You’d have to make up the lost tax revenue from somewhere. Either by increasing or creating some other tax, or by cutting spending.
The programs that would be likely to be cut are ones that poor people need. And he’s likely to try and throw down a federal sales tax, which loads a higher tax burden on poor people.
Without those details, “eliminating federal income tax for people making under $X” cannot be qualified as good or bad. You must define the other parts of the equation.
Setting aside the fact that he’s lying –
You’d have to make up the lost tax revenue from somewhere. Either by increasing or creating some other tax, or by cutting spending.
The programs that would be likely to be cut are ones that poor people need. And he’s likely to try and throw down a federal sales tax, which loads a higher tax burden on poor people.
Without those details, “eliminating federal income tax for people making under $X” cannot be qualified as good or bad. You must define the other parts of the equation.
Okay, that’s fair. I guess you really can’t dissociate this measure from the wider context.
Not taxing low earners could be part of a set of positive measures, but as it is, it would just mean even less money to do things with.