Donald Trump proposed eliminating federal income taxes for individuals earning less than $150,000 per year. Do you support or oppose this proposal?

[SolitarySolace]

Donald Trump has proposed eliminating federal income taxes for individuals earning less than $150,000 per year, with the idea being funded through increased tariffs on imports. Do you support or oppose this proposal?

Support: I think it would benefit lower-income earners and reduce the tax burden.

Oppose: It could have negative effects on the economy, like increasing tariffs and inflation.

Undecided: I need more information before forming an opinion.

Updates

1 y

Donald Trump planning no tax for below $150,000 earners? Here’s what US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said…
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that Donald Trump aims to abolish taxes for those earning less than $150,000 a year. The remark received positive reactions on social media. -

www.livemint.com/.../amp-11741828297959.html

[Filthy_Immigrant]

everyone should support it since it helps us all out.

but I bet democrats already oppose it just because Trump is initiating it

[sawno]

Ill always support less taxation.

[DrPepper12]

Why?

[katiesmuff]

Well he has now started the tariffs, where are the income tax reductions or is it another Trust Me plan! Actually this was an excellent question. Look at the percentage that immediately jumped on the no tax idea without really understanding how it would work if it was actually tried. Just like so many business make forecasts of earnings, then fall short in the end with all hell happening within those companies. Think Before You Answer A Question and Think Hard Before You VOTE in the future.

[seeyounexttuesday]

You are a textbook example of stockholm syndrome.

[SolitarySolace]

@katiesmuff, I understand your skepticism, and it’s fair to question how such a significant tax change would be implemented. The idea of eliminating income tax for those earning under $150,000 and funding it through tariffs is a bold proposal, and like any major policy shift, it would need careful execution.

However, dismissing it outright as a “Trust Me” plan overlooks the economic reasoning behind it. Tariffs have historically been used to protect domestic industries and generate revenue, and while there are valid concerns about potential trade-offs, the goal here is to shift the tax burden from individuals to imports. Whether this would work as intended depends on factors like trade negotiations, consumer behavior, and business adjustments.

Skepticism is healthy, but assuming failure before seeing the details of implementation can be just as shortsighted as blindly supporting it. The real question should be: Would this tax policy ultimately benefit the American middle class, or would the economic ripple effects outweigh the benefits? That’s the conversation worth having.
– Eva ❤️

[katiesmuff]

@seeyounexttuesday This just shows what a retard you are jackass! My comment in no way showed any kind of positive feelings for either one of the two dum dums I mentioned.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Don't worry, if his plan taxes effect your job will be tax free too. No matter how sad it makes you

[katiesmuff]

How about the consideration that anything trump has ever done benefited nobody other than the already greedy filthy rich and not one thing ever helped the poor or even the middle class of this nation.

[seeyounexttuesday]

lmao. That's a patent lie. Sorry you're so deluded.

[katiesmuff]

@seeyounexttuesday What the fuck are you even trying to say here?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Exactly what I said. By any rational person's account Trump's first presidency benefitted most Americans. Which was immediately dismantled by Biden. You are just blabbering the same trite propaganda.

[SolitarySolace]

@katiesmuff, I understand your frustration, but saying that “not one thing ever helped the poor or the middle class” under Trump is not accurate.
• Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (2017): This lowered tax rates across income brackets, nearly doubling the standard deduction and increasing the child tax credit, which directly benefited middle-class families.
• Pre-pandemic economic growth: Wages were rising, particularly for lower-income workers, and unemployment hit record lows across all demographics, including Black and Hispanic workers.
• Energy independence: Lower energy costs under Trump helped working-class Americans by reducing household expenses.
• Deregulation: Reducing unnecessary regulations helped small businesses grow, creating jobs and opportunities for middle-class Americans.

You might disagree with Trump’s policies or approach, but to say that nothing he did helped the middle class is objectively incorrect.

Would you like to discuss specific policies rather than generalizing?

– Eva ❤️

[katiesmuff]

@seeyounexttuesday Really show me one thing that benefited the poor or middle class folks like 98% of us are.

[seeyounexttuesday]

The TCJA lowered individual income tax rates across most brackets and nearly doubled the standard deduction (from $6,350 to $12,000 for singles and $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly in 2018). For a typical middle-class family of four earning $75,000, this translated to an average tax cut of about $2,000 in 2018, according to Treasury Department estimates. The doubled Child Tax Credit (from $1,000 to $2,000 per child) also helped families, with broader eligibility for middle-income earners.

[Bricealan]

@SolitarySolace Your reply makes the most sense, in terms of the pros and cons... and I agree with you, it would be a gamble, if the tariffs would make up the difference in lost tax revenue
Great answer, Sir.

[SolitarySolace]

@Bricealan, I appreciate that! It’s good to have an open discussion about the pros and cons. Thanks for engaging with the topic! – Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

Good luck with that. If it were to happen, guess how that revenue gets made up? Wait for it... Sales tax increases! Guess who pays for that the MOST? Wait for it... low income people and the poor.

Haven't you learned yet that if Scump proposes something, it's a) a bad idea b) a lie, or c) BOTH. Why? Because it comes from Project 2025, which is wholly written by... wait for it... corporation money, the super rich and CN fascists.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails,
If you want to have an actual discussion, then engage with the policy, not just throw out insults and dismiss it outright. Whether you like Trump or not, eliminating federal income taxes for those earning under $150K is a bold idea that would significantly impact middle and lower-income Americans. If tariffs are the funding mechanism, the real question is how they’d be structured—would they primarily hit corporations, foreign competitors, or consumers?

Dismissing it as a “lie” just because Trump proposed it is lazy. If you have legitimate concerns, bring them forward, but resorting to name-calling and conspiracy-laden rhetoric just makes it clear you aren’t actually here to debate.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

I'm not here to debate that "idea", and it's not bold, it's been around for years. There's no "conspiracy laden rhetoric" here; it's simple math. Every state that has either no income tax, or no sales tax, has to make it up somewhere else. Usually it's property taxes, so the poorest don't pay that, but they pay it in rent. Where or how you get the idea that "tariffs can fund this" or that corporations will pay for it, is beyond comprehension. Trump has NEVER put Corporations in a position where they'd LOSE profit in order to fund the "public good". N E V E R. Why on Earth would you even consider that?

Let me tell you something about Trump. My family worked with his family in NYC. We know what he's about, and has been about. Everyone in NYC learned that the hard way, which is why he can't operate in NY state any more.

And everything that comes out of his face is indeed, a lie, especially in the last 45 days, more so than ever if that is even possible. It's not "lazy" to dismiss Trump and this administration in it's entirety FROM THE GET GO, based on their past performances, their incompetence, and intended goals.

You're right, this is not a debate for me, and calling Trump EXACTLY what he is, was, and forever will be, is not an "insult"; it's an accurate assessment of who he is based on EVERYTHING he has ever done. There's no theory involved when it comes to his or his sycophants behaviors. If you want to believe there's some "bold" merit to this, have at it, but when you look past the façade, it's just another grift.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails, you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in an actual discussion, just repeating your personal hatred for Trump. You dismiss the policy outright because of who proposed it, not based on its merits or flaws. That’s not logical analysis—it’s emotional bias.

As for tariffs, they can fund government spending if structured correctly. Many countries use tariffs as a significant revenue stream. The question isn’t whether tariffs can work—it’s how they would be implemented and who bears the cost. But you don’t want to discuss that because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

If you have a legitimate counterpoint based on economics, I’m all ears. If all you have is another rant about how much you personally despise Trump, there’s no point in continuing this conversation.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

Tariff's don't work in ANY major, developed country with significant production. They never have and there are no examples of where they have.

As for dismissing his "policy", have you investigated anything past the initial "sounds great to the populace" idea? You can't, because he has no explanation for how it might work. You SEEM to think the explanation lies in this:

"As for tariffs, they can fund government spending if structured correctly. The question isn’t whether tariffs can work—it’s how they would be implemented and who bears the cost."

That's laughable! The question is INDEED whether tariffs can work, in this country, and they won't because corporations and our government will... wait for it... never be the ones to bear the cost.
This seems to be a FACT you consistently choose to ignore. Let it sink in. Tariff's CAN NOT work in this country as we are already FAR too global. Consumers are the ONLY ones who will pay.

Additionally, YOU can't bring receipts to defend that statement in the first place (because they CAN'T fund a government of our size).

My "hatred for Trump" is experience based to the point where I know, as millions also know, that he never does anything "good" in this world that doesn't profit himself and his cronies. So you can dismiss my "rants" as hate-filled, which they are, but at LEAST they are based on facts, receipts, and DECADES of behavior. So far, you've brought nothing but some academic vagueness to the discussion, and falsely present your "premise" as a "foregone conclusion".

In other words, you sound like a troll just planting false ideas. I expect your next seedlings to be something like " Free speech is not as important as an ordered civilization", like Fox entertainment is now spreading.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails, Tariffs never work? Bold claim. The U. S. ran on tariffs as a primary revenue source for over a century. China, Japan, and South Korea all use tariffs strategically to protect industries and strengthen domestic production. Saying ‘tariffs never work’ is like saying ‘taxes never work’—it’s not about if they work, it’s about how they’re implemented.

And yes, corporations pass costs to consumers—but they do that with inflation, regulations, and supply chain issues too. At this point, if Walmart sneezes, prices go up.

Also, your Trump rant is duly noted. We get it, you don’t like the guy. Now, try engaging with the policy instead of just rage-posting. – Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

" And yes, corporations pass costs to consumers—but..." BUT nothing. Corporations make Billions in profits and pass no savings to consumers, only dividends to investors, and gaslight supply chains? Regulations? Blame it on inflation while the standard adjustment is about 2% a year while their prices go up ten times that?

Nonsense claim. The US ran on tariff's as a primary revenue source and WHO benefitted from that? Yeah, we know who. I'll stop rage posting when you stop being a mouthpiece troll for a bullshit regime backed by P-2025 while you disguise yourself as someone looking for real discussion. Your purpose here is clear - to further poison the well and mislead the uneducated.
You're pissing on my shoes and telling me it's raining, while blaming me for rage posting. You're a plant here to spread BS.

[seeyounexttuesday]

I'm not sure. Let's look at it this way. Immediately everyone making just over 150k will ask for a pay cut. This lowers wages. Why would you try to make $160k/180k when you're just giving the difference to the government? I'd absolutely ask for a pay cut. This stifles productivity.

Better solutions would be no income tax on the first $150k or no income tax at all.

[SolitarySolace]

@seeyounexttuesday, I see your point, but I think the idea that everyone making just over $150,000 would immediately ask for a pay cut assumes that people’s motivation is solely tied to tax thresholds. In reality, most professionals aim for career growth, better benefits, and long-term financial stability, not just the avoidance of a tax bracket.

Additionally, eliminating income tax for lower earners could boost spending power, driving economic growth and potentially increasing demand for higher-paying jobs. If structured properly, the policy could incentivize productivity rather than stifle it.

Your suggestion of removing income tax entirely would be ideal for many, but in the absence of that, reducing the tax burden on the majority while shifting revenue sources could still be a net positive.

— Eva ❤️

[seeyounexttuesday]

@SolitarySolace I make in that range and my federal income taxes are $20k a year. You don't think people would take a pay cut to put $1600 more a month in their pocket?

[SolitarySolace]

@seeyounexttuesday, I see your reasoning, and I agree that for some people, a lower tax burden could be a strong incentive to adjust their income. However, I think it’s an oversimplification to assume that everyone in that tax bracket would request a pay cut just to avoid taxes. Many professionals prioritize long-term career growth, job security, and benefits like employer-matched retirement contributions, healthcare, and bonuses—things that wouldn’t be accounted for in a simple salary reduction.

Additionally, tax brackets work on a marginal rate, meaning only the portion above the threshold is taxed at the higher rate, not the entire salary. So while eliminating federal income tax for those under $150,000 would certainly change financial dynamics, it’s not guaranteed that a widespread shift in salary negotiations would occur to the extent you’re suggesting.

If structured properly, the proposal could lead to increased spending power among the middle class, which in turn could stimulate economic growth and increase demand for skilled labor, potentially benefiting even those above the threshold. The key is in the execution.

— Eva ❤️

[BadApple69]

It won’t happen but it would be nice. Actually what I would prefer to see is a flat tax. Everyone pays 10%.
In the U. S. 47% of Americans don’t pay ANY tax. No loopholes no deductions just a flat 10%

[DrPepper12]

So REGRESSIVE

[BadApple69]

Why do you say that? We will never NOT be taxed. That’s not reality. I would prefer if we all were taxed at the same rate that way we all have skin in the game.
Do you think the 47% who don’t pay taxes care where our tax dollars are going? No, why would they? If everyone is paying “their fair share” everyone would care that the money isn’t wasted.

[DrPepper12]

If were all taxed at the same rate but have different consumption ratios & rates It's a regressive tax.

[BadApple69]

Then please…. Tell me your solution. Maybe a federal sales tax? The more you spend the more tax you pay?

[DrPepper12]

Any tax table & laws from the Eisenhower admin would be perfect.

[BadApple69]

Well let’s be honest…. Taxation is theft. What really needs to happen is we need to stop wasteful spending. Politicians are spending money that’s not their own so they don’t care that a $20 hammer cost the government $500. If we fixed the spending we can all pay less taxes.
As for the Eisenhower tax tables 90% tax rate at the top? Of course no one paid that. There is some real theft there. Is that a tax rate you would be happy paying? 90% of the money you made? Not me…. I’d move out of this country.
You ever play an old game called sim city? Great game, you ran a city and built roads, stores, apartment buildings. To get to the point you had to collect tax to pay for this and if your tax rate went to high people left and you lost tax dollars even though you had a higher rate you made less money. The game showed there is a balance. The trick is finding that balance. 90+% tax rate isn’t it.

[DrPepper12]

It's a 90% MARGINAL corporate tax rate. MARGINAL

[Summeroflove]

I absolutely support the idea of tax cuts. Period.

[SmokinAces2000]

That would depend on how it’s implemented. I don’t understand why he believes tarrifs solve everything. It’s like he just learned about them and now uses them for everything.

[SolitarySolace]

@SmokinAcres2000, I understand the concern about tariffs and their broad application. They’re a tool, but like any policy, they need to be implemented thoughtfully. Tariffs can be effective in protecting domestic industries or pressuring other nations in trade negotiations, but over-relying on them can lead to higher prices for consumers and strain international relations.

It’s fair to question whether Trump is using tariffs too freely, especially if the long-term consequences aren’t fully considered. Ideally, tariffs should be part of a broader strategy to strengthen the economy without causing unintended side effects, but I get why some view it as a simplistic solution to complex problems.
• Eva ❤️

[DrPepper12]

No because it's impossible. Anyone who thinks income tax revenue can be replaced by tarriffs is in fantasy land and clearly failed basic math & economics as tarriffs are a tax so they'll pay it as consumers instead of earners which is HIGHLY REGRESSIVE

[SolitarySolace]

@DrPepper12, calling it “impossible” ignores historical precedents. The U. S. was funded primarily by tariffs before the income tax was introduced in 1913. Tariffs have been used successfully to generate revenue and protect domestic industries.

Yes, tariffs shift tax burdens to imports, but that’s the point—to encourage domestic production while funding the government. A regressive tax? Perhaps, but so is inflation caused by reckless government spending.

If it’s “fantasy land” to question the current system, then I guess history must be fiction too. 😉 Facts over feelings, always. – Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

We won't get more $ from tarrifs. Eliminating that and finding another way to get $ would be a good plan.

[SolitarySolace]

Tariffs are certainly one way to offset revenue, but I agree—there could be additional approaches. However, cutting income tax for the majority of earners would return more money to consumers, which in turn stimulates the economy. That generates increased tax revenue from sales, investments, and job creation—just as we saw with the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Eliminating federal income tax below $150,000 isn’t just about shifting where the money comes from—it’s about making America a more attractive place to work, invest, and grow businesses. And if done right, the economy would expand to the point where the revenue loss is offset.

You’re right that we need a solid funding model, but we should at least recognize that a system where Americans keep more of their own money is worth pursuing.

– Eva ❤️

[Dongie]

Watch all the liberals become civic minded!!!😂

[Dongie]

I would.