Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government, under President Trump, may consider completely eliminating income tax in the coming years, relying on tariff revenues as a primary source of government income, which raises significant concerns among economists [1][2]. Group 1: Taxation and Revenue - Trump suggested that the substantial revenue from tariffs could allow for a significant reduction or complete elimination of income tax, which he views as a solution to the U.S. deficit problem [1]. - The total federal revenue for FY 2024 is projected to be approximately $4.9 trillion, with personal income tax contributing about $2.43 trillion, nearly 50% of total revenue [1]. - Current tariff revenue stands at around $80 billion, which is insufficient to cover even the interest on national debt, highlighting the challenge of replacing income tax with tariffs [1]. Group 2: Economic Implications - To replace the $2.4 trillion gap left by income tax with tariffs, an average tariff rate of 70% to 80% would need to be applied to all imported goods, which is unrealistic [2]. - Such high tariffs would likely lead to a dramatic decline in import demand, shrinking the tariff base and making it impossible for the government to raise the necessary funds [2]. - Economists, including a senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argue that it is mathematically unfeasible to fund the required revenue through tariffs without severely damaging global trade and the U.S. economy [2].

民调支持率持续下滑之际，美国总统特朗普试图通过关税收入为美国人减税以挽回民心，但这一计划 很可能难以实现。 当地时间4月27日，特朗普在其社交媒体平台上表示，在关税收入的支持下，"许多人的所得税将大 幅减少，甚至完全取消"，并承诺重点为年收入低于20万美元的人群减税。 2025.04. 27 本文字数：2069，阅读时长大约3分钟 导读 ：即便特朗普进一步提高关税税率，数学上也仍不可能用关税收入替代所得税。 然而，经济学家普遍认为这一计划缺乏可行性。耶鲁大学预算实验室经济学主任特德斯基（Ernie Tedeschi）认为，即便特朗普进一步提高关税税率，数学上也仍不可能用关税收入替代所得税。美 国外交关系委员会（CFR）本月发布的研究更是直指这一说法"荒谬离谱"，并称"关税对经济的破坏 性影响使得这一目标显得不切实际且缺乏责任感"。 作者 | 第一财经 高雅 东方汇理资产管理投资研究院全球宏观研究主管普拉丹（Mahmood Pradhan）对第一财经记者表 示，关税不会给美国带来显著的收入增长，反而更可能导致消费减少和需求下降。同时，"美国当前 的财政政策仍缺乏具体细节，提升联邦支出的效率也远未达到承诺的目标" ...

Core Viewpoint - Trump's plan to use tariff revenue to replace income tax is deemed impractical by economists, as it cannot generate sufficient revenue to offset income tax losses [1][2][3] Group 1: Economic Impact of Tariffs - Trump's tariff policy has significantly impacted the global economy, raising concerns about rising prices among American consumers and leading to a decline in his approval ratings [2] - A recent Ipsos poll indicated that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, with 69% believing his administration is failing to curb rising prices [2] - The Yale University budget lab estimates that the tariff policy could generate $2.4 trillion in revenue from 2026 to 2035, but after accounting for negative dynamic revenue effects, the average annual revenue would be only $176.9 billion, less than one-third of Navarro's optimistic projection [3] Group 2: Feasibility of Tax Replacement - The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) argues that the idea of replacing income tax with tariffs is unrealistic, citing that the effective tariff rate of 28% would only yield an additional $511 billion in revenue after considering import transfer effects [3] - The bottom 90% of income earners contribute $576 billion in income tax, which exceeds the expected tariff revenue, highlighting the inadequacy of tariffs to replace income tax [3] - The increase in tariff rates could lead to a shrinking tax base, further complicating the feasibility of using tariffs to replace income tax [3] Group 3: Political and Legislative Context - Trump's proposal to eliminate income tax for low-income earners may inadvertently harm them by removing refundable tax credits, leading to a net loss in purchasing power [4] - The potential for tariffs to replace income tax is limited, with estimates suggesting that tariffs could only cover up to 40% of income tax revenue, necessitating very high tariff rates that could trigger an economic recession [4] - Trump's administration is seeking to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which is set to expire in 2025, and has proposed various tax cuts, raising concerns about how to fund these initiatives [5]