Donald Trump, the current and 47th US President, has proposed cutting federal income tax in favour of a tariff-based revenue system. Trump’s vision is to end the reliance on income tax, which he believes unfairly burdens American workers and families, and replace it with tariffs on imports to generate federal revenue.

He argues that this system, modelled after the pre-1913 economic framework, would reinvigorate American manufacturing, reduce dependence on foreign goods, and alleviate the tax burden on citizens.
While the proposal has excited tax reform proponents, it has also drawn significant criticism. Economic experts, policymakers, and global trade analysts have raised concerns about its feasibility, potential inflationary pressures, trade relations, and social consequences. This article explores Trump’s plan in detail, analysing its historical roots, modern-day applicability, and broader economic implications.

Historical Context Of Tariff-Based Revenue

Before the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which set up federal income tax, the U.S. relied heavily on tariffs to fund government operations. During the late 19th century, tariffs were over 90% of federal revenue. The Tariff Act of 1789, one of the earliest U.S. legislative acts, aimed to both generate revenue and protect fledgling domestic industries from foreign competition.
Between 1870 and 1913, the U.S. economy grew rapidly as industrialization flourished. Advocates for Trump’s plan often point to this period as evidence of the efficacy of a tariff-based system.

However, the economic landscape has changed dramatically since then. At the time, the U.S. economy was largely self-sufficient, global trade was limited, and consumer goods were predominantly domestically produced. Today, the U.S. is a deeply interconnected global economic powerhouse, relying on imports and exports for growth and stability.
The implementation of federal income tax in 1913 marked a pivotal shift in government revenue. Income taxes replaced tariffs as the primary revenue source, allowing the federal government to grow and support more expansive public programs, such as infrastructure development, social security, and defense.

Trump’s Vision: Reviving A Tariff-Based System

Trump’s proposal envisions a return to a tariff-based revenue system. He argues that cutting federal income tax would increase disposable income for American workers, boost consumer spending, and provide relief for families burdened by taxes. According to Trump, tariffs would not only replace lost revenue but also incentivize domestic production by making imported goods more expensive.
A new administrative agency called the External Revenue Service (ERS), would be set up to oversee the collection and management of tariffs.

This agency would replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which Trump has criticized as overly bureaucratic and burdensome.
Trump also highlights that tariffs would ensure foreign nations, particularly those with trade surpluses against the U.S., contribute to American economic growth. He specifically targets nations like China, arguing that the current trade relationship disproportionately helps foreign manufacturers at the expense of American workers.

Current Federal Revenue Structure

Today, federal income tax is the backbone of government revenue:
Individual income taxes contributed approximately $2.2 trillion (50% of total revenue) in Fiscal Year 2023.
Corporate income taxes accounted for $500 billion (12%).
Tariffs, by contrast, generated only $80 billion, or roughly 2% of federal revenue.
To replace income taxes with tariffs, the government would need to drastically increase tariff rates. Based on 2023 total U.S. imports valued at $3.8 trillion, the average tariff rate would need to rise to approximately 70%—a significant leap from the current average effective rate of 2–3%.

Let’s take a look at the economic implications of Trump’s plan

Impact on Consumer Prices: Tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods, and these costs are typically passed on to consumers. Under Trump’s plan, many goods, including electronics, automobiles, clothing, and food, would become significantly more expensive. For instance:
Electronics: Tariffs on imported smartphones, laptops, and appliances could increase prices by 30–50%.
Automobiles: The cost of imported vehicles and auto parts could rise substantially, affecting both consumers and domestic manufacturers that rely on global supply chains. The Brookings Institution estimates that the average household could face an additional $2,000 to $3,000 in annual expenses due to higher prices on imported goods.

Inflationary Pressures: Higher import costs would likely contribute to inflation. Economists project that a tariff-based system could raise the inflation rate by 1.5% to 2%, eroding the purchasing power of American families and disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households.

Trade Retaliation: Major U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Canada, and China, would likely respond with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. This could harm American industries that are heavily reliant on global markets, such as agriculture, aerospace, and technology. For example:
Agriculture: Farmers, already affected by trade disputes, could face reduced demand for products like soybeans, corn, and pork in foreign markets.
Technology Exports: High tariffs on imports could invite countermeasures, disrupting supply chains critical to industries like semiconductors and medical equipment.

Economic Efficiency: Economists warn that high tariffs distort markets by encouraging domestic production in sectors where the U.S. lacks a comparative advantage, such as textiles and basic manufacturing. This could reduce overall economic productivity and growth.

Social and Distributional Effects

Regressive Impact on Low-Income Households: Replacing income tax with tariffs would disproportionately affect lower-income households, which spend a larger share of their income on consumer goods, many of which are imported. A study by the Center for American Progress estimates that the bottom 20% of households would see their incomes decline by 25%, while the top 1% would experience income gains of 20% due to tax elimination.
Wealth Inequality: While eliminating income tax would benefit high-income earners, the increased cost of goods would disproportionately impact low- and middle-income households, exacerbating wealth inequality. This could widen the gap between the richest and poorest Americans.

Challenges In Implementation

Legislative and Political Barriers: Ending federal income tax and replacing it with tariffs would require significant legislative changes. The proposal is likely to face bipartisan opposition in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of the economic risks and public backlash associated with higher consumer prices.
Revenue Deficit: Even with increased tariffs, economists doubt that a tariff-based system could generate enough revenue to sustain federal programs. The U.S. government’s annual expenditures exceed $6 trillion, much of which is funded by income taxes. A shortfall in revenue could result in cuts to critical programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and national defense.
Administrative Complexity: Setting up the External Revenue Service and transitioning from income tax to tariffs would involve significant administrative and logistical challenges. The new system would require extensive infrastructure, including mechanisms for checking imports and enforcing compliance, which could take years to implement.

Policy Alternatives

While Trump’s proposal looks to simplify taxation and reduce the burden on American families, there are alternative approaches to achieve these goals:
Progressive Income Tax Reform: Reforming the current tax system to make it more progressive could reduce the tax burden on low- and middle-income households while ensuring that high-income earners contribute their fair share.
Targeted Tariffs: Instead of across-the-board tariffs, targeted tariffs on specific goods or industries could generate revenue without causing widespread economic disruption. For example, tariffs on luxury goods or non-essential imports could be considered.
Value-Added Tax (VAT): Some economists advocate for implementing a national sales tax or VAT as an alternative to income tax. While regressive, VAT systems can be designed with exemptions for basic necessities to mitigate their impact on low-income households.

Donald Trump’s proposal to abolish federal income tax and replace it with tariffs stands for a bold and unconventional approach to U.S. fiscal policy. While it promises to reduce the tax burden on American families and revitalize domestic manufacturing, the economic, social, and political challenges associated with this plan raise significant concerns.
The potential for higher consumer prices, inflation, trade retaliation, and wealth inequality highlight the risks of such a dramatic shift. Moreover, the practicality of implementing a tariff-based system in today’s globalized economy remains questionable.

As Trump’s vision continues to shape political discourse, policymakers must carefully weigh its long-term implications for economic stability, social equity, and fiscal sustainability. Whether this proposal becomes a transformative policy or a contentious campaign promise, it underscores the ongoing debate over the future of taxation in the United States.

References

• U.S. Treasury Department, Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue Report.
• Brookings Institution, Consumer Impact Analysis, 2023.
• Center for American Progress, Income Distribution Study, 2023.
• Financial Times, Inflation Forecast, 2025.
• Econofact, Tariff Revenue Estimates, 2023.
• Reuters, Trade Policy and Retaliation, 2024.

Ganesh Kumar is a geo-political analyst.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.