs and fees – the regressive kind – hit even you and me even harder. Maybe both happen at once.

Sales taxes are regressive - we all go to the store. So are gasoline taxes. Social security taxes - you can’t escape these even if you’re a min-wage Starbucks barista high fiving because your tips are no longer considered taxable. I’m less concerned about alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes, but obviously the working poor are big consumers of those items. At least if they live in the ‘hood, or in the rural misery belt, or someplace where it snows 8 months out of the year.

Trump promised voters that his every changing litany of tariffs would be paid by “someone else” instead of you and me. That’s absurd. There is no pot of gold Ford is sitting on. Or Rite Aid Drugs. Or Del Monte Foods. Or Pfizer. They all lost money, and a few filed for bankruptcy recently. In fact, in any given year at least 10% of the companies in our 401K accounts lose money.

So we’re paying those Trump tariffs through higher prices, and by shifting to cheaper alternatives. The $100,000 battery powered F150 is dead. The Ford Maverick compact pickup is ascendant 0 the base model. No need to tow 10,000 pounds when you're only picking up half a dozen bags of mulch at Home Depot.

There is no way ANY politician can come up with a credible way to replace income taxes. Our politicians can’t even balance the federal budget. We already have $38 trillion in national debt. Every day we go $8 billion further into debt. You could build an aircraft carrier for $8 billion.

Let me be clear: I don’t want to justify – or increase – federal income taxes on the basis of our ridiculous and unnecessary spending. No matter what kind of spending your own political party rants about. Both parties had an equal hand in creating our $38 trillion national debt.

I want to see politicians' plans for a balanced budget, rather than inane gibberish about eliminating income taxes.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

How much you’d take home making $250K a year if Trump eliminates income taxes

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/how-much-you-d-take-home-making-250k-a-year-if-trump-eliminates-income-taxes/ar-AA1NFkCH?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=69905ef2cc2c495883f4f7ad05ecd442&ei=71

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

In an ideal world, where everyone paid the taxes that they owed without trying to game the system, all public revenue would be raised via a single personal income tax system that could be adjusted so the poor do not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the wealthy. But the world is far from ideal, so revenue has to be supplemented by sales and property taxes, which are less easy to evade but are more regressive rhan a finely tuned income tax.

Apart from the relative ease with which they can be collected, there is nothing to commend sales taxes. They fall most heavily on those who can least afford them, they dampen economic activity, and they are far more volatile than income or property tax so cannot be relied upon to fund essential services.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@SunshineGirl the original founding father's solution:

no income taxes. no property taxes. limited government paid for by tariffs on imported goods, and domestic tobacco and alcohol.

thats all

ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F

@SusanInFlorida Yeah, but see, the founding fathers couldn't have imagined the world where medical care was so prohibitively expensive that people had to choose between curing deadly diseases and feeding their children. Hell, they couldn't even imagine a world where you had the right to vote in local elections. You're trying to solve 21st-century problems using the logic of 18th-century slave traders who thought if you didn't have white skin, own land, and have a ԁісk, you weren't a real citizen.