Brownstone Institute
Trump’s 19th-Century Solution to Fiscal Disaster
From the Brownstone Institute
In the last weeks of the campaign, Donald Trump is slicing and dicing the Federal income tax nearly as fast as he served up fries at the McDonald’s drive-thru window last weekend. So far, he has proposed to extend the lower rates, family tax credits, and investment incentives of the 2017 Tax Act after they expire in 2025 and to also exempt tips, Social Security benefits, and overtime wages from the Federal income tax.
Those items alone would generate a revenue loss of $9 trillion over the next decade, but he has recently proposed to also exempt firefighters, police officers, military personnel, and veterans from the Federal income tax as well.
We estimate the latter would cost another $2.5 trillion in revenue loss over 10 years. As it happens, there are 370,000 firemen, 708,000 policemen, 2.86 million uniformed military personnel, and 18.0 million veterans in the US. These 22 million citizens have an estimated average income of $82,000 per year, which translates to about $60,000 each of AGI (adjusted gross income). At an average income tax rate of 14.7% these exclusions would generate $250 billion per year of reduced income tax payments.
In all, Trump has thus tossed out promises to cut income taxes by $11.5 trillion over the next 10-year budget window. In turn, these sweeping reductions would amount to upwards of 34% of CBO’s estimated baseline income tax revenue of $33.7 trillion over the period. Alas, even in the halcyon days of Reagan supply-side tax cutting no one really dreamed of eliminating fully one-third of the so-called crime of 1913 (the 16th Amendment which enabled the income tax).
10-Year Revenue Loss:
- Extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts: $5.350 trillion.
- Exempt overtime income: $2.000 trillion.
- End Taxation of Social Security benefits: $1.300 trillion.
- Exempt Tip income: $300 billion.
- Exempt Income of Firemen, Policemen, Military and Veterans: $2.500 trillion.
- Trump Total Revenue Loss: $11.500 trillion.
- CBO Income Tax Baseline Revenue: $33.700 trillion.
- Trump Revenue Loss As % of Baseline: 34%.
Then again, Trump may have something virtually epic in mind. To wit, scrapping the income tax entirely in favor of taxing consumption via levies on imported goods and merchandise.
“In the old days when we were smart, when we were a smart country, in the 1890s and all, this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said at a sit-down with voters in New York on Friday for Fox & Friends.
“Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying.”
The New York Times is deeply alarmed: “The former president has repeatedly praised a period in American history when there was no income tax, and the country relied on tariffs to fund the government.”
Actually, however, 19th-century America was even smarter than Trump realizes. In 1900 total Federal spending amounted to just 3.5% of GDP because back then America was still a peaceful republic and had no Warfare State or even significant standing army at all. And save for the most advanced precincts of Europe, the Welfare State hadn’t yet been invented, either.
So, yes, the so-called “revenue tariffs” of the 19th century did meet the income needs of the Federal government to the point of actually balancing the budget year after year between 1870 and 1900. Indeed, the actual annual surpluses were large enough to pay down most of the Civil War debt, to boot.
Today, of course, the Warfare State, Welfare State, and the Washington pork barrels account for 25% of GDP. So Trump may be directionally correct in wanting to tax consumption rather than income, but, as usual, he’s off by about seven orders of magnitude when it comes to the size of the Federal budget that needs to be financed.
Still, Trump has stepped up to the plate when it comes to a 21st-century version of the revenue tariff. He has pledged to impose a 20% universal tariff on all imports from all countries with a specific 60% rate for Chinese imports. Based on current US import levels of $3.5 trillion per year from worldwide sources and $450 billion from China, Trump’s tariffs would generate about $900 billion of receipts per annum.
To be sure, Trump’s claim that these giant tariffs would be paid for by Chinamen, Mexicans, and European socialists is just more of his standard baloney. Tariffs are paid for by consumers, but that’s actually the hidden virtue of the Tariff Man’s favorite word.
The truth is, government should be paid for via taxation on current citizens, not fobbed off in the form of giant debts on future citizens, born and unborn. So if we are going to have Big Government at 25% of GDP rather than a 19th-century government at 3.5% of GDP, and Trump is a Big Government Man if there ever was one, better that the burden be placed on consumption, not production, income, and investment.
After all, today the “makers” get hit good and hard by the current exceedingly lopsided income tax system. Thus, the top 1% pays 46% of income taxes, while the top 5% pays 66% and the top 10% pays 76% of all income taxes. On the other end, by contrast, the bottom 50% pays just 2.3% of individual income taxes, while 40% of all families pay no income tax at all.
In any event, the math works out such that the proposed Trumpian revenue tariffs would generate about $9 trillion over the next decade, or nearly 80% of the $11.5 trillion revenue loss from drastically shrinking the income tax coverage and collection rate. So that’s a big step in the direction of fiscal solvency rather than more UniParty free lunches.
To be sure, the proper redirection of Federal tax policy would be a national sales tax or VAT levy, which could be applied to both goods and services and to domestically produced output as well as to imports. Thus, a 5% VAT on the current $20 trillion per year of total PCE (personal consumption expenditures) would generate the equivalent of Trump’s revenue tariff, while a 15% levy on total PCE could replace both the Trump tariff and the remainder of the income tax entirely.
Notwithstanding its shortcomings, however, a revenue tariff is a long overdue start in the right direction. Trump’s bold stance in favor of taxing consumption rather than income and requiring all households to bear the cost of government, not just the small number of producers at the top of the economic ladder, is clearly superior to the status quo.
Still, this sweeping change in the composition and incidence of tax policy doesn’t really put the impending fiscal disaster to bed. Not by a long shot.
If you assume Trump’s big revenue tariffs and sweeping income tax cuts and that the other Federal payroll, corporate, and excise taxes remain the same, 10-year revenues compute to just $60 trillion versus built-in spending of $85 trillion per the CBO baseline. In short, even with a giant Trumpified version of the historical revenue tariff, Trump’s budget plan would still generate $25 trillion of red ink over the next decade.
10-Year Budget Outlook with Trump Tax Cuts and Tariffs, 2025 to 2034:
- Individual income taxes with Trump cuts: $22.0 trillion.
- Trump Revenue Tariffs: $9.0 trillion.
- Existing Payroll Taxes: $20.9 trillion.
- Existing Corporate Tax Ex-Trump Cut to 15% on Manufacturers: $4.6 trillion.
- Other Existing Federal Receipts: $3.5 trillion.
- Total Federal Revenue Under Trump Policy: $60.0 trillion.
- CBO Baseline Federal Outlays: $85.0 trillion.
- 10-Year Trump Deficit: $25.0 trillion.
To be sure, Trump has promised to turn Elon Musk loose on a crusade against government waste and inefficiency, and we say more power to him. If anyone has the courage and smarts to take on the Swamp, surely Elon Musk is at the top of the list.
Then again, Trump has promised to shield 82% of the budget from any cuts at all. That’s right. Elon could huff and puff and shrink the non-exempt programs and agencies by one-third and still leave deficits in excess of $20 trillion over the next decade.
10-year Cost Of Programs Trump Has Championed, Promised Not To Cut or Can’t Cut:
- Social Security: $20.0 trillion.
- Medicare: $16.0 trillion.
- Federal Military and Civilian Retirement Pensions: $2.5 trillion.
- Veterans’ programs: $3.0 trillion.
- National Security Budget: $15.5 trillion.
- Interest On the Public Debt: $13.0 trillion.
- Total Exempt Programs: $70.0 trillion.
- Exempt Programs As % of $85 trillion CBO Baseline: 82%.
In short, even with Trump’s full revenue tariffs and assuming Elon could actually slash 33% of the non-exempt budget without closing the Washington Monument, the bottom-line math leaves little to the imagination. Spending at $80 trillion would amount to 22.7% of GDP, while Trump’s tariff-heavy revenue package would generate $60 trillion of Federal receipts over the next decade, amounting to about 17.0% of GDP.
In turn, that would leave a structural deficit of nearly 6% of GDP as far as the eye can see. And that projection assumes no recession ever again and that interest on a public debt approaching $60 trillion by 2034 would average just 3.3% across the maturity spectrum.
We will take the unders on that proposition any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That is to say, CBO’s projection of $1.7 trillion of annual interest expense by 2034 is likely understated by several trillion. Per year.
In any event, the challenge of financing these giant deficits along with $900 billion per year of Trump tariffs would be considerable. The latter alone would amount to nearly 10% of annual US consumption of consumer goods and fixed investment goods.
So if the Fed were to “accommodate” these massive Trump tariffs by running the printing presses red-hot in an attempt to compensate for lost household purchasing power, it could well trigger a burst of inflation even more virulent than that of 2021-2024.
On the other hand, were it to adhere to the correct sound money solution and refuse to “accommodate” both the massive Trump deficits and the giant Trump tariffs, bond yields, and interest rates would soar, even as the Main Street economy contracted sharply in response to a one-time 10% increase in the general price level.
Financing massive budget deficits honestly in the bond pits rather than at the Fed’s printing presses would also unleash the mother of all meltdowns in today’s insanely inflated financial markets. Trump would therefore get his tariff and some substantial reshoring of industrial production, but also a hair-curling recession on Main Street and a Bronx Cheer from the canyons of Wall Street.
Unfortunately, that’s the price America would have to pay even under Trumpian economics to purge the destructive effects of decades of UniParty spend, borrow, and print policies.
Still, we can actually think of a decidedly worse scenario. To wit, perpetuation of the UniParty status quo, which is what we would get from the Washington ruling party that replaced a failing mind in the Oval Office with an empty one on the Democratic presidential ticket.
A version of this piece appeared on the author’s site.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
What War Means
My mother once told me how my father still woke up screaming in the night years after I was born, decades after the Second World War (WWII) ended. I had not known – probably like most children of those who fought. For him, it was visions of his friends going down in burning aircraft – other bombers of his squadron off north Australia – and to be helpless, watching, as they burnt and fell. Few born after that war could really appreciate what their fathers, and mothers, went through.
Early in the movie Saving Private Ryan, there is an extended D-Day scene of the front doors of the landing craft opening on the Normandy beaches, and all those inside being torn apart by bullets. It happens to one landing craft after another. Bankers, teachers, students, and farmers being ripped in pieces and their guts spilling out whilst they, still alive, call for help that cannot come. That is what happens when a machine gun opens up through the open door of a landing craft, or an armored personnel carrier, of a group sent to secure a tree line.
It is what a lot of politicians are calling for now.
People with shares in the arms industry become a little richer every time one of those shells is fired and has to be replaced. They gain financially, and often politically, from bodies being ripped open. This is what we call war. It is increasingly popular as a political strategy, though generally for others and the children of others.
Of course, the effects of war go beyond the dismembering and lonely death of many of those fighting. Massacres of civilians and rape of women can become common, as brutality enables humans to be seen as unwanted objects. If all this sounds abstract, apply it to your loved ones and think what that would mean.
I believe there can be just wars, and this is not a discussion about the evil of war, or who is right or wrong in current wars. Just a recognition that war is something worth avoiding, despite its apparent popularity amongst many leaders and our media.
The EU Reverses Its Focus
When the Brexit vote determined that Britain would leave the European Union (EU), I, like many, despaired. We should learn from history, and the EU’s existence had coincided with the longest period of peace between Western European States in well over 2,000 years.
Leaving the EU seemed to be risking this success. Surely, it is better to work together, to talk and cooperate with old enemies, in a constructive way? The media, and the political left, center, and much of the right seemed at that time, all of nine years ago, to agree. Or so the story went.
We now face a new reality as the EU leadership scrambles to justify continuing a war. Not only continuing, but they had been staunchly refusing to even countenance discussion on ending the killing. It has taken a new regime from across the ocean, a subject of European mockery, to do that.
In Europe, and in parts of American politics, something is going on that is very different from the question of whether current wars are just or unjust. It is an apparent belief that advocacy for continued war is virtuous. Talking to leaders of an opposing country in a war that is killing Europeans by the tens of thousands has been seen as traitorous. Those proposing to view the issues from both sides are somehow “far right.”
The EU, once intended as an instrument to end war, now has a European rearmament strategy. The irony seems lost on both its leaders and its media. Arguments such as “peace through strength” are pathetic when accompanied by censorship, propaganda, and a refusal to talk.
As US Vice-President JD Vance recently asked European leaders, what values are they actually defending?
Europe’s Need for Outside Help
A lack of experience of war does not seem sufficient to explain the current enthusiasm to continue them. Architects of WWII in Europe had certainly experienced the carnage of the First World War. Apart from the financial incentives that human slaughter can bring, there are also political ideologies that enable the mass death of others to be turned into an abstract and even positive idea.
Those dying must be seen to be from a different class, of different intelligence, or otherwise justifiable fodder to feed the cause of the Rules-Based Order or whatever other slogan can distinguish an ‘us’ from a ‘them’…While the current incarnation seems more of a class thing than a geographical or nationalistic one, European history is ripe with variations of both.
Europe appears to be back where it used to be, the aristocracy burning the serfs when not visiting each other’s clubs. Shallow thinking has the day, and the media have adapted themselves accordingly. Democracy means ensuring that only the right people get into power.
Dismembered European corpses and terrorized children are just part of maintaining this ideological purity. War is acceptable once more. Let’s hope such leaders and ideologies can be sidelined by those beyond Europe who are willing to give peace a chance.
There is no virtue in the promotion of mass death. Europe, with its leadership, will benefit from outside help and basic education. It would benefit even further from leadership that values the lives of its people.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
By
“People are reacting because they hear things about me that aren’t true, characterizations of things I have said that are simply not true. When they hear what I have to say, actually, about vaccines, everybody supports it.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been confirmed as Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Within hours, my news feed was populated with angsty articles hand-wringing about the future of vaccines under Kennedy, whom legacy media and the establishment are certain would confiscate life-saving vaccine programs, raising the spectre of mass waves of illness and death.
In particular, this quote from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the only Republican who voted against Kennedy’s confirmation, appeared over and over again:
“I’m a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world. I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles.”
Yet, I could not find one piece of mainstream coverage of this quote that mentioned the astonishing fact that 98% of polio cases in 2023, the most recent year for which we have full data, were caused by the polio vaccine.
You read that correctly. In 2023, 12 wild polio cases were recorded (six in Afghanistan, six in Pakistan), with a further 524 circulating vaccine-derived cases, mostly throughout Africa. This trend is in keeping with data from the previous several years.
An important contextualising detail, wouldn’t you think?
The cause of this polio resurgence is that the world’s poor are given the oral polio vaccine (OPV), which contains a weakened virus that can replicate in the gut and spread in feces, causing vaccine-derived outbreaks.
People in rich countries get the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), which does not contain live virus and therefore does not carry the risk of spreading the very disease it’s vaccinating against.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and vaccine-promoting organisations say that the way out of the problem is to vaccinate harder, as the argument goes that outbreaks only occur in under-vaccinated communities.
This may be well and good, but the total omission of the fact from media coverage that the goalposts have shifted from eradicating wild polio (not yet complete but nearly there, according to the WHO) to eradicating vaccine-derived polio (the main problem these days) underscores that this is why hardly anyone who knows anything trusts the media anymore.
A member of my extended family has polio. It’s nasty and life-altering and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
That’s why I would hope that any vaccines given would be safe – contracting polio from the supposedly preventative vaccine is the worst-case scenario, second only to death.
This is Kennedy’s expressly stated aim.
“When people actually hear what I think about vaccines, which is common sense, which is vaccines should be tested, they should be safe, everyone should have informed consent,” he said at his confirmation press conference.
“People are reacting because they hear things about me that aren’t true, characterisations of things I have said that are simply not true.
“When they hear what I have to say, actually, about vaccines, everybody supports it.”
Grown-ups who support vaccines can walk and chew gum. From the point of view of the public health establishment, the polio vaccine has prevented millions of cases and has nearly eradicated the disease.
At the same time, the world’s poorest are afflicted with polio outbreaks which we can work to prevent, and the safety of all polio vaccine products on the market should be subject to the rigorous standards applied to all other medicines.
Unless you think that poor people don’t matter, in which case the status quo might suit you fine.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPoilievre refuses to bash Trump via trick question, says it’s possible to work with him and be ‘firm’
-
Dr. Robert Malone2 days agoWHO and G20 Exaggerate the Risk and Economic Impact of Outbreaks
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoVoters should remember Canada has other problems beyond Trump’s tariffs
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPoilievre to let working seniors keep more of their money
-
COVID-191 day ago17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
-
Daily Caller1 day agoCover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy
-
Community1 day agoSupport local healthcare while winning amazing prizes!
-
International1 day agoVice President Vance, Second Lady to visit Greenland on Friday